THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY

OF THE NATIVE PEOPLES OF

THE AMERICAS

VOLUME II

MESOAMERICA

PART 1

Edited by

Richard E.W. Adams Murdo J. MacLeodUniversity of Texas

at San AntonioUniversity of Florida

P U B L I S H E D B Y T H E P R E S S S Y N D I C A T E O F T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A M B R I D G E

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

C A M B R I D G E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA http://www.cup.org10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, AustraliaRuiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain

q Cambridge University Press 2000

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2000

Printed in the United States of America

Typeface Adobe Garamond 11/13 pt. System DeskTopPro/UXt [BV]

A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataMesoamerica / edited by Richard E. W. Adams, Murdo J. Macleodp. cm. – (Cambridge history of the Native peoples of the Americas)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0 521 35165 01. Indians of Mesoamerica–History.I. Adams, Richard E. W. II. Macleod, Murdo J. III. Series.E77.N62 2000970.004'97–dc20 95-46096

CIP

Volume I: North America ISBN 0-521-34440-9 hardback complete setVolume I: North America, Part 1 ISBN 0-521-57392-0Volume I: North America, Part 2 ISBN 0-521-57393-9

Volume II: Mesoamerica ISBN 0-521-65205-7 hardback complete setVolume II: Mesoamerica, Part 1 ISBN 0-521-35165-0Volume II: Mesoamerica, Part 2 ISBN 0-521-65204-9

Volume III: South America ISBN 0-521-33393-8 hardback complete setVolume III: South America, Part 1 ISBN 0-521-63075-4Volume III: South America, Part 2 ISBN 0-521-63076-2

v

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations page ix

Part 1

1 Introduction to a Survey of the Native Prehistoric Cultures ofMesoamerica 1

RICHARD E. W. ADAMS

2 The Paleoindian and Archaic Cultures of Mesoamerica 45ROBERT N. ZEITLIN AND JUDITH FRANCIS ZEITLIN

3 The Preclassic Societies of the Central Highlands of Mesoamerica 122DAVID C. GROVE

4 The Precolumbian Cultures of the Gulf Coast 156RICHARD A. DIEHL

5 The Maya Lowlands: Pioneer Farmers to Merchant Princes 197NORMAN HAMMOND

6 The Central Mexican Highlands from the Rise of Teotihuacanto the Decline of Tula 250

GEORGE L. COWGILL

7 Western and Northwestern Mexico 318SHIRLEY S. GORENSTEIN

8 Cultural Evolution in Oaxaca: The Origins of the Zapotec andMixtec Civilizations 358

JOYCE MARCUS AND KENT V. FLANNERY

9 The Southeast Frontiers of Mesoamerica 407PAYSON D. SHEETS

vi Contents

10 The Maya Highlands and the Adjacent Pacific Coast 449ROBERT J. SHARER

11 The Aztecs and Their Contemporaries: The Central and EasternMexican Highlands 500

THOMAS H. CHARLTON

Index to Part 1 559

Part 2

12 Mesoamerica since the Spanish Invasion: An Overview 1MURDO J. MACLEOD

13 Legacies of Resistance, Adaptation, and Tenacity: History of theNative Peoples of Northwest Mexico 44

SUSAN M. DEEDS

14 The Native Peoples of Northeastern Mexico 89DAVID FRYE

15 The Indigenous Peoples of Western Mexico from the SpanishInvasion to the Present 136

ERIC VAN YOUNG

16 Native Peoples of Colonial Central Mexico 187SARAH L. CLINE

17 Native Peoples of Central Mexico since Independence 223FRANS J. SCHRYER

18 Native Peoples of the Gulf Coast from theColonial Period to the Present 274

SUSAN DEANS-SMITH

19 The Indigenous Population of Oaxaca from the SixteenthCentury to the Present 302

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES ROMERO FRIZZI

Contents vii

20 The Lowland Maya, from the Conquest to the Present 346GRANT D. JONES

21 The Highland Maya 392W. GEORGE LOVELL

Index to Part 2 445

ix

ILLUSTRATIONS

MAPS TO PART 1

1.1 A general map of Mesoamerica, showing major ancient,colonial, and modern population centers page 8

2.1 North America, showing Bering land bridge, LatePleistocene glacial zones, and probable migration routesinto Mesoamerica 52

2.2 Mesoamerica, indicating location of Paleoindian sites 572.3 Archaeological sites of the Mesoamerican Archaic

period 723.1 Preclassic sites in the central highlands 1244.1 Archaeological sites of the Mexican Gulf Coast region 1585.1 Important sites in the Maya Area: Preclassic through

Postclassic period 1985.2 Mayan language areas 1995.3 Major environmental divisions 2016.1 The central Mexican highlands 2517.1 Sites in Guanajuato, Michoacan, Jalisco, Colima, and

