Whalen 1988

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

1/17

Board of Trustees, Boston University

Small Community Organization during the Late Formative Period in Oaxaca, MexicoAuthor(s): Michael E. WhalenReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 291-306Published by: Boston UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530310 .

Accessed: 03/11/2011 00:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Boston University andBoard of Trustees, Boston University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toJournal of Field Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bostonhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530310?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530310?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

2/17

291

Small CommunityOrganizationDuring the LateFormativePeriodin Oaxaca,MexicoMichael E. WhalenUniversity of TulsaTulsa,OklahomaLate Formative ca.300-100 B.c.) culturalsystems fhighlandMesoamerica avebeenstudiedmostlyat theregional eveland at thetopsoflocalsettlement-systemierarchies.Weknowmuch essabout the structureofsmallcommunities.Data from a minorOaxacansiteare used to identify woaspects f thiscommunity'snternaland externalorganization:1) a status-gradedet ofhousehold nitsheadedbyan elite amily, itselfpartofa valley-widerulingstratum,and 2) workshop-leveleramicproductionor supra-communityconsumption.Introduction

The end of the Formative period in highland Meso-america(ca. 300 B.c to A.C.200) saw the culmination ofdevelopmental processes begun a millennium earlier. Cul-tural systems were rapidly growing in size, population,level of centralization,and extent of hierarchicalstructure.It is generally agreed that full-fledged states emerged inkey areas of Mesoamerica by Late Formative times, andthere are a number of important studies of these devel-opments (e.g., Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979; Hirth1980; Blanton et al. 1982; Spencer 1982; Kowalewski etal. 1983). Nevertheless, much remains to be learned aboutLate Formativecultures. Most data come from settlementpattern surveys in Morelos and the Valleys of Mexico andOaxaca. Although these projects have produced majordata sets of exemplary quality, they only represent thebeginning of the investigative process. There are no ex-cavation data that approach the scope of these regionalsurveys, and what little data there are come mostly fromlarge sites such as Monte Albin, Monte Negro, Huame-lulpan, Yucuita,and Teotihuacin. Late Formative culturalsystems have been studied largelyat the regional level andat the tops of local settlement-system hierarchies.A notable deficiency in our understandingof Late For-mative cultures of highland Mesoamerica is the lack offine-scale excavation data from the small and medium-sized communities that accommodated sizable fractions ofexpanding local populations. As a result, almost nothingof the internal structures and organization of importantsettlement system components is understood. Lack ofthese data, in turn, impedes synthesis of an adequate pic-

ture of the structure and operation of Late Formativesocieties.This deficiency stimulates the present paper, which ex-amines and interpretsdata on small-community structureand composition at the end of the Formative in the Valleyof Oaxaca. The data used here were presented elsewherein preliminaryfashion (Whalen 1981). The focus of that

study was the Early Formative, however, and the LateFormative data were not analyzed in much detail. In ad-dition, other researchers have recently accumulated andinterpreted large bodies of new data on the regional po-litical and economic structures of the Late FormativeVal-ley of Oaxaca. The present study will consider how itsdata fit these new models.

Throughout this study, the Middle-to-Late Formativetransition period is designated the Monte Albin Early Iperiod, ca. 500 B.c. to 300 B.C. The Late Formative isthe Monte Alban Late I period, ca. 300 B.C. to 100 B.C.,and the Terminal Formative is Monte Albn II, ca. 100B.C. to A.C.200. This terminology reflectsthe primacyofthe hilltop center of Monte Albin (FIG.i), around whichvalley-wide political and economic power began to centerin the Early I period. For many succeeding centuries,political, economic, and social developments all over thevalley were strongly influenced by the powerful MonteAlbin system. Any community analysis must, therefore,be structuredaround this reality.The Physicaland CulturalSettingThe Valley of Oaxaca lies in the southern highlands ofMexico (FIG.1). Partsof the Y-shapedvalley floor contain

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

3/17

292 CommunityOrganizationn Oaxaca,Mexico/Whalen

Etlabranchmap area

FabricaSanJoseTierrasLargas - Yagul

MonteAlban ,0Tomaltepecbasolo Tiacolula ranch

valleyfloorValleGrande

0 15km

Figure 1. Mesoamerica and the Valley of Oaxaca, showing sites andareas mentioned in the text.

a permanentriver with broad flood plains. Flanking pied-mont zones rise to high surrounding mountains. Goodphysical descriptions of the valley have been publishedelsewhere (e.g., Flannery et al. 1967). The site of SantoDomingo Tomaltepec lies in the piedmont zone of theeastern arm of the valley, located ca. 17 km from MonteAlbin.The following view of regional development and dem-ography is summarizedfrom the recent work of the Valleyof OaxacaSettlement PatternProject (Blanton et al. 1982:45-71). Valley populations expanded greatly in the EarlyI period, and part of this growing population was accom-modated in the valley piedmont. Villages existed here inthe past, but majorpopulation expansion dates from EarlyI times. Most of this growth took place within 20 km ofMonte Albain, and it is suggested that the center waspartiallysustained by canal-irrigatedpiedmont agriculturalproduce. It is furtherarguedthat therewere great politicaland economic changes at this time. Valley settlement sys-tems were reorganized into a three-level, Monte Albain-centered administrative hierarchy, and a regional marketsystem is inferredto have existed under the control of thisstructure.The Late I period continues growth within the EarlyIpattern, although the system became still more complex.A four- or five-tiered settlement hierarchyis evident, con-

sisting of a single major center (Monte Albin), districtcenters of several sizes, minor centers, and hamlets. Siteswere classified by estimates of sizes of populations andpublic buildings. Hamlets had no public buildings. De-spite this hierarchicalelaboration, however, the valley stillremained strongly centered on Monte Alban, which wasthe focus of political and economic activity within thesettlement system. It is clear that the agriculturalpotentialof the valley was being widely exploited by Late I times,supporting considerable populations. There were an esti-mated 30,000 people in the central and southern portionsof the valley alone, and population subsequently increasedabove this level.

Considerablesocial change must have been part of thisgrowth and restructuring.The elaboration of social dif-ferentiation is reflected in the few excavations of Late Iperiod tombs and burials in and around the valley (e.g.,Chadwick 1966; Caso, Bernal, and Acosta 1967; Winter1972; Whalen 1981). The elaboration of these burial fa-cilities, plus the relative simplicity of most of their con-temporaries, indicates a highly-differentiated social sys-tem. Going farther,Flanneryand his co-authors assertthatthe Monte Albin I period saw the emergence of a "class-endogamous professional ruling stratum of valley-widesignificance" (Flannery, Marcus, and Kowalewski 1981:92).The Tomaltepec community was a minor participantinthese largerdevelopments. Its small ceremonial-civiczoneand modest population would place it near the bottom ofthe administrative hierarchy postulated for Late I. Thesignificanceof the Tomaltepec community does not lie inits prominence, but in the specificview that it provides ofthe details of Late I community structure.What happenedat the regional level in the Valley of Oaxaca is beingclarifiedby others. We now turn to consideration of howthis change was effected at the community level.

Community StructureBy the Late I period, the Tomaltepec community had

expanded to its maximum size of ca. 4.5 ha. This is aconsiderable increase over the Early I figure of ca. 1 ha.There may have been about six Early I households, in-creasing to about 20 by Late I times. The population ofLate I Tomaltepec would have been on the order of 100people. Succeeding discussion will consider this commu-nity's structurein terms of 1) the nature of its ceremonial-civic and residentialzones; 2) mortuary practices;and 3)the spatial arrangementof community components. Fig-ure 2 shows the community components discussed here.

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

4/17

JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.5, 1988 293

NOIc-4

4

I c - 3

0 100mound m

O householdunit contourntervalsIm.Figure 2. Late I community components investigated at Tornaltepec.More Late I deposits are expected to the north, west, and sw of themound area.

