Multilevel Selection and Political Evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, 500-100 B.C.

Multilevel Selection and Political Evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca,500–100 B.C.

Charles S. Spencer and Elsa M. Redmond

Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024-5192

E-mail: [email protected]

Received March 3, 2000; revision received June 30, 2000; accepted August 8, 2000

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 195–229 (2001)

doi:10.1006/jaar.2000.0371, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Although Monte Albán I in the Valley of Oaxaca (500–100 B.C.) is widely recognized as a period

of major political change, researchers have found it difficult to establish whether the key institu-

tions of the Zapotec state emerged during this or the succeeding Monte Albán II period (100

B.C.–A.D. 200). Also unresolved has been the issue of when the three major subregions of the Oax-

aca Valley (Etla, Tlacolula, Ocotlán/Zimatlán) all became integrated into a single polity under the

rule of Monte Albán, the state capital. This paper presents recent theoretical and empirical contri-

butions that have not yet been brought to bear on the problem of Monte Albán I. Concepts drawn

from multilevel selection theory and evolutionary trend theory are utilized in an analysis of Oaxaca

Valley regional settlement pattern data. The analysis provides a multilevel context for a discussion

of recent survey and excavations at San Martín Tilcajete, the results of which are clarifying the se-

quence of institutional development in Oaxaca. Taken together, the regional analysis and the dis-

coveries at Tilcajete indicate that: (1) the Zapotec state emerged during Late Monte Albán I (300–100

B.C.) in a context of intensifying competition—including violent conflict—among rival polities

within the Oaxaca Valley; and (2) even though the early Zapotec state began a campaign of territo-

rial expansion during Late Monte Albán I, political unification of all three major subregions of the

Valley was not achieved until Monte Albán II. © 2001 Academic Press

Key Words: Oaxaca; Zapotec; state; political evolution.

INTRODUCTION

The prehistoric period known as Monte

Albán I (500–100 B.C.)—hereafter MA I—is

recognized by Oaxaca scholars as a time of

dramatic change (Blanton 1978; Blanton et

al. 1982, 1999; Flannery and Marcus 1990;

Kowalewski et al. 1989; Marcus and Flan-

nery 1996). Often divided into Early MA I

(500–300 B.C., a.k.a. the Monte Albán Ia

phase) and Late MA I (300–100 B.C., a.k.a.

the Monte Albán Ic phase), MA I witnessed a

rapid increase in human population over the

previous Rosario phase (700–500 B.C.) as

well as the development of a more complex

regional settlement hierarchy, at the top of

which was the large center of Monte Albán

(Kowalewski et al. 1989). During the Rosario

phase, Monte Albán had not yet been estab-

lished, and most researchers concur that the

19

three major subregions of the Oaxaca Valley

(Etla, Tlacolula, and Ocotlán/Zimatlán)

were not politically unified but instead were

occupied by at least three independent

chiefly polities (Blanton et al. 1993: 66–69;

Marcus and Flannery 1996: 123–126).

On the other hand, by Monte Albán II (100

B.C.–A.D. 200), it is generally agreed that all

subregions of the Oaxaca Valley had been in-

tegrated into a single polity, the early Za-

potec state, under the rule of Monte Albán

(Marcus and Flannery 1996:172–178). By MA

II, assert Flannery and Marcus (1983:80), the

evidence for statehood in Oaxaca is “clear

and unmistakable.” For example, there is ev-

idence of a four-level regional administra-

tive hierarchy by MA II (Flannery and Mar-

cus 1983:82). MA II also sees “the

appearance of a whole series of clearly rec-

ognizable and functionally distinct public

50278-4165/01 $35.00Copyright © 2001 by Academic Press

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

doing so, however, it would be helpful to re-

buildings” (Flannery and Marcus 1976:221),

including the multiroom temple, the royal

palace, the ballcourt, buildings with a spe-

cial military purpose, and others. Flannery

and Marcus (1976: 221) point out that “the

activities carried on in these buildings must

have been very different, presumably reflect-

ing different sociopolitical institutions and

different sets of personnel.” Such institu-

tional diversity is a hallmark of the state as

defined by Wright (1977: 383), “a cultural de-

velopment with a centralized decision-mak-

ing process which is both externally special-

ized with regard to the local processes which

it regulates, and internally specialized in

that the central process is divisible into sepa-

rate activities which can be performed at dif-

ferent places at different times.” By contrast,

a chiefdom is a cultural development with

an administrative organization that is exter-

nally specialized (or centralized) but at the

same time is not internally specialized

(Wright 1977:381). Spencer (1990, 1998) has

argued that, because the internally special-

ized administration of the state is compatible

with the effective delegation of authority, the

state can usually integrate a much larger ter-

ritory than a chiefdom.

Flannery and Marcus (1976:217, 1983:80)

place considerable emphasis on the fact

that the Zapotec royal palace had appeared

by MA II, citing Sanders’s (1974:109) view

that only state rulers have sufficient author-

ity to call upon corvée labor to construct

their own residences. Noting that the

palace and other state institutions seem

clearly in place by MA II, but absent in the

Rosario phase, Flannery and Marcus sug-

gest that this “throws the spotlight on

Monte Albán I” as the “crucial” period for

the rise of the Zapotec state (Flannery and

Marcus 1983:80). Taking a similar position,

Blanton et al. (1999) refer to the changes of

MA I as “the great transformation” in the

Oaxaca Valley. Their regional survey data

196 SPENCER AN

document the patterns of change in popula-

tion size, settlement hierarchies, civic-cere-

monial architecture, and artifact distribu-

tions over the course of MA I; all in all, the

trends “add up to a significant episode of

sociocultural evolution” (1999:68).

Although the past three decades of re-

search have revealed the importance of MA

I, it is fair to say that some significant issues

remain unresolved, in part because rela-

tively few sites of the time period have been

extensively excavated. As Marcus and Flan-

nery (1996:160–161) point out, this lack of

data means that we are still uncertain when

the key institutions of the early Zapotec state

first appeared—was it in Early MA I, Late

MA I, or not until MA II? They also point out

that we do not know precisely when all three

branches of the Oaxaca Valley became politi-

cally unified under the leadership of Monte

Albán (Marcus and Flannery 1996:162–163).

And, while it has been demonstrated that

Monte Albán was involved in extravalley

conquests as early as Late MA I (Redmond

1983; Spencer 1982; Spencer and Redmond

1997), it has been unclear whether the rise of

the Zapotec state was associated with con-

flicts between the Monte Albán polity and

other polities within the Valley of Oaxaca.

In this paper we discuss some recent theo-

retical and empirical contributions that have

not yet been brought to bear on the problem

of MA I development. We first draw upon

recent theoretical work in biology and pale-

ontology concerning multilevel selection

and evolutionary trends in order to address

questions about MA I regional integration

(Heisler and Damuth 1987; McShea 1994;

Wilson and Sober 1994). We then present

new data from ongoing excavations at San

Martín Tilcajete that are clarifying the se-

quence of institutional development within

the Valley of Oaxaca during MA I. Before

D REDMOND

view the evolutionary perspective that un-

derlies the entire paper.

PROCESSUAL EVOLUTIONISM

Over the past two decades, there has

been a notable upsurge of interest in the use

T

of evolutionary models in archaeology

(Barton and Clark 1988; Dunnell 1980, 1989;

Lyman and O’Brien 1998; Rindos 1984,

1989; Rosenberg 1994; Spencer 1997; Teltser

1995). Although unanimity of viewpoints is

lacking among evolutionary researchers,

there is substantial agreement on a few

basic concepts. Widely acknowledged is the

critical role played by selection in processes

of cultural change and stability, as well as

the central importance of variability, the

stuff on which selection acts. Most would

agree that, at any point in time, humans

generate an impressive array of variability

in their cultural behaviors. When the vari-

ant forms come into competition with one

another, it is selection that decides which

variants will persist. In Eldredge’s (1995:34)

apt phraseology, selection is the outcome of

“what worked better than what.”

Far less agreement can be discerned,

however, surrounding the issue of whether

initial variation is always undirected, or

whether it can be directed through the con-

scious, purposeful, premeditated actions of

human beings. In a previous paper, Spencer

(1997) identified a group of evolutionary ar-

chaeologists he called selectionists, who see

culture as consisting of cultural traits, and

define cultural evolution as comprising

shifts in the relative frequencies of these

traits over time. Equally fundamental to se-

lectionist thought is the view that initial

variation in cultural traits is being con-

stantly generated and, moreover, produced

exclusively in an undirected manner. Selec-

tion then operates on this variation, and the

result is patterns of change or stability over

time. Spencer also discussed another group

of evolutionary researchers whom he la-

beled processualists (or processual evolution-ists). It is appropriate to point out that

processual evolutionism is the perspective

we take in the present paper.

Processual evolutionists prefer to see cul-

POLITICAL EVOLUTION IN

ture not as a collection of traits but as a sys-

tem occupied by human actors who group

themselves into nested sets of organiza-

tional levels and pursue conscious, purpo-

sive strategies intended to further their own

interests. The processualist perspective at-

tributes great importance to human agency,

the capacity of human beings to take an ac-

tive role in shaping many of the variant

forms of their individual and group behav-

iors. The significance assigned to human

agency means that initial variation can often

be directed and not exclusively undirected

as the selectionists would have it. Although

processualists recognize that undirected be-

haviors are far from rare, they nonetheless

insist that the ability of humans to design

and carry out novel strategies is a major fea-

ture that distinguishes cultural evolution

from its biological counterpart (Boyd and

Richerson 1985:81–131). From the processu-

alist perspective, biological and cultural

evolution are seen as analogous, not homol-

ogous or identical, processes. We would

argue, however, that there is little to be

gained by pursuing this analogy as an end

in itself; an analogy takes on value when it

is heuristic, stimulating the researcher to

apply novel analyses and interpretations to

his data (Spencer 1991: 145).

Also integral to processual evolutionism

is a conception of cultural systems as hier-

archically organized, with each level com-

posed of components that are themselves

systems of a lower level, a feature that

Crumley (1995) calls the “scalar hierarchy.”

Examples of such levels in a cultural system

would include the household level (com-

posed of individuals), the community level

(composed of households), the polity level

(composed of communities), and the inter-

polity level (composed of separate polities).

Crumley makes an important distinction

between the “scalar hierarchy” and the

“control hierarchy,” in which one of the

components on a particular level in the

scalar hierarchy exerts control over the oth-

ers. An alternative arrangement is the “het-

HE VALLEY OF OAXACA 197

erarchy,” an arrangement whereby the

components are not permanently ranked

with respect to each other, but where indi-

D

vidual components are capable of short-

lived dominance over others depending on

the circumstances. When we examine cul-

tural sequences, important periods of

change are often marked by shifts from the

heterarchical to the hierarchical mode of or-

ganization.

For example, in the transition from autonomous

villages to a chiefdom, intervillage integration

changes from a situation where authority is di-

vided or shared among component villages (heter-

archy) to a situation where intervillage integration

is achieved through centralized authority concen-

trated in a single village, which emerges as the

paramount center of the new chiefly polity (hierar-

chy). A similar process occurs when a state author-

ity emerges and rules over previously autonomous

chiefdoms. (Spencer 1997: 238–239)

How does a control hierarchy evolve in

the first place? A key mechanism is extrapola-tion, “an extension or projection of the inter-

nal model of authority from one social unit

to others on the same level of the scalar hier-

archy” (Spencer 1997: 239). Extrapolation,

when successfully implemented, brings

about the promotion of the social unit that

pursues it to a higher level of the emerging

control hierarchy: a village is promoted to a

chiefly center, a chiefly center is promoted to

a state capital (Flannery 1972). Whether or

not an extrapolation initiative succeeds, of

198 SPENCER AN

course, depends on what competing strate-

replicate themselves if they help the entire

gies are also being pursued and thus is ulti-

mately determined by selection.

MULTILEVEL SELECTION

An important corollary to the assump-

tion that cultural systems have multiple

levels of organization is the proposition

that selection can operate in a multilevel

fashion. With this statement, we invoke the

controversial issue of whether natural se-

lection acts only on individuals or if it can

also act upon social groups—what is often

called the “group selection” debate. Few

theorists are more closely identified with

this debate than David Sloan Wilson and

Elliott Sober (Sober and Wilson 1998; Wil-

son 1989; Wilson and Sober 1989; 1994),

who favor group selection models, and

George Williams (1966; 1992) and Richard

Dawkins (1976, 1982), who oppose them.