Nayarit 3207.2 Sites in Zacatecas, Durango, and coastal western

Mexico 3297.3 Guerrero: The Balsas-Tepalcatepec Basin 3357.4 Sites in northern Sinaloa and in Sonora 3388.1 Archaeological sites and ethnic groups of Oaxaca 3599.1 Archaeological sites and obsidian sources of ancient

Mesoamerica 4099.2 The southeastern Mesoamerican frontier in the Middle

Formative period, 1000–500 B.C.E. 4189.3 Mesoamerica, the Intermediate Area, and the frontier

in the Late Formative period, 500 B.C.E.–C.E. 250 421

x Illustrations

9.4 Mesoamerica, the Intermediate Area, and the frontierin the Early Classic period, C.E. 250–600 424

9.5 Mesoamerica, the Intermediate Area, and the frontierin the Late Classic period, C.E. 600–900 427

9.6 Mesoamerica, the Intermediate Area, and the frontierin the Postclassic period 438

10.1 Archaeological sites of the Maya highlands and theadjacent Pacific Coast 450

11.1 Central Mexican symbiotic region 50111.2 Epi-Teotihuacan period occupation 50311.3 Early Aztec period occupation 50411.4 Late Aztec occupation 505

FIGURES TO PART 1

2.1 Temporal framework for the Paleoindian and Archaicperiods 48

2.2 Clovis-type fluted projectile point from the Valley ofOaxaca, Mexico, and Ladyville, Belize 64

2.3 “Fishtail” point from Madden Lake, Panama 652.4 Projectile points from Santa Isabel Iztapan: (A) Scottsbluff;

(B) Lerma; (C) Angostura 662.5 Tequixquiac carved camelid sacrum 702.6 Typical Archaic period mano and metate from Tehuacan 772.7 Corncob remains from excavations at Tehuacan 782.8 Guila Naquitz Cave, in its environmental setting 812.9 Naquitz-phase lithic artifacts: (A) notched flake; (B)

denticulate scraper; (C) crude blade 812.10 Net bag fragment from Guila Naquitz 822.11 Wild plant food remains from excavations at Guila Naquitz

Cave 832.12 Late Archaic/Early Formative lithic artifacts from Belize 882.13 Experimentally grown teosinte from the Valley of

Oaxaca 1003.1 Typical Early Preclassic clay figurines 1293.2 Crocodilian supernatural, Tlapacoya 1353.3 Paw and wing motifs, Tlatilco 1353.4 Sharklike supernaturals, La Bocas 1373.5 Ritual scene, Monument 2, Chalcatzingo 143

Illustrations xi

3.6 Cliff carving, Monument 1, Chalcatzingo 1453.7 Stela depicting a woman, Monument 21, Chalcatzingo 1474.1 Olmec colossal head, San Lorenzo Monument 61 1654.2 Olmec diopside-jadeite figurine 1664.3 Tres Zapotes Stela C 1704.4 La Mojarra Stela 1 1714.5 Matacapan kiln 1754.6 El Tajin Pyramid of the Niches 1774.7 Carved panel, El Tajin South ballcourt 1784.8 Stone yoke 1804.9 Smiling face figurine, El Zapotal 181

4.10 Monumental hollow sculpture, clay, El Zapotal 1834.11 Huastec stone sculpture at Castillo de Teayo 1864.12 Castillo de Teayo pyramid 1874.13 Mausoleums at Quiahuiztlan 1894.14 Hernan Cortes and Dona Marina after landing on the

beach at Quiahuiztlan 1905.1 Structure 326 at Cuello, Belize, seen from above 2075.2 Rio Azul, an Early Classic city 2185.3 The popol na or council house at Copan after

restoration 2295.4 The palace at Palenque 2305.5 Puuc-style palace at Sayil 2395.6 The Castillo at Chichen Itza 2405.7 The Great Ballcourt at Chichen Itza, the largest in

Mesoamerica 2415.8 The first and second churches at Lamanai 2466.1 An aerial view of Teotihuacan 2546.2 Teotihuacan talud-tablero architecture 2566.3 One of the “Kneeling Jaguar” murals from the Tetitla

apartment compound 2576.4 Archaeological map of Teotihuacan 2606.5 West facade of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, Temple of

Quetzalcoatl 2666.6 One of the feathered serpent and headdress pairs on the

Feathered Serpent Pyramid 2666.7 A sacrifice victim in military attire 2706.8 Nose pendants worn by sacrificed victims 2716.9 Stone skulls from the Sun Plaza, Teotihuacan 274

xii Illustrations

6.10 Some Miccaotli–Early Tlamimilolpa ceramics 2766.11 Relief carving from Soyoltepec 2786.12 Teotihuacan candeleros, Xolalpan–Metepec phase 2836.13 A Teotihuacan composite censer, Xolalpan–Metepec

phase 2846.14 Principal buildings at Tula Grande 2936.15 Plan of the archaeological site of Tula 2948.1 Workmen building a protective wall around remains of

