Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos E-Book

Arthur A. Joyce

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Peoples of America
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 648

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico examines the origins, history, and interrelationships of the civilizations that arose and flourished in Oaxaca.

• Provides an up-to-date summary of the current state of research findings and archaeological evidence
• Uses contemporary social theory to address many key problems relating to archaeology of the Americas, including the dynamics of social life and the rise and fall of civilizations
• Adds clarity to ongoing debates over cultural change and interregional interactions in ancient Mesoamerican societies
• Supplemented with compelling illustrations, photographs, and line drawings of various archaeological sites and artifacts

Leseprobe

Contents

List of Contributors

Preface

one People, Culture, and History

Sources of Evidence

Theorizing Oaxaca’s Ancient Past

two Peoples and Landscapes on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest

The Physical Geography of Oaxaca

Mixtec and Zapotec Peoples at the Time of the Spanish Conquest

three From Foragers to Village Life

First Peoples

The Archaic Period and the Origins of Agriculture

The Transition to Sedentism

Negotiating Initial Village Life

four Negotiating Community and Complexity

Constructing Community and Identity in the Early Formative

Community and Identity in the Early Middle Formative

Structures of Authority in the Early to Middle Formative

five From Village to City: The Founding and Early Development of Monte Albán

The Late Middle Formative Political Crisis

The Founding of Monte Albán

Political Consolidation and Upheaval at Monte Albán

six Political Centralization in the Mixteca and Coast

Social Transformations in the Mixtec Highlands

Interregional Interaction and the Rise of Mixtec Centers

Political Authority and Ideology

Urbanization in the Lower Río Verde Valley

Political Collapse in the Mixteca and the Oaxaca Coast

seven Authority and Polity in the Classic Period

Classic-Period Society in the Valley of Oaxaca

Classic-Period Polities of the Mixtec Highlands

Political Fragmentation and Centralization on the Oaxaca Coast

eight Collapse and Reemergence

The Collapse in the Oaxacan Highlands

The Classic-Period Collapse and the Early Postclassic on the Oaxaca Coast

Postclassic Heroic History

Lord 8 Deer “Jaguar Claw” and the Archaeology of Tututepec (Yucu Dzaa)

Late Postclassic Archaeology of the Oaxacan Highlands

The Spanish Conquest

nine Conclusions

Beyond Functionalism and Neo-Evolutionism in Oaxaca

Poststructural Theory and the Archaeology of the Mixtec, Zapotec, and Chatino

Endnotes

Bibliography

Index

The Peoples of America

General Editors: Alan Kolata and Dean Snow

This series is about the native peoples and civilizations of the Americas, from their origins in ancient times to the present day. Drawing on archaeological, historical, and anthropological evidence, each volume presents a fresh and absorbing account of a group’s culture, society, and history.

Accessible and scholarly, and well illustrated with maps and photographs, the volumes of The Peoples of America will together provide a comprehensive and vivid picture of the character and variety of the societies of the American past.

Already published:

The Tiwanaku: A Portrait of an Andean Civilization

Alan Kolata

The Timucua

Jerald T. Milanich

The Aztecs

Second Edition

Michael E. Smith

The Cheyenne

John Moore

The Iroquois

Dean Snow

The Moche

Garth Bowden

The Nasca

Helaine Silverman and Donald A. Proulx

The Incas

Terence N. D’Altroy

The Sioux

Guy Gibbon

Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico

Arthur A. Joyce

This edition first published 2010

© 2010 Arthur A. Joyce

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered Office

John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ,

United Kingdom

Editorial Offices

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of Arthur A. Joyce to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Joyce, Arthur A.

Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: ancient peoples of southern Mexico/Arthur A. Joyce.

p. cm. – (The Peoples of America)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-631-20977-5 (hardcover: alk. paper) – ISBN 978-0-631-20978-2 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Mixtec Indians–History. 2. Zapotec Indians–History. 3. Chatino Indians–History. 4. Oaxaca Valley (Mexico)–History. I. Title.

