This document discusses the development of early agriculture in Mesoamerican societies. It focuses on evidence of plant domestication and agricultural strategies from an Early Archaic site in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico representing over 10,000 years of human occupation. The document examines how changes in climate around 10,000-8,000 BC affected subsistence patterns and led humans to begin cultivating plants like maize and domesticating crops. It also analyzes how early cultivation and cooperation among groups in places like Guila Naquitz cave led to more permanent settlements and complex societies centered around agriculture by the Late Archaic period in Mesoamerica.
This paper is written to question the wide spread belief among anthropologists that pre historic hunter gatherers knew about agriculture long before agriculture began to be practiced. The paper suggests gradually accumulating human knowledge led to the development of agriculture, rather than population pressure, favourable mutations or convenient climate all of which would have occurred at various times long before agriculture was developed without leading to the discovery of agriculture.
This paper is written to question the wide spread belief among anthropologists that pre historic hunter gatherers knew about agriculture long before agriculture began to be practiced. The paper suggests gradually accumulating human knowledge led to the development of agriculture, rather than population pressure, favourable mutations or convenient climate all of which would have occurred at various times long before agriculture was developed without leading to the discovery of agriculture.
Unit 7: What's for Dinner Tonight? Evidence of Early AgricultureBig History Project
What do rice, maize, and eels have in common? All of these provide evidence for early farming cultures from across the globe.
Register to explore the whole course here: https://school.bighistoryproject.com/bhplive?WT.mc_id=Slideshare12202017
The Archaic and Formative Periods of MesoamericaMichael Love.docxmattinsonjanel
The Archaic and Formative Periods of Mesoamerica
Michael Love
Note: this piece is an article that I’m preparing for the Cambridge Encyclopedia of World
Prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn. It presents a very different perspective on
domestication, agriculture, and sedentism than the scenario found in your textbook. I, of course,
think that my synthesis of the data is much better, but your textbook gives the generally accepted
viewpoint. You can also note my points of disagreement with Jared Diamond. The dates in the
article are all calibrated radiocarbon dates; the presentation and your textbook both use
uncalibrated dates, so there are bound to be differences. The Cambridge Encyclopedia uses BCE
(before common era) and CE (common era) instead of BC/AD. I haven’t inserted the images into
this article, but most of the referenced items are found in the Powerpoint presentation.
Mesoamerica is one of the six or seven areas of the world where independent
domestication of plants and animals lead to the emergence of food production, and subsequently
civilization (Bellwood 2005; Smith 1998). Mesoamerica was once considered to have lagged
behind other regions of the world in agricultural origins, but evidence now places the beginnings
of food production soon after the onset of Holocene conditions. Similarly, the origins of
urbanism and state formation are now placed much earlier than would have been the case a
decade ago. Once thought to be hallmarks of the Classic Period (AD 250-900), both urban
settlements and state-level polities are now well attested before the end of the first millennium
BCE.
The time of first domestication and the development of social complexity are called the
Archaic and Formative periods. The Archaic begins with the onset of Holocene conditions about
10,000 years ago and continued up to the time of the adoption of pottery, ca 2000 BCE. The
Formative period (also called the Preclassic) succeeds the Archaic and ends at 250 CE. The
criteria for defining both periods have shifted in recent times, and the divisions have become
blurred. It was once thought that the joint appearance of agriculture, sedentism and pottery
defined the beginning of the Formative, but earlier placement of first domestication and
sedentism leaves only early pottery as the sole criterion. The end of the Formative period is also
very arbitrarily placed at 250 CE, as many traits previously used to define the succeeding Classic
period, including writing, calendrics and urbanism, were well attested in the Late Formative (400
BCE-250 CE).
The Archaic Period
The Archaic period was the time during which domestication, food production, and
sedentism developed from the preceding Paleo-Indian Period (Stark 1981). In contrast to the Old
World and South America, domesticated animals placed only a minor role in the development of
food production in Mesoamerica. Although domesticated mammals and birds including ...
Jericho, located in the West Bank region of the Middle East, is the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth.
Register to explore the whole course here: https://school.bighistoryproject.com/bhplive?WT.mc_id=Slideshare12202017
Unit 7: What's for Dinner Tonight? Evidence of Early AgricultureBig History Project
What do rice, maize, and eels have in common? All of these provide evidence for early farming cultures from across the globe.