Structure 6, San Jose Mogote 3638.2 Vessels of 1150–850 B.C., showing stylized depictions of

“Lightning” and “Earthquake” 3658.3 Late Formative settlements in the Yanhuitlan–Nochixtlan

Valley 3678.4 Artist’s reconstruction of a Middle Formative building at

Huitzo 3698.5 Villages and hamlets in the western Valley of Oaxaca,

700–500 B.C. 3708.6 A public building from San Jose Mogote, dating to

700–500 B.C. 3718.7 Upper surface of Monument 3 at San Jose Mogote 3728.8 Aerial view of the Main Plaza at Monte Alban 3748.9 Valley of Oaxaca settlements, c. 300 B.C. 375

8.10 Remnant of Building L at Monte Alban 3768.11 Aerial view of Pena de los Corrales 3788.12 Plan of Monte Negro in the Mixteca Alta 3798.13 Plan of Main Plaza at Monte Alban 3808.14 A Classic period palace at Monte Alban 3818.15 Classic Zapotec effigy vessels 3828.16 Classic period temple from Monte Alban 3838.17 Monumental structure at Cerro de la Campana 3848.18 Classic period sites in the Yanhuitlan–Nochixtlan

Valley 3878.19 The Lapida de Bazan 3908.20 A Zapotec “genealogical register” of A.D. 600–900 3938.21 Postclassic settlements in the Yanhuitlan-Nochixtlan

Valley 3958.22 Postclassic settlements in the central Valley of Oaxaca 3978.23 Postclassic polychrome dish in Mixteca-Puebla style 398

Illustrations xiii

8.24 Small jadeite figurine 3998.25 A scene from the Codex Bodley 4008.26 The Hall of Columns at Mitla 4018.27 The rocky fortress of Mitla 402

9.1 Excavation of the main Middle Formative period pyramidE-3-1, Trapiche area of Chalchuapa 415

9.2 Artist’s reconstruction of Structures 3 and 4 at Quelepa,El Salvador 426

9.3 Part of Structure 1, communal building of Household 1at the Ceren site 428

9.4 Isometric drawing of Structure 2a at the Ceren site 4309.5 Artist’s reconstruction of Structure 2a at the Ceren

site 4319.6 Isometric drawing and plan of Structure 3 at the Ceren

site 4329.7 Artist’s reconstruction of Structure 3 at the Ceren site 43310.1 Excavation at El Mesak 45710.2 Rubbing of a figure on Monument 12, Chalchuapa,

El Salvador 46010.3 Kaminaljuyu Stela 11, portraying a Late Preclassic ruler 46610.4 Abaj Takalik Stela 5 in situ with its accompanying

“altar” 46810.5 Example of Usulutan (resist) pottery from Chalchuapa,

El Salvador 47010.6 El Baul Stela 1 47310.7 Monument 16 from the Salama Valley, Guatemala 47410.8 Abaj Takalik “Pot-bellied” Monument 40 478

TABLES TO PART 1

1.1 Major cultural institutions universal to human cultures (notexhaustive) 3

1.2 Material correlates to cultural institutions (notexhaustive) 4

1.3 Correlation of cultural institutions with field and otherresearch methods of archaeology (not exhaustive) 5

4.1 Chronological history of major Gulf Coast archaeologicalsites 161

MAPS TO PART 2

12.1 A general map of Mesoamerica showing major ancient,colonial, and modern population centers page 2

13.1 Northwest Mexico 4613.2 Native groups of northwest Mexico 4814.1 Northeast Mexico 9114.2 Northeast Mexico, c. 1800 10315.1 The Mexican states, including the Center-West 13715.2 Native languages of Center-West Mexico in 1519 14415.3 North frontier of New Spain 15115.4 Center-West Mexico 15516.1 Nahua area of Central Mexico 18817.1 Central Mexico: Colonial boundaries and topography 22617.2 Native cultural/linguistic areas 22717.3 Areas where more than 40 percent of adults spoke native

languages before 1950 23317.4 Areas of developing ranchero economies in the late

nineteenth century 24718.1 Totonacapan 27718.2 Modern-day Veracruz 27819.1 Indigenous groups of Oaxaca 30319.2 State of Oaxaca and the Republic of Mexico 30419.3 Geographical regions of Oaxaca 30520.1 Distribution of Spanish colonial-period lowland Maya

languages 34920.2 The Maya lowlands 35721.1 Native language groups of Chiapas 39321.2 Native language groups of Guatemala 39521.3 Chiapas 39721.4 Guatemala 399