F1219.8.M59J69 2010

972’.701–dc22

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

To Christine

Figures

Figure 1.1Map of Mesoamerica showing sites and obsidian sources mentioned in the textFigure 1.2Photo of Tututepec showing the colonial church and the sacred hill of Yucu DzaaFigure 1.3The Mexican state of Oaxaca showing geographical regions, rivers, and mountain rangesFigure 1.4PEMA excavations at Monte AlbánFigure 1.5Excavations at the site of Cerro de la Cruz in the lower Río Verde ValleyFigure 1.6Ceramic phases in OaxacaFigure 2.1View of the Valley of OaxacaFigure 2.2View of the Nochixtlán Valley with the Yanhuitlán church in the foreground and the archaeological site of Cerro Jazmín in the backgroundFigure 2.3View of the lower Río Verde ValleyFigure 2.4Modern lama-bordo terracing in the Nochixtlán ValleyFigure 2.5INAH excavations in front of the Cueva del Diablo (Devil’s Cave) near MitlaFigure 3.1Archaeological sites of the Archaic through early Middle Formative periods (8000–700 BC) in OaxacaFigure 3.2Idealized plan of Formative-period house with associated burial, oven, midden, and bell-shaped pit featuresFigure 3.3Group of Tierras Largas-phase figurines from the site of Hacienda Blanca, Valley of OaxacaFigure 3.4Early Formative public buildings from Area C at San José MogoteFigure 4.1Olmec-style artifacts from Oaxaca: (a) photo of hollow baby figurine from Etlatongo; (b) fire-serpent and were-jaguar motifsFigure 4.2Early and Middle Formative figurines from the Valley of Oaxaca: (a) Guadalupe-phase female figurine; (b) San José-phase female figurine; (c) San José-phase figurine, possibly male; (d) costumed figure with ritual attire including a zoomorphic mask and necklace, San José phaseFigure 4.3Burials from the Tomaltepec cemetery: (a) Burial 20 with ceramic offerings; (b) Burial 57 with ceramic offeringsFigure 5.1Archaeological sites of the later Formative (700 BC–AD 300) in the Valley of OaxacaFigure 5.2Idealized reconstruction of Rosario-phase buildings and Monument 3 on Mound 1 at San José MogoteFigure 5.3Photo of the Main Plaza at Monte Albán, looking south. The North Platform is in the foreground and the South Platform in the backgroundFigure 5.4The Main Plaza at Monte Albán: (a) Danibaan and Pe phases (500–100 BC); (b) Nisa phase (100 BC–AD 200)Figure 5.5Carved-stone monuments from Building L-sub: (a) in situ monuments; (b) elder from the upper rank; (c) young adult from the first rank in the lower row of Building L-sub; (d) rain-god impersonator; (e) decapitation; (f) monuments D-139 and D-140 with hieroglyphic inscriptionsFigure 5.6Late/Terminal Formative monumental art from the Valley of Oaxaca: (a) viborón frieze from the North Platform at Monte Albán; (b) Building J “conquest slab” from Monte Albán; (c) Dainzú ballplayers (d) Monte Albán Monument J-41Figure 5.7Late/Terminal Formative-period ceramics from the Valley of Oaxaca: (a) cocijo urn; (b) comal; (c) G-12 combed-base bowlFigure 6.1Archaeological sites of the Late/Terminal Formative in the Mixtec highlands and the lower Río Verde ValleyFigure 6.2Plan of the civic-ceremonial center of Monte NegroFigure 6.3Late Formative burials from Monte Negro: (a) Burial VIII-4B; (b) Burial IX-5; (c) Tomb 1; (d) Tomb 40Figure 6.4Plan of Huamelulpan: (a) site plan; (b) plan of the Grupo de la IglesiaFigure 6.5Ceramic urn from Huamelulpan with rain-god imageryFigure 6.6High-status house from HuamelulpanFigure 6.7Yucuita Monument 1Figure 6.8Plan of upper-terrace excavations at Cerro de la CruzFigure 6.9Late Formative cemetery beneath Structure 1 at Cerro de la CruzFigure 6.10Plan of YugüeFigure 6.11Plan of the Mound 1 acropolis at Río ViejoFigure 6.12Terminal Formative bone flute from the Yugüe cemeteryFigure 7.1Classic-period archaeological sites of OaxacaFigure 7.2The Main Plaza of Monte Albán: (a) Pitao phase (AD 350–500); (b) Xoo phase (AD 500–800)Figure 7.3High-status residential complex showing the location of the tomb (Tomb 104)Figure 7.4Tomb 104: (a) plan of tomb; (b) painted murals showing ancestorsFigure 7.5The iconographic program of Lord 13 NightFigure 7.6Xoo-phase genealogical registers from the Valley of Oaxaca: (a) Slab 6-6059, unknown provenance; Museo Nacional de Antropología e Historia; (b) Monte Albán Stela MA-VGE-2Figure 7.7Photo of System M, a temple-patio-altar complex on the Main Plaza of Monte AlbánFigure 7.8Plan of the site center at Cerro de las MinasFigure 7.9Ñuiñe urn from Cerro de las Minas Tomb 5Figure 7.10Plan of commoner residences at Cerro de las Minas 233 Figure 7.11 Classic-period carved stones from the Mixtec highlands: (a) carved slab from Yucuñudahui Tomb 1; (b) Cerro de la Caja Monument 7; (c) Cerro de la Caja Monument 2; (d) Tequixtepec Monument 17; (e) stone sculpture of a human headFigure 7.12Plan of Río ViejoFigure 7.13Yuta Tiyoo-phase carved-stone monuments from Río Viejo: (a) Monument 8; (b) Monument 11; (c) Monument 14; (d) Monument 6; (e) Monument 15Figure 8.1Postclassic-period archaeological sites in OaxacaFigure 8.2Early Postclassic carved-stone monuments from Río Viejo: (a) Monument 3; (b) Jamiltepec Monument 1 (originally located at Río Viejo)Figure 8.3Plan of Operation RV00 A at Río ViejoFigure 8.4Scenes from the Mixtec codices: (a) the meeting of Lord 8 Deer and Lady 9 Grass at Chalcatongo; Codex Nuttall, codex page 44; (b) Lord 8 Deer and followers arrive at Tututepec showing the placement of sacred objects in the temple; Codex Colombino-Becker, codex pages 5 and 6; (c) the nose-piercing rite of Lord 8 Deer; Codex Nuttall, codex page 52; (d) the murder of Lord 12 Movement; Codex Nuttall, codex page 81Figure 8.5Tututepec Monument 6Figure 8.6Residence A at TututepecFigure 8.7Photo of the Palace of the Six Patios at YagulFigure 8.8Plans of Late Postclassic high-status residences in the Valley of Oaxaca: (a) Palace of the Six Patios at Yagul; (b) Group of the Columns at MitlaFigure 8.9Photo of stone mosaics at Mitla

Preface

The coastal and highland valleys as well as the rugged mountains of the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca are today one of the most linguistically and ethnically diverse areas of the Americas. Archaeological research has shown that this present cultural diversity extends far back into the pre-hispanic era. In this book I synthesize archaeological, ethnohistoric, ethnographic, iconographic, and epigraphic evidence to trace the prehispanic history of three of Oaxaca’s ethnolinguistic groups: the Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos. These groups occupy much of what is now the western half of Oaxaca, and their prehispanic past is better known than that of other Oaxacan peoples. Archaeological research on the Mixtecs and Zapotecs began in the late nineteenth century and has continued as a major research focus in Mesoamerican archaeology up to the present day. Intensive research on the Chatinos of the southwestern coastal region of Oaxaca began in the mid-1980s and has been the focus of my field research beginning in 1986. This research shows that prehispanic Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos lived in socially complex societies with writing, cities, powerful rulers, elaborate architectural and artistic traditions, and sophisticated agricultural technologies. Their archaeology addresses many key research problems such as the origins of agriculture, the development of social complexity, ancient urbanism, and societal collapse, among many others.

My approach to Oaxaca is based on a consideration of contemporary social theory and reflects the current trend in archaeology toward theoretical perspectives drawn from poststructural, feminist, and subaltern theories. Because my approach to Oaxacan archaeology differs from most of the current research in the region, I have described my theoretical perspective in some detail. This makes Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos more heavily theorized than other books on ancient Oaxaca, but I have tried to discuss theory in an accessible manner that will make the book of interest to advanced undergraduates as well as graduate students and professionals. While theory can be daunting for students, it is essential because our understandings of the past are dependent on our theoretical frameworks. Making theory explicit is therefore crucial. I have also tried to discuss the many differences of opinion and debates in Oaxacan archaeology in an inclusive and fair-minded fashion, even when I disagree with my colleagues. I feel strongly that debate can produce productive tensions that drive research, but I also think that debate in Oaxaca has not always been of this productive kind. I hope that this book opens up dialog and constructive engagements on Oaxaca’s ancient past.

Like most archaeological interpretations, my arguments are based on fragmentary evidence and analogy, as well as on theoretical positions that will undoubtedly evolve with time. Certainly my own perspectives have changed over the years (e.g., A. Joyce 1991a; Joyce & Winter 1996), and the nature of archaeology as a science is such that we deceive only ourselves if we believe that a particular past is largely understood. In his discussion of the advantages of processual archaeology relative to earlier cultural historical approaches, Kent Flannery (1967:122) argued that “The process theorists assume that ‘truth’ is just the best current hypothesis, and that whatever they believe now will ultimately be proved wrong, either within their lifetime or afterward. Their ‘theories’ are not like children to them, they suffer less trauma when the theories prove ‘wrong.’“ I heartily agree with Flannery’s insights here and it is sage advice for archaeologists of any theoretical persuasion. Respectful differences of opinion yield productive tensions that drive research and hopefully our understanding of past people.

Many people and institutions have supported me as I carried out the research discussed in this book and as I wrote the book itself. There have been numerous people who have aided me through years and while I cannot hope to mention everyone here, there are some that deserve special recognition.