TheCeremonial-CiviconeAlthough central public building locations are charac-teristic of Mesoamerican communities, the TomaltepecLate I village focused on a structure on its SEedge. Thebuilding was positioned over a series of older structures

dating back to the Early Formative. This zone has beendescribedand illustratedelsewhere (Whalen 1981), so thatonly a briefsummaryappearshere. The Late I ceremonial-civic zone consisted of a large platform (Mound 1) plusthree smallerplatforms (Mounds 2-4). Mound 1 is ca. 5m high, covering ca. 150 sq m. Mounds 2, 3, and 4 stand1 m to 2 m high, each covering ca. 75 sq m. Trenches,road cuts, and looters' holes in all four mounds showsubstantial Late I enlargement of Mound 1. Mounds 2,3, and 4 were also constructed at the same time.Atop Mound 1 was a series of at least three plasterfloors constructed throughout the Monte AlbhinLate Iand Early II periods. Project resources did not permitextensive study of these constructions, although a brief

investigation was carried out on the upper floor (Sallade1981). The author concluded that this structure was aminor example of the two-roomed temple common inOaxaca from the end of the Formative through the earlyClassic. No excavation was done on the Late I floorsbeneaththis temple. Nevertheless, similarityin dimensionssuggest that the Late I buildings functioned in the sameway as the temple that succeeded them.The centers of all four mounds lie along a roughly E-waxis. Two mounds (1 and 4) are known to have containedhuman burials. Finally, vestiges of plaster around themounds and in the road cuts passing between them sug-gest that all four platforms were connected by plasteredsurfaces.The platforms thus appearto form a contempo-rary,well-defined unit, which was likely the scene of cer-emonial-civic activities.TheResidentialZoneHOUSEHOLD UNIT DEFINITION

Household unit Ic-1 is a cluster of two elaborate resi-dences (Structures9 and 10) lying a short distance northof Mound 1. Here, at least two small platforms encloseda patio (FIG.3). Only the northernmost platform (Struc-ture 9) was completely exposed. Walls and steps were builtof cut stone, rubble was used for fill, and a plaster floortopped the structure. It measured ca. 4 m x 5 m, and itwas about 0.6 m high. Its plaster floor was very badlydamaged, and no trace remained of the house that itpresumably supported. Built into the center of the plat-form was a small tomb with an earthen floor, adobe brickwalls, and a cover of thin stone slabs (FIG. 3). The tombmeasured ca. 2 m long x 0.8 m wide x 0.4 m deep. Acorner of the second platform (Structure 10) was alsoexposed. It, too, had cut stone walls, a plasteredfloor, anddimensions similar to Structure 9. It is not known if atomb was present in Structure 10.Houses presumablystood atop the two smallplatforms.The construction of the Ic-1 houses probably includedboth adobe brick and wattle-and-daub. Several kg ofadobe brick chunks and stick-impressed daub fragmentscame from the debris around the platforms. From the sizeof the exposed platform, it is estimated that each of thehouses had on the order of 16-18 sq m of floor space.Associated features and artifactsindicate that the plat-forms were residential.Severalheavily-burnedpit featureswere scattered between the two platforms. To the north,across the modern road cut, lay a large trash midden andseveraladditionalpits. These northern pits were filledwithdomestic debris, although none evidenced heavy burning.In addition to these features, the entire northern portion

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

5/17


-excavated area

N IN

heavyl a t e d e b r i s

road

tomb excavatedrea

structure9 -adobe-walled pit

0 structure 10mc stone unburnedeature

burned eature '3 middenFigure 3. The Area Ic-1 excavations. Deposits are presumed to havebeen continuous across the modern road, which cuts down to sterilesoil.

of unit Ic-1 was covered with a litter of Monte AlbaTnIcceramicand lithic debris. It is noteworthy that the north-ern part of Ic-1 has features of a different sort than thesouthern part. In the south, these pits have heavily burnededges. The northern featuresarenot burned, and domestictrashis much more common. These differencesmay reflectdifferent activity zones in household unit Ic-1. These arethe following: 1) a residential zone, including the plat-forms and their courtyard;2) a heavily-used activityzoneto one side of, but near, the residential zone; and 3) aperipheraldumping zone with unburned featuresor bor-row pits and a considerable amount of domestic refuse. Itis unfortunate that the modern road cut has obliteratedthe transitionalareabetween the postulated residentialanddumping zones. These components of household unit Ic-1 occur over a distance of some 20 m. This is not unusuallylarge for Middle or Late Formative household units in

Oaxaca. Winter (1972: 111) describes Monte Albin EarlyI household units of ca. 20 m in diameter at the nearbysite of Tierras Largas. A clearly defined Monte Albin IIhousehold unit at Tomaltepec was also at least 20 m indiameter (Whalen 1981: 109).A second Late I area was partially excavated and des-ignated Ic-3. It is defined by domestic refuse, chunks ofadobe and stick-impressed daub, human burials, and alarge set of fire pits. The depth of deposit here is insuffi-cient to cover platformslike those of unit Ic-1. It is there-fore reasonableto assert that houses at Ic-3 did not sit onplatforms. No house floor was recovered in the Ic-3 ex-cavations, which are shown in Figure 4. Contemporarydeposits were thin to the north, east, and south, increasingto the sw and west. It is here that the postulated Ic-3house was most likely situated.

Comparisonof Figures 3 and 4 shows that the Ic-3 areais much like the SEsection of Ic-1. Found in both caseswere large, closely-spacedfirepits of two sorts. Some wereshallow basins ranging from 30 cm to 50 cm in diameterand presumably serving as hearths. The second sort offirepit was a larger, deeper basin of oval or round shape.The edges of all these deep pits were brick-redfrom in-tensive heating, and several of the oval pits were sub-divided by adobe brickwalls extending from floor to rim.None of the pits contained accumulationsof ash or char-coal, indicating periodic cleaning. These pits may havebeen used for pottery firing, a question to be consideredin more detail presently.The last Monte Alban Late I area excavated at Tomal-tepec was designated Ic-4. Discovered here were pottery,domestic trash,severalhuman burials,and a small quantityof stick-impresseddaub. No Late I featuresor floors werefound here. Depth of deposit in this areawas insufficientto conceal platforms like those found in household unitIc-1. Any house aroundthe Ic-4 areamust, therefore,havebeen constructed without a platform. The Ic-4 area isdifficultto interpretbecausematerialis so sparse. It couldbe an isolated dumping areaon the peripheryof the com-munity, or, alternatively, t could be a portion of a house-hold unit.The question may be resolved by comparing data fromunits Ic-1, Ic-3, and Ic-4. All three areas yielded humanburials,domestic refuse, and small-to-moderate quantitiesof stick-impresseddaub. The Ic-1 area is clearlya house-hold unit. It was at least 20 m in diameter, and it mayhave been subdivided into a residential zone, an activityzone, and a peripheraldumping zone. If this model holdstrue for other Tomaltepec household units, then the findsin areas Ic-3 and 4 can be interpreted, respectively, asportions of the activity zone and the peripheraldumping

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

6/17


zone of two incompletely-exposed household units. Thealternative explanation, that the two areas are non-resi-dential activity loci, seems less feasible in light of thehuman burials, domestic trash, and house-constructiondebris. It is noteworthy that both the Ic-3 and Ic-4 areasare of appropriatesize to be household unit components.Both would easily fit in the Ic-1 household unit. Accord-ingly, all three areas are analyzed as household units insucceeding pages.It is more difficult to decide what kinds of householdunits these were. It has been argued elsewhere (Whalen1988) that the preceding Middle Formative periodthroughout highland Mesoamerica saw increases in resi-dential unit size, coupled with the appearanceof clustersof two or more houses. These structureswere either con-nected or located in very close proximity. Data from Oax-aca (Drennan 1976; Whalen 1981), from TehuacTin(Spencer 1982), and from central Mexico (Sanders, Par-sons, and Santley 1979) were cited in support of thisproposition. That this trend continues through the LateFormative is indicated by the Tomaltepec data just cited,by Winter's (1974: 982) Monte Alban excavations, andby Santley'sfindings at Loma Torremote in centralMexico(Sanders,Parsons, and Santley 1979: 305-334). All showthat connected or clustered houses were present in LateFormative times, presumably accommodating some typeof extended residential unit. It is unnecessaryto arguethatall Late Formative households were of an extended type,although some appearto have been presentat Tomaltepec,Monte Albin, and elsewhere in highland Mexico.HOUSEHOLD-ASSOCIATED ARTIFACTS