TABLES TO PART 2

14.1 Some estimates of native population of northeasternMexico at contact 112

21.1 The highland Maya of Chiapas, 1950–90 39421.2 The highland Maya of Guatemala, 1950–94 39421.3 Maya speakers in Chiapas, 1950–90 396

xiv Illustrations

21.4 Maya speakers in Guatemala, 1973–93 39821.5 Native depopulation in sixteenth-century Guatemala 40221.6 The Indian population of Chiapas and Soconusco,

1511–1821 40321.7 Awards of encomienda in early colonial Guatemala,

1524–48 40621.8 The tributary population of Huehuetenango and subject

towns, 1530–31 and 1539 40621.9 Encomienda obligations in Huehuetenango in 1530–31

and 1549 40721.10 Pueblos de Indios founded in the sixteenth century by

regular and secular clergy 41021.11 Pueblos and parcialidades in Totonicapan, c. 1683 41421.12 Profits earned on repartimientos by the alcalde mayor of

Ciudad Real (San Cristobal de las Casas) in Chiapas,1760–65 418

Illustrations xv

1

1

INTRODUCTION TO A SURVEY OF THENATIVE PREHISTORIC CULTURES OF

MESOAMERICA

RICHARD E. W. ADAMS

This section both introduces the chapters of my colleagues that followand is an attempt to outline the intellectual context within which thework and thought have been accomplished. A short historical back-ground is also provided as well as a description of the basic theoreticalunderpinnings of American archaeology.

THE FUNDAMENTAL INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURES OF

MESOAMERICAN FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY

The basic theoretical structure of American archaeology is derived fromits association with anthropology as well as parts derived from Westernscholarly and traditions in general. Briefly, anthropology (and thereforearchaeology) argues that most human behavior is patterned and that thepatterns are culturally determined. Furthermore, any given culture ismade up of such patterned behavior, functionally integrated, and drivenby a core of beliefs about the nature of the universe and humanity’s placein it. These disciplinary premises have been distilled from the study ofhundreds of cultures, mainly non-Western, over the past 150 years, al-though Herodotus (c. 425 B.C.) is often claimed as an early anthropolo-gist. All cultural patterns, such as differentiated social status, have mate-rial correlates, as witness differential housing. For archaeologists, theimportant part of this premise is that the material remains of any culturetherefore have some relation to the formerly operative nonmaterial be-haviors. For example, ancestor veneration among the Maya drove them

I am deeply indebted to Harry Shafer, Thomas Hester, Jeffrey Quilter, and Laura J. Levi forcommentary on this introductory chapter. While I did not take all of their advice, I carefullyconsidered it, and any errors, therefore, are doubly my own.

2 Richard E. W. Adams

to create shrines and temples, large and small, which are now found inruins across the landscape. Analytically, the anthropologist and archaeol-ogist both may artificially break cultures down into component partscalled cultural institutions. The use of cultural institutions is not the onlymeans of analysis, but it is a particularly useful concept for archaeologybecause of the direct logical linkage between institutions and their mate-rial remains. Thus ancient irrigation canals reflect not just a farmingtechnique but a segment of a former economic system. Examples of bothcultural institutions and their material correlates are provided in Tables1.1 and 1.2. Research methods that generate the data are listed in Table1.3. A final point is that archaeology depends greatly on analogy toethnographic or historical cultures in order to interpret material remains.A mild dispute exists between those who argue that only the sixteenth-century Mesoamerican cultures are appropriate analogies and those whocast their nets wider and include parallels from other historical or prehis-toric civilizations.

Scholarly tradition in Western civilization has evolved so that it iscommonly practiced in three distinct stages. The first is the gathering ofinformation (fieldwork), then the elicitation of patterns from it (analysis),and finally the attempted explanation of those patterns (theory). It shouldalso be observed, as it was by Sir John Eccles, ‘‘that all of science is basedon a metaphysical assumption: There is a lawful order to the universe’’(Michael Warder, WSJ 19Apr96). This is the most fundamental of thepremises of Western science and modern scholarship. Warder also ob-serves that ‘‘metaphysical beliefs cannot, by definition, be disproven bythe scientific method’’ (op. cit). Finally, explanation (theory) is derivedfrom patterns in the data through the use of analogy or of greaterperception. Analogical theory is epitomized by systems theory, andgreater perception by cultural ecology, for example. Systems theorylargely depends on the demonstrable or arguable linkages among theactive parts of a cultural institution. Greater perception is dependent tosome degree on personal experience. It is bemusing to note the amaze-ment of scholars whose lives have largely been spent in urban areas whenthey write of agricultural systems and their linkages to the natural envi-ronment. Cultural ecology makes these linkages explicit in both staticand dynamic forms.

Cultural institutions exist(ed) within ecological and biological con-texts, the major categories of which seem to be:

Table 1.1. Major cultural institutions universal to human cultures(not exhaustive)

Cultural institutions Subcategories

1. Kinship residential rulesterminological categoriesdescent and inheritance rulesranking principles, etc.

2. Non-kin groups(associations, sodalities, etc.)

warrior societiesreligious sodalitiesoccupational guilds (flint-knappers, scribe-artists?)tribal secret fraternities, etc.