I am grateful to Wiley-Blackwell and the two editors at the press who have worked with me on the book, Rosalie Robertson and Peter Coveney, as well as their assistants, Julia Kirk and Deirdre Ilkson. I thank Nik Prowse and Leah Morin who worked on editing and proofreading, as well as Guy Hepp who worked on the index. I wish to thank Alan Kolata who first invited me to contribute a volume to the Peoples of America series. While writing the book, I was supported by an ACLS/SSRC/NEH International and Area Studies Fellowship, a Faculty Fellowship from the Council on Research and Creative Works at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and a Summer Fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks. I would especially like to thank my colleagues who read the entire manuscript and provided thoughtful and constructive comments: Jeff Blomster, Michelle Butler, Guy Hepp, Mary Pye, Cynthia Robin, and Marcus Winter as well as one anonymous reviewer. The following kindly read sections of the book manuscript and I thank them for their input: Doug Bamforth, Stacy Barber, Cathy Cameron, John Clark, Frank Eddy, Byron Hamann, James Hester, John Hoffecker, Steve Lekson, Marc Levine, Mark Mitchell, Payson Sheets, Javier Urcid, and Paola Villa. I would also like to thank Eric Berkemeyer who drafted many of the figures in the volume along with Jeff Blomster, Byron Hamann, Ray Mueller, and Javier Urcid who graciously provided a number of previously unpublished illustrations and photos. I thank the following colleagues for providing figure permissions: Andrew Balkansky, Stacy Barber, John Clark, Gabriele Daublebsky, Emily Jean Dendinger, Peggy Gough, Jorge Juárez, Lina Kopicaite, Marc Levine, Simon Lord, John Monaghan, John Neikirk, Heather Orr, Hilary Parkinson, María del Perpetuo Socorro, John Pohl, Jill Rheinheimer, Iván Rivera, María de los Angeles Romero Frizzi, Francisco José Ruiz Cervantes, Javier Urcid, Al B. Wesolowsky, and Marcus Winter.

In Mexico I have been supported by many institutions and colleagues during my research in Oaxaca. I would like to thank the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia; especially the presidents of the Consejo de Arqueología: Lorena Mirambell, Mari Carmen Serra Puche, Norberto González Crespo, Joaquín García-Bárcena, and Roberto García Moll. I would like to thank the directors of the Centro INAH Oaxaca, María de la Luz Topete, Ernesto González Licón, Eduardo López Calzada, and Enrique Fernández Dávila who have supported my research. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Centro INAH Oaxaca, especially Marcus Winter, Nelly Robles, Raúl Matadamas, and Roberto Zárate. I would also like to thank the Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS) who granted me guest-investigator status in 2008 and 2009. Many other colleagues in Oaxaca have been generous with their support over the years including Laura Arnaud Bustamante, Manuel Hermann, Alicia Herrera, Robert Markens, Cira Martínez, Iván Rivera, and Michael Swanton.

I would like to thank the people of Oaxaca who have supported my research since 1986.I greatly appreciate all of the local and regional officials and land owners in the municipios of Santiago Jamiltepec and Villa de Tututepec de Melchor Ocampo who have given us permission and have facilitated our field research. I would like to especially thank all of the people of San José del Progreso, Río Viejo, La Boquilla, Yugüe, and Tututepec on the Oaxaca coast who have worked with us for the past 22 years. I also want to thank my friends in the lower Río Verde region especially Doña Heriberta Avelino, Don Salomón Reyes, and Don Jaime Rodríguez, as well as the Borrozo, Castillo, Cruz, García, Herrera, Iglesia, and López families. In Oaxaca City, I would especially like to thank Cicely Winter and everyone at the Casa Arnel who have welcomed us now for more than 20 years.

Funding for my archaeological and paleoenvironmental field research in Oaxaca has been provided by grants from the following organizations: National Science Foundation (grants 8716332, 9729763, and 0508078), NASA (NNX08AO31G), Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies (#99012), National Geographic Society (grant 3767-88), Wenner-Gren Foundation (GR. 4988), Fulbright Foundation, H. John Heinz III Charitable Trust, University of Colorado Norton Fund and Innovative Grant Program, Vanderbilt University Research Council and Mellon Fund, Explorers Club, Sigma Xi, and Rutgers University.

In the United States, I would like to thank the University of Colorado at Boulder, especially all of my colleagues and students who have supported my work over the years. In particular, I would like to thank Doug Bam-forth, Cathy Cameron, Linda Cordell, Jim Dixon, Darna Dufour, John Hoffecker, Carla Jones, Steve Lekson, Dennis Mcgilvray, Russ Mcgoodwin, Payson Sheets, and Matt Sponheimer. One of the most rewarding parts of being an academic has been my interactions with graduate students. My current and former students have challenged me to think in new and creative ways and I would especially like to thank Stacy Barber, Michelle Butler, Jamie Forde, Jeff Glover, Jessica Hedgepeth, Byron Hamann, Guy Hepp, Scott Hutson, Sarah Jennings, Stacie King, Marc Levine, Mark Mitchell, Tina Stenson, Errin Weller, and Andy Workinger. Many of these students have gone on to or are about to embark on successful careers in academia and I am proud of them.

Other friends and colleagues who have contributed to my ideas over the years and whom I would like to thank include: Pepe Aguilar, Wendy Ashmore, Jeff Blomster, Donald Brockington, Bruce Byland, Sal Capaldo, John Clark, Nicole Couture, Marcia-Anne Dobres, Mike Elam, Alex Geurds, Michelle Goman, David Grove, Gerardo Gutiérrez, Annabeth Headrick, Steve Houston, Maarten Jansen, John Janusek, Laura Junker, Steve Kowalewski, Peter Kroefges, Naomi Levin, Michael Lind, Geoff and Sharisse McCafferty, Bill Middleton, John Monaghan, Ray Mueller, Heather Orr, Michel Oudijk, Tom Patterson, John Pohl, Lucia Pou, Mary Pye, Carlos Rincón, Cynthia Robin, Ron Spores, Lauren Sullivan, Mary Thieme, Nancy Troike, Javier Urcid, Laura Van Broekhoven, Marcus Winter, and Robert and Judith Zeitlin.

Finally, I want to say a special thank you to my family who has supported me through all the work and stress, including months away from home in the field. Without the love and support of my wife, Christine, and Pepe as well as that of the Pacheco family, I would not have been able to complete this book and my life would not be as rich and happy.

one

People, Culture, and History

In early 1522, a few months after conquering the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán, Hernán Cortés dispatched an army led by Pedro de Alvarado to the Mixtec city of Tututepec on the Pacific coast of the present-day southern Mexican state of Oaxaca (figure 1.1). Since the city’s founding in the late eleventh century by the legendary ruler, Lord 8 Deer “Jaguar Claw,” Tututepec had been the political capital of one of the most powerful poli ties in Mexico (Joyce et al. 2004). By the time of the arrival of the Spanish, Tututepec dominated an empire covering 20,000 km2 along the southern Pacific coast. The city was located in the foothills of the Sierra Madre del Sur mountain range only 15 km north of the Pacific Ocean (figure 1.2). From the city center, people looked down onto the lush agricultural fields of the coastal plain, to the estuaries and out onto the vast blue of the Pacific. The ruler or cacique of Tututepec controlled much of the wealth of this land, which early colonial-period Spanish documents tell us included minerals such as gold and copper; agricultural fields for the production of cotton and cacao; and coastal resources like pearls, salt, and fish. Cortés had heard of this rich and powerful Mixtec city from Lord Lachi, the Zapotec ruler of Tehuantepec, a traditional enemy of Tututepec, and offered an alliance with the Spanish to defeat the Mixtec Empire.