The domestic trash found in household units Ic-1 andIc-3 includes ceramics,chipped and ground stone, animalbones, carbonized remains of wild and cultivated plants,clay figurines, and fragments of ornaments of shell andmica. These data are tabulated in the original site report(Whalen 1981: 90). The artifacts of possible householdunit Ic-4 are more difficult to describe, as the domesticrefuse there was mixed with that of a preceding Early Ihousehold unit in the same area. It was impossible toseparatethe non-diagnostic trash of the two periods. Thisdiscussion therefore considers only Ic-1 and Ic-3 artifacts.Refuse is similar in both cases, suggesting comparableranges of domestic activities. Household unit Ic-1 yieldedcorn, avocado pits, and chenopod/amaranth seeds, whilecomparablequantities of corn and cheno-ams came fromIc-3. Other food remains from Late I households includebones of deer, dog, peccary, and rabbit. Deer bones out-number all other species by about five to one in householdunit Ic-1. Less area was excavatedin Ic-3, and total bone

excavatedarea

- fire-reddenedarth (@ adobe bricks r---o burialO deep feature shallowfeatureFigure 4. The Area Ic-3 excavations. Abundant Late I refuse wasfound around the pits. Deeper deposits to the west and sw may covera house.

counts are proportionatelysmaller.Nevertheless, the ratioof deer bone to all other bone in Ic-3 was only one toone. Bearing in mind the small size of the excavated sam-ple, it can still be suggested that the inhabitants of Ic-1consumed more deer and less of other species (e.g., dogand rabbit) than did their neighbors.Chipped stone debitage from both households includeschert, obsidian, and a local silicified siltstone. Absolutequantities of chipped stone differ greatly between the twohousehold units, with 53 pieces from Ic-1, versus onlynine pieces from Ic-3. This may be explained by notingthat 90% of the Ic-1 total came from the postulated dump-ing zone at the northern edge of the unit. In contrast, anapparentlyspecializedactivity zone was dug in Ic-3, yield-ing very little chipped stone. There is a similar disparityin quantities of ground stone from household units Ic-1and Ic-3 (11 pieces versus 7).In sum, comparison of domestic trash from units Ic-1and Ic-3 revealssome similaritiesand differences. It mustbe recalled, however, that a residential zone, an activity

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

7/17


;.i. ??ii -:

:L~ii:i Cii;.--- r -- I:?/ I ?'' ~i~ :I r-;?r: I\v r;U,;jK\.;?t~ II ~JF;;I?;~~?:'~i~:'c;lfi?~?*%:~~e!I: ~~?i- 1 .I~:i???

...??i~ ;~c"`''~:,? .?:~-~~~~'~E;t~

a.

~p~ ;Y? I 'i~i?~~9~53.66 Y~~BLE~-~YY I I.ri?--

i:?I?,';Y :: irii;: ?"? i? -9~9~r:i,itrl i: ? rI:::~"?I?~1:4 1 I I t ?~F~G:?I. ~" ';? ???5;~Y liJ ...i?: .

a ~t~c~?,:?-3?~?1 k~::i?:?_?-; ~?:: ?~?-.t~ ?1',:4L"r? ?~l?Y?Cli;~-l ? ' ?;?~C :i~:?L ?i

~ii ".. ili;t?;4r

0 10I Icm b.

Figure 5. Examples of effigy vessels from the Ic-1 tomb. The tiger mask and paw were apparently preserved from abroken vessel whose body sherds were not present in the tomb. All other tomb vessels were whole.

zone, and a dumping zone were excavated in Ic-1, whileonly an activity zone was explored in Ic-3. It would,therefore, be surprising if assemblages from the twohouseholds were identical. Artifact distribution patternsmay be explained under the hypothesis that different, spe-cialized portions of several household units were exca-vated.

MORTUARY PRACTICESLate I deposits at Tomaltepec yielded seven single andmultiple burials, containing the remainsof six adults and

three children. All but one adult burial were primaryin-terments. Also present were two badly-disturbed adultburials in Mounds 1 and 4. No other mortuary data areavailablefor these two interments, and they are not con-sidered further in this analysis. Other Tomaltepec Late Iburialsincluded two adults and two children from house-hold unit Ic-1, two adults and one child from Ic-3, andtwo adults from Ic-4. Male and female adultswere presentin these household unit burials. Despite the few moundburials, it appearsthat most villagerswere buried in theirresidential groups. This continues the Middle Formativepracticenoted here and elsewhere in the Valley of Oaxaca

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

8/17


?:wr~ I ~-~? ~.~~%l~-~Tt?.*Y~~?:31?~.CI ~I-??.?-; ;~ ;????~???:.,i~U~-?r:~?I; i~?~T.~. ??1~~1~? ~it~ '~~''?? ~:I.4i: ' ??~:. ?";~ ,., - , f~t~t'-tc; i:-e???':1:~:?- , ?f ::? ?vr: "'?.?- -:

?' '~~?;i r"`~?? 7r ?r. iL1 ~?~;?:?~.:?1? ,?l~lr,IF~:: .. i3t i~a:' ;.?~~?:? Y`r ~~????C-?r I~ ;;-?J-':jl"cji";::;;?? i -?'?I ::?I:fl':"; : :~ ?

i ; ??''.LI~l:Jtl;li?r?: i_,jc''" ~?~~?? r-ii:

i ./? ?;~-?. j?)

??? -?.. -;..Xi'I: , L?;-~-',''.??'i :e~?~EC\.C c~c*~~: ? ~~?. . 'C '( i?...?e.:?,.???~?:?`~!?''i'i?:~~2:?- ;?r ~?:: ?:.?',": ?:~~ -? i j.:?~r t ''~~?? ~ .~??-- E?) ~. :'''1?;-~-irr: _j;ic~ii-~jj31~ ~cb? 21s: ? .?'iI~7f~ii~ ??:-rr~c~Yi!X??-?~i~k ?-?-?C. ~: ~T?

LIT ?.: :~?~.;? ,?~??~i~~

C; i~l~: ~~?: r.;a

;iIXI?~~f

I''~l ?IE~,. n-~I:i=l" c O?ri1 ~??'::I?; II?rr? _`F -?r?? h:?~ r., I? .."'"' " z~ -?c~. ???~~.?~ ii-:?." . "O 10 ?-; ??( ??-,t ? ?L' Ci~cm d.

Figure 5. (cont.)

(e.g., Winter 1972; Drennan 1976; Whalen 1981). Adultburialsthroughout the valley were oriented E-W,with thehead usually to the west. Most burials were supine, withextended arms and legs. The majorityof child burialsalsofollowed this pattern.Other aspectsof mortuarytreatmentvariedconsiderably among Tomaltepec households. Mor-tuary practices are briefly discussed for each householdunit. Age and sex identifications were made by Dr. Rich-ard G. Wilkinson, Oaxaca Project osteologist.The tomb associated with Ic-1 has already been de-scribed. It contained the badly-disturbedand deterioratedremains of a female aged 30 to 40 years, an adult of

undetermined sex of 30 to 50 years, and a child of about12 years who was tentatively identified as a male. Thetomb had apparently been opened in antiquity, looted,and roughly reclosed. The stone covering-slabs wereloosely replaced, and 26 vessels were dumped in a pileatop them. Inside the tomb were nine more whole vessels,as well as fragments of some of the vessels found on thecovering slabs. It is presumed that all 35 vessels wereoriginally placed inside the tomb. One greenstone beadwas found in a vessel inside the tomb.The tomb's ceramic offering included bowls, spoutedand unspouted jars,and effigyvessels (FIG. s). One incom-

