Some Political Processes of Ranked Societies...Some Political Processes of Ranked Societies Robert M. Rosenswig Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 413–460 (2000)doi:10.1006/jaar.2000.0360, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Some Political Processes of Ranked Societies

Robert M. Rosenswig

Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Received June 8, 1999; revision received August 11, 1999; accepted September 18, 1999

This article explores the emergence of inequality in two regions of Mesoamerica: the Soco-nusco and Valley of Oaxaca. Dichotomous models that propose a continuum of political strategy(i.e., Leach 1954; Renfrew 1974; Spencer 1993; Blanton et al. 1996) are used to examine thedifferent processes evident in the comparison of settlement, mortuary, and architectural databetween these two regions. The elite in Early and Middle Formative Soconusco appear tointegrate society with a comparatively external oriented and exclusionary strategy whereas inthe Valley of Oaxaca Early and Middle Formative elites employed a more group-oriented,internally focused, and corporate strategy. Environment richness and proximity of competingcommunities may account for the primary, and perhaps unintentional, emergence of inequalityin the Soconusco around 1400 B.C.E. In the Valley of Oaxaca inequality emerged as many as 250years later in a less circumscribed area. Such environmental, political, and chronological factorsmay be responsible for some of the differences in integrative strategies evident in the tworegions. © 2000 Academic Press

Key Words: cultural evolution; rank society; political evolution; Formative Mesoamerica.

INTRODUCTION

In this article I use settlement, mortu-ary, and architectural data to examine thedevelopment of political inequality in Me-soamerica. Many archaeologists haveidentified the emergence of self-perpetu-ating hierarchical human relations as oneof the most fundamental evolutionarychanges to have occurred in human his-tory (Earle 1991a; Price and Feinman 1995;Arnold 1996). The evolutionary processesinvolved in the development of politicalinequality and rank society (Fried 1967)are explored in this article by comparingtwo regional archaeological sequences inFormative Mesoamerica: that of the Soco-nusco and the Valley of Oaxaca (Figs. 1and 2 and Table 1).

The past 50 years of evolutionary anal-ysis have demonstrated that archaeolo-gists, with their diachronic data, are in anadvantageous position to document evo-lutionary processes over long expanses of

413

time (Drennan 1991a; Rambo 1991; Spen-cer 1997). In fact, since the 1970s, manycultural anthropologists have abandonedevolutionary theory for structural andsymbolic paradigms (see Ortner 1984).The abandonment of an evolutionary par-adigm by many cultural anthropologistsmay be due, at least in part, to the inap-propriateness of the temporal scale oftheir data for exploring long-term pat-terns of change. Ethnographic observationusually encompasses a few years, occa-sionally a decade, and, with the help ofethnohistoric documents, a century ortwo. Such a limited temporal scale con-trasts with archaeological data that ac-cesses patterns brought into focus by mil-lennia of human history.

Archaeological data also documentforms of cultural organization and evo-lutionary processes that have not per-sisted into the 20th century. Archaeo-logically documented phenomena suchas emergent complexity (Arnold 1996)

0278-4165/00 $35.00Copyright © 2000 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

414 ROBERT M. ROSENSWIG

lack ethnographic analogs. In fact, someethnographically documented egalitariansocieties were once ranked (Hayden andGargett 1990), and well-known foragerssuch as the !Kung were once agricultur-alists (Wilmsen 1989). The present “dev-olution” of these societies is best under-stood as the latest stage in theirevolutionary trajectories, and many ofthe similarities evident between suchcultures may actually be the result ofcoexisting with postindustrial states(Fried 1975; Wolf 1982:18 –19; Schrire

FIG. 1. Map of the Soconusco showing the l1994:45).

1984:18). It is therefore not surprisingthat evolutionary models, derived fromethnographic accounts, have not beensatisfactory in exploring the full diver-sity of human history (Paynter 1989).Archaeological investigation providesnot only a diachronic perspective, but aricher range of cultural organizationand process (see O’Shea 1996:8 –9 andTrigger 1998:163 for similar arguments).The appropriateness of archaeologicalmaterials to evolutionary investigation isneither an original nor surprising observa-

tion of sites mentioned in the text (after Clark
oca

FIG

.2.