Register to explore the whole course here: https://school.bighistoryproject.com/bhplive?WT.mc_id=Slideshare12202017
The Archaic and Formative Periods of MesoamericaMichael Love.docxmattinsonjanel
The Archaic and Formative Periods of Mesoamerica
Michael Love
Note: this piece is an article that I’m preparing for the Cambridge Encyclopedia of World
Prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn. It presents a very different perspective on
domestication, agriculture, and sedentism than the scenario found in your textbook. I, of course,
think that my synthesis of the data is much better, but your textbook gives the generally accepted
viewpoint. You can also note my points of disagreement with Jared Diamond. The dates in the
article are all calibrated radiocarbon dates; the presentation and your textbook both use
uncalibrated dates, so there are bound to be differences. The Cambridge Encyclopedia uses BCE
(before common era) and CE (common era) instead of BC/AD. I haven’t inserted the images into
this article, but most of the referenced items are found in the Powerpoint presentation.
Mesoamerica is one of the six or seven areas of the world where independent
domestication of plants and animals lead to the emergence of food production, and subsequently
civilization (Bellwood 2005; Smith 1998). Mesoamerica was once considered to have lagged
behind other regions of the world in agricultural origins, but evidence now places the beginnings
of food production soon after the onset of Holocene conditions. Similarly, the origins of
urbanism and state formation are now placed much earlier than would have been the case a
decade ago. Once thought to be hallmarks of the Classic Period (AD 250-900), both urban
settlements and state-level polities are now well attested before the end of the first millennium
BCE.
The time of first domestication and the development of social complexity are called the
Archaic and Formative periods. The Archaic begins with the onset of Holocene conditions about
10,000 years ago and continued up to the time of the adoption of pottery, ca 2000 BCE. The
Formative period (also called the Preclassic) succeeds the Archaic and ends at 250 CE. The
criteria for defining both periods have shifted in recent times, and the divisions have become
blurred. It was once thought that the joint appearance of agriculture, sedentism and pottery
defined the beginning of the Formative, but earlier placement of first domestication and
sedentism leaves only early pottery as the sole criterion. The end of the Formative period is also
very arbitrarily placed at 250 CE, as many traits previously used to define the succeeding Classic
period, including writing, calendrics and urbanism, were well attested in the Late Formative (400
BCE-250 CE).
The Archaic Period
The Archaic period was the time during which domestication, food production, and
sedentism developed from the preceding Paleo-Indian Period (Stark 1981). In contrast to the Old
World and South America, domesticated animals placed only a minor role in the development of
food production in Mesoamerica. Although domesticated mammals and birds including ...
Jericho, located in the West Bank region of the Middle East, is the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth.
Register to explore the whole course here: https://school.bighistoryproject.com/bhplive?WT.mc_id=Slideshare12202017
For most of our time on Earth, we humans have survived by hunting and gathering food from our natural environment.
Register to explore the whole course here: https://school.bighistoryproject.com/bhplive?WT.mc_id=Slideshare12202017
The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Raceby Jared.docxchristalgrieg
"The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race"
by Jared Diamond, Prof. UCLA School of Medicine
Discover-May 1987, pp. 64-66
To science we owe dramatic changes in our smug self-image. Astronomy taught
us that our Earth isn't the center of the universe but merely one of billions of heavenly
bodies. From biology we learned that we weren't specially created by God but evolved
along with millions of other species. Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred
belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In
particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our
most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we
have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the
disease and despotism,that curse our existence.
At first, the evidence against this revisionist interpretation will strike twentieth
century Americans as irrefutable. We're better off in almost every respect than people of
the Middle Ages who in turn had it easier than cavemen, who in turn were better off than
apes. Just count our advantages. We enjoy the most abundant and varied foods, the best
tools and material goods, some of the longest and healthiest lives, in history. Most of us
are safe from starvation and predators. We get our energy from oil and machines, not
from our sweat. What neo-Luddite among us would trade his life for that of a medieval
peasant, a caveman, or an ape?
For most of our history we supported ourselves by hunting and gathering: we
hunted wild animals and foraged for wild plants. It's a life that philosophers have
traditionally regarded as nasty, brutish, and short. Since no food is grown and little is
stored, there is (in this view) no respite from the struggle that starts anew each day to find
wild foods and avoid starving. Our escape from this misery was facilitated only 10,000
years ago, when in different parts of the world people began to domesticate plants and
animals. The agricultural revolution gradually spread until today it's nearly universal and
few tribes of hunter-gatherers survive.