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

9/17


plete but impressivevessel was representedby a large tigermask and a hollow, paw-shapedhandle (FIG.5A).A whistlewithin the paw would have sounded as liquid was pouredfrom the jar.The paste was quite distinctive, showing thatthe two parts came from the same vessel. All other vesselswere whole, including the elaborate specimen shown inFigure 5b. This figure's headdress carries a device thatmay be "GlyphC," long recognized as a common elementin Zapotec art (e.g., Caso 1928). Leigh (1966), studyingthe evolution of the motif from ca. 300 B.C.to A.C.800,argues that its earliest and simplest form is a cross-sec-tioned basin from which water flows. This is very muchlike the Tomaltepec figure. The same author also notesthat the glyph occurs with bar-and-dot numerals, becom-ing the day-sign "Water."The Zapotec are known to haveused a ritual calendar of 20 day signs plus 13 numbers,which cycled through 260 days (Marcus 1983: 91-92).Within this system, the Tomaltepec figure's headdressglyph could be read "2-Water."This may also be a cal-endric name. In his discussion of Monte Albsanhiero-glyphic writing, Caso (1965: 940) notes that portions ofthe names of individuals were expressed as a day-sign,probably that of their birthday (e.g., "1-Deer").The second burial in household unit Ic-1 was that of achild of ca. five years. Three ordinaryvessels accompaniedthe burial, which lay in a pit grave immediately behind(north of) the platform that contained the tomb. It wouldhave been situated on the edge of the household unit'spostulated residential zone. It is unclear why some Ic-iresidents had a tomb, while others did not. The twoburialsmay not be preciselycontemporary.The burial situation is quite different in household unitIc-3. Here, the remains of three adults were found in pitgraves around, but not in, the postulated ceramic firingovens. All of these adults were identified as male, withages of 35+, 40, and 40+. Two were primary burials,and one was a secondary interment accompanyingone ofthe former. A child of less than six years was also foundburied without offerings in the fill of one of the firingpits. The Ic-3 adults had a few offerings. One primaryburial had a pair of unmatched marine shells (cf. Mega-pitaria aurantiaca) and a fragment of an unidentified ma-rine gastropod. The other primaryburial had two bowls,a plain spouted jar,and a cup made from the right parietalof a human skull, and was accompanied by a secondaryburial. The skull of the secondary burial lay on the chestof the primary individual, while the former's limb boneswere piled around the feet of the other. The skull cup didnot come from the cranium of the secondary burial.The Ic-3 burials are taken to reflect a lower order of

magnitude of funeraryelaboration than their Ic-1 contem-poraries, whether grave type or mortuary offerings areconsidered. It may also be significant that the Ic-3 childwas without offerings, while both the Ic-1 children weremore elaboratelytreated. One was included in the tomb,and the other had as many ceramicofferings (three) as themost elaborate Ic-3 adult burial.The Ic-4 burialsincluded a woman of ca. 40 years andan adult of undetermined age and sex. Their mortuarytreatment was even simpler than those of Ic-3: both layin simple pit graves without any offerings.In sum, the Tomaltepec Late I burials suggest thatchildren and adults of both sexes were buried anywherein the postulated residential, activity, and dumping zonesof their household units. At least two burials were putinto the mounds, but it is argued that interment in resi-dential units was the main method of disposal of the deadat Late I Tomaltepec. Burial position was fairlystandard-ized, although there were considerabledifferencesin levelof elaboration of mortuary activity.SPATIALAND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

The assumption of this discussion is that the roles,statuses, and distinctions of a society's social organizationare at least partiallyreflected in the spatial arrangementofits components (Clarke 1977). Societies with few socialdistinctions might, therefore, be expected to make rela-tively few spatial distinctions in the positioning of com-munity components. The Tomaltepec Early Formativecommunity was characterizedas simple in both social andspatialterms (Whalen 1983), while the Middle Formativecommunity showed both increased social and spatialcom-plexity (Whalen 1988). The Late Formative (Late I) set-tlement continued and intensified this trend. Two majorcommunity components can be defined: 1) the moundarea, which presumably served as the community's cere-monial-civic core, and 2) residential units representing awide range of social statuses.Late I households were distributed at variable distancesaround the ceremonial-civic area. It seems that householdunits increased in status with proximity to the moundarea. This suggestion is based upon elaboration of archi-tecture and mortuary activity, both of which decreasewithincreasingdistance from the mounds. This is expressedbyprojecting a line through the ceremonial-civic area. Themounds are arranged along a roughly E-w axis (ca. 102-2820), and the projected line follows this. The perpendic-ular (i.e., least) distance of each household was then mea-sured from this axis. This is undoubtedly not a perfectlyaccurateway to characterize household-mound areaspac-

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

10/17


100-9080 60-80m -1

In 70E 60E 50E 50 -35-45m no house platformsS 40 pitgraves140 no grave goods

? 30 no house platforms2pit graves20 17m few grave goods10- house platformstomb

many grave goods0C1 Ic- 1 c-3 Ic-4

HouseholdunitFigure6. LateI householdunitdistancesrom the moundarea.Architecturalndmortuary ata romeachhouseholdunitare also summarizedere to suggesta relationbetweenhousehold tatusandproximityo theceremonial-civicone.

ing, but it at least providesa standardof comparison.Figure6 summarizesspatial,architectural,ndmortuarydata.The Ic-1 measurements from the axis to the houseplatforms.The Ic-3 measurements not to a house, butto the firepitsdefining he unit. Extensivetestingaroundthe Ic-3 unit showedthatcontemporary epositsare thinto the north,east, and south. LateI deposits ncreasedndensityto the sw of the firepitarea,suggestingthat anassociatedhousewas locatedthere.As alreadynoted, thepresenceof a house was indicatedby the stick-impresseddaubfragments,he domesticrefuse,andthe humanbur-ials foundin the excavatedportionsof Ic-3. The point tobe madehere is thatthe Ic-3 distance hownin Figure6is the minimumspacingseparating c-3 from the moundarea.If the housewas located ustto the sw of the firepitarea,as argued, ts distance o the moundareaaxiswouldbe ca. 40-45 m. The Ic-4 measurements more proble-matical,as only burialswere recovered.The burialswerelocatedca. 80 m fromthe ceremonial-civicxis.Domesticdebrissuggestsa house somewhere n the vicinity.If theburialswere on the northedge of a householdunit, theycould be some 20 m from the house.The Ic-1 unit servesas a basis for this supposition.The minimumhouse-to-axis distance or Ic-4 is thus on the orderof 60 m. Eventhough precise iguresarenot available,t is clear hat theIc-4 distances considerably reaterhan those of Ic-1 and

Ic-3. These data support the proposition that the Late Ihouseholds held a range of status positions that declinedwith increasingdistance from the ceremonial-civiccore ofthe community.It will be recalledthat, with the exception of deer con-sumption, excavationdata did not reflect great differencesin type or qualityof domestic activities between householdunits Ic-1 and Ic-3. Nevertheless, the spatial,architectural,and mortuarydata all imply status differentiation betweenthe two. It may simply be that domestic activity patternsdid not differ greatly between households in a small, rural

community like Tomaltepec, even though some differ-ences in wealth or status did exist.In summary, the Late I period is the apogee of com-

munity development at Tomaltepec. The settlement's totalarea increased more than four-fold over the precedingMiddle Formative period, including great expansion ofboth the ceremonial-civic and residential sectors. In theceremonial-civicarea, a single modest-sized Early I plat-form was covered and replaced by a set of four alignedplatforms of various shapes and sizes. These appear tohave been connected by plastered surfaces, creating aformally-definedceremonial civic sector that was markedlydifferent from the residential portion of the community.The distinction between public and domestic zones wasnot so evident in earlier periods. This statement rests onthe assumption that structures and their spatial patterns

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

11/17


arevisible manifestationsof the distinctions made in socialsystems (Clarke 1977).Similar growth and diversification are evident in theresidential sector of the Late I community. Surface dataindicate that it was much larger than any of its predeces-sors. It also seems that this expanded residential zone canbe divided along status lines. While extant data do notpermit us to draw concentric status zones around theceremonial-civic core, it does seem that houses closer tothe core were of higher status than more distant ones. Allresidentialspace, in a word, does not appearto have beenequal. Finally, it was argued that space within householdunits was partitioned into residential, activity, and dump-ing areas. Mortuary data also reflect substantial differen-tiation among Tomaltepec villagers. These data correlatecloselywith spatialand architecturalstatus indicators,sug-gesting considerabledistance between the top and bottomof the community's social scale.