Figure 1.1 Map of Mesoamerica showing sites and obsidian sources mentioned in the text (drawing by Eric Berkemeyer)

Figure 1.2 Photo of Tututepec showing the colonial church and the sacred hill of Yucu Dzaa (photograph by Arthur A. Joyce)

In February of 1522, Alvarado arrived in Tututepec with 200 Spanish soldiers and an army of thousands of Zapotecs from Tehuantepec. In describing Alvarado’s arrival in the coastal city, Díaz del Castillo (1955:101–2) stated that “they were taken to reside in the most populated part of the town, where the ruler had his altars and his largest houses, and where the houses were very close together, and made of thatch …” [translation by the author]. Alvarado conquered Tututepec in early March and imprisoned the ruler, Lord Coaxintecuhtli, who was forced to turn over thousands of castellanos of gold until his death in prison. After the conquest of the south coast, Cortés ordered Alvarado to establish a town near Tututepec, which became Villa Segura de la Frontera, the second municipality in New Spain. The settlement lasted less than one year. Unhappy with the hot climate and the ravages of disease, the Spanish settlers left for Antequera in the high lands, which later became Oaxaca City.

Oppression and epidemics rapidly decimated the coastal population. A major smallpox epidemic swept through the region in 1534, followed by measles in 1544. The population of the Tututepec Empire at the time of the conquest has been estimated at more than 250,000, yet only an estimated 4,500 people were recorded at Tututepec in the census of 1544 (Dahlgren 1990:42). Spanish friars and administrators began the suppression of indigenous religion and the conversion of people to Catholicism.

The Spanish Conquest of Mesoamerica is often portrayed as a profound historical rupture disconnecting indigenous peoples from their prehispanic history and culture. The colonial history of Mesoamerica is viewed as driven by forces beyond the control of indigenous people, such as disease and the religious, social, and economic changes imposed by the Spanish colonial authorities. Yet recent studies (e.g., Gruzinski 1989; Terraciano 2001) increasingly recognize indigenous people as active players in colonial history and show that important continuities exist from the prehispanic past up to the present day. Although Native Americans were at a disadvantage, especially due to the devastation suffered because of epidemics, indigenous people creatively incorporated elements of European culture into daily practice and at times actively resisted Spanish authorities.

In the region of Tututepec, for example, Mixtecs rose up in revolt against the Spaniards in 1523 and later in 1694. While these rebellions were unsuccessful, colonial authorities had only limited success in acculturating native peoples. The prehispanic past remained in the social memory of the people of Tututepec. In 1717, the native ruler presented the Codex Colombino, a late prehispanic historical manuscript, as evidence in a court case to establish the boundaries of the region under Tututepec’s control. In the 1990s and 2000s, the people of Tututepec worked together to build a community museum as a place to preserve and celebrate the history of the town with a focus on the prehispanic past. Despite difficulties in raising funds, and a major earthquake that destroyed parts of the town, the community worked with federal and state authorities to build and organize the museum, which was dedicated in 2004. I have come to know several of the community leaders involved in the museum project and have seen how their dedication, hard work, and desire to celebrate their rich history has resulted in the construction of the museum, which draws their past into the present and future, becoming an anchor for social memory and community identity. Rather than being solely at the mercy of distant forces, the native peoples of Oaxaca – Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Chatinos, and others – have been active participants in their histories both before and after the conquest.

This book examines the archaeology and history of the Central Valleys and the Mixtec highlands and coast of Oaxaca, which were inhabited by Mixtec, Zapotec, Chatino, and related peoples through the prehispanic period. I focus on these regions of Oaxaca because the indigenous groups that inhabited them were members of the Otomanguean language family and because these regions are the best understood archaeologically in Oaxaca. Archaeological research in these areas provides a rich picture of the impressive history and cultural achievements of ancient Oaxacan peoples. They were some of the first people in the Americas to domesticate plants and settle in permanent villages. Beginning at c.500 BC, some of Mesoamerica’s earliest urban centers were founded in Oaxaca, including the spectacular mountaintop city of Monte Albán in the Oaxaca Valley and the coastal city of Río Viejo with its massive acropolis and carved-stone portraits of rulers. The history of Oaxaca’s prehispanic ruling dynasties was recorded in the rich iconography of carved-stone monuments and painted murals. Oaxaca was where some of the earliest hieroglyphic writing in Mesoamerica has been discovered. The late prehispanic codices – painted screenfold manuscripts – record historical and religious narratives of the exploits of rulers and deities. Oaxaca’s archaeological record also provides some of the richest evidence of the lives of common people through the prehispanic era. Archaeologists have excavated the houses of farmers and craftspeople, discovered the stone tools they used to work their fields, pre pare food, and hunt; the pottery used to cook, serve, and store food; and the incense burners and figurines used to contact ancestors and deities as well as evidence for mortuary rituals preserved in burials and cemeteries.

To understand the prehispanic past, I draw on archaeological evidence along with studies of indigenous texts, early colonial Spanish documents, and iconographic analyses of prehispanic imagery. Each of these sources of data show that the prehispanic Mixtec, Zapotec, and Chatino peoples shared a history of interaction including cultural interchange, trade, war fare, alliance, intermarriage, and migration. By the time of the Spanish Conquest, for example, the degree of interaction and intermarriage created a shared noble identity that cut across ethnolinguistic differences. Common people also interacted across regions through participation in markets that brought together people from great distances as well as through warfare and migration. The history of the Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos is there fore a shared history, although as discussed throughout the book the nature of these interactions changed through time and archaeologists have debated their significance in understanding culture change.

Sources of Evidence

Scholars are fortunate to have available a variety of complementary sources of information on prehispanic Oaxaca, including research in archaeology, ethnohistory, ethnography, and linguistics. The most important source of data for most of the prehispanic period comes from the archaeological record. Oaxaca has been a focus of archaeological research since the late nineteenth century and over the last half-century has been the locus of some of the most influential projects addressing problems such as the origins and development of agriculture, early village life, urbanism, and social complexity (figure 1.3).

Archaeological research involves the reconstruction of the past through the study of material culture recovered through systematic survey, excavation, and laboratory studies. Of course, archaeological evidence cannot tell us directly about the lives, activities, and accomplishments of past peoples. Archaeologists use analogies drawn from the present as well as indigenous and Spanish written accounts of life during the prehispanic and early colonial periods to interpret the archaeological evidence in terms of past practices, beliefs, and social institutions (see Stahl 1993; Wylie 1985).