From the progressivist perspective on which I was brought
up to ask "Why did almost all our hunter-gatherer ancestors adopt
agriculture?" is silly. Of course they adopted it because agriculture
is an efficient way to get more food for less work. Planted crops
yield far more tons per acre than roots and berries. Just imagine a
band of savages, exhausted from searching for nuts or chasing wild
animals, suddenly gazing for the first time at a fruit-laden orchard
or a pasture full of sheep. How many milliseconds do you think it
would take them to appreciate the advantages of agriculture?
The progressivist party line sometimes even goes so far as to
credit agriculture with the remarkable flowering of art that has taken
place over the past few thousand years. Since crops can be stored,
and since it takes less time to pick ...
The one who owns petrol owns the commonwealth; the one who owns food owns the nation.” This quote is claimed to have been phrased by Henry A. Kissinger in 1974, the United States Foreign Minister at the time.
ENVIRONMENTALISM ITS ARTICLES OF FAITHNorthwest Environmental J.docxkhanpaulita
ENVIRONMENTALISM: ITS ARTICLES OF FAITH
Northwest Environmental Journal Vol. 5:1, (1989) p. 100
Victor Scheffer
Here I offer an interpretation of environmentalism, a body of principles and practices so recently manifest in national thought that its meanings are still disputed. It is called, for example, "a theology of the earth," "a religion of self restraint," and "a science rooted in resource management and ecology." I define it broadly as "a movement toward understanding humankind's natural bases of support while continuously applying what is learned toward perpetuating those bases."
The word environmentalism entered the American vernacular during the 1960s. An editorial in Science (Klopsteg 1966) noted that "one of the newest fads in Washington-and elsewhere-is 'environmental science.' The term has political potency even if its meaning is vague and questionable." Environmentalism was at first perceived by the public as merely a response to a crisis, but it quickly proved more than that. As Lord Ashby (1978:3) explained to a Stanford University group:
A crisis is a situation that will pass; it can be resolved by temporary hardship, temporary adjustment, technological and political expedients. What we are experiencing is not a crisis, it is a climacteric. For the rest of man's history on earth. . . he will have to live with problems of population, of resources, of pollution.
The vision of environmentalism is to preserve those things in nature which will allow the human enterprise, or civilization, to endure and improve. (I use the word nature for the world without humans, a concept which-like the square root of minus one-is unreal, but useful.) Because civilization depends absolutely on surroundings that are healthful and stimulating, environmentalism aims to protect both material and spiritual values. At the risk of oversimplifying, 1 review five articles of faith which support and energize the environmental movement. They reflect ideas developed by "earthkeepers" from the time of George Perkins Marsh (1801-1882) down to the present.
1) All things are connected. The cosmos is a set of dependencies so complex that its boundaries lie forever beyond understanding. Simply lifting a spadeful of garden soil disturbs a trillion protistan lives, impinges on the lifter's muscles and mind, and changes the landscape. The poet who mused, "Thou canst not stir a flower without troubling of a star," was struck by the unitary connectedness of all matter (Thompson 1966 [1897]:19). He was an environmentalist before his time. Now we technological beings have Spun a web of change around the whole earth and nearby space. Our artifacts range in scale from radiations and molecules to mountains and lakes. Yet never will we understand completely the spinoff effects of the environmental changes that we create, nor will we measure Our own,' independent influence in their creation. Consider the mysterious decline in the numbers of fur seals breeding on A.
Similar to Development of Agriculture in Early Mesoamerican Societies (20)
ENVIRONMENTALISM ITS ARTICLES OF FAITHNorthwest Environmental J.docx
Development of Agriculture in Early Mesoamerican Societies
1. Amanda Tetz
Development of Agriculture in Early Mesoamerican Societies
ABSTRACT The development of agriculture is present in almost every culture in the
world. There have been several studies discussing the factors causing these developments
and what the resulting effects are. In this paper I will be looking at some of the earliest
evidence of flora domestication and agricultural strategies in Mesoamerica. The site that I
will be addressing in this study is an Early Archaic site located in the Valley of Oaxacá
which is represented by over 10,000 years of human occupation. By studying early
agricultural strategies we will gain a better insight into the earliest forms of complex
societies that employed this technology and a clearer, more complete history of this
culture.