Community IntegrationHaving tentatively identified some of the componentsof the Tomaltepec Late I community, we now turn to the

question of their integration on both internal and externallevels. Recent demographic work in the Valley of Oaxacahas revealed a regional structure from which no commu-nity could have stood apart. Understanding of Late Icommunity integration at Tomaltepec must, therefore, in-volve both internal organization and external relations.From the data cited in this paper, it is argued that LateI regional organization was based on exercise of large-scalepolitical and economic authorityin a highly-stratifiedsociety. The question here is how this was manifested ata minor Late I community. Two aspects of internal andexternal community integration can be postulated fromthe Tomaltepec Late I data. These are 1) an internally-graded set of household units, headed by an elite family,itself part of a valley-wide ruling stratum; and 2) special-ized craft production for supra-community consumption.A link between the two is also possible: craft productionmay have been administered or controlled by the localmanagerialelite. Each of these points is considered belowand supported by comparison with data from other sitesand areas.Elite Families

The internal differentiation of Tomaltepec Late I unitshas alreadybeen considered. Now at issue is the questionof a valley-wide stratum of elite families. The idea is com-patible with currentunderstandingsof social organization

in later periods. Pedro Carrasco, in his review of prehis-panic social organization, notes that a characteristic ofancient Mexican society was "segmentation of both landand people under the authority of individual members ofthe ruling class" (1971: 360). Charles Gibson describespre-conquest Aztec Tlatoque, or local hereditary lords,whose familiesdischargedgeneraladministrative unctionsin their communities (1960: 173), and Ronald Sporesnotes a similarsystem in the Post-Classic Mixteca Alta, anarea immediately north of the Valley of Oaxaca (1967: 9,118). In and around the Valleyof Oaxaca,the Post-ClassicZapotec are described by Flannery and Marcus(1976: 376) as "a highly stratifiedsociety with a profes-sional rulingclass,at whose head was a Coquiato,or "GreatLord." They further note that the common people livedin scattered communities, each overseen by a Coqui, ornobleman, who was appointed by the Coquiato.These datasuggest that Post-Classic elite families throughout high-land Mesoamerica formed networks for the transmissionof authority from the top of society down to the com-munity level. The question now is whether elite familiescan be identified in the Formative archaeologicalrecord.Mortuarydata from severalareasand time periods suggestthat they can.An evident family tomb was found in Monte Albin II(TerminalFormative) deposits at FaibricaSan Jose, in thenorthern arm of the Valley of Oaxaca (Drennan1976: 276-278). The small, rectangulartomb containedthe apparently sequential interments of three male adultsfor whom dental and skeletal similaritiessuggest a familyrelationship.The tomb was elaboratelyfurnished with 25vessels, a large stone celt, and marine shell ornaments.Still earlier is the Late Formative site of San SebastianAbasolo, lying on the valley floor less than 10 km fromTomaltepec. Test excavations here revealed a Late I com-ponent containing an elaborate multiple burial similar tothat at nearby,and contemporary, Tomaltepec. The inter-ment, designatedA-5, is describedby Winter (1972: 253-258). A pit grave was used instead of a tomb. In it, anadult male and female lay side by side, accompanied by21 vessels.This offering included bowls, miniaturevessels,effigy vessels, and bridge-spouted jars with molded andincisedfigures.The mouths of the two skeletons containeda total of 12 greenstone beads, 10 with the male and 2with the female.

A group of adjacenttombs, one of them containing twoindividuals, also comes from Late I deposits at Yagul, alarger center a few km east of Tomaltepec (Chadwick1966: 245-255). The offerings described in this brief re-port are not as numerous or as elaborate, per occupant,as those from Abasolo or Tomaltepec. Tomb construction

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

12/17


effort, on the other hand, was much greaterat Yagulthanat either of those two sites.Finally, multiple-occupant Period I and II tombs wereexcavated at Monte Albhin half a century ago. Winter

(1972: 259-260) reviewed these data, noting that thetotal number of individuals involved is unclear.One burialfrom the Monte Albn II period deserves special note.Burial XIV-10, described by Acosta (1949: 17-25) andlater by Winter (1972: 259-60), contained the remainsof five individuals, plus a rich offering of ceramics, shell,pearls, and jade. There are no age and sex data, althoughthe excavatorsuggested that two sets of skeletons repre-sent male-female pairs (Acosta 1949: 22).In summary, elaborate multiple burials come from anumber of Oaxacan sites at the end of the Formative.These burials occur at a range of centers from MonteAlban down to Tomaltepec. As a group, their mortuarytreatment and burial partners set them apart from thecommon, single interment. In one case, the familial rela-tionship of a tomb's inhabitants was indicated by dentaland skeletaldata. It therefore seems reasonable to suggestthat other Late I individuals in multiple burials were re-lated by blood or marriage.It is also noteworthy that thesame style of Late I tomb was being used all over theValleyof Oaxaca,from Monte Albin to Tomaltepec (Mar-quina 1951: 337; Covarrubias1957: 154).

Iconography provides another line of approach to thequestion of elite family lines. A decade ago, FlanneryandMarcus (1976: 382) argued for a patternof deification ofroyal ancestors at the end of the Oaxacan Formative and,especially, in the Classic period. This was based on theanthropomorphic funeraryurns and beakers found in theelaborate tombs at Monte Albin and elsewhere in the area.The persons depicted on these vessels bearcalendricnameslike "1-Tiger," a pattern commonly seen in Classic andPost-ClassicMesoamerican iconography. It is noteworthythat the Late I group tomb in the elite residence at To-maltepeccontained three anthropomorphicvessels, one ofwhich may have borne the inscription "2-Water." Noother vessels with human representationsor with name-dates were found anywhere else on the site.The Tomaltepec elite, then, seem to have been partici-pating in a pattern of mortuary ritual that 1) was distin-guished from the common burial by tombs, multiple in-terments, and elaborate grave furnishings; 2) was presentat contemporary centers of a range of sizes; 3) was moreelaborateat largercenters and simplerat smallerones; and4) involved only a small fractionof the valley'spopulation.Finally, it is interesting to note that these postulated elitefamily burials were not common in the Valley of Oaxacain the preceding Early I period. It may be that a system

of organization based on elite families developed in EarlyI, but only spread into smallervalley communities by LateI.This idea is consistent with models of areadevelopment.

Several authors have characterized the Monte Albn Iperiod as a time of consolidation of a regional polity underthe authority of the center at Monte Alban (e.g., Spencer1982; Blanton et al. 1982). Requisite to these growthmodels is an increase in the elite population of the valley.Descent connections (whether real or fictive) among thisexpanding elite would provide a strong, coherent structurethrough which to administer local communities and theregion. Literature has already been cited to show thatregionaladministrationby elite familiescharacterizedwideareas of Post-Classic Mesoamerica. The Oaxacan Late andTerminal Formative data may reveal the origins of a long-standing organizational pattern.The Tomaltepec datasug-gest that even small centers were tied into this networkby Late I.