3. Social structure principles of ranking within society; ascribed and achieved statusrank, class, or caste societieseconomic factors in social rankingoccupational specializations, etc.

4. Economics food productioncraft productioninternal exchange and distributionexternal tradetribute systems and taxation, etc.

5. Politics allocation of power relative to social structure and kinship unitscentralization versus diffusion of power; differences among re-

gional statesbureaucracygeographical units; hierarchical organizationregional state and city-state modelstribute systems, conquest states, etc.

6. Ideology formal religionfolk religionmagic and witchcraftworld viewpolitical ideologyregional and temporal variation, etc.

7. Warfare military organizationweapons systemsfortificationsstrategy and tactics, etc.

8. Settlement patterns urban networkssettlement hierarchiesrural fabricmajor landscape modification (wetland drainage, terracing, level-

ing, paving, wall networks, roadnets, dams, reservoirs, etc.)

9. Technology argiculturalcrafts (weaving, pottery, woodwork, feather working, etc.)construction (quarrying, masonry, mortar, stucco, plaster prepa-

ration [factor in deforestation]), engineering, architecture(heavy transport), etc.

10. Intellectual developments,communicative systems, andadministrative and educa-tional tools

writingmathematicsastronomyart and iconography, etc.

4 Richard E. W. Adams

Table 1.2. Material correlates to cultural institutions (not exhaustive)

Material remains Analytical results Cultural institutions

Trash deposits discard patterns; artifacts social structure, trade patterns,etc.

Artifacts (pottery, stone tools,jewelry, etc.)

taxonomic categories technological development,trade patterns, craft specializa-tions, etc.

Architecture functional categories; e.g., for-mal and informal buildings,ritual, residential, administra-tive, military, and burial struc-tures

social, religious, political,demographic, kinship, andother institutions

General construction functional categories: agricul-tural, site preparation, hydrau-lic, etc.

technology, economic, politi-cal, and demographic institu-tions

Burials classification ranges (intermentsto tombs); content analysis

social, religious, economic, kin-ship, and other institutions

1. Climate and climatic cycles2. Human demography, and its fluctuations3. Health and disease parameters4. Topographic and ecological characteristics: soils, drainage, miner-

als, and so forth5. Major landscape modification6. Plant and animal inventories.

The interactions of these elements of the natural world with those ofthe cultural world constitute what has been called cultural ecology. Pro-cessualism, particularly espoused by the ‘‘New Archaeology,’’ attempts toexplain cultural change and creation not only in terms of this interactionbut also by the interactions of cultural institutions among and withinthemselves.

Beyond these postulated factors are what I term secondary theoreticalstructures, such as those purporting to explain the origins of state-levelpolitical organizations or particular events of culture history. However,these derive either from the basic theoretical foundation or from therapidly changing mass of data.

To be sure, the fundamental theoretical structure of (especially Amer-icanist) archaeology has been under attack by scholars who have estab-

Table 1.3. Correlation of cultural institutions with field and other researchmethods of archaeology (not exhaustive)

Cultural institutions Field and laboratory research methods

1. Kinship settlement pattern studiesburials and tombsceramic motif studies, etc.

2. Non-kin groups architectural studiesscript (epigraphy)artifact studies, etc.

3. Social structure settlement pattern studiesfunctional analyses of buildingsburials and tombsartifact studiesstudies of complex art, etc.

4. Economics agronomy studies (soil analyses, hydrology, palynology)studies of major landscape modificationsremote sensing of landscapeartifact analysesspecial studies such as trace element analyses of obsidian, etc.

5. Politics rank-size, rank-order analyses of urban (or community) networksepigraphyiconographyarchitectural stylistic studyinternal analysis of community patterns, etc.

6. Ideology epigraphyiconographyburialsstudy of ritual centers, etc.

7. Warfare mappingremote sensing of landscapestudy of fortificationsartifact analyses, etc.

8. Settlement patterns mapping of sites and regionsremote sensing mappingartifact studiesrank-size, rank-order studiesfunctional analyses of urban, town, village, hamlet, farmstead

and other unit examplesselective excavation of units from settlement hierarchy, etc.

9. Technology artifact studiesexperimentation and replicationstudy of manufacture zones, etc.

10. Intellectual structures, etc. epigraphyiconographyburialsartifact studiesarchaeoastronomy, etc.

6 Richard E. W. Adams

lished something that they call postprocessualism (e.g., Hodder 1985). Theadherents of this point of view argue, in essence, that much of the pastis unknowable in its own terms and that many of our interpretations ofprehistory are based only on our current perceptions of the world. Con-text and particularism are the only convincing interpretative bases forarchaeological inference, and material culture reconstruction is thesoundest of these inferential operations. This semiexistential movementhas largely been espoused by armchair archaeologists and those fromoutside the anthropological tradition. In the end, it is no more thananother variety of philosophical nihilism and as such has been rejectedby most if not all field archaeologists working in Mesoamerica and mostinvestigators working in the New World.