The research of ethnographers and linguists who study the indigenous peoples of present-day Oaxaca shows that, despite the profound disruptions of the Spanish Conquest, prehispanic traditions and social memories continue to shape the lives and understandings of indigenous communities. Research on living peoples is important for gaining insights into indigenous practices and systems of meaning, involving religion, cosmology, and agriculture. Archaeologists must be cautious in uncritically using ethnographic evidence for interpreting the archaeological record, however, due to the dramatic changes that occurred in indigenous culture over the last 500 years. The use of ethnographic information can be justified if there are historical sources that allow scholars to trace meanings and practices back to the time of initial encounters between Native Americans and Europeans and further back into the prehispanic period. Fortunately, Oaxaca has a rich ethnohistoric record that can strengthen analogies used in interpreting the archaeological record and, in the case of prehispanic writing systems, provide direct accounts of prehispanic life.

Figure 1.3 The Mexican state of Oaxaca showing geographical regions, rivers, and mountain ranges (drawing by Eric Berkemeyer)

Ethnohistoric sources include Spanish and indigenous documents that provide information on native peoples and culture from the time of the Spanish Conquest up to the present. It is important to recognize, however, that colonial-period Spanish descriptions of indigenous society must be viewed critically with the goals and perspectives of European writers taken into account. A more significant source of observations on colonial-period culture comes from the writings of indigenous scholars recorded in both indigenous alphabetic and pictorial writing. These documents include a number of maps (mapas), some painted on cloth (lienzos), that record community boundaries as well as genealogical records of ruling families, some of which extend back centuries into the prehispanic period. The lienzos and mapas make direct historical connections between the colonial period and a series of late prehispanic screenfold books, or codices, written on deer hide in the prehispanic Mixtec pictographic writing system.

The codices are immensely important documents because they record Mixtec religious and historical texts from before the Spanish Conquest. Though only portions of eight codices in prehispanic style survived destruction, this corpus represents the largest number of preconquest documents from any where in Mesoamerica. The histories recorded in the codices date back to the tenth century so that, in combination with early colonial documents like the lienzos and contemporary ethnography, scholars have a continuous written and oral record of indigenous culture dating back more than a millennium. Still earlier written inscriptions on stone, painted murals, and a variety of portable artifacts extend indigenous texts back more than two millennia, although the prehispanic writing systems that predate the codices are only beginning to be deciphered (Urcid 2001). One bias present in all of these ethnohistoric sources – early colonial Spanish and indigenous documents as well as prehispanic writing – is that they were all authored almost exclusively by social elites, primarily male, with little mention of the lives of common people.

The combination of ethnohistory, archaeology, ethnography, and linguistics provides scholars of prehispanic Oaxaca with multiple, complementary datasets that can be used to examine the history of ancient Oaxacan peoples. In the remainder of this chapter I review the history of research dealing with each of these sources of evidence.

Ethnohistory

The earliest interest in Mixtec, Zapotec, and Chatino culture by Europeans dates to the early colonial period and includes a diverse range of documents that were part of the Spanish program of conquest and colonization (Terraciano 2001:21–31, 67–71). Information collected by Spanish religious and political authorities in the sixteenth century includes the Relaciones Geográficas, legal documents, and several dictionaries and grammars of native languages recorded by Dominican friars. The Relaciones Geográficas were compiled toward the end of the sixteenth century by order of King Phillip II of Spain and consisted of a long series of questions put to indigenous nobles, including some that pertained to people’s memories of the preconquest era. Dictionaries and grammars were compiled to aid in the conversion of natives to Catholicism and have proven to be valuable sources of information on indigenous worldview and language at the time of the conquest. The most important linguistic sources of the sixteenth century included the works of Fray Francisco de Alvarado ([1593] 1962) and Fray Antonio de los Reyes ([1593] 1976) for Mixtec and Fray Juan de Córdova for Zapotec ([1570] 1989). Legal documents record a wide array of information including translations of native-language documents and trial records. One of the most important sources of evidence on contact-period Mixtec religious belief and practice comes from the records of the famous Inquisit orial investigations at the town of Yanhuitlán in the Mixteca Alta region (Hamann 2008a).

Writings on indigenous culture by Spanish scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are not as useful as those of the early colonial period. The works of chroniclers and official historians, particularly the two-volume history of Fray Francisco de Burgoa ([1674] 1989), often do not distinguish sources of data and intersperse stories and legends of pre-hispanic Oaxaca with Biblical references. Other colonial-period chroniclers, including Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, and Fray Diego Dúran, mention Oaxaca, but are more important as sources of data on life in other parts of Mexico.

Although colonial-period Spanish accounts of indigenous culture and history have proven to be useful, Oaxaca also has a rich record of indigenous documents from late prehispanic times into the colonial period. The most significant documents dealing with prehispanic religion and history are the Mixtec codices. While there were probably hundreds if not thousands of codices, only a handful survived the Spanish Conquest and most are now housed in European museums. Several of the Mixtec codices were painted prior to the Spanish Conquest (e.g., the codices Vienna, Zouche-Nuttall, Selden, and Colombino-Becker). Other codices were painted in the first few decades after Spanish contact, but are rendered in prehispanic pictographic conventions with little evidence of European influences, and were probably copies of earlier ones. The extant codices are visually stunning manuscripts painted in polychrome and consist of texts that are largely religious in nature, including versions of the Mixtec creation story (Monaghan 1990), as well as indigenous historical narratives that deal with events from the tenth century up to the Spanish Conquest (Byland & Pohl 1994; Jansen & Pérez 2005, 2007; Troike 1974).

A variety of early colonial pictographic and alphabetic documents in native languages exhibit the influence of Spanish colonization and in some instances may have involved collaborations of Spanish administrators and indigenous scribes. Although these documents reflect indigenous people’s encounters with the Spanish, they are still authored from a native perspective and, particularly in the case of sixteenth-century examples, demonstrate strong continuities with prehispanic writing and modes of representation, including the use of the prehispanic calendrical system (Terraciano 2001:15–65). These documents include the lienzos and mapas as well as a number of early colonial “codices.” Colonial-period codices differ from those in pre hispanic style in that they show a juxtaposition of native and European conventions and are executed in ink on Spanish paper. Many of the earliest colonial documents were largely pictographic with alphabetic glosses, although the transition from pictographic to alphabetic writing was well under way by the latter half of the sixteenth century (Terraciano 2001: 48–65). By this time native scribes were taking over the role of recording legal documents often in indigenous languages and, increasingly through the colonial period, in Spanish.

The modern study of Mixtec, Zapotec, and Chatino ethnohistory began in the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Castellanos 1989; Gay 1881; Seler 1904, 1908; Martínez Gracida 1888). These works included general histories of Oaxaca that were often inconsistent in identifying sources of data and combined contemporary oral histories with the use of colonial-period documents, particularly Spanish-language ones. Several researchers, however, began the study of indigenous documents, including lienzos and codices (J. C. Clark 1912; Starr 1908).