Specialized roductionA second aspect of the Tomaltepec community's internaland external integration may have been specialized pro-duction. It has been argued that the scale of ceramicpro-duction in the Valley of Oaxaca rose during Monte AlbanI times due to increases in population, intensification ofagriculturalproduction, and political consolidation (Fein-man, Kowalewski, and Blanton 1984: 300). It is also ar-

gued that a regional market system was developed inMonte Alban I times. This marketsystem and its concom-itant specialized production are suggested to have arisenin Early I, developing to a considerable extent by Late I(e.g., Feinman, Blanton, and Kowalewski 1984: 157). Itis in Late I times that we see evidences of specializedproduction at Tomaltepec.Stark(1985: 159) reviews the problem of identificationof prehistoricceramicproduction in Mesoamerica. Poten-tial lines of evidence include presence of raw materials,portable and permanenttools and facilities of production,by-products of production such as sherds damaged in thefiring process, and unusual frequencies of particular ypesof pottery. The nature of this evidence, however, isstrongly conditioned by level of specialization, extent andcontinuity of pottery production, manufacturing tech-niques, and raw materialsemployed (Stark 1985: 182).Several lines of evidence can be pursued to argue thata set of Tomaltepec Late I features (FIG.7) were used tofire ceramics.The first is the condition of their walls andfloors, which were fire-reddenedto a depth of severalcm.This extent of burning was not observed on EarlyI or II

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

13/17


N

m I

- fire-reddenedarth adobebricks

Figure 7. Postulated pottery-firing facilities from Late I Tomaltepec.These closely resemble the "horizontal kilns"described in a varietyofprehistoricand historic contexts.

featuresat the site. It is clear that these features were usedfor some type of high-intensity heating that was uniqueto that period. Second, these heating pits arelargeenoughfor pottery firing, being ca. 1 m long, 0.5 m wide, and0.3 m deep. They are also numerous; eight were found inthe small amount of excavation done in Late I deposits,accounting for about one-third of all Late I non-structurefeaturesdug at Tomaltepec.The shape and construction of the Tomaltepec Late Ifeatures are also commensuratewith ceramicmanufacture.They closely resemble the horizontal kilns described forPost-Classic western Mexico (Bordaz 1964), TerminalFormative central Mexico (Redmond 1979), 2nd centuryA.C. England (Anderson 1985), and medieval Germany

and Holland (Bordaz 1964; van der Leeuw 1976). In allthese cases, horizontalkilns aretrenches or roughly oblongholes. They show great variability in size. Reportedlengths range from 1-5 m, widths are 0.6-2 m, anddepths are 0.3-1 m. Elaboratehorizontal kilns have stepsor chambersformed into their floors, and floors and wallswere sometimes plastered.Other, simpler horizontal kilnshad flat, unplastered floors and walls. Adobe bricks orstone slabs were sometimes used to extend or shore upthe walls of the pits.Internal dividers of some sort are necessary features inhorizontal kilns. Bordaz (1964: 99) notes the danger of"fire-clouding," or carbon staining from contact withburning sticks, when vessels and fuel are stacked at thesame level. In horizontal kiln firing, clouding is oftenavoided by erecting barriersof brick, clay, or even largepotsherds between the ceramics and the fuel. The opentops of horizontal kilns may be covered during firing toobtain maximum control of air draft and to reduce heatloss. The medieval German kilns reviewed by Bordaz(1964: 63) apparentlyhad clay covers, judging from theassociated quantities of burned daub. Such simple coverscould easily have been repairedor replaced for each firing.Tomaltepec'sheavily-burnedLate I pits fit well into thisclass of facility. Elongated or ovoid pits compose i of theTomaltepec sample, while one other large, heavily-burnedpit is nearlyround. Their sizes fall within reported ranges.Rye (1981: 98) argues that pit firing is well-suited tomaintenanceof a reducingatmosphere,since it limits avail-able oxygen. Combination of a firing pit and a clay cover,as described above, would permit even better-controlledreduction firing. Note that one of the Valley of Oaxaca'smost common Late I ceramic types is a reduction-firedgrayware.Some of the Tomaltepecpits have adobe walls extendingacross their widths. These dividers were clearly in placeduring heating, as their surfaces are deeply reddened.Other pits of comparablesize are equally heavily-burned,but they do not have internal walls. In two of the fourwalled examples,the partitionswere placedoff-center,cre-ating unequal-sized chambers. The brick walls abutted thepit walls, but the two were not interconnected. It wouldtherefore have been a simple matter to remove and repo-sition them. It may be that these adobe partitions werealways present when the pits were in use. There weremany burned adobe brick fragments scattered among thepits, and the standing walls possibly representonly thosethat happened to be in place when the area was aban-doned. No other differences were apparent betweenwalled and unwalled pits. It may also be that the movablebrick walls served to control the size of the heated area,

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

14/17


justas firebricksre usedin modernkilns.Partitioning fthe pitswould allow different izes or numbersof vesselsto be efficientlyired n the samefacility.Frequentmove-mentof the partitionswould also account or the brokenbrickrubbleobserved n the areaof the pits.Thereare no tracesof firing-pitcovers at Tomaltepec,but few reportedprehistoric orizontalkilnsretain hem.Neitherdo the Tomaltepecpitshave multi-level loorsorplastered interior surfaces. These characteristicswerefound to be variablen otherprehistoric ontextsas well.The contentsof the Tomaltepecpits also suggest ce-ramicfiring. Two sherds showing firing damagewerefound in one of the postulatedkilns in area Ic-3. Bothwere Late I graywareswith the swollen,spongy texturedescribedby Rye (1981: 109) as "bloating," conditiontraceable o over-firing.No otherevidenceof firingdam-agewas observed,althoughthe originalanalysesdid notincludea careful search for wasters.While presenceofwasters s clearevidenceof ceramicproduction, heir ab-sence is not so conclusive,however.There is a NewGuineastudy(Lauer1974: 199) in whichno recognizablewasters could be found aroundan open-airfiring areaused by specialist and non-specialist potters. Stark(1985: 175) also reportsverylow frequencies f wasters(ca. 1-4%) at severalprehistoricMesoamericanpotteryproductionocations,andcautions hat"deformedwastersmay be infrequentand their frequencycertainlyvariesaccording o materials ndtechnology" 1985: 175).Finally,ethnobotanicaldata (Smith 1981: 188) showthat oak charcoalwas overwhelminglydominantin thepostulatedkilns.This is also consistentwith a hypothesisof reduction-firingf ceramics n a controlledkiln envi-ronment.Shepard 1956:77) andArnold(1985: 31) ar-gue that firingfuel is selectedby pottersbecauseof itscombustionproperties,which must be appropriateo thefiring problemat hand. Hard woods like oak, Shepardnotes, burnslowly andevenly,and the fuel supply s notreplenished uringthe firingepisode.This promotes us-tainedhigh temperaturend draftcontrol,resultingn theeven and thoroughreductionfiringevidencedby Late Igraywares.Insum,thecondition,number, hape,construction, ndcontents of the Tomaltepec Late I pits are all consistentwith a pottery-production hypothesis. It is suggested thatthe ceramicsinvolved were the graywares, a majorclass ofdomestic pottery all over the area. The Tomaltepec kilnswere small and quite simple compared to other reportedexamples, but both Bordaz (1964: 57) and Rye(1981: 98) note the efficiency of even the simplest hori-zontal pit kilns in reducing heat loss and controlling firingatmosphere. It should also be noted that clay is widely

available all over the Valley of Oaxaca. The Tomaltepeccommunity lies in the valley piedmont zone, near the vastwood resources of the mountains. A permanent streamruns near the site. Clay, wood, and water were all readilyavailableto Tomaltepec potters.Severalpoints can be made about the community's ce-ramic manufacturingactivities. First, production facilitieshave been suggested to have served for reduction firing ofgrayware ceramics, most likely the flat-bottomed bowlsthat are so common all over the valley at this time. Fein-man (1980: 238) describes this ware as standardizedandrelatively cheap to produce from widely available localclays.There was probablylittle or no production of luxurywares at Tomaltepec. Second, production facilities arehousehold-associated, rather than being located in special-purpose areas removed from the residential zones. Third,these facilities were modest-sized, with at least six associ-ated with a single household unit (Ic-2). Production ap-pears to have taken place in a number of small facilities,rather than in a few large ones. Fourth, production wasnot limited to lower status households. Kilns were asso-ciated with household unit Ic-1, the community's mostelaborate.