A DEFINITION OF MESOAMERICA

Archaeology has three basic elements, as G. R. Willey has often pointedout. These are time, space, and data (content). Chronological organiza-tion of the information on ancient prehistoric cultures in the geographicspace defined as Mesoamerica (Map 1.1) is a good example of the use ofthese components.

Mesoamerica has been defined as a ‘‘co-tradition’’ or culturally inter-active area. The culture-area concept of Mesoamerica was first developedby Walter Lehmann in the 1920s and then reformulated by Krickeberg(1943). Both scholars largely defined the area as one in which complexcultures had existed in sixteenth-century sources. Characteristics weremainly derived from early historical sources. This resulted in somethingof a hodgepodge of both important and trivial elements, with some ofboth kinds being highly regional. For example, human sacrifice, a broadlydistributed trait linked to a basic religious tenet, and the volador danceceremony (restricted in distribution) were both on the original list. Wil-ley, Ekholm, and Millon (all archaeologists) reworked the concept in1964 and made it operational for prehistoric research. I quote from myadjusted summary of their revision, as published elsewhere:

Basic agricultural technologies tended to be extensive in the tropical lowlandsand intensive in the highlands. This distinction blurred in periods of highpopulations, when intensive agriculture was practiced in both sorts of zones.Regional crop lists always included varieties of corn (maize), squashes, and beans,but varied wildly in regional plants such as cacao, avocados, tropical fruits, andmany sorts of vegetables. Settlement patterns tended to conform to these differ-

Introduction 7

ing subsistence systems – dispersed in the lowlands and nucleated in the high-lands. [This distinction is a matter of degree, however.]

Stone Age technologies were common to all Mesoamerican cultures. NewWorld cultures lacked the wheel, possessed few useful domesticated animals, anddid not use the true arch. Metal was not ordinarily used for utilitarian purposes.Movement of goods and people was largely by canoe or by foot.

Organization of society and economy centered on the agricultural village.Aristocratic leadership controlled all affairs of import through civil servants.Merchants, warriors, and artisans formed special social classes ranking above themain class of farmer-laborers. Temple centers in both highlands and lowlandsfunctioned as headquarters for the elite and bureaucratic classes, both initiallyand later when the centers had been transformed into varieties of urban com-munities. Market systems were integrated with the various population centersand furnished the sinews binding together the symbiotic regions. The dispersedand nucleated towns, cities, and metropolises all were built of stone, plaster, andmortar. A variety of architectonic forms were expressed in these materials, andthey were decorated with art styles which were intimately connected with theelite classes. Other manifestations of hieratic art appeared in elaborate pottery,murals, sculpture, and jewelry. After the establishment of state-level organiza-tions, the city-state was the basic and stable unit, combinations of which madeup the larger political structures of kingdom and empire.

Intellectually, there were certain cross-cutting philosophical and religiousprinciples. One set was bound up with the fatalistic cosmologies of the Meso-americans. [Humanity] lived in a hostile world with capricious gods. Mathemat-ics, hieroglyphic writing systems, astronomy, and calendrical systems were alltied to these philosophical tenets. Two ritual games were widely played, the[rubber] ball game and [patolli, a board game. The ball game still survives] inisolated regions.

Regional diversities existed within these and other characteristics whichbound Mesoamerica together. Willey has characterized Mesoamerica as a vastdiffusion sphere. That is to say, whatever happened of importance in one areasooner or later had some effect on most of the other areas. (Adams 1991: 19–20)

The geographical extent of Mesoamerica includes roughly two-thirdsof present-day Mexico, all of Guatemala and Belize, a thin westernsegment of Honduras, and probably four-fifths of El Salvador. In all, itcovers about 1,015,300 square kilometers, or 392,000 square miles (seeMap 1.1).

Stage-development presentation has theoretical implications of itsown. These are that in each stage, often a very long period of time, therewere characteristic features common to all societies. These commonalitiescrossed all cultural institutions, although economic development as aninfrastructure for further cultural elaboration has often been given prior-ity. Much of the terminology has lost most of its evolutionary implica-

Map 1.1

10 Richard E. W. Adams

tions, however, and now is best regarded as representing large blocks oftime. Thus Willey, Ekholm, and Millon, (1964) used the Lithic, Preclas-sic, Classic, and Postclassic stages to organize their synthesis. However, Ihave made several modifications to that evolutionary terminology toconform with that used by various authors in the chapters that follow.First, the Lithic stage has been renamed the Paleoindian. Second, thenow commonly used term Archaic has been adopted. Third, the termFormative has come to be used interchangeably with Preclassic.