Wilson and Sober (1994:585) note that up

to the mid-1960s it was relatively common

for biologists and social scientists to con-

ceive of social groups as adaptive units, not

unlike individual organisms in the coordina-

tion of the parts that comprised them. Since

adaptation is a product of selection, such a

view implied that selection could operate on

the level of the group as well as the individ-

ual. Adherents to the group selection posi-

tion argued that individuals engage in

numerous behaviors that are less than opti-

mal from the viewpoint of individual fitness,

but nevertheless enhance the fitness of the

social groups to which they belong; the be-

haviors persist because they are favored by

natural selection operating on the level of

the social group (Wynne-Edwards 1962,

1986). Williams attacked the idea of group

selection in his widely read 1966 book, argu-

ing that group-level adaptations came about

not because of selection acting on the level of

the group but rather as a by-product of

many individual adaptations. To Williams,

all such adaptations had to be explained in

terms of the relative fitness of individuals

within populations; although he agreed that

individual-level adaptations may have

group-level effects, he insisted that these are

not relevant to evolutionary change

(Williams 1966: 92; Wilson and Sober 1994:

590). Williams made selection an even more

specific process when he argued that the

gene is really the basic unit of selection, a

conception that was developed and popu-

larized by Dawkins (1976, 1982). Dawkins

(1976) asserted that even though genes are

the fundamental units of selection, they do

not exist apart from individual organisms;

they are “trapped,” so to speak, along with

other genes in an individual and can only

REDMOND

collection survive; thus individuals become

“vehicles of selection.” It is this property of

the levels of the scalar hierarchy. Consider

“shared fate” that induces “selfish genes” to

cooperate to produce successful organisms

(Dawkins 1976).

Since it lay even farther from the gene

than the individual, the social group seemed

a most unlikely unit of adaptation and selec-

tion to many biologists of the late 1960s and

1970s, and the group selection view fell from

favor. Even so, Wilson kept up an unrelent-

ing campaign in favor of group selection ap-

proaches (Wilson 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983,

1989, 1992), joining Lewontin (1970), El-

dredge (1985), Gould (1980, 1988), and oth-

ers who were of the opinion that selection

could operate at times above the level of the

individual (or the gene). Lewontin (1970) ar-

gued that any grouping of individual units,

from molecules to galaxies, can undergo

evolution if heritable behaviors exist that can

differentially affect the group’s ability to re-

produce itself. In a presidential address to

The Paleontological Society, Gould heralded

“the most important contemporary revision

of evolutionary theory—the insight that se-

lection (and other forces) acts simultane-

ously at several levels of a genealogical hier-

archy, with effects propagating to levels

above and below” (1988:319).

The past 10 years have seen an increase in

the popularity of the group selection view-

point. Researchers are beginning to move

beyond statements of faith to the develop-

ment of methodologies for analyzing multi-

level selection processes (Goodnight et al.

1992; Heisler and Daimuth 1987; Seely 1989;

Sober and Wilson 1998; Wilson and Sober

1994). Wilson and Sober (1994) have pro-

posed a procedure that they believe is us-

able in both biological and sociocultural

contexts, under the assumption that both

the biological and sociocultural worlds are

hierarchically structured. An essential step

in their methodology is the identification of

the “vehicles of selection” in whatever bio-

logical or human situation is being exam-

ined, using the concept of “shared fate.” For


each measured trait of interest, they ana-

lyze each level of what Crumley (1995)

would call the scalar hierarchy to deter-

mine whether there are fitness differences

among the components of that level; such

differences are usually manifested by vari-

able success in the outcomes of biological or

social competition among components, ex-

pressed in terms of the measured trait (Wil-

son and Sober 1994:591). By focusing on ve-

hicles of selection, they “de-couple” the

concept of organism from the individual

level of the biological hierarchy. To illus-

trate, they envision an extreme example, a

situation where the genes within a single

individual differ more in fitness than do the

individuals within a social group. In this

case, they argue, there will be relatively

strong selection on the level of the genes,

and one could view the genes in this in-

stance as “organisms,” while the individual

becomes a “dysfunctional collection of

genes” (Wilson and Sober 1994:591). Alter-

natively, in situations where individuals in

the same group are “in the same boat” with

respect to fitness, they will behave like the

harmonious “organs” that contribute to the

successful functioning of group-level orga-

nizations, which can be seen as the “organ-

isms” in this case. The point of their analy-

sis is that the relative impact of selection

can shift from one level of the scalar hierar-

chy to another: “In short, the organ–organ-

ism–population trichotomy can be frame-

shifted both up and down the biological

hierarchy” (Wilson and Sober 1994:592).

We contend that selection-level “frame-

shifts” are also an important feature of cul-

tural evolution. A frameshift upward in the

scalar hierarchy can be brought about by

extrapolation, through which one unit in a

given level begins to assert authority over

the others, creating a more inclusive politi-

cal entity. Spencer (1997) has argued that

extrapolation is an expression of agency,

and that the extrapolation initiative itself al-

ters the relative impact of selection among

THE VALLEY OF OAXACA 199

the transition from autonomous villages to

chiefdoms. In the autonomous village con-

D

text, selection on the multivillage (or re-

gional) level will be relatively weaker than

intervillage selection. But, when an emerg-

ing leader in one village seeks to extrapo-

late his authority to other villages, this ini-

tiative will increase the relative importance

of selection on the multivillage level—the

newly centralized multivillage polity will

persist only if the emergent regional leader-

ship can successfully withstand challenges

against the polity (Carneiro 1981; Spencer

1987). Now envision the transition from

chiefdom to state. In a context of indepen-

dent chiefdoms, selection is relatively

stronger among the chiefly polities (i.e., on

the interchiefdom level) than it is above or

below that level. But, when the leadership

of one of those chiefdoms seeks to extend

its control over other chiefdoms, the extrap-

olation initiative will change the pattern of

selection throughout the domain affected

by the strategy. If the extrapolation strategy

succeeds, a new and larger entity, a nascent

state composed of several previous chiefly

polities, emerges as a major unit for future

selection (Carneiro 1970; Marcus and Flan-

nery 1996:157; Redmond 1998; Spencer

1998). The emergence of the multichiefdom

regional state does not signal the end of se-

lection on either the subregional or local

level; rather, state emergence introduces an-

other important level of selection along

with those that are already in operation.

Carneiro (1978, 1992) has argued that the

evolution of complex human societies, over

the long term, has been characterized by

200 SPENCER AN

the following general trend: the successive

amples of researchers who have interpreted

emergence of ever more inclusive levels of

integration and concomitant selection.

EVOLUTIONARY TREND THEORY

Although paleontologists generally inter-

pret a persistent, directional change in

some attribute of a lineage or clade as an

evolutionary trend, McShea (1994) has ar-

gued that not all such trends are alike. He

draws a fundamental distinction between

what he calls “passive” and “driven”

trends. In a passive trend, directional

change is not produced by selection favor-

ing the attribute in question, but rather by

stochastic variation and divergence from an

original boundary condition (1994: 1748).

As an example, he presents Stanley’s (1973)

reinterpretation of certain instances of

Cope’s rule, the well-known tendency for

groups to show an increase in average body

size over time. Stanley argued that mean

body size would increase over time, even in

the absence of selection for larger size, if the

founding species of a clade originated near

the lower limits of viable size, or perhaps

near the boundary of its potential range.

Under such conditions, what appears to be

a directional change in some attribute

might instead be the result of stochastic

change in the attribute’s variance, biased in

the direction of larger size, as the descen-

dants of the founding group undergo mul-

tiple cycles of reproduction, and exhibit

variation that increasingly diverges from

the initial limit or boundary condition (see

also Gould 1988).

A driven evolutionary trend, by contrast,

is the product of a pervasive and persistent

bias reinforced by selection (McShea

1994:1748). The directional change in a

given attribute persists not because of sto-

chastic variation in a constrained or

bounded space, but rather because the

change in question offers adaptive advan-

tages to the individuals or groups possess-

ing higher values for that attribute relative

to competing individuals or groups. Mc-

Shea argues that, while some examples of

Cope’s rule are undoubtedly passive

trends, in other cases an increase in body

size is probably driven by the selective ad-

vantages accruing to those individuals and

groups who tend to have larger bodies than

their competitors. He gives Newell (1949),

Bonner (1988), and McKinney (1990) as ex-

REDMOND

body-size evolution as a driven trend,

while Saunders and Ho (1976) and Bonner

(1988) are among those who have argued

that the evolution of complexity may be fa-

vored by natural selection, and thus qualify

as a driven process in McShea’s terms.

Whenever directionality in a particular at-

tribute conveys selective advantage on the

individuals or groups possessing greater

values for the attribute, the resulting trend

may be considered driven. Moreover, be-

cause a driven trend is powered by selec-

tive advantage, the attribute in question can

undergo much more rapid and dramatic

change than would be the case in a passive

system. McShea acknowledges that most

large-scale trends are “probably quite com-

plex, in the sense that they result from a va-

riety of different causes operating at differ-

ent times and over a variety of different

taxonomic, spatial, and temporal scales”

(1994:1751), and he supports the use of em-

pirical tests designed to measure the degree

to which a given evolutionary trend can be

considered driven or passive. A test he has

found to be generally reliable is the skew-

ness or “subclade” test, which examines a

variable such as body size measured on a

subset of individuals drawn from a

parental population with an overall distrib-

ution for the same variable that is positively

skewed. If the distribution of the subset is

also significantly skewed in the positive di-

rection, then the system is probably exhibit-

ing a driven trend. A particular skewness

coefficient is generally considered statisti-

cally significant when the ratio of skewness

to the standard error of skewness is greater

than 2.0 (SPSS 1998:214).

The distinction between passive and dri-

ven trends takes on additional importance

when we connect it to the concept of multi-

level selection. Drawing upon simulation

studies as well as analyses of paleontological

data, McShea concludes that “the signifi-

cance of the passive–driven distinction lies

in the independence among hierarchical lev-


els implied by the passive mechanism, a

counterintuitive notion for many” (1994:

1761). In a passive trend, there is a lack of

correlation between adaptive fitness on dif-

ferent levels of the evolving system; selec-

tion processes thus operate independently

on each system level. The converse of this

proposition, we propose, is that driven evolu-tionary trends should be associated with interde-pendent relationships among the hierarchical lev-els of evolving systems. In a driven

evolutionary trend, we would expect the se-

lection processes operating on different lev-

els of the system to be correlated (either pos-

itively or negatively) with one another. For

example, in the case of a negative correla-

tion, the fitness of the group would increase

at the expense of individual-level fitness,

such as when a young warrior gives his life

so his village can prevail over others in com-

bat and attain (as a village) greater regional

power and wealth, a classic example of indi-

vidual altruism. On the other hand, in the

case of a positive correlation, the fitness of

the individual and the group are both en-

hanced, as, for example, when the members

of a village cooperate to construct an irriga-

tion system that could not have been built

without such cooperation and whose use

will be of benefit to all. Such interlevel corre-

lations reinforce the selection processes op-

erating on each level, adding strength and

momentum to directional biases and result-

ing, eventually, in evolutionary trends that

are more driven than passive in character.

An application of McShea’s theory of

evolutionary trends requires some method

for analyzing patterns of selection in a mul-

tilevel organizational context. Just such an

approach has been explored by Heisler and

Damuth (1987), who regard multilevel (or

“group”) selection to have taken place

“whenever an individual’s expected viabil-

ity, mating success, and/or fertility cannot

be accounted for solely on the basis of that

individual’s phenotype, but rather addi-

tional information is required about prop-

erties of the group or groups of which the


individual is a member” (1987:584). They

consider a theoretical array of relationships

between a given phenotypic trait and adap-

D

tive fitness in a population consisting of

three subgroups (see Fig. 1). The distribu-

tion in Fig. 1d shows no relationship be-

tween the value of the trait and fitness; the

mean fitness is the same for all three

groups. In Fig. 1a, an increase in fitness is

associated with an increase in the value of

the phenotypic trait, but there are no signif-

icant group selection effects on the trait.

Figure 1b shows the operation of group se-

lection on an altruistic trait; an increase in

the value of the trait is negatively associ-

ated with individual fitness within groups,

but groups with high mean values for the

trait have higher mean fitness than do

groups with lower fitness. Finally, Fig. 1c

depicts multilevel selection in situations

where increases in the trait’s value are asso-

ciated with increases in both group-level

and individual-level fitness. A driven evo-

lutionary trend is expected to be associated

with the pattern shown in Fig. 1b or Fig. 1c;

202 SPENCER AN

tion. Horizontal axes represent values for the charac-

ter, while the vertical axes represent the relative fitness

(redrawn from Heisler and Damuth 1987: Fig. 2). See

the text for explanation.