Map

ofth

eV

alle

yof

Oax

aca

surv

eyar

eash

owin

gth

elo

cati

onof

site

sm

enti

oned

inth

ete

xt(a

fter

Bla

nto

net

al.1

993:

51).

415RANKED SOCIETIES


tion (e.g., Flannery 1972:404; Plog 1974:5–11).

Recent evolutionary studies have dem-onstrated that indices of complexity canchange at different rates (McGuire 1983;O’Shea and Barker 1996), and societiescan “skip” levels of complexity (Yoffee1993; Liu 1996) or cycle between them(Anderson 1994, 1996). The basic premiseof such studies is that cultures changeover time and that such change may ex-hibit regularities when multiple trajecto-ries are compared. Such is the case whencultures are historically related (e.g., Blan-ton et al. 1993; Drennan 1996) and alsowhen they are not (e.g., Trigger 1993; Earle1997). Asserting that there are develop-mental regularities is not a polemic stancebut a hypothesis which requires docu-mentation. The most fundamental issuefaced by anthropological archaeologistsinterested in cultural evolution is to deter-mine the best way to document societieswhen and if they change and to explorethe possible regularity of such changes inorder to identify evolutionary processes. Ifcultures do not evolve in a directional

TAEarly and Middle Formative Ceramic Pha

Valley of Oaxaca

PeriodsRadiocarbonyears B.C.E.

650Middle formative 750

850

900Late Early Formative

1000

1100

Early Early Formative 1250

1400

1550

manner, as critics have stated, then howdo they evolve? What are some of theunderlying processes that explain suchchange?

I begin this article by discussing theconcepts of factional competition and peerpolity interaction. Then, I evaluate a num-ber of models that characterize society interms of the manner in which social inte-gration is maintained (Leach 1954; Blantonet al. 1996; Blanton 1998) and, by exten-sion, the strategies that elite factionswithin a given society employ to consoli-date power in rank societies (Flannery1968; Renfrew 1974; Spencer 1993). Next, Iexplore these models using Early andMiddle Formative settlement, burial, andarchitectural data from the Soconusco andValley of Oaxaca. The results of this ex-amination suggest that the political vola-tility of Formative Soconuscan societymay reflect a higher degree of local com-petition, whereas the greater political co-hesion of Oaxacan society allowed forlonger lasting political organization.These organizational tendencies had aprofound effect on the evolutionary trajec-

1in the Soconusco (Blake et al. 1995) and

anton et al. 1993)

Soconusco Oaxaca

Conchas Guadalupe

Jocotal

Cuadros San Jose

Cherla

OcosTierras Largas

Locona

Barra

Espiridion

BLEses(Bl

417RANKED SOCIETIES

tories evident in each region. In the Soco-nusco, this resulted in the precocious de-velopment of political complexity and inthe Valley of Oaxaca it led to a more stablepolitical environment. This essay endswith an evaluation of the historical rela-tionship affecting changes observed in thetwo regions which may account for thepolitical strategies employed by the elitein each region.

SOME POLITICAL PROCESSESOF RANKED SOCIETIES

The political maneuvering that typifiesrank society has received much attentionrecently under the rubric of factional com-petition (Brumfiel 1992; Spencer 1993;Brumfiel and Fox 1994). Brumfiel (1994:3)defines the process of factional com-petition as “ . . . structurally similargroups. . .[that]. . .compete for advan-tage within a larger social unit such as akin group, ethnic group, village or chief-dom . . . [and] . . . this internal competi-tion provides the dynamic for politicaldevelopment.” In the following discus-sion I use the concept of faction looselyas encompassing any group with sharedinterests that has the ability to act cohe-sively. A faction can be based on class,ethnicity, or lineage membership as wellas on gender, age grades, business car-tels, secret societies, and so on. As usedhere, factions can be based on any ofthese aspects of an individual’s identity;although they tend to be based on socialand economic factors that are redirectedfor political ends. Class, ethnicity, andkinship are likely to be among the mostefficient and commonly employedsources of faction building in small-scalesocieties (see Yoffee 1995:303). Whilefactions may not always be easily iden-tified archaeologically (especially whenfactional memberships cross-cut eachother), the concept is useful in a heuris-tic sense to conceptualize political pro-