Paleoindian (35,000?/10,000–7000 B.C.)

The earliest certain settlers in Mesoamerica now seem to date about10,000 B.C., but possibly people were there as early as 40,000 years ago.Upper Paleolithic hunting and gathering bands appear to have sporadi-cally crossed through the land bridge (Beringia) between northeasternSiberia and present-day Alaska over several hundred years. At the mo-ment, it appears that the initial entry was not later than 15,000 B.C.Material from the Southern Cone of South America dates the earliestpresence of humans there at about 12,000 B.C. or slightly earlier (Meltzeret al. 1997). New finds in the Amazon date to about 9200 B.C. (Rooseveltet al. 1996). Ice age climates, Pleistocene animals and plants, and otherfeatures such as lower ocean levels formed the context within which theseearliest colonists lived. Radically distinct varieties of stone tool kits weredeveloped and adapted to New World conditions.

Archaic (8/7000–1500 B.C.)

Apparently under the pressures of climatic change, drastic loss of animalpopulations, and other factors, transitions from hunting and gatheringtook place during this stage. Domestication of many plants and a fewanimals began at least by 7000 B.C. and perhaps by 8000 B.C. Nonagri-cultural villages were established about 5000 B.C., while others used amixture of old extractive techniques combined with new food-producingmethods. Agricultural villages were established all over Mesoamerica by1500 B.C. A general increase in the number of people diminished oppor-tunities to expand through space and eventually led to regional differ-ences.

Introduction 11

Preclassic (1500 B.C.–A.D. 150)

Cultural elaboration leading to complex cultures took place over the next1,650 years. The Gulf Coast culture called the Olmec seems to have beenthe earliest to reach a state of development that we can define as civiliza-tion about 1350 B.C. and appears astonishingly early in the period, al-though there are now possible predecessors on the Pacific Coast. Anumber of other precocious Formative cultures in the central highlandswere in existence and interacted with the Olmec. Beginning about 600B.C., various large regional centers with major buildings appeared inmany zones. Many of these became the focal points for complex culturesbetween 600 B.C. and A.D. 150. By the latter date, most of the featuresdefining Mesoamerica and that distinguish it from North and CentralAmerican cultural areas were in place.

Classic (A.D. 150/300–650/900)

The development of elaborate cultural institutions appears to have beendirectly spurred by social and ideological factors. Indirectly, populationgrowth was also a dynamic element. The starting and ending dates arestrictly dependent on the area with which one deals. Classic cultures werein every sense the second florescence of Mesoamerican civilization andbuilt upon the previous successes of Preclassic civilizations. The firstlarge-scale, economic and political systems were developed, which boundtogether several regions.

Early Postclassic (A.D. 650/900–1250)

Collapse and transformation of Classic civilizations led to new regionalexpressions in this stage. Intense interaction between far-flung zones ledto the creation of hybrid cultures, which appeared as transitional forms.Climatic changes played a role in at least accelerating the new adapta-tions. Tribute-seeking, predatory military states developed, which laiddown patterns fully developed in the next stage.

Late Postclassic (A.D. 1250–1519)

Essentially, this was the climax stage for reformulated, regional, andlarger-than-regional cultures put together in the preceding stage.

12 Richard E. W. Adams

Historical and native documents as well as eyewitness accounts provideunexcelled detail for these civilizations. A number of the sixteenth-century expressions of Mesoamerican civilizations are relatively wellknown: the Aztec, Tarascan, Maya, Zapotec, and Mixtec.

A SHORT HISTORY OF MESOAMERICAN FIELD

ARCHAEOLOGY: A SELECTIVE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF

RESEARCH

I have concentrated on the years 1950 to the late 1990s for a historicalsurvey of research, a period within which all of the scholars with chaptersin this book accomplished the research that gave them the credentials towrite in their chosen fields. However, I also refer to a number of earlierdevelopments and precursor concepts. The dating of the survey is notentirely arbitrary; it is clear that the last forty-six years have seen radicalchanges in both research data and our understanding of it. Surveys ofliterature and trends in Maya archaeology made in 1969 (Adams) and1982 (Adams and Hammond) clearly show the explosive growth not onlyof knowledge but also of practitioners. The obvious points are that thesedevelopments are related and are also characteristic of the general field ofMesoamerican archaeology (as seen in Blanton et al. 1981; Adams 1991;Weaver 1991). The less obvious point is that an increasing diversity ofresearch design, field methods, interpretation, and even of publicationstook shape. Some references will be made to precursors in certain fields.