What quantitative procedures can be

used to assess which of the four idealized

patterns offers the closest fit to a given em-

pirical situation? For this task, Heisler and

Damuth favor a series of multilevel statisti-

cal techniques known collectively as contex-tual analysis. Originally developed for use

in political science research, contextual

analysis seeks to “explain variation in indi-

vidual-level behavior in terms of individ-

ual- and group-level effects” (Boyd and

Iverson 1979:2). Boyd and Iverson present

an array of analytical possibilities, suggest-

ing that the appropriate method in a partic-

ular case will depend both on the problem

one is investigating and on the nature of the

data available for analysis. For example, in

a case where individual differences are

measured on a continuous ratio scale, but

group differences are indicated by a nomi-

nal variable (such as membership vs non-

membership), they recommend the use of

analysis of covariance, or ANCOVA, to de-

tect the existence of group-level effects

(Boyd and Iverson 1979:9–12; see also

Arnold and Fristrup 1982; Goodnight et al.

1992; Heisler and Damuth 1987). Let us

REDMOND

now attempt to apply these evolutionary

in both cases, there is a close correlation (ei-

ther negative or positive) between group

and individual selection.

FIG. 1. Four possible relationships between a phe-

notypic character and fitness in a subdivided popula-

concepts and methods to archaeological

data from Oaxaca.

MONTE ALBAN I IN THE VALLEY OF OAXACA

MA I, as noted earlier, was a time of rapid

population growth and a dramatic increase

in political centralization. Are these devel-

opments appropriately viewed as passive

or driven evolutionary trends? Is there evi-

dence for the operation of multilevel (or

“group”) selection? Can the ascendance of

the regional polity centered at Monte Albán

be understood as the product of coordi-

nated selection on multiple levels of organi-

zation? If so, what were the most important

vehicles of selection, and is there evidence

of competition among them? When did the

key institutions of the Zapotec state first

make their appearance and what was the

selective context of this development? By

which period can we say that the major

subregions of the Valley of Oaxaca were

united into a single polity under the direc-

tion of Monte Albán?

We will approach these questions by ap-

plying the related concepts of evolutionary

trends and multilevel selection to the exten-

sive data set collected by the Valley of Oax-

aca Settlement Pattern Project (Blanton et

al. 1982; Kowalewski et al. 1989), and in

particular the data on productive potential

and population size presented and ana-

lyzed by Nicholas (1989) and Feinman and

Nicholas (1990). In this data set, the infor-

mation for each chronological phase is con-

tained in a separate computer file, and each

record in a particular file contains the data

on production and population for a certain

4-km by 4-km grid square of the valley.

While it is of course true that these grid

squares are arbitrary units imposed on the

valley by the data collectors, the squares are

nevertheless useful for the present analysis

for two main reasons: (1) their small size

makes them relatively “local” in nature;

and (2) they can be combined into succes-

sively more inclusive groupings, yielding a

phase-by-phase, multilevel data set to

which we can apply evolutionary trend the-

ory and the concept of multilevel selection.

In the analysis to follow, we regard individ-

ual grid squares as localities. The localities

can be grouped into the more inclusive

units of subregions, and then grouped again

into the region of the Oaxaca Valley as a

whole, producing a data set with three lev-

els of organization for each prehistoric

phase of interest.

We have drawn subregion boundaries by

taking into account natural topographic di-

visions as well as the hypothetical political

affiliations that have been proposed for each

phase. In the case of the Rosario phase, Blan-


ton et al. (1993: 69) note that “the valley was

divided into at least three settlement clus-

ters, one in Etla and one south of the central

area, with most of its sites in the Valle

Grande. A third cluster was located at the

center of the Tlacolula arm.” Marcus and

Flannery (1996: 123–126) also see a tripartite

division, and suggest that the relatively un-

occupied area at the valley center was a

buffer zone between the Etla valley polity

(whose first-order center was San José

Mogote) and competing polities in the Tla-

colula and Ocotlán/Zimatlán subregions,

the first-order centers of which were proba-

bly Yegüih and San Martín Tilcajete, respec-

tively (Fig. 2). The Rosario phase subregion

boundaries presented in Fig. 3 reflect these

proposed political groupings, and take into

account natural topographic divisions as

well. The Central subregion as drawn in Fig.

3 corresponds to Kowalewski’s Central Val-

ley Survey area (Kowalewski 1976); it has

very little Rosario settlement and is the loca-

tion of the proposed buffer zone between

Etla and the other branches of the valley.

There are some Rosario phase settlements in

the Northern Valle Grande, and, of course,

several more in the Ocotlán/Zimatlán sub-

region (Fig. 3). Even though the Northern

Valle Grande and Ocotlán/Zimatlán are sep-

arated by a significant range of hills, Marcus

and Flannery suggest they may have been

somewhat affiliated with one another politi-

cally during the Rosario phase

(1996:123–126). If we follow their argument,

we can combine them and thus end up with

four subregions: (1) Etla; (2) Central (a

mostly vacant buffer zone); (3) Tlacolula;

and (4) Ocotlán/Zimatlán, which would in-

clude the Northern Valle Grande (Fig. 3).

For Early MA I and Late MA I, the out-

standing settlement in the entire region is

Monte Albán, situated atop a series of hills in

the valley center (Figs. 4, 5). The establish-

ment of Monte Albán changed the political

landscape dramatically in Oaxaca (Blanton

1978; Marcus and Flannery 1996:142–171).

After 500 B.C., the largest settlement in the


Valley was no longer in the middle of the Etla

subregion, as was the case with San José

Mogote in the Rosario phase, but was far

tion of the sites abandoned at the end of

s

more centrally placed with respect to all

three major branches of the Valley. In both

Early MA I and Late MA I, Monte Albán di-

rectly overlooked not only the Central Valley

Survey area, but also the adjacent Northern

Valle Grande. In view of this proximity, we

have combined the Northern Valle Grande

and the Central Survey area into a single

Central subregion for Early MA I and Late

MA I, remembering that the division be-

tween the Central Valley Survey area and the

Northern Valle Grande was based not on a

topographic divide, but instead on the

FIG. 2. The Oaxaca Valley, showing the location

adapted from Flannery 1986: Fig. 3.1).

boundaries of two different survey projects

(Kowalewski 1976; Blanton et al. 1982).

Topographic and political considerations

make it advisable to combine the data from

the Central and Etla subregions for all of MA

I. There is no major topographical division

between the Central and Etla branches, and

there is reason to think that there was a close

political connection between Etla and the

Central subregions at this time. Marcus and

Flannery (1996:139–140) propose that the

founders of Monte Albán probably came

from San José Mogote and other Etla valley

towns and villages, because a high propor-

of archaeological sites mentioned in the text (inset

204 SPENCER AND REDMOND

Rosario phase are in the Central and south-

ern Etla areas. For example, in their excava-

a

tions at San José Mogote, Marcus and Flan-

nery found evidence of Rosario-phase public

buildings and some 60 hectares of Rosario-

phase occupation representing both elite and

nonelite inhabitants; however, there is very

little evidence of Early MA I architecture

here, and no evidence at all of Late MA I ar-

chitecture (Flannery and Marcus 1990). It

seems likely that Monte Albán was serving

as the first-order center for the Etla subregion

FIG. 3. Rosario phase settlements in the Oaxac

from Blanton et al. 1993: Fig. 3.7).

as well as the Central area in Early MA I.

By contrast, both the Tlacolula and

Ocotlán/Zimatlán subregions continued to

have impressive first-order centers in Early

MA I, Yegüih and San Martín Tilcajete, re-

spectively. And, as Marcus and Flannery

(1996:163) note, these centers apparently

grew even larger in Early MA I than they

were in the Rosario phase: “This growth

suggests that Yegüih and Tilcajete may not

have participated in the [Monte Albán

polity]; they might still have been the para-

mount centers of rival polities during

Valley, showing subregion boundaries (redrawn

POLITICAL EVOLUTION IN THE VALLEY OF OAXACA 205

Monte Albán Ia. If so, any smaller commu-

nities near them would have been under

their control, not Monte Albán’s.” Recently,

tic expansion, beginning with an urban relocation

O

Feinman (1998: 128–129) has taken a similar

view of Late MA I, arguing that much of the

southern Valle Grande (the Ocotlán/Zi-

matlán area) and the Tlacolula branch were

not completely integrated into the Monte

Albán polity. Marcus and Flannery have

FIG. 4. Early Monte Albán I settlements in the

drawn from Blanton et al. 1993: Fig. 3.9).

also proposed that the relations among

these autonomous polities became increas-

ingly competitive and hostile between

Early MA I and Late MA I, as Monte Albán

sought to incorporate all parts of the Valley

into its political domain.

We suspect that Monte Albán I was a 400-year

period of spectacular demographic and militaris-

axaca Valley, showing subregion boundaries (re-


at 500 B.C. and proceeding to subjugation of the

entire Valley of Oaxaca by 100 B.C. (Marcus and

Flannery 1996: 165)

O

For the purposes of this paper, we will

view the suggestions of Marcus, Flannery,

and Feinman as propositions consistent

with what we shall call the “Rival Polity

Model” of Oaxaca Valley political organiza-

tion during the Rosario, Early MA I, and

FIG. 5. Late Monte Albán I settlements in the

drawn from Blanton et al. 1993: Fig. 3.12).

Late MA I phases. We will assess the valid-

ity of the Rival Polity Model by proposing

an evolutionary hypothesis that is consis-

tent with the model and also testable with

archaeological data.

Hypothesis 1 (Inter-Subregion CompetitionHypothesis). We would expect inter-subre-

gional selection to increase in relative im-

portance as we proceed from the Rosario

axaca Valley, showing subregion boundaries (re-


phase to Early MA I to Late MA I, a reflec-

tion of continuing and intensifying compe-

tition among the hypothesized rival poli-

D

ties. As we shall see, the subregional group-

ing we have offered—Etla/Central, Tla-

colula, and Ocotlán/Zimatlán—permits an

evaluation of this hypothesis through an

analysis of the grid-square data of the Val-

ley of Oaxaca Settlement Pattern Survey.

Before doing so, however, we should de-

termine whether the impressive changes of

the Rosario phase through Late MA I can be

considered a driven trend in McShea’s

terms. Let us examine the distribution of one

key variable of the system over time, the es-

timated archaeological population by local-

ity. According to McShea’s skewness test, an

evolving system is exhibiting a driven trend

if: (1) the overall system shows significantly

positive skewing; and (2) subsets of the sys-

tem also show such skewing. Table 1 pre-

sents measures for skewness, standard error

of skewness, and the ratio of skewness to

standard error of skewness for the grid-

square data set for the Valley as a whole and

by subregion. It is clear that, for all three pe-

riods, the Valley as a whole exhibits a popu-

208 SPENCER AN

lation di

skewed in

tios of ske

Note. As explained in the text, the Oco

Northern Valle Grande for the Rosario ph

MA I, the Northern Valle Grande is group

ness are greater than 2.0 (SPSS 1998:214). We

suggest, however, that the importance of

these results lies not in their statistical signif-

icance per se, but emerges instead when the

figures are used comparatively, to contrast the

different chronological periods in order to

detect trends. In this light it is notable that

there is an increase in the degree of skewing

(as shown both by the skewness measure

and the ratio of skewness to standard error

of skewness) in the Valley as a whole in the

trajectory from the Rosario phase, to Early

MA I, to Late MA I (Table 1).

Table 1 also contains the skewness mea-

sures for the three subregions of the Valley.

With the exception of the Central subregion

in the Rosario phase, all the skewness mea-

sures are positive and statistically signifi-

cant, which suggests that the pattern of

change between the Rosario phase and Late

MA I can indeed be interpreted as a driven

trend (McShea 1994). Once again, the skew-

ness values take on greater importance

when they are used in a comparative con-

REDMOND

er time.

Central

exceed

stribution that is significantly

the positive direction; all three ra-

wness to standard error of skew-

text, to contrast the subregions ov

Note that the values for the Etla/

subregion in each phase greatly

TABLE 1Skewness Measures for the Distribution of Archaeological Population

(All Sites; by Entire Valley and Subregion)

Phase Subregion Skewness SE Skewness Skewness/SES

Rosario Entire valley 5.947 0.343 17.74

Etla 3.995 0.550 7.26

Central 1.902 1.014 1.88

Tlacolula 1.640 0.687 2.39

Ocotlán/Zimatlán 2.249 0.550 4.09

Early MA I Entire valley 8.566 0.251 34.13

Etla/Central 6.225 0.350 17.79

Tlacolula 3.510 0.456 7.70


Late MA I Entire valley 10.45 0.212 49.08

Etla/Central 7.122 0.311 22.90

Tlacolula 2.541 0.388 6.55


tlán/Zimatlán subregion includes the

ase; however, for Early MA I and Late

ed with the Central subregion.

those for Tlacolula and Ocotlán/Zimatlán

(Table 1). Moreover, if one examines the

pattern of change over time in the Skew-

ness/SES ratio for each subregion, it is the

Etla/Central subregion that shows the most

consistent increase over the three phases in

question (Fig. 6), which would imply that

the Etla/Central subregion was undergoing

a more driven process of change than the

Tlacolula and Ocotlán/Zimatlán subre-

gions. We can draw on these results to pro-

pose a second evolutionary hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (Interdependent Selection Hy-pothesis). In line with McShea’s theory of

evolutionary trends, we would expect the

Etla/Central subregion to show evidence of

greater interdependence among levels of

selection than the Tlacolula and Ocotlán/

Zimatlán subregions, and this interdepen-

dence should reach its peak in the last of the

three phases in question, Late MA I.