Thomas (1991) states that most research
that deals with reconstruction of
prehistoric diets address faunal and
floral remains separately, however he
feels that to fully reconstruct past diets
accurately we should take a more
holistic approach. Meaning we need to
not only look at faunal remains or only
at floral remains, instead we should look
at faunal and floral remains together,
side by side, to gain a complete
understanding of the life of prehistoric
people. I would like to go one step
further and state that we should also
analyze current technologies along side
the food remains, by doing so we see the
broader picture instead of just a piece of
it. In this paper I will take a brief look at
the development of cultivation and
domestication in the Valley of Oaxacá
during the Archaic Period.
ECOLOGY OF MESOAMERICA
DURING THE ARCHAIC PERIOD
(c.8,000~2,000 B.C.)
Between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C. Middle
America went through a climate shift
that changed the environment
dramatically. At the time of the shift the
climate was colder and dryer than it is
today. This climate was conducive to a
plains-like environment that is similar to
the North American Plains of Wyoming
and Montana. This type of environment
supported various megafauna, however
because of the climate changes these
megafauna, an important food source for
Paleo-Indian, became extinct. This
extinction and rise in new flora forced
the Indians to begin to intensify their
subsistence strategy from mainly hunting
to foraging more plants foods and
hunting smaller game, such as deer and
rabbits (Flannery, 1986, Thomas, 1991).
The shift from big game hunter to that of
a hunter and gatherer marks the
beginning of the Archaic Period (c.
8,000~2,000 B.C.). As indigenous
people began to forage (harvesting the
native flora) for seeds, nuts, roots and
fruits that were beginning to become
available, they started to also manipulate
the distribution of these plants. This
manipulation is referred to as cultivation
(Flannery, 1973). Due to this shift in
subsistence patterns new tools were
needed and developed. There was an
increase in the production of chipped
stone for tools such as cutting knives,
2. Tetz-Development of Agriculture
drills, axes, scrapers and smaller
projectile points as well as ground stone
tools like mano and metate. There was
also a development and increase of traps,
nets and baskets (Daniel, 1962). Once
cultivation became deliberate there was
a trend toward cooperative seeding and
harvesting among the different bands of
people, however this is believed to a
seasonal cooperation only at this point
(Flannery, 1986). As cultivation became
more prominent the practice of selecting
only the largest seeds and planting them
began to emerge.
CULTIVATION AND
DOMESTICATION
There have been many debates about the
development of domestication, where it
developed first to whether it was a
delightful accident or a purposeful
action. These specific questions,
especially the latter, can not be answered
with any degree of satisfaction due to
lack of hard evidence and numerous
combinations in which it could have
occurred and since there is no left alive
that was witness to this development it is
a best guess on our part. However there
is an abundance of evidence and
information that we do have which helps
us put together the puzzle of the past.
This being said I think it is reasonable to
state that in most areas, especially
Mesoamerica and the Middle East,
domestication was a combination of
experimentation, observation and a
personal knowledge of their
environment. Because realistically to
depend completely on landscape for
your survival gives you a knowledge
about your surroundings, a knowledge
that, if you did not have you would not
be able to perpetuate your DNA and
since there are modern descendants of
these people, it is logically to state that
they had an intimate knowledge of their
surroundings. As an example of that
knowledge and observation is the trifecta
of maize, beans and squash. According
to Flannery (1973) this trifecta was a
natural occurrence that the Indians used
as a model later. Flannery (1973) states
that wild runner beans naturally grew in
between the wild teosinte (grass believed
to be the wild ancestor of modern maize)
thus giving rise to the practice of
interplanting of maize, beans and
squash.
As already define cultivation is the
manipulation of plant distribution where
as domestication is the genetic
modification of plants (Flannery, 1973).
As previously stated teosinte (Zea
mexicana) is the nearest wild relation of
modern maize (Zea mays). Both teosinte
and maize have the exact same number
of chromosomes in addition to other
similarities (Flannery, 1973). Teosinte
grows semiarid, subtropical areas of
Mexico and Guatemala. Teosinte is a
native annual grass that does not like
anymore than 12 hours of warm sunlight
per day. Once the fruit is mature they
scatter naturally, spreading across
disturbed areas. Because of this wide-
range distribution and teosintes’ quick
maturation it makes it almost impossible
for small bands or individuals to harvest
it; instead a large, organized group of
people was needed to do the job
properly. This early effort of cooperation
set the stage for permanent settlements
and eventually complex societies
(Flannery, 1973, Sanders, 1988).