We have few data on the proportion of Tomaltepechouseholds that engaged in ceramicmanufacture,and thislimitation affects consideration of the scale of production.If many Tomaltepec Late I households had sets of firingfacilities like Ic-2, the community's production would havebeen considerablyin excess of its consumption. It may bethat most Tomaltepec households had such facilities, asthey were found everywhere that Late I residential unitfeatures were excavatedin any quantity.There are other indications that the general scale ofceramic manufacture increased considerably in the Valleyof Oaxaca in Late I times. Feinman and his co-authorsnote that grayware bowls of the G-12 type were muchmore widely distributed over the valley than was any pre-ceding type (Feinman, Kowalewski, and Blanton 1984:317-318). These data imply that Late I communities wereproducing at a level above their own requirementsfor thedemands of a regional market system. The Tomaltepecceramic-productiondata areconsistent with such a model.

Predictably, there is some indication that the scale ofceramic manufacture was greaterat largercenters, and lessat minor ones like Tomaltepec. Salvage excavations wererecentlyconducted in a ceramicmanufacturingarea at SanAugustin de las Juntasin the centralValley of Oaxaca. Noexcavation report was published, but the results of thework were briefly summarized in another source (Winter1984). Excavated there were kilns of unspecified type,large quantities of kiln wasters, and pottery-making im-

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

15/17


plements such as molds and potter's bats. The productionarea was found "in a prehispanic residential area locatedapproximately200 m west of the central mound group"(Winter 1984: 197). It is not clear whether this was ahigh or low status residential area. We do not know howmany of the community's households produced ceramics,but it seems clear that the scale of production was consid-erably greater than at Tomaltepec. Both the Tomaltepecand the San Augustin production facilities appearto havebeen associated with households.

The Tomaltepec community also may have contributedmaterials other than ceramics to the regional market sys-tem. Another pair of products likely to have been in de-mand in the densely-populated central Valley of Oaxacawere wood and charcoal. Traffic in wood is difficult totrace, because of its perishable nature and the absence ofstoragefacilitiesthat can be identified in the archaeologicalrecord. It may be significant that the number of groundstone axes (three) from Late I deposits at Tomaltepecequals the combined number of axes from all earlier de-posits. Large spalls broken from their bits show that theseaxes were used for heavychopping, and experimentalstud-ies (Saraydarand Shimada 1973) show that such tools areeffective for felling trees. Analysis of charcoalfrom Late Ideposits atTomaltepec shows that oak, an upperpiedmonttree, was much more common than in the preceding pe-riod. Arctostaphylos, mountain tree, also appears at thesite for the firsttime in Late I charcoal (Smith 1981: 191-193). These carbonized wood data suggest increasedfocuson upper piedmont and mountain wood resources by LateI. This wood could have served the needs of the Tomal-tepec potters as well as the cooking, heating, and buildingrequirementsof the valley population. Arnold (1985: 36)shows that potters' firing fuels are often waste materialsfrom other activities.

It has also been argued (Blanton et al. 1982: 70) thatLate I piedmont communities (like Tomaltepec) used ca-nal irrigation for double-crop farming to help support thelarge urban population at Monte Albin. Tomaltepec iswell-situated for such activity, as it lies on a permanentstream, surrounded by wide expanses of gently-slopingland. Remains of two canals were found at the site. Bothcontained Monte Albin V (Post-Classic) sherds, pluseroded fragments that could have belonged to the MonteAlbin I and II periods.The Tomaltepec community is thus seen as contributingceramics, agriculturalproduce, and upper piedmont andmountain wood resources to the Monte Albin system. Ithas been argued that ceramic production, at least, wasorganized on a household basis. Accepting this, it seemsmost likely that other sorts of production were similarly

structured.Preceding discussion suggested that Tomalte-pec households were linked together in a status continuumheaded by an elite family with ties to other valley elite.Such a structure would provide an effective networkthrough which to tie Tomaltepec's surplusproduction intothe larger valley system.

ConclusionsThe basic organizationalunits of the Tomaltepec villageseem to have been household groups of markedlyunequalstatus. At least some of these may have been larger thanthe nuclear family. The continuum of residential groupstatus was headed by an elite family, itself part of a supra-community network. Nevertheless, architecture, facilities,artifacts,and mortuary practices suggest that the Tomal-

tepec elite family ranked low on a valley-wide status scale.Workshop-levelceramicproduction took place within theTomaltepec community, and production was organizedon a household basis. The community's resident elite hadsome close contact with this activity, as at least one pro-duction facility is associated with the high-status houseplatforms. That some of the Tomaltepec elite may havebeen involved in ceramicproduction is an idea consistentwith their minor position in a valley-wide elite network.The entire community is supposed to have fitted into thepowerful, coherent Monte Albhinsystem as a "boundary"site, moving a range of products into the system. Thisimplies that external stimuli produced much of what wesee in the Tomaltepec Late I archaeologicalrecord.We have now explored a few simple ideas about thestructure, organization, and function of a minor Late Icenter in the Valley of Oaxaca. Unfortunately, we stillknow little about this community or its contemporaries.We lack, for example, most details of the structure andorganization of household units, the arrangementof do-mestic and workshop activities at household and supra-household levels, community composition andlay-out, thestructureof authority within the community, and the na-ture and extent of the community's relationswith its largerand smaller contemporaries. Our greatest problem inachieving these understandings is the small amount ofexcavation done to date at Late Formative communitiesthroughout highland Mesoamerica. Cultural systems ofthis period in Oaxaca and elsewhere were large and di-verse. It is clear that they can only be fully understoodthrough excavations at a range of community sizes andtypes. The demographic work cited earlier in this paperhas provided us with a large sample of sites and withinsightful regional interpretations within which to con-tinue our investigations.

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

16/17


AcknowledgmentsThe research n whichthisstudywas basedwasfundedby National Science FoundationDoctoral DissertationImprovementGrantGS-40325 andbya FordFoundationFieldTrainingGrantmadeto theUniversity f Michigan.The workwas carried ut underthe auspicesof the Mex-ican National Institute of Anthropology and History(ConcesidnArqueoldgica6/71) andtheUniversity f Mich-iganMuseumfAnthropology'saxacaHumanEcologyProject. upport tmanypointswasgenerouslyrovidedby Dr. Kent V. Flannery,OaxacaProjectDirector,andbythe Oaxaca .N.A.H. Center.Figure5 wasdrawnby LoisMartin.MichaelE. Whalenreceived is Ph.D. inAnthropologyAr-chaeology)rom the UniversityofMichiganin 1976. He hasdonefieldwork n the sw UnitedStatesand in Mexico.Re-search n bothoftheseareasfocusedonpatternsandprocessesfevolutionofearlyvillagesocietiesnto morecomplex ntities.He is currentlyAssociateProfessor fAnthropologyt theUniversityfTulsa,Tulsa,OK 74104.

Acosta,JorgeR.1949 "El PectoraldeJadede MonteAlbin,"AnalesdelInstitutoNacionaldeAntropologia Historia3: 17-26.Anderson,Anne1985 Interpreting ottery.New York:PicaPress.Arnold,Dean E.1985 CeramicTheoryand Cultural Process.Cambridge:Cam-bridge UniversityPress.Blanton, Richard,StephenKowalewski,GaryFeinman,andJillAppel1982 MonteAlbdn'sHinterland,Part I: ThePrehispanicettle-ment Patternsof the Central and SouthernParts of theValleyofOaxaca,Mexico.PrehistoryndHumanEcologyfthe ValleyofOaxaca7. Ann Arbor:Universityof Michi-gan.Bordaz,Jacques1964 Precolumbian eramicKilns at Pefiitas,a Post-Classic ite

in CentralNayarit,Mexico.Ph.D. dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity, New York. Ann Arbor: University Micro-films.Carrasco,Pedro1971 "Social Organization of Ancient Mexico," in RobertWauchope,Gordon Ekholm, and Ignacio Bernal,eds.,Handbookof MiddleAmericanIndians, Volume10: Ar-chaeologyfNorthernMesoamerica,art 1. Austin: Uni-versityof TexasPress,349-375.Caso,Alfonso1928 LasEstelasZapotecas.Monograflas elMuseodeArqueolo-gia, Historia,y Etnografla.Mexico City: SecretariadeEducaci6nPuiblica.