We will test Hypothesis 1 and Hypothe-

sis 2 by applying the concept of multilevel

selection to the Oaxaca data set. Sober and

Wilson (1998:102–116) give three basic re-

quirements that must be met in order to use

their multilevel selection approach in a


matlán subregions; the graph indicates that the

Etla/Central subregion shows the most consistent pat-

tern of increase.

among groups,” noting that “at all levels of

the biological hierarchy, units must differ

from one another before they can be sifted

by natural selection” (1998:105). In our

Oaxaca case, if we use an expanded view of

“phenotype” (see Dunnell 1989), we might

consider the phenotypic variation among

localities (and among groups of localities)

to be expressed by the variation in agricul-

tural productivity, which can be expressed

as potential population. Nicholas (1989)

notes that the values for this variable de-

pend not only on environmental factors

such as soil type and rainfall, but also on

agricultural techniques, available labor

supply, and work organization, which are

largely cultural in nature. Both the environ-

mental and cultural factors exhibit varia-

tion among the localities and over time.

Sober and Wilson’s second requirement

is that the phenotypic differences in ques-

tion must be heritable (1998:107). In our cul-

tural evolutionary case, we suggest that the

phenotypic differences can be considered

heritable in the sense that the cultural com-

ponents of agricultural productivity com-

prise practices that are passed down from

generation to generation in a process of cul-

tural transmission (see Boyd and Richerson

1985). Taking a similar position, Sober and

Wilson (1998: 114) note that

The fact that a behavior is transmitted cultur-

ally should not be taken to mean that it is nonher-

itable. Cultural differences between human

groups are often stable over long periods of time

and are faithfully transmitted to descendant

groups. They are heritable in the sense that off-

spring units resemble parent units, which is all

that matters as far as the process of natural selec-

tion is concerned.

Sober and Wilson’s third requirement is

that one must have a way to “determine the

fitness consequences of phenotypic varia-

tion within and among groups” (1998:115).

In our Oaxaca case, the salient question is


given situation. Their first requirement is

that one should be able to “determine the

pattern of phenotypic variation within and

FIG. 6. Change over time in the Skewness/SES mea-

sure for the Etla/Central, Tlacolula, and Ocotlán/Zi-
how we should measure the relative “fit-
ness” of localities. We suggest that, if we re-

gard agricultural productivity as a pheno-

there still would have been more than

D

the “fitness” measure (the ratio of archaeological pop-

typic trait of a locality, then the “fitness” of

that locality can be estimated by computing

a function, such as a ratio or a linear trans-

formation, of the archaeological populationwith respect to the agricultural productivity(potential population) of the locality. Note

that we are using “locality” as shorthand

for “the human population of the locality.”

The underlying assumption here is that the

relative fitness of the localities will be re-

flected in the population sizes they are able

to sustain, relative to their agricultural po-

tential.

Because McShea’s evolutionary trend

theory deals with the relationship between

driven trends and interdependence among

levels of selection, we will have to consider

the patterns of selection in the subordinate

localities of each subregion separately from

the locality in each subregion that was not

purely “local” in a political sense. Accord-

ing to the Rival Polity Model, each subre-

gion contained a proposed first-order cen-

ter; presumably the center was sustained, in

part, by surplus mobilized from subordi-

nate villages. During the Rosario phase,

these proposed centers are San José Mogote

(Etla/Central subregion), Yegüih (Tlacolula

subregion), and San Martín Tilcajete

(Ocotlán/Zimatlán subregion). During Early

MA I and Late MA I, the three centers are

Monte Albán (Etla/Central subregion),

Yegüih (Tlacolula subregion), and San

Martín Tilcajete (Ocotlán/Zimatlán subre-

gion). Therefore, the following consideration

of patterns of fitness will have two parts re-

flecting these two vantage points: (1) from

the perspective of the first-order centers, and

(2) from the perspective of the subordinate

localities.

First, let us assess the evidence for

change over time in the fitness of the local-

ity that contains the first-order center in

each of the three subregions (Fig. 7). Note

that fitness in this case was computed by

taking the natural logarithm of the ratio of

210 SPENCER AN

archaeological population (based on occu-

pation area) to potential population (based

on agricultural productivity). The graph

shows that the locality containing the first-

order center in the Etla/Central subregion

has a higher fitness in all phases and ex-

hibits a more dramatic increase in fitness

over time than the localities containing the

centers of the Tlacolula subregion or the

Ocotlán/Zimatlán subregion. For both

Early MA I and Late MA I, the actual esti-

mated population at Monte Albán far ex-

ceeds the potential population of its local-

ity; this would have made Monte Albán

highly dependent upon support from the

other localities in its subregion, as Nicholas

(1989) has pointed out.

It is important to recognize that the fact

that Monte Albán was not locally self-suffi-

cient in terms of food production does not

mean that it was “unfit.” Monte Albán not

only maintained its large size but also grew

substantially throughout the four hundred

years of MA I. Clearly, the center was very

proficient at mobilizing material support,

probably in the form of surplus agricultural

production, from the villages within its po-

litical domain. If we assume, conservatively,

that the MA I domain of Monte Albán con-

sisted of just the Etla/Central subregion,

ulation to potential population) for the locality con-

taining the first-order center in each subregion.

REDMOND

FIG. 7. Change over time in the natural logarithm of

enough surplus potential to sustain the en-

tire population of the subregion throughout

MA I, including Monte Albán: the total po-

tential population of the Etla/Central subre-

gion is 83,488 in Early MA I and 116,541 in

Late MA I, comfortably above the total ar-

chaeological population of 11,245 in Early

MA I and 39,382 in Late MA I.

Now, we shall use the methods of contex-

tual analysis (Boyd and Iverson 1979;

Heisler and Damuth 1987) to assess the pat-

terns of selection on the subordinate locali-

ties. The Interdependent Selection Hypoth-

esis predicts that Monte Albán’s growing

reliance upon the other localities of the

Etla/Central subregion would be comple-

mented by increasing dependence in those

localities upon Monte Albán’s subregional

leadership. Such growing dependence

should be manifested by an increase in therelative importance of subregional-level selec-tion upon the subordinate localities. We would

expect selection processes on the subordi-

nate localities to have been more affected

by subregional-level selection in the

Etla/Central subregion (under Monte

Albán’s leadership) than in Tlacolula and

Ocotlán/Zimatlán. In addition, the Inter-

Subregion Competition Hypothesis pre-

dicts that the intensity of inter-subregional

selection should increase between the

Rosario phase and Late MA I.

Let us address these propositions with a

three-step contextual analysis. For each

phase, the first step will be to construct a

separate scatter plot for each subregion. In

doing so we shall use all the localities with

the exception of the locality that contains

the first-order center for each subregion, be-

cause we are attempting to assess the de-

gree to which the subordinate localities are

affected by group selection. On each plot,

the x-axis will represent agricultural pro-

ductivity (expressed in potential popula-

tion), while the y-axis will represent archae-

ological population (as estimated by the

Valley survey team, based on occupation


area). In the second step, we will conduct a

series of parallel regressions to evaluate the

degree to which the fitness of the localities

in the different subregions can be expressed

as a linear function of the actual population

with respect to the potential population.

The degree to which the regressions are sta-

tistically significant—that is, the signifi-

cance of the slope of the regression—will

reflect the degree to which the distribution

of population throughout the localities of

the subregions corresponds to variation in

the agricultural potential of those localities.

In the third step, we will conduct an analy-

sis of covariance (ANCOVA) to assess the

relative intensity of selection on the level

of the subregion, i.e., the level of organiza-

tion pertaining to the hypothesized rival

polities.

The scatter plots for the Rosario phase,

Early MA I, and Late MA I are presented in

Figs. 8–10. In each plot, individual data

points are identified by symbol as to their

subregion membership. In addition, a sepa-

rate linear regression line is fitted to the

data for each subregion, so that each scatter

plot reflects three different regressions, one

for each subregion. Summary statistics on

the various parallel regressions are pre-

sented in Table 2. It is clear from the rela-

tively low R2 values in Table 2 that a rela-

tively small proportion of the overall


variation in archaeological population is

explained by a linear regression on produc-

tive potential. Nevertheless, as we argued

FIG. 8. Scatter plot of archaeological population

(based on occupation area) versus agricultural produc-

tivity (expressed as potential population) for three

subregions during the Rosario phase; the first-order

center in each subregion is not included.


subregions during Early Monte Albán I; the first-order


earlier regarding our use of the skewness

values, the regression results are most valu-

able when employed comparatively, to com-

pare the different subregions and phases in

order to elucidate trends.

For the Rosario phase, only the Etla sub-

region exhibits a positive relationship (up-

ward slope) between agricultural produc-

tivity and archaeological population (Fig.

8). The linear regression results (Table 2) in-

dicate that the slope of the Etla regression

line is 0.020, while the slope coefficients of

the Tlacolula and Ocotlán/Zimatlán lines


subregions during Late Monte Albán I; the first-order


are both (negative) 0.004. The statistical sig-

actually 0.0) is 0.256 for Etla, which is not

highly significant. Nevertheless, the regres-

sions for the Tlacolula and Ocotlán/Zi-

matlán subregions are even less significant

at 0.847 and 0.692, respectively. The R2

value for Etla (0.088) is also considerably

greater than that for Tlacolula (0.006) or

Ocotlán/Zimatlán (0.012). Thus, while the

relationship between agricultural produc-

tivity and archaeological population is not

strong in any of the three subregions during

the Rosario phase, the greatest tendency to-

ward a linear relationship is seen in the Etla

subregion.

For the Early MA I phase (Fig. 9), the fitted

regression line for the Etla/Central subre-

gion shows a more positive slope than do the

fitted regression lines for Tlacolula and

Ocotlán/Zimatlán. The results of the regres-

sion analysis (Table 2) reveal that the

Etla/Central slope coefficient is 0.081, associ-

ated with a 0.056 significance level. The re-

gression line slope coefficient for the Tla-

colula subregion is 0.018 (0.477 significance

level), while for Ocotlán/Zimatlán the slope

coefficient is 0.040 (0.139 significance level).

Thus, in Early MA I, the linear regressions for

all three subregions have moved in the direc-

tion of stronger statistical significance, but

the Etla/Central subregion exhibits a much

more significant regression than the other

two subregions. Although the R-Square

value associated with the Etla/Central re-

gression (0.081) reveals that just 8% of the

variability in archaeological population is ac-

counted for by the regression on agricultural

productivity, it is noteworthy that the associ-

ated significance level is stronger by a factor

of 4.6 than the strongest significance level ob-

served (Etla subregion) for the Rosario phase

(Table 2). Since this sample does not include

the first-order centers in each subregion, the

Early MA I regression reflects a valley-floor

population distribution in Etla/Central that

corresponds more closely to the interlocality

variability in agricultural productivity than

REDMOND
212 SPENCER AND




nificance of the regression (i.e., the proba-

bility that the slope of the regression line is

is the case for the previous phase or the other

subregions during the Early MA I phase.