cesses of allegiance and opposition thatare not based on simple or mutually ex-clusive groups of people within a givensociety.

Factional competition occurs at manyscales of society, and each scale of inter-action is dynamically integrated withthose above and below it. In a discussionof chiefdoms, Timothy Earle (1991b) dif-ferentiates four scales of analysis: house,community, polity, and region; and incor-porates the concept of factional competi-tion into his scales of analysis. He de-scribes

the household and community as semi-autono-mous units that may exist in competition witheach other and in opposition to the overarchingpolity. Thus the centralization of the chiefdomshould always be seen as a fragile, negotiatedinstitution that is held together by an economicinterdependence, a justifying ideology, and aconcentration of force. (Earle 1991b:13)

The relationship of faction building andinterfactional negotiation at a given scaleand between scales may provide some ofthe impetus of cultural evolution (see ex-amples in Brumfiel and Fox 1994). In ad-dition, this perspective deessentializes theconcept of political authority by acknowl-edging its negotiated nature. In rank soci-eties, rather than wield uncontestedpower, leaders must “shore up” support-ing factions and mediate between theleaders own interests, his/her factions’ in-terests, and those of competing factions.

The concept of peer polity interaction(Renfrew and Cherry 1986) provides auseful analog for the mechanisms of fac-tional competition and describes Earle’sfourth scale of analysis discussed above. Apolity is defined as an autonomous polit-ical entity not subject to the jurisdiction ofa higher power where “ . . . change is seento emerge from the assemblage of inter-acting polities” (Renfrew 1986:6). If we re-call Earle’s (1991b:13) conceptualization ofthe household and community as “semi-autonomous” units then the logic of peer

mn11a


polity interaction is equally relevant at alocal level. The model of peer polity inter-action places the locus of cultural changeat the regional scale but the concept func-tions equally well for any scale of inter-group competition. The concepts of peerpolity interaction and factional competi-tion both focus attention on the relation-ship between factionalism internal to acommunity or polity and relations be-tween them. Peer polity interaction andfactional competition are similar insofaras both processes are based on negotiatedpower relationships between structurallysimilar groups. The larger the scale ofcompetition, the more complex the inter-action will tend to be due to the increasednumber of political relationships thatmust be coordinated. Accounting for bothinter- and intragroup competition encour-ages the analyst to explain evolutionarypatterns as a process because it is the in-teraction between the various scales ofanalysis (i.e., household, community, pol-ity, and region) that is studied. Such aperspective avoids the description of asingle scale of organization in isolationand provides a dynamic framework ofanalysis.

Models of Political Process

If factions are the basic political unitwithin a given society then how do theycompete? A number of archeological the-oreticians have focused attention on thestrategies employed to mediate betweenfactions within a society (Renfrew 1974;Spencer 1982, 1993; Drennan 1991b; Blan-ton et al. 1996). In such models, factionsare not assumed to always be antagonisticand divisive for a society. Instead, they arethe potential fissures along which society

ay divide. In this section, I review eth-ographic examples from Brazil (Spencer993) and Burma (Leach 1954; Flannery968) to explore the dynamics of faction-lism as well as internal and external

sources of political authority (sensu Sahl-ins 1963:292–294). I relate this discussionto recent attempts to characterize Me-soamerican society as oscillating betweenexclusionary and corporate modes of inte-gration (Blanton et al. 1996).