Another wild grass, Tripsacum, was
once considered for the possibility of
being an ancestor of modern maize;
however all of the evidence now
suggests that it is at best a cousin to
maize and has not played an important
2
3. Tetz-Development of Agriculture
role in the evolution of maize in
Mesoamerica (Flannery, 1973, 1986;
Mangelsdorf, 1967). Other crops that
were eventually domesticated and
harvested in Mesoamerica are mesquite
(Prosopis juliflora), bottle gourds
(Lagenaria), pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo),
beans (four different species)
(Phaseolus), avocado (Persia
Americana), cacao (Theobroma cacao)
and Chili peppers to list just a few
(Carmack, 1996:45). The cultivation,
domestication and eventually agriculture
developed throughout Mesoamerica
almost uniformly, but I will only be
addressing one area of Mesoamerica –
Guilá Naquitz in the Valley of Oaxacá.
HUMAN OCCUPATION AND
NEGOTIATION OF THE VALLEY
OF OAXACÁ
The Valley of Oaxacá is a large flat
valley, approximately 3400 km3 and is
1550 m above sea level (Matheny and
Gurr, 1983). The Valley has a high water
table, low erosion rate and is a frost-free
area, and because of this it has a higher
capability for agricultural development
(Flannery, 1967). The floor of the Valley
has alluvial soils that bring the water
table within a few meters of the surface
leaving the soil with a higher moisture
index than in other areas. Because of this
higher moisture index combined with
deeper soil levels than elsewhere the
Valley of Oaxacá provided the
environment for higher productivity of
maize cultivation (Sanders and Nichols,
1988). Flannery (1986) has been able to
determine that Guilá Naquitz Cave in the
Valley of Oaxacá had several periods of
human occupation during the Archaic
Period. He came to this conclusion after
conducting a series of analysis on plant
remains and seasonal availability of
various food plants. During the Early
Archaic phase of the Valley the
estimated population was low, believed
to vary between 75-150 people at the
most (Marcus and Flannery, 1996).
According to Evans (2004) the first
human occupation at Guilá Naquitz was
around 8,000 B.C. and that was “at least
six separate occasions” of occupation
between c. 8,000 and 6500 B.C. Guilá
Naquitz Cave along with several other
caves are believed to be part of the
seasonal subsistence trek, settling there
sometime during the summer and
leaving before February. Food remains
and availabilities’ suggest that meals
consisted of acorn pulp, maguey, cactus
leaves, various fruits, as well as
mesquite pods, deer and rabbit meat.
There is also evidence suggesting that
they had technologies such as fire drills,
nets, traps, milling stones and the
obvious obsidian knapping (Evans,
2004). This fluctuation of occupation in
the Valley continued until the Late
Archaic phase when the first permanent
villages appear, around 1700 to 1400
B.C. (Flannery, et al, 1967). The
sedentary lifestyle seems to be possible
due to the increase of agriculture in the
Valley (Flannery, 1986). By the
beginning of the Initial Formative (c.
2,000~1200 B.C.) organized agriculture
had became a way of life in the Valley.
The initial farming technology used was
pot irrigation. This worked by planting
the seed with a stick referred to by the
Aztecs as a cao, deep enough for the
developing root to access the water
table, however supplemental water was
given by digging a swallow well and
bring water to the individual plants
(Evans, 2004). Because of the intensive
work involved in this activity it was
necessary for a large group of people to
cooperate and work together, which in
3
4. Tetz-Development of Agriculture
turn created solidarity among the
population (Flannery et al, 1967; Evans
2004). Later hillside terracing, canal
systems and flood water irrigation was
developed (Flannery et al, 1967). As
agriculture became more important for
people, they began to deviate from their
earlier patterns of foraging and hunting
and started to rely solely on what they
could produce. Evans (2004) believes
this is due to the lure of sedentism has
for humans, no longer have to live hand
to month, move all the time, can only
posses items that you can carry on your
back. Sedentism allows for luxury that
they had never had. Unfortunately this
shift in subsistence patterns had a
negative aspect on the health of the
population.