213

cluded from this analysis; also excluded is the Central (buffer) zone during the

For the Late MA I phase (Fig.10), the fitted

regression line shows a more positive slope

for the Etla/Central subregion than we

have seen thus far. The results of the regres-

sion analysis (Table 2) indicate that the coef-

ficient of the slope for Etla/Central is 0.188,

with an associated significance level of

0.002, a highly significant regression. For

Tlacolula, the slope coefficient is 0.046

(0.126 significance level), while for

Ocotlán/Zimatlán the slope coefficient is

0.039 (0.144 significance level). Although it

is true that just 16% of the variation in ar-

chaeological population for Etla/Central is

explained by the regression, the true value

of this analysis lies, as we have already

noted, in using the results in a comparative

context to detect trends over time and

space. For example, if one compares the re-

gression analysis results for Early MA I and

Late MA I (Table 2), one finds that the slope

of the regression line for Etla/Central in-

creases by a factor of 2.3 (from 0.081 to

0.188), the statistical significance becomes

Rosario phase.

stronger by a factor of 28 (from 0.056 to

0.002), and the R2 value increases by a fac-

tor of 1.95 (from 0.081 to 0.158). In addition,

if one compares the Late MA I results for

the three subregions, one finds that: (1) the

slope of the Etla/Central regression line is

more than 4 times greater than the slopes of

Tlacolula and Ocotlán/ Zimatlán; (2) the

statistical significance of the regression line

slope for Etla/Central is more than 63 times

that of the significance of the regressions for

Tlacolula and Ocotlán/Zimatlán; and (3)

the R2 value for Etla/Central is more than

two times greater than those for the other

two subregions (Table 2). Overall, these re-

sults indicate that: (1) the distribution of

Late MA I population through the localities

corresponds more closely to variability in

agricultural productivity in the Etla/Cen-

tral subregion than in Tlacolula and

Ocotlán/ Zimatlán; and (2) in the Etla/Cen-

tral subregion, this correspondence be-

comes closer between Early MA I and Late

MA I. We suggest that this closer correspon-

dence between labor and agricultural po-

tential in Etla/Central would have permit-

ted a relatively more efficient production of

POLITICAL EVOLUTION IN THE VALLEY OF OAXACA

TABLE 2Summary Statistics of Linear Regressions: Archaeological Population on

Agricultural Productivity (Potential Population) by Phase and by Subregion

Phase Subregion R2 Slope Signif. (p)

Rosario

Etla .088 .020 .256

Tlacolula .006 2.004 .847

Ocotlán/Zimatlán .012 2.004 .692

Early MA I

Etla/Central .081 .081 .056

Tlacolula .023 .018 .477

Ocotlán/Zimatlán .124 .040 .139

Late MA I

Etla/Central .158 .188 .002

Tlacolula .068 .046 .126

Ocotlán/Zimatlán .066 .039 .144

Note. As explained in the text, the first-order center in each subregion is ex-

the agricultural surpluses that were needed

to support the subregion’s first-order cen-

ter, Monte Albán.

D

As Blanton et al. (1982:44) have pointed

out, many of the sites in the Etla/Central sub-

region that were first occupied in Late

MA I are located in the piedmont zone,

especially within that part of the valley lying

18–20 km from Monte Albán. This pattern,

they have suggested, resulted from Monte

Albán’s pursuit of the “piedmont strategy,”

which fostered a concentration of agricultural

populations in the piedmont zones around

the capital in order to increase the production

of surpluses (see also Kowalewski et al.

1989:123–124). The results of our parallel re-

gression analyses clearly do not contradict

their suggestions regarding the piedmont

strategy; it could be, however, that this strat-

egy was part of a broader effort to bring the

population distribution of the Etla/Central

subregion into closer alignment with local

variability in agricultural potential.

Although our parallel regressions may

bear a superficial resemblance to those used

by Brumfiel (1976) and Steponaitis (1981) in

their analyses of Basin of Mexico data, our

approach differs from theirs in certain im-

portant ways. In both of their applications,

the different levels of the parallel regres-

sions pertained not to different subregions

(as in our application), but rather to differ-

ent levels of the settlement hierarchy.

Brumfiel (1976) interpreted a significant re-

gression with a high R2 value as reflecting

“population pressure” and used this mea-

sure to assess Carneiro’s (1970) model of

state emergence. When she analyzed two

levels of the settlement hierarchy in the

Late Formative to the Terminal Formative

in her study region, she found that signifi-

cant regressions with relatively high R2 val-

ues characterized both levels of the settle-

ment hierarchy in the Terminal Formative

(which she interpreted as the time of state

emergence). By contrast, her analysis of the

Late Formative data showed a significant

regression only for the upper level of the

214 SPENCER AN

settlement hierarchy. She interpreted these

results as indicating that a condition of

population pressure did not precede and

hence was probably not causal to state

emergence. Steponaitis (1981), on the other

hand, used the vertical differences between

the parallel regressions he calculated for the

various levels of the settlement hierarchy as

a way of gauging the flow of tribute that

presumably moved from the primary pro-

ducers in the smaller settlements of the

Basin to the higher-order centers; such trib-

ute flows, he suggested, allowed the

higher-order centers to grow to sizes that

would have exceeded the carrying capaci-

ties of their immediate catchment areas. In

our present application, each level of the

parallel regressions (Figs. 8–13) pertained

to a different subregion of the Valley of

Oaxaca, and the degree to which each re-

gression had a statistically significant posi-

tive slope reflected the degree to which

greater population size was positively asso-

ciated with greater productive potential.

We then used these results comparatively.

As we pointed out, the Etla/Central subre-

gion exhibited a more significant positive

relationship between productive potential

and population than did the other subre-

gions and, moreover, this statistical rela-

REDMOND

tionship in Etla/Central became increas-

ingly more significant between the Rosario

and Late MA I phases.

FIG. 11. Scatter plot of the natural logarithm of the

archaeological population (based on occupation area)

versus agricultural productivity (expressed as poten-

tial population) for three subregions during the

Rosario phase; the first-order center in each subregion

is not included.

In line with McShea’s evolutionary trend

theory, we would expect the tighter corre-

spondence between productive potential

and population on the level of the localities

in the Etla/Central subregion to be associ-

ated with increasingly strong subregional-

level selection as we proceed from the

Rosario to Early MA I to Late MA I phases.

This expectation, we should note, would

also be consistent with the Rival Polity

Model. Let us test these convergent expecta-

tial population) for three subregions during Early

Monte Albán I; the first-order center in each subregion

is not included.


subregions during Late Monte Albán I; the first-order


441–452). Analysis of covariance, or AN-

COVA, is a hybrid of analysis of variance

and regression (Wilkinson et al. 1996: 441).

The method assesses the degree to which

group membership (called a factor, usually a

nominal-scale variable) affects the relation-

ships between two continuously measured

(or ratio-scale) variables, one of which is

called the covariate and the other the depen-dent variable. In our application, the individ-

ual cases are the localities (once again, ex-

cluding the locality that contains the

first-order center in each subregion). The fac-tor is the subregion to which the localities be-

long, while the covariate is the agricultural

productivity (potential population) and the

dependent variable is the archaeological (esti-

mated) population. The ANCOVA will help

us assess whether subregional membership

exerts a significant effect on the relationship

between agricultural productivity and ar-

chaeological population.

Wilkinson et al. (1996:445) point out that

analysis of covariance is most appropriate

in situations where the regression lines for

the different subgroups have the same

slope; the technique essentially evaluates

whether the vertical differences between

the lines are statistically significant. A

glance at our Figs. 8–10 shows that parallel

slopes do not characterize these regres-

sions. However, a natural logarithmic

transformation of the dependent variable

(archaeological population) yields regres-

sion lines that, while not much different for

the Rosario phase (Fig. 11), are much closer

to parallel for Early MA I and Late MA I

(Figs. 12, 13) than was the case in Figs. 9

and 10 for the unmodified dependent vari-

able. If we conduct the ANCOVA on both

the transformed and untransformed data,

we can evaluate the statistical significance

of the results from a comparative perspec-

tive.

Table 3 provides output statistics associ-

FIG. 12. Scatter plot of the natural logarithm of the

archaeological population (based on occupation area)

versus agricultural productivity (expressed as poten-

tions with another contextual analysis tech-

nique, analysis of covariance (Boyd and

Iverson 1979: 9–12; Wilkinson et al. 1996:


ated with each set of ANCOVA analyses.
The table contains, for each analysis, the R2

value and the level of statistical significance

216

cultural productivity (potential population). As explained in the text, the first-order

associated with the effects of subregional

membership on the relationship between

archaeological population and agricultural

productivity (expressed as potential popu-

lation). As we have done in earlier analyses,

let us view the statistical results from a

comparative perspective in order to discern

trends. Whether one looks at the ANCOVA

as performed on the unmodified dependent

variable (archaeological population) or the

transformed dependent variable (natural

logarithm of archaeological population),

the overall pattern is the same. The effects

of subregional membership become in-

creasingly significant (i.e., the probability

that the effects are due to chance decline) as

we proceed from the Rosario phase to Early

MA I to Late MA I, peaking during Late

MA I at significance levels of 0.001 and

0.005, in the analyses with the untrans-

formed dependent variable and trans-

formed dependent variable, respectively

(Table 3). The R2 values also show a pattern

of increase between the Rosario phase and

Late MA I, peaking at 0.217 (untransformed

dependent variable) and 0.262 (trans-

formed dependent variable). We suggest

that the multilevel regression lines for Late

MA I (Fig. 13) resemble the pattern (shown

center in each subregion is excluded from

(buffer) zone during the Rosario phase.

in Fig. 1c) that Heisler and Damuth (1987)

have associated with situations where in-

creases in a trait’s value are linked to in-

creases in both group-level and individual-

level fitness. As noted earlier, we would ex-

pect such a pattern of multilevel selection

to be associated with driven evolutionary

trends.

In sum, the results of the parallel regres-

sions and the analysis of covariance are

consistent with both the Interdependent Se-

lection Hypothesis and the Inter-Subregion

Competition Hypothesis: (1) there is evi-

dence of greater interdependence between

the local and subregional levels of selection

within the Etla/Central subregion than

within the Tlacolula and Ocotlán/Zimatlán

subregions, and this interdependence in-

creased over time from the Rosario phase

through Early MA I to Late MA I; and (2)

there is evidence that inter-subregional se-

lection increased in relative importance

over the same period, peaking in Late MA I.

We contend that support is lent to McShea’s

(1994) theory of evolutionary trends and

the Rival Polity Model (Marcus and Flan-

nery 1996: 163; Feinman 1998: 128–129),

from which the two hypotheses were de-

rived.

Our finding that inter-subregional selec-

tion increased between the Rosario phase

and Late MA I would imply that competi-

this analysis; also excluded is the Central

SPENCER AND REDMOND

TABLE 3Summary Statistics of Analysis of Covariance by Phase

Untransformed Transformed

dependent variable dependent variable

(archaeological population) (Log[archaeological population])

Phase R2 Signif (p) R2 Signif (p)

Rosario .037 .514 .095 .17

Early MA I .125 .113 .174 .035

Late MA I .217 .001 .262 .005

Note. The significance level presented is that associated with the effects of subre-

gional membership on the relationship between archaeological population and agri-

tion among subregions became stronger

over this time frame. As a further test of this

implication, we should look for indepen-

dent archaeological evidence of inter-subre-

gional competition, such as the burning of

settlements, the building of fortifications,

and other manifestations of hostilities at

key subregional centers. As it happens, evi-


dence of this kind has recently been recov-

ered at San Martín Tilcajete, the first-order

center of the Ocotlán/Zimatlán subregion.

SAN MARTIN TILCAJETE: RESEARCHAT A SUBREGIONAL CENTER

In 1993, the authors initiated the Tilcajete

Project, a multiyear program of intensive

mapping, surface collecting, and excava-

tion at three closely related archaeological

sites, El Mogote (SMT-11a), El Palenque

(SMT-11b), and Los Mogotes (SMT-23), all

situated near the present town of San

Martín Tilcajete in the district of Ocotlán,

Oaxaca (Fig. 14). The sites were located in

1978 by the Oaxaca Settlement Pattern Pro-

FIG. 14. The archaeological sites of El Mogote (S

(SMT-23), located near the present town of San Mar

intensive mapping and controlled surface

collecting at the three sites, followed by ex-

tensive excavations in 1995–1999. Three

seasons of excavation have occurred at both

El Mogote and El Palenque, while Los

Mogotes received its first season of excava-

tion in 1999 under the direction of Christina

Elson. Although our work is continuing,

some of the preliminary results bear di-

rectly on the present discussion.

A Rival Polity

At El Mogote (SMT-11a), our intensive

surface collections found evidence of a 25-

ha Rosario phase occupation, less than half

the size of the 60–65 hectares of Rosario

phase occupation at San José Mogote (Mar-

cus and Flannery 1996: 125) but still much

larger than any other Rosario phase settle-

ment in the Ocotlán/Zimatlán region.


These data indicate that Tilcajete was al-

e

ld

ject (Blanton et al. 1982). During 1993–1994,

members of the Tilcajete Project carried out

ready a key subregional center by th

Rosario phase, an interpretation that wou

MT-11a), El Palenque (SMT-11b), and Los Mogotes

tín Tilcajete, Ocotlán, Oaxaca.

D

agree with the previously stated views of

other Oaxaca researchers (Blanton et al.