In the longer history of Mesoamerican archaeology three trends canbe clearly seen. The first is the growing realization of the great depth oftime in the area. The second is the increasing perception of the complex-ity of the area and of that achieved by individual cultures. These twochanges in intellectual awareness are mainly substantively driven – thatis, nearly a direct result of increased fieldwork and the publication of it.The third trend is the increase in the amount of and persuasiveness ofexplanatory (secondary theoretical) material from about 1960 onward.This is partly a response to the challenges of the changes in perceptionof the data but is also driven by the history of the field of archaeology aspracticed by Northamericans. In Latin America, mainly regionally trainedarchaeologists have taken the Marxist models as premises to be assumedand have found themselves bewildered and even upset by the newer andmore sophisticated constructions of their Northamerican colleagues.

Introduction 13

However, scholarly interchange has brought about more sympatheticunderstanding on both sides.

The history of field archaeology in Mesoamerica is a simultaneouslynarrower and wider field than the usual survey of Mesoamerican studies.As Bernal notes (1980:148), the first large-scale Mesoamerican fieldworkwas begun in the 1880s by Harvard’s Peabody Museum at the site ofCopan, Honduras. Before that time, antiquarianism had characterizedthe study of artifacts and the sites. The lack of discipline in excavation,especially the lack of the stratigraphic method, had hampered even thebest of the fieldworkers in comprehending what they observed and indeveloping the sequence of events and construction at any given site.Typological studies often had been done on museum collections, includ-ing a study of the small clay figurines so common in the Basin of Mexico.However, the figurines were ordered in time by stylistic means and lackedthe necessary independent confirmation. Such indispensable disciplinewas introduced about 1911 with the stratigraphic technique, which hassince been supplemented by a great number of technical and field meth-ods. In my view, it is no coincidence that the person probably mostresponsible for introducing stratigraphic excavation to New World ar-chaeology was Franz Boas, the founder of American anthropology(Adams 1960:99). As Browman and Givens (1996:91) conclude, however,the method was probably independently introduced three times intoAmerican archaeology during a relatively short period. The intellectualdevelopment of that crucial time meant that archaeology was to be partof anthropology, and that the interactivity characteristic of the total fieldwas also to be part of the subfield. It is also apparent that the develop-ment of stratigraphy, and the implications of the information to begained from it, meant that field methods were not mere skills andproficiencies that were an end in themselves. The real implication wasthat fieldwork, done in a disciplined and imaginative manner, couldproduce insights and conclusions available from no other source. Inshort, explanation and understanding flowed from fieldwork, or at leastfrom the information produced by fieldwork.

It is my argument that new methods of gathering information and ofanalyzing it ultimately are the intellectual drivers in the field of Meso-american studies and not secondary theories. Two examples will suffice.The reformulated and integrated theory of the Classic Maya collapse(Culbert 1973) was stimulated by the accumulation of significant amounts

14 Richard E. W. Adams

of data on the topic from projects in the period 1955–70. The explanationwas not the result of a breakthrough in understanding but was theconsequence of new information from several sites that appeared tocoincide and to suggest it might be possible to integrate the data andexplanations. The breakthrough in understanding came at a conferencewhere all the data was examined and twelve scholars contributed to theanalysis and final form of explanation. The new explanation was, asalways, insufficiently supported by data in certain areas; it thereforebecame a guide for further research during the next twenty-five years andprobably will continue to influence field research for the foreseeablefuture.

A second example is that of the research effort in the Valley of Oaxacaand its surrounds. Considerable data had been accumulated from 1920 to1965, principally from the work of Alfonso Caso and his colleagues. Inthis case, a later, small group of scholars led by Kent Flannery generateda series of research problems based on Caso’s work and also on a largertheoretical scheme, the Palerm Wolf theory, which, in turn, was basedon huge amounts of work already done in the Basin of Mexico (Flanneryet al. 1967). Again, I argue that the available information generated byfieldwork and analysis stimulated tentative explanations and further field-work as well as still further explanations. Both of these examples areexamined further in this introduction, but my point should be clear.Data generation leads to more sophisticated analysis and thence to morepattern perception that, finally, demands explanation and more field-work. Theory mistakenly has been set at the center of this scholarlyoperational process and, because of its glamor and the often perceivedlack of need for data to sustain it, is frequently used as shortcut to facile,persuasive, and mistaken explanation. Greater intellectual weight andhistorical credit needs to be given analysis and field methods.

The recent and ever faster changing fashions in ‘‘theory’’ often havelittle or no effect on the nature of and the quality of the informationproduced. This point can be demonstrated by comparing the quality ofthe fieldwork, publication, and data from the work of scholars at theCarnegie Institution of Washington with that from many other projectsstimulated by the hypothesis testing of the ‘‘New Archaeology.’’ Thetriviality of conclusions, poverty of documentation, and smallness ofsample of the latter are in often great contrast to the work accomplishedby the Carnegie group. To use an analogy, a great deal of theory is toooften like the surface of the ocean, tossed and agitated by every wind