The first major breakthroughs in the study of Oaxaca’s ethnohistory was the research of the famous Mexican archaeologist Alfonso Caso, who was a pioneer in both Oaxaca’s archaeology and studies of the Mixtec codices. Caso used the glosses and genealogies on several early colonial pictorial manuscripts, especially the Mapa de Teozacualco, as “Rosetta stones” to establish links to the prehispanic codices. His work demonstrated that the codices were from the Mixteca and showed that the histories represented in the codices continued for many centuries from the prehispanic era into the early colonial period (Caso 1949). Caso (1956, 1964, 1977, 1979) made important advances in decipherment of the codices and in understanding the prehispanic calendar along with his monumentally important archaeological research discussed below.

Beginning in the 1950s, Caso’s research drew a large number of ethno-historians and archaeologists to Oaxaca. Important ethnohistoric studies since the mid-twentieth century include work on early colonial Mixtec (Dahlgren 1990; Cook & Borah 1968; Spores 1984; Terraciano 2001) and Zapotec (Chance 1978; Whitecotton 1977, 1990; J. Zeitlin 2005) culture and society. Relatively little work has been done on Chatino ethnohistory (Greenberg 1981:47–80) perhaps due to the remoteness of contemporary Chatino communities and a relative scarcity of colonial-period archival records. Scholars have increasingly moved away from a reliance on the official histories of the Spanish colonial authorities and toward archival sources and indigenous documents. Another important development has been the increasing number of indigenous scholars working on Oaxacan ethnohis-tory (e.g., de la Cruz 2002; Jansen & Pérez 2005, 2007). Indigenous scholars address early colonial and contemporary culture with an intimate knowledge of their culture and a concern for correcting biases in Western scholarship. Major advances in the study of indigenous pictographic writing have built on Caso’s work and include Mary Elizabeth Smith (1973), Troike (1974), Byland and Pohl (1994), Pohl (1994), Jansen and Pérez (2007), and Monaghan (1990).

The recent advances in the study of Oaxacan ethnohistory provide a rich understanding of indigenous culture and social practices at the time of the Spanish Conquest. Ethnohistory gives us a crucial interpretive basis for under standing prehispanic culture, but it is ultimately the archaeological record that provides the bulk of the evidence on the prehispanic past.

Archaeology

The inspiring ruins of prehispanic communities like Monte Albán and Mitla have drawn scholars to Oaxaca for well over a century. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries scholars interested in the prehispanic past such as Guillermo Dupaix, Eduard Muhlenpfordt, Désirée Charnay, William Henry Holmes, and Eduard Seler visited the ruins of Monte Albán and Mitla, writing about the sites and speculating on their age and origins. The first archaeological work in Oaxaca was carried out in the late nine teenth and early twentieth centuries by Leopoldo Batres at Mitla and Monte Albán and by Marshall Saville at Mitla, Monte Albán, Xoxocotlán, and Cuilapan.

The first large-scale, scientific archaeology began in the 1930s with the research of Alfonso Caso at the ancient Zapotec city of Monte Albán. During this period, the Mexican government began sponsoring archaeological pro jects to explore the prehispanic past and develop sites for tourism. In the 1920s, Caso began research on carved-stone monuments and in late 1931 began major excavations at Monte Albán. With the discovery in early 1932 of Tomb 7, one of the richest burials ever found in the Americas, Monte Albán burst onto the world stage. Caso continued fieldwork at Monte Albán with his colleagues Ignacio Bernal and Jorge Acosta until 1958 (Caso 1942, 1969; Caso & Bernal 1952; Caso et al. 1967). The Monte Albán project focused on excavating and reconstructing the civic-ceremonial center in and around the Main Plaza, approximately 170 tombs were discovered, and stratigraphic excavations allowed for the development of a ceramic sequence for the Oaxaca Valley. Beginning in the late 1930s, Caso and his colleagues (e.g., Acosta & Romero 1992; Bernal 1948–9; Caso 1938) expanded their investigations into the Mixteca Alta north of the Valley of Oaxaca with excavations at prehispanic centers such as Yucuñudahui, Coixtlahuaca, Huamelulpan, and Monte Negro. Caso and Rubín de la Borbolla (1936) excavated the late prehispanic ceremonial center of Mitla in the eastern Oaxaca Valley. Caso and his collaborators established that the region’s archaeological remains were the creations of the ancestors of Oaxaca’s living indigenous peoples. Their research outlined the culture history of the Oaxaca Valley and the Mixteca Alta from the founding of Monte Albán around 500 BC to the time of the Spanish Conquest and demonstrated that highland Oaxaca gave rise to some of the most impressive cities in prehispanic Mesoamerica.

By the 1950s and 1960s, Oaxaca began to attract an international group of archaeologists. Excavations were carried out in the ceremonial and elite precincts of sites like Dainzú, Mitla, Yagul, and Zaachila in the Oaxaca Valley (e.g., Bernal & Oliveros 1988; Bernal & Gamio 1974; Paddock 1966a). Bernal (1965) began a surface survey of sites in the Oaxaca Valley, while initial reconnaissance, survey, and testing projects were begun in the Mixteca Alta (Spores 1969, 1972), Mixteca Baja (Paddock 1968), Miahuatlán Valley (Brockington 1973), and along the Pacific coast of Oaxaca (Brockington et al. 1974; Wallrath 1967). Most of the studies mentioned above also began the development of regional ceramic sequences.

An important trend of the 1960s and 1970s was the application of the methods and theories of processual archaeology to the study of ancient Oaxaca. The focus of research shifted from elite centers and culture history to a regional perspective that stressed cultural evolution and human adaptation. Two major projects in the Valley of Oaxaca exemplified the theoretical shift: the Oaxaca Human Ecology Project, directed by Kent Flannery, and the Valley of Oaxaca Settlement Pattern Project, directed by Richard Blanton and Stephen Kowalewski. The Oaxaca Human Ecology Project focused on understanding Archaic- and Formative-period ecology and cultural change, including changes in household and community form, sociocultural complexity, and subsistence patterns, extending the archae ological record of Oaxaca back to the Early Holocene (Flannery 1976a, 1986). Flannery and his collaborators developed a number of influential models dealing with the origins of agriculture, early village life, and the emergence of social complexity. The Settlement Pattern Project included surface collections and mapping of visible architectural features over an impressive 2,150 km2, or 95 percent of the Valley of Oaxaca (Blanton 1978; Kowalewski et al. 1989), and provided interpretations of changing settlement patterns, economic systems, and political organization.

Since the 1970s, systematic regional survey coverage has been extended to the Mixteca Alta (Balkansky et al. 2000; Byland & Pohl 1994; Kowalewski et al. 2009; Plunket 1983), Mixteca Baja (Rivera 1999), lower Río Verde Valley (Joyce et al. 2001), southern Isthmus of Tehuantepec (J. Zeitlin 1978), Ejutla Valley (Feinman & Nicholas 1990), Cuicatlán Cañada (Redmond 1983), Miahuatlán Valley (Markman 1981), Sola Valley (Balkansky 2002), and into the mountains between the Oaxaca and Nochixtlán Valleys (Drennan 1989; Finsten 1996). These studies make Oaxaca perhaps the most intensively surveyed area in the world.