1999: 42; Kowalewski et al. 1989: 80; Marcus

and Flannery 1996:126). During Early MA I,

occupation at El Mogote grew substantially

to cover 52.8 ha (Fig. 15). Our excavations

have shown that the 2.2-ha plaza was laid

out at the onset of Early MA I. Oriented to

17° east of magnetic north (or 25° east of

true north), the plaza contained two

mounds in its center and other mounds

arranged around all four sides. In view of

the substantial occupation and large plaza,

it seems clear that El Mogote continued to

be the first-order center of the Ocotlán/Zi-

218 SPENCER AN

matlán subregion during Early MA I, as

intensive surface collections of the Tilcajete Project

plane map made by the authors in 1993).

The contextual analysis of the regional

settlement pattern data implied that the

Ocotlán/Zimatlán subregion was not a par-

ticipant in the Monte Albán phenomenon

during Early MA I, but was instead a rival

polity. Our field observations at El Mogote

are consistent with this view. First, neither

the orientation nor the configuration of

Early MA I mounds at El Mogote is similar

to what is known of Monte Albán’s Main

Plaza at this time. Second, given the large

size of the site and its plaza, it is notable that

we found relatively few examples of

the most elaborate Early MA I ceramics

known for Monte Albán (Caso et al. 1967;

REDMOND

Kowalewski et al. 1978). This paucity of the

Marcus and Flannery (1996: 163) have sug-

gested.

fanciest Early MA I ceramics at Tilcajete was

also reported by Blanton et al. (1982: 57). In

FIG. 15. El Mogote (SMT-11a), showing the plaza with major mounds as well as the locations of the

(schematic map, based on a detailed alidade and

T

particular, we found relatively few of the

common Early MA I cremas, such as Types

C.2 and C.4, which Feinman (1982: 188–191)

concluded were produced in the vicinity of

Monte Albán in the Etla/Central subregion

(in contrast to café and gris wares, which

were produced throughout much of the Val-

ley).1,* Most of the Early MA I ceramic as-

semblage at Tilcajete appears to consist of lo-

cally made wares, generically similar but

not identical to contemporaneous ceramics

at Monte Albán. Third, we found much evi-

dence that the El Mogote plaza area was

abandoned in a conflagration at the inter-

face between Early MA I and Late MA I.

Throughout our excavations on the north-

ern and eastern sides of the plaza we ob-

served that the uppermost floors of the

plaza and adjacent buildings were littered

with charcoal as well as burned earth,

adobe, and stone. Within this layer of char-

coal and burned stone we found a few

sherds of Type G.12, a bowl with combed

designs on its interior base; this type was not

otherwise present in the El Mogote plaza

constructions. The occurrence of Type G.12

in these contexts of abandonment is chrono-

logically significant. Caso et al. (1967:25–26)

reported that they first found G.12 sherds in

their Monte Albán Ib deposits, although

they were much more frequent in Monte

Albán Ic. Marcus and Flannery (1996:144)

suggest that MA Ia and MA Ic should be

considered discrete phases (corresponding

to our Early MA I and Late MA I phases, re-

spectively), with MA Ib “serving as the tran-

sition between them.” The first appearance

of Type G.12 (combed bottom), therefore,

probably dates to what we would call the

Early MA I/Late MA I interface.

During Late MA I, the El Mogote plaza

appears to have fallen into disuse. Instead,

a new plaza was built on the opposite side


of a barranca to the west and some 800 m

uphill, at the El Palenque site (SMT-11b)

(Fig. 16); the vertical difference between the

*See Notes section at end of paper for all footnotes.

two plazas is 30 m. Our intensive collec-

tions and excavations here have shown that

El Palenque was a relatively short-lived oc-

cupation: it was first inhabited in Late MA I

and was abandoned by the early years of

MA II. The Late MA I plaza at El Palenque

has precisely the same orientation, and is

strikingly similar in configuration to, the

Early MA I plaza at El Mogote. Like the ear-

lier plaza, the El Palenque plaza is oriented

17° east of magnetic north and has two

mounds in the middle and other mounds

around all four sides (Fig. 16). The slightly

smaller area of the El Palenque plaza (1.6 ha

vs the 2.2 ha of El Mogote), can probably be

understood as a practical response to the

challenge of building on a narrower pied-

mont ridge in the higher location.

The architectural continuity from El

Mogote to El Palenque, we suggest, reflects

the persistence of a local tradition of plaza

construction from Early MA I to Late MA I.

A reasonable interpretation is that the El

Mogote plaza was abandoned after being

partially burned in a raid, at which point a

decision was made to rebuild the plaza in a

higher, more defensible location. It is note-

worthy that the El Palenque site is pro-

tected by stone walls that traverse the site

along its gradual southern flank (Fig. 16).

An excavated cross section of one of these

walls has shown that it dates to Late MA I.

The continuation of the traditional plaza

layout in a new, more defensible location

probably indicates that the Tilcajete people

withstood the raid, even though they con-

sidered it serious enough to warrant mov-

ing the ceremonial plaza of their center

from El Mogote to a new location uphill.

Population at the site continued to grow.

While it is clear that the El Mogote plaza

was no longer in use in Late MA I, we

found evidence of Late MA I residential oc-

cupation over 43.5 ha of the El Mogote site.

Since there were also 28 hectares of Late

HE VALLEY OF OAXACA 219

MA I occupation at the El Palenque site, the

total habitation area at San Martín Tilcajete

during Late MA I was 71.5 ha.

FIG. 16. El Palenque (SMT-11b), showing the plaza with major mounds as well as the locations of the

t

The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of

the regional settlement pattern data indi-

cated that inter-subregional selection inten-

sified between Early MA I and Late MA I. El

Palenque, like El Mogote, shows signs of in-

dependence from Monte Albán. Although

G.12 bowls and other Late MA I diagnostic

types on gris paste are common at El

Palenque, our excavations there have found

only trace amounts of the thin-walled, well-

burnished cremas (such as Types C.6, C.7,

C.13, and C.20) that begin during Late MA I

intensive surface collections of the Tilcajete Projec

plane table map made by the authors in 1994).

at Monte Albán itself (Caso et al.

1967:46–47). Although our analysis is still

ongoing, preliminary results indicate that

the relative frequency of these Late MA I

cremas is even lower than that of the Early

MA I cremas such as Types C.2 and C.4. In

view of the aforementioned likelihood that

fancy crema ware was produced only in the

vicinity of Monte Albán (in contrast to the

gris ware), the paucity of Late MA I cremasat Tilcajete probably means that ceramic ex-

changes between the Monte Albán area and

the Tilcajete area were substantially re-

stricted at this time. Consistent with this in-

terpretation of reduced exchange is the fact

(schematic map, based on a detailed alidade and


that we have recovered much locally avail-

able chert but remarkably little obsidian in

our El Palenque excavations, in spite of the

fact that we have excavated extensively in

ceremonial contexts as well as in elite and

nonelite residential contexts. Because

Monte Albán lay between Tilcajete and the

important obsidian sources of Central Mex-

ico, we suspect that Monte Albán was pre-

venting the flow of traded obsidian from

reaching El Palenque. We suggest that the

barriers that prevented Late MA I cremasand obsidian from reaching El Palenque

were primarily political in nature.

Our El Palenque fieldwork has recovered

evidence indicating that hostilities were

even more intense in Late MA I than in

Early MA I. Despite the fact that El

Palenque was in a defensible location and

was protected by stone walls, the site was

apparently the target of an attack that re-

sulted in a major conflagration and the

complete abandonment of the community.

In our excavation Area I we have excavated

a palatial residence (Structure 7) measuring

16 m 3 16 m that was completely burned

and abandoned. Carbonized roof beams

rested where they had fallen in rooms and

corridors. Whole vessels lay upon floors,

smashed by fallen debris. Moreover, unlike

the partial abandonment that occurred at El

Mogote at the end of Early MA I, when the

El Palenque plaza was burned and aban-

doned, the entire Late MA I residential zone

was abandoned as well.

Evidence of State Institutions

The results of the parallel regressions

(Table 2) were consistent with the proposi-

tion that the Etla/Central subregion during

Late MA I should exhibit the greatest inter-

dependence between levels of selection. In

the subregion where the first-order center

had the greatest need for mobilized sur-

plus, the population in the subordinate lo-

calities was distributed in a way that much

more closely matched the distribution of


agricultural resources than was the case in

the other two subregions. A reasonable in-

ference from this pattern is that there was

more coordination between the first-order

center and the localities in the Etla/Central

subregion than in Tlacolula and Ocotlán/

Zimatlán. We propose that by Late MA I the

political organization centered at Monte

Albán was beginning to engage in the kinds

of regulatory interventions on the local

level that require the delegation of author-

ity to specialized administrators. Such dele-

gation of authority is compatible with a

centralized administration that is also inter-

nally specialized, i.e., one organized along

the lines of a state (Spencer 1987, 1990, 1998;

Wright 1977, 1984). In line with this propo-

sition, we should expect to find evidence of

key Zapotec state institutions appearing by

Late MA I. Flannery and Marcus have ar-

gued that among the most important of

these institutions are the palace and the

multiroom temple (Flannery 1983, 1998;

Flannery and Marcus 1976, 1990; Marcus

and Flannery 1996: 180–182). We would ex-

pect these institutions to be most evident at

the first-order center of the state polity.

Unfortunately, due to later construction,

it is not yet possible to determine whether

the palace or the multiroom temple existed

at Monte Albán itself during Late MA I

(Flannery and Marcus 1990: 60; Marcus and

Flannery 1996: 165). We can, however, ex-

amine the Late MA I occupation at Tilcajete,

the likely first-order center of an au-

tonomous, rival polity. If the polity cen-

tered at Monte Albán was beginning to de-

velop state institutions by Late MA I, we

might find evidence that leaders of such a

rival polity were choosing to emulate key

aspects of institutional development in the

region’s most precocious and impressive

polity. Their motivation for doing so might

have been not only to attempt to share in

the developing elite culture but also to rein-

force their own authority by adopting novel

institutional features.

In line with this reasoning, we should not


be surprised to find evidence of at least

some state institutions at Late MA I Tilca-

jete. Consider Structure 7, the aforemen-

on detailed field drawings made by E. Redmond, J. Sherman, C. Glew, and L. Villamil in 1997–1999;

tioned palatial residence in Area I (Mound

I), on the north side of the El Palenque

plaza (Fig. 17). We have dated Structure 7

securely to Late MA I. Its stone foundations

measured 16 m by 16 m and comprised

eight rooms arranged around an interior

patio; on the western side of the patio was a

two-chambered hearth. The stone founda-

tions of the structure originally supported

walls made of adobe bricks, some of which

were preserved by the fire that coincided

orientation is relative to magnetic north).

with the site’s abandonment. Structure 7 is

very similar in size and complexity to later

Classic period Zapotec palaces at Monte

Albán (Flannery 1983, 1998; Marcus and

Flannery 1996:208–211); however, the Late

MA I date of Structure 7 makes it the earli-

est example of a palatial residence thus far

excavated in the Oaxaca Valley.

In Area G (Mound G), on the eastern side

of the El Palenque plaza, we excavated

Structure 16 (Fig. 18), which consisted of

two large contiguous rooms (one measur-

ing 12.8 m by 2.35 m, and the other 9.8 m by

2.2 m), and two smaller rooms (measuring


FIG. 17. Structure 7 in Area I of El Palenque (SMT-11b), San Martín Tilcajete (schematic plan, based

3.4 m by 2.2 m and 2.75 m by 2.2 m), one at

either end of the major rooms. All four

rooms of Structure 16 (like those of Struc-

detailed field drawings made by E. Redmond and A.

ture 7) had well-preserved stone founda-

tions. Although Structure 16 is somewhat

similar to the multiroom temples that have

been excavated in MA II (and later) con-

texts at San José Mogote and Monte Albán

(Flannery and Marcus 1976; Marcus and

Flannery 1996: 182), Structure 16 dates to

Late MA I. It may therefore be our oldest

excavated example of a multiroom temple

in the Oaxaca Valley. Like Structure 7,

Structure 16 shows signs of having been

burned at the time of its abandonment.

Despite the overall similarity between

Balkansky in 1998; orientation is relative to magnetic

north).

the plaza layouts at El Palenque and El

Mogote, only El Palenque contained exam-

ples of a multiroom temple and a palace. At

El Mogote, our excavations exposed a

three-room high-status residence at Mound

A, on the plaza’s northern side, and a one-

room temple structure at Mound K, on the

plaza’s eastern side (Fig. 15). Both struc-

tures date to Early MA I, and neither corre-

sponds to the architectural forms that have

been linked to the key institutions of the

later Zapotec state (Flannery 1983, 1998;

Flannery and Marcus 1976). The Tilcajete

data therefore provide evidence for the ap-

pearance of state institutions during Late

MA I but not earlier.