1965 "ZapotecWriting and Calendar,"n Robert Wauchopeand Gordon Willey, eds., HandbookofMiddleAmericanIndians, Volume3: Archaeologyf SouthernMesoamerica,Part Two.Austin:Universityof TexasPress,931-947.Caso, Alfonso, IgnacioBernal,and GeorgeAcosta1967 La Cerdmica e MonteAlban. Memorias elInstitutoNa-cionaldeAntropologia Historia13. Mexico City: Secre-tariade Educaci6nPfiblica.Chadwick,Robert1966 "The Tombs of Monte Albain Style at Yagul," n JohnPaddock, ed., AncientOaxaca.Palo Alto: StanfordUni-versityPress,245-255.Clarke,David L.1977 SpatialArchaeology. ew York: AcademicPress.Covarrubias,Miguel1957 IndianArt of Mexicoand CentralAmerica. New York:AlfredA. Knopf.Drennan,Robert D.1976 FdbricaSanJostand MiddleFormativeSocietyn theValleyof Oaxaca,Mexico.Prehistory nd Human Ecology f theValleyofOaxaca4. Ann Arbor:Universityof Michigan.Feinman,Gary1980 TheRelationshipetweenAdministrativeOrganization ndCeramic roductionn theValleyofOaxaca,Mexico.Ph.D.dissertation,City Universityof New York.Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.Feinman,Gary,RichardBlanton,and StephenKowalewski1984 "MarketSystemDevelopmentin the PrehispanicValleyof Oaxaca,Mexico," in Kenneth G. Hirth, ed., Tradeand Exchange n EarlyMesoamerica.Albuquerque:Uni-

versityof New Mexico Press, 157-178.Feinman,Gary,StephenKowalewski,and RichardBlanton1984 "Modeling Ceramic Production and OrganizationalChangein the Pre-hispanicValley of Oaxaca, Mexico,"in Sander van der Leeuw and AnabellePritchard,eds.,TheManyDimensionsof Pottery.Amsterdam:Universityof AmsterdamPress,297-333.Flannery,Kent, Anne Kirby,MichaelKirby,andAubreyWilliams1967 "FarmingSystemsandPoliticalGrowthin AncientOax-aca,"Science158: 445-454.Flannery,Kent, and JoyceMarcus1976 "FormativeOaxacaand the ZapotecCosmos,"AmericanScientist 4: 374-383.Flannery,Kent, JoyceMarcus,and StephenKowalewski1981 "ThePreceramic ndFormative n the Valleyof Oaxaca,"in Virginia Bricker and JeremySabloff, eds., Handbookof MiddleAmericanIndians, Supplement : Archaeology.Austin:Universityof TexasPress,48-93.Gibson, Charles1960 "TheAztecAristocracyn ColonialMexico,"ComparativeStudies n Society ndHistory2: 169-196.Hirth, Kenneth G.1980 EasternMorelosnd Teotihuacdn: Settlement urvey. ub-lications n Anthropology5. Nashville:VanderbiltUni-versity.

8/3/2019 Whalen 1988

17/17

306 Community Organization in Oaxaca, Mexico/Whalen

Kowalewski,Stephen,RichardBlanton,GaryFeinman,andLauraFinsten1983 "Boundaries,Scale, and InternalOrganization," ournalofAnthropologicalrchaeology: 32-56.Lauer,Peter1974 PotteryTraditions n theD'EntrecasteauxslandsofPapua.OccasionalPapers n Anthropology. St. Lucia,Australia:Universityof Queensland.van der Leeuw, Sander1976 Studies n the TechnologyfAncientPottery.Amsterdam:Organization or the Advancementof Pure Research.Leigh, Howard1966 "TheEvolution of the Zapotec GlyphC," in John Pad-dock,ed.,AncientOaxaca.Palo Alto: StanfordUniversityPress,256-269.Marcus,Joyce1983 "The First Appearanceof Zapotec Writing and Calen-drics,"in Kent Flanneryand Joyce Marcus, eds., TheCloudPeople:TheDivergentEvolutionofZapotec nd Mix-tecCivilizations.New York:AcademicPress,91-95.Marquina, gnacio1951 Arquitectura rehispinica.Memorias,nstitutoNacionaldeAntropologia Historia1. Mexico City: Secretarfa e Ed-ucaci6n Ptiblica.Redmond,Elsa M.1979 "A Terminal FormativeCeramicWorkshopin the Te-huaca'nValley,"in Robert D. Drennan, ed., PrehistoricSocial,Political,and EconomicDevelopmentn the Area ofthe TehuacanValley.Universityof MichiganMuseumofAnthropologyesearchReportsn Archaeology. Ann Ar-bor: Universityof Michigan, 111-127.Rye, Owen S.1981 PotteryTechnology:rinciplesndReconstruction.Washing-ton, D.C.: TaraxcumPress.Sallade,JaneK.1981 "AppendixXI: ExcavationandAnalysisof Structure14,"in MichaelE. Whalen,Excavationst SantoDomingoTo-maltepec: volution fa FormativeCommunityn theValleyof Oaxaca,Mexico.Prehistory nd Human Ecology f theValleyofOaxaca6. Ann Arbor:Universityof Michigan,204-211.Sanders,WilliamT., JeffreyR. Parsons,and Robert S. Santley1979 TheBasinofMexico:Ecological rocessesn the Evolution fa Civilization.New York:AcademicPress.Saraydar, tephenC., and Izumi Shimada1973 "ExperimentalArchaeology:A New Outlook,"AmericanAntiquity38: 344-350.Shepard,Anna O.1956 Ceramicsor theArchaeologist. arnegie nstitutionPubli-cation609. Washington,D.C.: CarnegieInstitution.Smith,Judith1981 "AppendixIX: FormativeBotanical Remainsat Tomal-tepec,"in Michael E. Whalen,Excavations t Santo Do-mingoTomaltepec:volution fa FormativeCommunityntheValley fOaxaca,Mexico.PrehistoryndHumanEcologyoftheValley fOaxaca6. Ann Arbor:Universityof Mich-igan, 186-194.

Spencer,CharlesS.1982 TheCuicatldnCanadaandMonteAlban: A StudyofPri-mary State FormationProcesses.New York: AcademicPress.Spores,RonaldM.1967 TheMixtecKingsand TheirPeople.Norman: Universityof OklahomaPress.Stark,BarbaraL.1985 "Archaeologicaldentificationof PotteryProductionLo-cations:Ethnoarchaeological ndArchaeologicalData inMesoamerica,"n Ben A. Nelson, ed.,DecodingPrehistoricCeramics.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,155-194.Whalen,Michael E.1981 Excavations t SantoDomingoTomaltepec:volutionof aFormativeCommunity n the Valley of Oaxaca,Mexico.Prehistorynd Human Ecology f the Valleyof Oaxaca6.Ann Arbor:Universityof Michigan.

1983 "ReconstructingEarly FormativeVillage Organizationin Oaxaca,Mexico,"AmericanAntiquity48: 17-43.1988 "House andHousehold in FormativeOaxaca,"n WendyAshmore and RichardWilk, eds., House and Householdin the Mesoamericanast. Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press,249-272.

Winter,MarcusC.1972 TierrasLargas:A FormativeCommunityn the ValleyofOaxaca,Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Ari-zona. Ann Arbor:UniversityMicrofilms.1974 "ResidentialPatternsat Monte Albin, Oaxaca,Mexico,"Science186: 981-987.1984 "Exchangen FormativeHighlandOaxaca," n KennethHirth, ed., Trade and Exchange n EarlyMesoamerica.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 179-214.

Documents

Whalen 1988