Quality of life with the advancement
of agriculture
According to Larsen (1995) the
development and adoption of agriculture
did not improve the life and health of
humans. Instead it allowed for dental
and physical health problems; such as
malnutrition, dental erosion and
increased inactivity. As a result of these
changes the human stature began to
shrink. The development of agriculture
also provided the ability for the
population to grow. Eventually it created
an overpopulated world.
However agriculture also
provided the time for specialties, such as
weaving, ceramics, elaborate stone
work, to develop. Complex societies also
arose as agriculture began to intensify.
CONCLUSION
The development of
domestication and agriculture was a
necessary step in the process of cultural
evolution, without these developments
we probably would not have the world in
which currently live in. There has been
an abundance of research done on the
development of agriculture and the
descent of domestication; however I feel
that there is much more to learn about
this topic so we have a better, more
complete understanding to the process of
domestication in Early Mesoamerica. By
understanding the past process it might
allow us to develop different techniques
for out current agricultural systems and
flora hybridization programs.
RERFENCE CITED:
Carmack, Robert M., Janine Gasco and
Gary H. Gossen
1996 The Legacy of Mesoamerica:
History and Culture of a Native
American Civilization. University of
Albany: Prentice Hall
Daniel, Glyn, ed.
1962 Ancient Peoples and Places, Vol
29: Mexico. Ediciones Lara, Great
Britain
Evans, Susan Toby
2004 Ancient Mexico and Central
America: Archaeology and Culture
History. Thames and Hudson, London
and New York.
Flannery, Kent V., ed.
1986 Guilá Naquitz: Archaic Foraging
and Early Agriculture in Oaxacá,
Mexico. Orlando, FL: Academic Press
Flannery, Kent V.
1973 The origin of agriculture. Annual
Review of Anthropology 2:271-310
Flannery, Kent V., Anne V. T. Kirkby,
Michael J. Kirkby and Aubrey W.
Williams Jr.
4
5. Tetz-Development of Agriculture
1967 Farming Systems and Political
Growth in Ancient Oaxacá:
Physiographic Features and Water-
control Techniques Contributed to the
rise of Zapotec Indian Civilization.
Science 158(3800):445-454
Larsen, Clark Spencer
1995 Biological Changes in Human
Populations with Agriculture. Annual
Review of Anthropology 24:185-213
Mangelsdorf, P.C., R.S. MacNeish and
W.C. Galinat
1967 Prehistoric Wild and cultivated
maize. In Prehistory of the Tehuacán
Valley. D.S. Byers, ed. Pp. 178-200.
Austin: University of Texas Press
Matheny, Ray T. and Deanne L. Gurr
1983 Variation in Prehistoric
Agricultural Systems of the New World.
Annual Review of Anthropology 12:79-
103
Marcus, Joyce and Kent V. Flannery
1996 Zapotec Civilization. Thames and
Hudson, London and New York
Sanders, William T. and Deborah L.
Nichols
1988 Ecological Theory and Cultural
Evolution in the Valley of Oaxacá.
Current Anthropology 29(1):33-80
Thomas, David Hurst
1991 Archaeology: Dawn to Earth.
United States: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich Publishers.
5
6. Tetz-Development of Agriculture
1967 Farming Systems and Political
Growth in Ancient Oaxacá:
Physiographic Features and Water-
control Techniques Contributed to the
rise of Zapotec Indian Civilization.
Science 158(3800):445-454
Larsen, Clark Spencer
1995 Biological Changes in Human
Populations with Agriculture. Annual
Review of Anthropology 24:185-213
Mangelsdorf, P.C., R.S. MacNeish and
W.C. Galinat
1967 Prehistoric Wild and cultivated
maize. In Prehistory of the Tehuacán
Valley. D.S. Byers, ed. Pp. 178-200.
Austin: University of Texas Press
Matheny, Ray T. and Deanne L. Gurr
1983 Variation in Prehistoric
Agricultural Systems of the New World.
Annual Review of Anthropology 12:79-
103
Marcus, Joyce and Kent V. Flannery
1996 Zapotec Civilization. Thames and
Hudson, London and New York
Sanders, William T. and Deborah L.
Nichols
1988 Ecological Theory and Cultural
Evolution in the Valley of Oaxacá.
Current Anthropology 29(1):33-80
Thomas, David Hurst
1991 Archaeology: Dawn to Earth.
United States: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich Publishers.
5