Valley-Wide Integration

After the abandonment of El Palenque,

the focus of occupation in the Tilcajete area

moved to Los Mogotes (SMT-23), a hilltop

site about 1 km to the north (Fig. 14). Los

Mogotes has a substantial MA II occupation

but only a small (0.12-ha) plaza surrounded

by three mounds. Elson’s continuing inves-

tigations are aimed, in part, at investigating

whether Los Mogotes became a secondary

center of the MA II state (Elson 1999). Mar-

cus and Flannery (1996: 172–178) have sug-

gested that all major subregions of the Oax-

aca Valley were politically integrated under

Monte Albán’s control by MA II. If so, then

we would expect our contextual analysis of

the regional settlement pattern data to find

evidence of a lessening of inter-subregional

selection (a consequence of less competition

among subregions) between Late MA I and

MA II.

Let us test this expectation of weakening

inter-subregional selection by carrying out

an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on all

the sites in the three branches of the Valley,

with the exception of the first-order re-

gional center, Monte Albán. If we subdivide

the localities into the same subregions that

we used for Early MA I and Late MA I, and

use subregional membership as the factor,

FIG. 18. Structure 16 in Area G of El Palenque (SMT-

11b), San Martín Tilcajete (schematic plan, based on

the natural logarithm of archaeological

population as the dependent variable, and the

agricultural productivity (potential popula-

D

then declines in Monte Albán II. The analysis implies

tion) as the covariate, the resulting AN-

COVA for MA II is associated with a 0.404

level of statistical significance. As depicted

in Fig. 19, this result implies that there was

less intense selection among subregions in

MA II than during Late MA I, Early MA I,

or the Rosario phase. Such a weakening of

inter-subregional selection, we suggest,

was a consequence of the political integra-

tion of all subregions of the Oaxaca Valley

that was achieved by MA II. It is undoubt-

edly significant that this Valley-wide inte-

gration took place immediately after the

phase (Late MA I) that showed the

strongest evidence of inter-subregional se-

lection. Moreover, as we have seen, Late

MA I was also the phase with the strongest

evidence of hostilities at Tilcajete, the subre-

gional center of Ocotlán/Zimatlán. We

therefore propose that Monte Albán made

considerable use of aggressive action as it

that Late Monte Albán I is the phase with the greatest

amount of inter-subregional competition.

224 SPENCER AN

FIG. 19. Plot of ANCOVA significance levels,

Rosario phase through Period II. The significance val-

ues on the y-axis are presented in reverse order to em-

phasize that the intensity of inter-subregional selection

increases as the significance levels decrease. The plot

shows that selection among subregions increases from

the Rosario phase through Late Monte Albán I, and

sought to integrate the major subregions of

the Oaxaca Valley into the early Zapotec

state.

CONCLUSION: THE SHAPE OF THEEARLY ZAPOTEC STATE

Taken together, the findings of the Tilca-

jete Project and the contextual analysis of

the regional settlement pattern data lead to

two major conclusions: (1) the Zapotec state

emerged during Late Monte Albán I, in the

context of Monte Albán’s attempts to sub-

due and incorporate competing, rival poli-

ties in the Oaxaca Valley; and yet, (2) all

three major subregions of the Oaxaca Valley

were not integrated into a single state until

Monte Albán II. These conclusions are con-

sistent with the Rival Polity Model of MA I

political organization in the Oaxaca Valley

(Feinman 1998; Marcus and Flannery

1996:163). During Late MA I, Monte Albán

evidently presided over an early state

polity that included the Etla/Central subre-

gion, while Tlacolula and Ocotlán/Zi-

matlán continued as rival polities that were

also adopting some of the trappings of state

organization, perhaps in response to the de-

velopments at Monte Albán.

It is important to recognize that, even

though the Tlacolula and Ocotlán/Zimatlán

subregions appear to have maintained their

autonomy until MA II, Monte Albán was al-

ready expanding its political domain north-

ward during Late MA I. Abundant evidence

of a hostile Zapotec intrusion was recovered

by the authors in the Cañada de Cuicatlán, a

small canyon some 50 km north of the Etla

branch of the Oaxaca Valley (Redmond 1983;

Spencer 1982; Spencer and Redmond 1997).

Recent radiocarbon analyses date the onset

of the Zapotec domination of the Cañada at

300 B.C., corresponding to the interface be-

tween the Perdido phase (750-300 B.C.) and

the Lomas phase (300 B.C.-A.D. 200); the

new dates thus yield a close alignment of the

Lomas phase with the Late Monte Albán I

and Monte Albán II phases, combined

(Spencer and Redmond 2001). In the Cañada

REDMOND

locality of Dominguillo, the Perdido phase

village site of Llano Perdido was attacked

and burned. The site was completely aban-

doned and the local people were shifted to a

nearby ridge (the site of Loma de La Coy-

otera), where major alterations ensued in

their social, economic, political, and reli-

gious organization. Indigenous institutions

were eliminated and replaced by elements

compatible with Zapotec imperial interests.

A dozen Cañada communities in all received

such treatment at the hands of the Zapotec,

who dominated the canyon throughout the

Lomas phase. The Zapotec aimed military

and diplomatic actions at other regions as

well, eventually subduing a 20,000 square-

kilometer area around the Oaxaca Valley,

from the northern limits of the Cañada to

nearly the Pacific coast (Marcus and Flan-

nery 1996: 206–207); they boasted of their

territorial limits in the “conquest slab” in-

scriptions of Building J, erected in the Main

Plaza of Monte Albán in MA II (Caso 1947;

Marcus 1976, 1980, 1992a: 394–400). To incor-

porate such a large area, Monte Albán of

course needed skilled diplomacy, but, per-

haps more importantly, it also needed to de-

velop a powerful military and an internally

specialized administration capable of man-

aging far-flung tributary provinces through

the effective delegation of authority—in

short, a state form of government. At the

same time, the expansionist strategy would

have brought considerable resources and

prestige to Monte Albán’s ruling elite, thus

underwriting and legitimizing the necessary

military and administrative transformation

(Spencer 1990, 1998).

What is especially relevant to the present

paper is the timing of the Zapotec interven-

tion in the Cañada. In our Lomas phase de-

posits at Loma de La Coyotera we excavated

many examples of Type G.12 (combed bot-

tom) bowls—along with numerous thin-

walled (Late MA I/MA II) cremas such as C.6,

C.7, C. 13, and C.20. By contrast, in our exca-

vations at the earlier village of Llano Per-

dido, we found no examples of the G.12


(combed bottom) bowl—nor any fragments

of the C.6, C.7, C13, or C.20 types (Spencer

and Redmond 1997:163–164, 183–189, Table

4.2). This probably means that the Cañada in-

tervention occurred at about the same time

as the attack on the El Mogote sector at Tilca-

jete.2 While the entity responsible for both at-

tacks was most likely the Monte Albán polity,

the outcomes of the two actions were quite

different. The attack on El Mogote (at the

Early MA I/Late MA I interface) evidently

did not result in a dramatic alteration of local

institutions, although it did convince the

Tilcajete polity to rebuild their plaza in a

higher, more defensible location at the El

Palenque site. The local population grew,

and a substantial habitation zone was built at

El Palenque, joining the residential sector of

El Mogote (most of which continued in use).

The later attack on El Palenque, which came

at the end of Late MA I, was far more devas-

tating, and the El Palenque plaza along with

the residential sectors at both El Palenque

and El Mogote were completely abandoned.

After this attack, the Ocotlán/Zimatlán sub-

region was integrated into the growing do-

main of the Monte Albán state.

Why did the earlier attack against El

Mogote fail to bring the Ocotlán/Zimatlán

subregion under Monte Albán’s rule, while

the campaign against Llano Perdido and

other Cañada villages met with such suc-

cess? Even though the Cañada is much far-

ther from Monte Albán than the Tilcajete

area (80 km vs 25 km), the lower population

of the Cañada would have made it an easier

target for Monte Albán. The total occupa-

tion area of all 12 Perdido-phase sites in the

Cañada was 37.4 ha (Redmond 1983: 64),

whereas the Early MA I occupation just at

the El Mogote sector of Tilcajete covered

52.8 ha, and additional supporters presum-

ably could have been mustered from

nearby subject villages. The Ocotlán/Zi-

matlán subregion at the end of Early MA I

was simply a tougher foe than the Cañada.

By the end of Late MA I, however, the

forces from Monte Albán—having gained


experience in militaristic statecraft and

grown substantially in population size—re-

turned to Tilcajete, and this time they fin-

In fact, since a few G.12 combed bottom sherds

ished the job. They burned the site to the

ground and (evidently) moved the surviv-

ing inhabitants to Los Mogotes (SMT-23),

which then may have become a secondary

center of the Monte Albán II state (Elson

1999; Marcus and Flannery 1996: 173–175).

Recent and ongoing investigations lend

support to the view that Monte Albán did

not expand its territory outward with grad-

ual, concentric regularity (see Marcus 1992b;

Spencer 1982: 256). Rather, the growth of the

Zapotec state was episodic and notably

asymmetric, the result of a series of preda-

tory initiatives that were aimed at areas both

near and far, with varying records of success.

Some distant but weak polities, like the

Cañada, were subjugated before other

226 SPENCER AND

closer—but stronger—ones like Tilcajete

were finally brought under Monte Albán’s

control.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the following organizations for their

generous support of our Tilcajete Project: the National

Science Foundation (SBR-9303129), the Foundation for

the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., the

Heinz Family Foundation (Latin American Archaeology

Program), the National Geographic Society (Committee

for Research and Exploration), the University of Michi-

gan Museum of Anthropology, and the American Mu-

seum of Natural History. Permission to conduct the

Tilcajete fieldwork was granted by the Consejo de Ar-

queología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia

(INAH); Dr. Mari Carmen Serra Puche and Ing. Joaquín

García-Bárcena have served sequentially as president of

the Consejo de Arqueología during the years of the

Tilcajete Project. We thank Antrop. Eduardo López

Calzada, Director of the Centro INAH Oaxaca, as well as

Dra. Nelly Robles and Arqgo. Raúl Matadamas, also of

the Centro INAH Oaxaca, for their unwavering support

and friendship. Christina Elson, Luca Casparis, Jason

Sherman, Christopher Glew, Laura Villamil, Andrew

Balkansky, Scott Hutson, and Alan Covey have all di-

rected teams of excavators at various times over the past

five field seasons. Special thanks are due to Gary Fein-

man and Linda Nicholas for graciously making avail-

able to us the Oaxaca Settlement Pattern Project’s orig-

inal computer files containing the agricultural

productivity and population data by grid unit for the

Oaxaca Valley. For reading and commenting upon ear-

lier versions of this paper, we thank Kent Flannery,

Joyce Marcus, Gary Feinman, Linda Nicholas, Robert

Carneiro, Christina Elson, and Alan Covey. We are also

grateful to John O’Shea and the anonymous reviewers

REDMOND

for their helpful criticisms and suggestions. Bridget

Thomas, of the Division of Anthropology at the Amer-

ican Museum of Natural History, produced the illus-

trations.

NOTES

1Caso et al. (1967) divided Monte Albán’s pottery

into four basic paste colors, gris (gray), café (brown),

crema (cream), and amarillo (yellow). Within each paste

color, individual pottery types were given numbers,

such as C.2 (“crema type no. 2”).2

were found in the abandonment layer of El Mogote, it

is possible that the attack on Llano Perdido occurred a

bit earlier than the El Mogote raid.

REFERENCES CITED

Arnold, A. J., and K. Fristrup

1982 The theory of evolution by natural selection: A

hierarchical expansion. Paleobiology 8:113–129.

Barton, C. Michael, and Geoffrey A. Clark (Editors)

1998 Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary theory andarchaeological explanation. American Anthropo-

logical Association, Archaeological Papers 7.

Blanton, Richard E.

1978 Monte Albán: Settlement patterns at the ancientZapotec capital. Academic Press, New York.

Blanton, Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary M.

Feinman, and Jill Appel

1982 Monte Albán’s hinterland, part I: Prehispanic set-tlement patterns of the central and southern partsof the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. University of

Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs

15.

Blanton, Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary M.

Feinman, and Laura Finsten

1993 Ancient Mesoamerica: A comparison of change inthree regions. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam-

bridge.

Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A.

Kowalewski, and Linda M. Nicholas

1999 Ancient Oaxaca: The Monte Albán state. Cam-

bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Bonner, John T.

1988 The evolution of complexity. Princeton Univ.

Press, Princeton.