Other major projects since the 1970s focused on the cultural evolution of Monte Albán both from the perspective of the site itself and from a regional and interregional perspective. Marcus Winter (1974) of the Oaxaca Regional Center of the Mexican Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) examined changes in household form and organization through excavation of residences. Since the 1980s periodic excavation and salvage projects by INAH archaeologists have continued at Monte Albán (González Licón 2003; Martínez López 1998). In the eastern arm of the Oaxaca Valley, the Institute of Oaxacan Studies surveyed and excavated several high-status residences at Lambityeco to explore social developments during the collapse of Monte Albán at the end of the Classic period (Lind 2008; Lind & Urcid 1983; Paddock 1983). Spencer and Redmond (2001, 2004) examined the impact of Monte Albán on sites in the area of San Martín Tilcajete, finding evidence for conquest by Monte Albán at the end of the Formative period.

Interaction with Monte Albán, including the possibility of conquest, has been a major research question outside the Valley of Oaxaca. Research throughout the Oaxacan interior (e.g., Balkansky 2002; Feinman & Nicholas 1990; Spencer 1982) and along the Pacific coast (A. Joyce 1991a; Workinger 2002; R. Zeitlin 1990) has led to a major debate with some scholars arguing that Monte Albán dominated an empire extending over 20,000 km2 (Marcus & Flannery 1996), while others maintain that evid ence supports a more limited area of political domination (A. Joyce 2003; Workinger & Joyce n.d.; Zeitlin & Joyce 1999).

Beginning in the 1970s, the INAH sponsored a series of large-scale pro jects directed by Marcus Winter that focused on major Formative- and Classic-period urban centers in highland Oaxaca, including Yucuita and Huamelulpan in the Mixteca Alta and Cerro de las Minas in the Mixteca Baja. Like the earlier Monte Albán project, these investigations focused on understanding sociopolitical developments, refining ceramic chronologies, and developing sites for tourism (Gaxiola 1984; Robles 1988; Winter 1989a). Other recent projects in the Mixteca Alta include Blomster’s (2004) research on Formative-period Etlatongo, Pérez’s (2006) excavations of Late Postclassic houses near Teposcolula, Balkansky’s research on the Formative center of Tayata (Balkansky et al. 2008), and excavations by Spores and Robles (Spores 2005; Spores & Robles 2007) at the contact-period site of Yucundaa.

By far the largest and most important of the INAH projects was the Proyecto Especial Monte Albán 1992-4 (PEMA). In 1992, Mexican Pre sident Carlos Salinas de Gortari created the Fondo Nacional Arqueológico (National Archaeological Fund) for the support of 12 projects designed to explore and protect major archaeological sites in Mexico, including Monte Albán (figure 1.4). The PEMA, under the direction of Marcus Winter, excavated dozens of residences and public buildings in and around the Main Plaza, recorded 21 tombs, conducted deep stratigraphic excavations, and produced a detailed map of the site (Martínez López et al. 2000; Winter 1994a, 1995). The results of the PEMA have led to a reappraisal of Monte Albán’s history, particularly the early architecture of the Main Plaza and the site’s collapse at C.AD 800 (e.g., Winter 2001, 2003).

Figure 1.4 PEMA excavations at Monte Albán (photograph by Arthur A..Joyce)

Another major contribution of the PEMA was the work of the project’s epigrapher, Javier Urcid, who recorded and analyzed several new carved-stone monuments (Urcid 1994a). Since the 1980s, Urcid has worked on recording, comparing, and analyzing hieroglyphic inscriptions and iconography throughout Oaxaca. Building on the research of Caso (1965), Whittaker (1980), and Marcus (1992), Urcid (2001, 2005) uses comparative and contextual analyses to infer meanings from inscriptions and images. He has identified at least six separate though related writing systems for prehispanic Oaxaca. Other scholars making significant contributions to the study of writing and imagery include Orr (1997), Rivera (2000), and L. Rodríguez (1999).

The last two decades also witnessed an expansion of research in the Pacific coastal region of Oaxaca. Archaeological and paleoenvironmental research directed by Arthur Joyce and his collaborators (Barber 2005; A. Joyce 1991b, 2005; Joyce et al. 1998; King 2003; Levine 2007; Workinger 2002) has focused on the lower Río Verde Valley on the western coast. The lower Río Verde was probably occupied by Chatinos prior to the Late Postclassic, but they were largely displaced by Mixtecs at C.AD 1100. Research includes excavations at 18 sites, including the political centers of Río Viejo and Tututepec, and a full-coverage regional survey (figure 1.5). Paleoenvironmental studies examine the effects of highland land use on the human ecology of lowland peoples (Goman et al. 2005; Joyce & Mueller 1997). The research in the lower Verde is innovative in that it introduced poststructural theory to Oaxacan archaeology, including a concern with the social negotiation of political power, social identity, and how constructed landscapes embody power relations (e.g., Barber 2005; Barber & Joyce 2007; Forde 2006; A. Joyce 2006; Joyce et al. 2001; King 2003; Levine 2007; also see A. Joyce 2000, 2004 for poststructural studies of Monte Albán). Archaeological work in other parts of coastal Oaxaca includes INAH survey and excavation projects near Huatulco (Fernández & Gómez 1988) and Tehuantepec (Winter 2004a). The Zeitlins (J. Zeitlin 1978, 2005; R. Zeitlin 1990, 1993) have surveyed and excavated several sites in the southern Isthmus of Tehuantepec – a region that Zapotecs migrated into during the Late Postclassic period.

Figure 1.5 Excavations at the site of Cerro de la Cruz in the lower Río Verde Valley (photograph by Arthur A. Joyce)

Building on the foundation provided by the work of Alfonso Caso, Oaxaca is now one of the most comprehensively studied regions of Mesoamerica, particularly the Valley of Oaxaca, the lower Río Verde Valley, and the Mixteca Alta (Figure 1.6).1 In addition to the evidence provided by ethno-history and archaeology, ethnographic and linguistic studies also provide important data on indigenous communities, beliefs, and practices that contribute to the interpretation of the archaeological record.

Ethnographic and linguistic sources

Although scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries collected myths and made observations on indigenous communities, the first intensive, systematic ethnographic work on the Mixtec and Zapotec was associated with the community-studies approach begun by Tax (1937) and refined by Redfield (1941) based on research among the Maya. The first long-term community-based ethnography in Oaxaca was Elsie Clews Parsons’ (1936) comprehensive study of acculturation at Mitla. Her work is especially important for archaeologists because she sought to identify continuities and breaks with the prehispanic past by tracing community practices and traditions back through the ethnohistorical record. Another important early community study was de la Fuente’s (1949) ethnography of the Zapotec village of Yalálag.