Boyd, Lawrence H., Jr., and Gudmund R. Iverson

1979 Contextual analysis: Concepts and statistical tech-niques. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Boyd, Robert, and Peter Richerson

1985 Culture and the evolutionary process. Univ. of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.

1976 Regional growth in the eastern Valley of Mex-

ico: A test of the “population pressure” hy-

pothesis. In The early Mesoamerican village,

edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 234–249. Acad-

emic Press, New York.

Carneiro, Robert L.

1970 A theory of the origin of the state. Science169:733–738.

1978 Political expansion as an expression of the

principle of competitive exclusion. In Originsof the state: The anthropology of political evolution,

edited by R. Cohen and E. R. Service, pp.

205–223. Institute for the Study of Human Is-

sues, Philadelphia.

1981 The chiefdom: Precursor of the state. In The tran-sition to statehood in the New World, edited by

Grant Jones and Robert Kautz, pp. 37–79. Cam-

bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

1992 The role of natural selection in the evolution of

culture. Cultural Dynamics 5:113– 140.

Caso, Alfonso

1947 Calendario y escritura de las antiguas culturas

de Monte Albán. In Obras completas de MiguelOthón de Mendizábal, Vol. 1. Mexico.

Caso, Alfonso, Ignacio Bernal, and Jorge Acosta

1967 La cerámica de Monte Albán. Memorias del Insti-

tuto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 13,

Mexico.

Crumley, Carole L.

1995 Heterarchy and the analysis of complex soci-

eties. In Heterarchy and the analysis of complexsocieties, edited by Robert Ehrenreich, Carole

Crumley, and J. E. Levy, pp. 1–5. American An-

thropological Association, Archaeological Pa-

pers 6.

Dawkins, Richard

1976 The selfish gene. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

1982 The extended phenotype: The long reach of thegene. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

Dunnell, Robert C.

1980 Evolutionary theory and archaeology. Ad-vances in Archaeological Method and Theory3:35–99.

1989 Aspects of the application of evolutionary the-

ory in archaeology. In Archaeological thought inAmerica, edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky,

pp. 35–49. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Eldredge, Niles

1985 Unfinished synthesis: Biological hierarchies andmodern evolutionary thought. Oxford Univ.

Press, New York.


1995 Reinventing Darwin: The great debate at the hightable of evolutionary theory. Wiley, New York.

Elson, Christina

1999 Excavations at Los Mogotes, San Martín Tilca-

jete, Oaxaca: A Terminal Formative subre-

gional center in the Valley of Oaxaca. Project

proposal to the Foundation for the Advance-

ment of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.

Feinman, Gary M.

1982 Patterns in ceramic production and distribution,

periods Early I through V. In Monte Albán’s hin-terland, part I: The prehispanic settlement patterns ofthe central and southern parts of the Valley of Oax-aca, Mexico, edited by Richard E. Blanton,

Stephen Kowalewski, Gary Feinman, and Jill

Appel, pp. 181–206. University of Michigan Mu-

seum of Anthropology, Memoirs 15.

1998 Scale and social organization: Perspectives on

the ancient state. In Archaic states, edited by

Gary Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 95–133.

School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Feinman, Gary M., and Linda M. Nicholas

1990 Settlement and land use in ancient Oaxaca. In

Debating Oaxaca archaeology, edited by Joyce

Marcus, pp. 71–113. University of Michigan

Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological

Papers 84.

Flannery, Kent V.

1972 The cultural evolution of civilizations. AnnualReview of Ecology and Systematics 3:399–426.

1983 The legacy of the Early Urban Period: An eth-

nohistoric approach to Monte Albán’s temples,

residences, and royal tombs. In The cloud peo-ple: Divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixteccivilizations, edited by Kent V. Flannery and

Joyce Marcus, pp. 132–136. Academic Press,

New York.

1986 Guilá Naquitz: Archaic foraging and early agricul-ture in Oaxaca, Mexico. Academic Press, Or-

lando.

1998 The ground plans of archaic states. In Archaicstates, edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce

Marcus, pp. 15–57. School of American Re-

search Press, Santa Fe.

Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus

1976 Evolution of the public building in Formative

Oaxaca. In Cultural change and continuity: Es-says in honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by

Charles Cleland, pp. 205–221. Academic Press,

New York.

1983 The origins of the state in Oaxaca: Editors’ in-

troduction. In The cloud people: Divergent evolu-tion of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations,

edited by Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus, pp.

79–83. Academic Press, New York.


1990 Borrón y cuenta nueva: Setting Oaxaca’s archaeo-

logical record straight. In Debating Oaxaca archae-ology, edited by Joyce Marcus, pp. 17–69. Uni-

versity of Michigan Museum of Anthropology,

Anthropological Papers 84.

Goodnight, Charles J., James M. Schwartz, and Lori

Stevens

1992 Contextual analysis of models of group selec-

tion, soft selection, hard selection, and the evo-

lution of altruism. The American Naturalist140:743–761.

Gould, Stephen J.

1980 Is a new and general theory of evolution

emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130.

1988 Trends as changes in variance: A new slant on

progress and directionality in evolution. Jour-nal of Paleontology 62:319–329.

Heisler, I. Lorraine, and John Damuth

1987 A method for analyzing selection in hierarchi-

cally structured populations. The AmericanNaturalist 130:582–602.

Kowalewski, Stephen A.

1976 Prehispanic settlement patterns of the central partof the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D. disserta-

tion, Department of Anthropology, University

of Arizona, Tucson.

Kowalewski, Stephen A., Charles Spencer, and Elsa

Redmond

1978 Description of ceramic categories. In MonteAlbán: Settlement patterns at the ancient Zapoteccapital, edited by R. E. Blanton, pp. 167–193.

Academic Press, New York.

Kowalewski, Stephen A., Gary M. Feinman, Laura

Finsten, Richard E. Blanton, and Linda Nicholas

1989 Monte Albán’s hinterland, part II: Prehispanic set-tlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlán,the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. University of

Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs

23.

Lewontin, Richard C.

1970 The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecologyand Systematics 1:1–18.

Lyman, R. Lee, and Michael J. O’Brien

1998 The goals of evolutionary archaeology: His-

tory and explanation. Current Anthropology39:615–652.

Marcus, Joyce

1976 Iconography of militarism at Monte Albán and

neighboring sites in the Valley of Oaxaca. In

The origins of religious art and iconography in Pre-classic Mesoamerica, edited by H. B. Nicholson,

pp. 123–139. UCLA Latin American Center,

Los Angeles.

1980 Zapotec writing. Scientific American 242: 50–64.

1992a Mesoamerican writing systems: Propaganda,myth, and history in four ancient civilizations.

Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.

1992b Dynamic cycles of Mesoamerican states. Na-

228 SPENCER AN

tional Geographic Research and Exploration8:392–411.

Marcus, Joyce, and Kent V. Flannery

1996 Zapotec civilization: How urban society evolved inMexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson,

London.

McKinney, M. L.

1990 Trends in body-size evolution. In Evolutionarytrends, edited by K. J. MacNamara, pp. 75–118.

Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson.

McShea, Daniel W.

1994 Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary

trends. Evolution 48:1747–1763.

Newell, Norman D.

1949 Phyletic size increase, an important trend il-

lustrated by fossil invertebrates. Evolution3:103–124.

Nicholas, Linda

1989 Land use in prehispanic Oaxaca. In MonteAlbán’s hinterland, part II: Prehispanic settlementpatterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlán, the Valleyof Oaxaca, Mexico, by Stephen Kowalewski,

Gary Feinman, Laura Finsten, Richard Blan-

ton, and Linda Nicholas, pp. 449–505. Univer-

sity of Michigan Museum of Anthropology,

Memoirs 23.

Redmond, Elsa M.

1983 A fuego y sangre: Early Zapotec imperialism in theCuicatlán Cañada, Oaxaca. University of Michi-

gan Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs 16.

1998 Introduction: The dynamics of chieftaincy and

the development of chiefdoms. In Chiefdomsand chieftaincy in the Americas, edited by Elsa

M. Redmond, pp. 1–17. Univ. of Florida Press,

Gainesville.

Rindos, David

1984 The origin of agricultural systems: An evolution-ary perspective. Academic Press, New York.

1989 Undirected variation and the Darwinian ex-

planation of culture change. In Archaeologicalmethod and theory, edited by Michael Schiffer,

Vol. 1, pp. 1–45. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tuc-

son.

Rosenberg, Michael

1994 Pattern, process, and hierarchy in the evolu-

tion of culture. Journal of Anthropological Ar-chaeology 13:307–340.

Sanders, William T.

1974 Chiefdom to state: Political evolution at Kami-

naljuyú, Guatemala. In Reconstructing complexsocieties: An archaeological colloquium, edited by

Charlotte Moore, pp. 97–116. Supplement to

the Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch 20.

Saunders, P. T., and M. W. Ho

D REDMOND

1976 On the increase in complexity in evolution.

Journal of Theoretical Biology 63:375–384.

Seeley, T.

1989 The honey bee colony as a superorganism.

Teltser, Patrice (Editor)

1995 Evolutionary archaeology: Methodological issues.


American Scientist 77:546–553.

Sober, Elliott, and David S. Wilson

1998 Unto others: The evolution and psychology of un-selfish behavior. Harvard Univ. Press, Cam-

bridge.

Spencer, Charles S.

1982 The Cuicatlán Cañada and Monte Albán: A studyof primary state formation. Academic Press, New

York.

1987 Rethinking the chiefdom. In Chiefdoms in theAmericas, edited by Robert D. Drennan and

Carlos A. Uribe, pp. 369–390. Univ. Press of

America, Lanham, MD.

1990 On the tempo and mode of state formation:

Neoevolutionism reconsidered. Journal of An-thropological Archaeology 9:1–30.

1991 Coevolution and the development of Venezue-

lan chiefdoms. In Profiles in Cultural Evolution:Papers from a Conference in Honor of Elman R. Ser-vice, edited by A. Terry Rambo and Kathleen

Gillogly, pp. 137–165. University of Michigan

Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Pa-

pers 85.

1997 Evolutionary approaches in archaeology. Jour-nal of Archaeological Research 5:209–264.

1998 A mathematical model of primary state forma-

tion. Cultural Dynamics 10:5–20.

1999 Palatial digs. Natural History 108(2):94–95.

Spencer, Charles S., and Elsa M. Redmond

1997 Archaeology of the Cañada de Cuicatlán, Oaxaca.

American Museum of Natural History, An-

thropological Papers 80.

2001 The chronology of conquest: Implications of

new radiocarbon analyses from the Cañada de

Cuicatlán, Oaxaca. Latin American Antiquity (in

press)

SPSS, Inc.

1998 SYSTAT 8.0: Statistics. SPSS Science Marketing

Department, Chicago.

Stanley, Steven M.

1973 An explanation for Cope’s rule. Evolution27:1–26.

Steponaitis, Vincas

1981 Settlement hierarchies and political complex-

ity in nonmarket societies: The Formative pe-

riod in the Valley of Mexico. American Anthro-pologist 83:320–363.

Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Wilkinson, Leland, Grant Blank, and Christian Gruber

1996 Desktop data analysis with SYSTAT. Prentice

Hall, Saddle River, NJ.

Williams, George C.

1966 Adaptation and natural selection: A critique ofsome current evolutionary thought. Princeton

Univ. Press, Princeton.

1992 Natural selection: Domains, levels, and challenges.

Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

Wilson, David Sloan

1975 A general theory of group selection. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences72:143–146.

1976 Evolution on the level of communities. Science192:1358–1360.

1980 The natural selection of populations and communi-ties. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.

1983 The group selection controversy: History and

current status. Annual Review of Ecology andSystematics 14:159–187.

1989 Levels of selection: An alternative to individu-

alism in biology and the human sciences. So-cial Networks 11:257–272.

1992 Complex interactions in metacommunities,

with implications for biodiversity and higher

levels of selection. Ecology 73:1984– 2000.

Wilson, David S., and Elliott Sober

1989 Reviving the superorganism. Journal of Theoret-ical Biology 136:337–356.

1994 Reintroducing group selection to the human

behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sci-ences 17:585–654.

Wright, Henry T.

1977 Recent research on the origin of the state. An-nual Review of Anthropology 6:379–397.

1984 Prestate political formations. In On the evolu-tion of complex societies: Essays in honor of HarryHoijer 1982, edited by Timothy K. Earle, pp.

41–77. Undena Press, Malibu.

Wynne-Edwards, V. C.

1962 Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior.

Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.

1986 Evolution through group selection. Blackwell Sci-

entific, Oxford.

Multilevel Selection and Political Evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, 500-100 B.C.

Documents

Transcript of Multilevel Selection and Political Evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, 500-100 B.C.