By the 1960s and 1970s, ethnographic studies of indigenous communities in Mesoamerica were increasingly influenced by Eric Wolf’s concept of the “closed corporate community.” In Oaxaca, ethnographic work increased as researchers considered and critiqued Wolf’s ideas, focusing on issues of religion, economy, gender, and local government in Mixtec (Butterworth 1975), Zapotec (e.g., Chiñas 1973; Kearney 1972; Nader 1969), and Chatino (Bartolomé & Barabas 1996; De Cicco 1969; Greenberg 1981) communities. Studies of the economics of indigenous peoples included research on market systems (Cook & Diskin 1974), agriculture (Lees 1973), and on the production of crafts, especially pottery (Hendry 1992; Thieme 2001).

Several recent ethnographic studies have explicitly linked contemporary beliefs and practices to the colonial and prehispanic past (e.g., de la Cruz 2002). The most influential ethnographic work for archaeologists has been John Monaghan’s (1995) research at Santiago Nuyoo in the Mixteca Alta. Monaghan’s historical ethnographic approach combines ethnohistory with research on contemporary indigenous conceptions and practices related to community and the sacred. He traces continuities and transformations in idioms like sacrifice, feasting, and community authority from the ethnographic present back to the early colonial period and even into late pre-hispanic times (Monaghan 1990). Research in historical linguistics has also been used by archaeologists to develop models on the divergence of ethno-linguistic groups (Josserand et al. 1984).

Figure 1.6 Ceramic phases in Oaxaca

Oaxaca’s ethnographic and linguistic record provides a means for understanding indigenous cultural principles and practices. In subsequent chapters, this view of indigenous belief and practice will provide a basis for developing relational analogies (Stahl 1993; Wylie 1985) that in conjunction with archaeological data can be used to make inferences about prehis-panic society and culture. In the final section of this chapter, I discuss the theoretical approach I use to understanding the history of the prehispanic Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos.

Theorizing Oaxaca’s Ancient Past

Archaeology, ethnohistory, ethnography, and linguistics provide Oaxacan archaeologists with a variety of complementary sources of evidence to examine prehispanic history. Yet, as Wylie (1985, 1992) and others (e.g., Hodder 1999; Hodder & Hutson 2003:239–42) have pointed out, evidence is theory-laden so that an archaeologist’s theoretical perspective as well as one’s social and cultural settings inform interpretations of the past. Theory consists of the conceptual tools through which we define and categorize archaeological evidence, translate that evidence into understandings about past social and material worlds, and evaluate the utility of those understandings. It is therefore crucial to be explicit about theory. In this section, I discuss my theoretical perspective in relation to some of the other ap proaches used in contemporary Oaxacan archaeology. The complexities of archaeological interpretation mean that researchers often develop alternative interpretations of evidence depending on the analogies they use and on the theoretical approaches that inform their work. If carried out openly and respectfully, these debates can help to drive research and theoretical developments that lead to better understandings of the past. Not surprisingly, in Oaxaca, archaeologists disagree on many aspects of the archaeological record ranging from the timing and nature of early complex societies to the significance and intensity of warfare, and many of these debates are discussed in this book.

I examine the prehispanic past of the Mixtec, Zapotec, Chatino, and related peoples of Oaxaca from a perspective that considers history as the interplay between the lives of people and broader patterns of social relations, material conditions, cultural meanings, and traditions. The approach I take to understanding the past is an outgrowth of developments in social theory over the past 30 years, particularly as informed by poststructural and feminist thinkers (e.g., Bourdieu 1977; Butler 1993; Foucault 1977; Giddens 1979; Latour 2005; Sewell 1992). Archaeologists influenced by these theories have moved away from the grand metanarratives of cultural evolution and systems theory and toward a more contingent, fractured, and contested view of society and history (e.g., Hodder & Hutson 2003; Janusek 2004; Joyce et al. 2001; Pauketat 2001, 2007).

Though it would seem logical to view history in a general sense as created by the actions of people, ironically, until recently, archaeologists have largely excluded the lives of people from historical understandings. Most archaeological theory of the first half of the twentieth century was both understated and focused on issues involving chronology and the spatial definition of past archaeological “cultures” viewed as a collection of normative ideas (Spaulding 1985). Norms were seen as reflected in the distribution of different suites of artifacts across space, such that the lives and actions of people were often minimized in archaeological explanations of the past.

With the emergence of processual archaeology in the 1960s, archaeologists rejected the normative approach and developed a theoretical perspective that united ecological functionalism with cultural evolutionary theory (Willey & Sabloff 1993:214–97). Processual archaeologists sought to remodel archaeology as a science based on positivist philosophy with the goal of developing general, even universal, theories of the past (Binford 1962; Watson et al. 1971). The lives, actions, and identities of people in this framework again were minimized, as were intrasocietal tensions and conflicts. People as well as social institutions were seen as little more than functional components that contributed to the maintenance of an equilibrium state for the overall social or ecological system (Binford 1968; Butzer 1982; Flannery 1968). Only elites had power to effect social change in their role as decision-makers who monitor the system and initiate changes when needed. Material conditions (e.g., population-resource balances, energy storage for dampening resource fluctuations, and so on) were viewed as distinct from, privileged over, and largely determinant of, cultural meanings. Cultures changed as a result of systemic responses to external factors like warfare or environmental stress, or internal ones, such as the system becoming too integrated and centrally controlled, thereby destroying the natural buffering effects of hierarchy (Flannery 1972). When inherent thresholds were reached in the functioning of a cultural or ecological system, the system could evolve or devolve (Flannery 1972; Spencer 1982). Cultural evolution (or devolution) progressed (or regressed) through a series of set “levels” or “stages” of cultural complexity, the most popular formulation being Elman Service’s (1962) scheme of bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states. While archaeologists acknowledged a degree of historical variation, it was assumed that all cultures at any one level of cultural evolution shared fundamental structural and functional features. Analogies with ethnographically known cultures from the same evolutionary stage could therefore be used to fill in the explanatory gaps left by the archaeological record.

Over the past 20 years archaeologists have moved away from ecological systems theory, struggling to incorporate models of intrasocietal difference and conflict into archaeological theory and broadening or rejecting cultural evolutionist categories (e.g., Dobres & Robb 2000; Hodder & Hutson 2003; Janusek 2004; Johnson 1999; Pauketat 2001, 2007; Yoffee 2005). For example, concepts like heterarchy that focus attention on social distinctions that are unranked or that have the potential to be ranked in multiple ways have broadened views of social complexity beyond a focus on hierarchy (Ehrenreich et al. 1995). Archaeologists have worked to incorporate cognition, ideas, and meaning into theories of social change in ways that move theory beyond the earlier focus on ecology, economy, and a narrow materialism (e.g., Hodder 1982; Hodder & Hutson 2003; Renfrew & Zubrow 1994; Robb 1999). Approaches to cultural evolution have recognized a greater diversity of societal types and pathways to complexity (e.g., Blanton et al. 1996; Earle 1997). The utility of developing general theories of society and history as exemplified by systems theory and cultural evolutionism has been increasingly questioned. Archaeologists are recognizing that historical processes involve an interplay of social and ecological relations at a variety of temporal and spatial scales (Pauketat 2001). Archaeologists have also moved away from positivism and embraced a diversity of scientific methodologies (e.g., Hodder 1999; Watson et al. 1984; Wylie 2000).