Spencer (1993:43–44) provides two eth-nographic examples of societies in Brazilthat are integrated in very different ways.Among the Mekranoti-Kayapo, politicalleaders (called benjadjwyr) cultivate traderelationships with extralocal groups toprocure exotic goods that they can thendistribute to potential followers in ex-change for their allegiance. This strategyis unstable because a number of benjad-jwyr compete with each other to buildtheir faction and so a single leader’s influ-ence rarely incorporates all members ofhis village nor does it extend to neighbor-ing villages. As a result, followers can eas-ily shift their allegiance to whichever ben-jadjwyr provides the best incentives. AsSpencer (1993:43) observes, among theMekranoti-Kayapo, the external dimen-sion of power is somewhat developed butthere are not internal reinforcing institu-tions such as lineal descent or marriageties. This is because even the most pow-erful benjadjwyr cannot control access tothe extralocal groups and so, in theory,anyone able to trade with external groupscan become a benjadjwyr. However, inpractice, the network of privileged exter-nal relationships are passed from a benj-adjwyr to his children (Werner 1981) andso there is an ascribed tendency to thisachieved status.

In contrast, the Akwe-Shavante politicalleaders (called he’a) extend their influenceby cultivating relationships with membersof nearby villages. This is accomplishedlargely through age-set ties where age co-horts organize most ceremonial activity(Maybury-Lewis 1974:147). The expandedfactional base of a he’a provides allieswhen he is challenged by an aspiringleader within his own village. Exotic items

419RANKED SOCIETIES

are not used for status competition and asa result external relationships are not cul-tivated. However, the Akwe-Shavantesystem is less stable, as an established he’ais expected to act impartially and settledisputes, whereas an aspiring leader canstir up interfactional rivalry and then as-sist one side in exchange for future sup-port. As a result, the political dominanceof an individual he’a does not last longbecause aspiring leaders can provide im-mediate support to his faction members.However, due to their age-set connectionhe’a are usually able to position their chil-dren in political leadership roles (May-bury-Lewis 1974:190). These Brazilian ex-amples indicate that in small-scalesocieties Earle’s (1991b) distinction be-tween community, polity, and region canbe fluid and the relationship betweenscales helps to explain the processes ateach scale.

Over 30 years ago, Flannery (1968) pre-sented a now-classic model for Early For-mative Gulf Coast–Oaxaca interaction(but see Flannery and Marcus 1994:389).Flannery (1968) employed two ethno-graphic examples for his model: interac-tion between the Tlingit and Athabascanof northern Canada and Alaska and theShan and Kachin of Burma. Based onthese ethnographic accounts, Flanneryproposed that external relations wereused to bolster internal, elite status differ-entiation in both regions. For example, ex-ternal relations might include exchange ofmarriage partners or ritual visits that in-volved the trade of exotic goods. This ex-traregional interaction was beneficial tothe elite in both areas. The Gulf CoastOlmec elite would receive a supply of pre-cious exotic goods which could be used to“reinforce commitments to the Olmec so-cial and religious systems” (Flannery 1968:81). For their part, the Oaxaca elite “emu-late the religion, symbolism, dress, andbehavior of the Olmec elite insofar as itwould enhance their own status among

their own people” (Flannery 1968:79–80).Flannery’s model emphasizes the rela-tionship between different scales of anal-ysis as well as the negotiated nature ofpolitical authority within each region.

Below, I discuss Edmund Leach’s (1954)often-cited work in the highland Burmesevillage of Haplang as an additional exam-ple of the interaction between internaland external dimensions of political au-thority. When Leach was in Burma duringthe Second World War, Burmese societywas divided between the Shan living inlowland valleys and the Kachin living inthe surrounding hills. The Shan had longbeen organized as stable, feudal statessupported by wet-rice agriculture thatregularly produced a surplus. The Kachinhad a less stable political organization andpracticed slash-and-burn agriculture thatcould not entirely meet their nutritionalneeds. As a result, the Kachin turned toraiding, levying tolls on passing caravans,and forging alliances with Shan princes.Over many years the Shan and Kachinhad developed a symbiotic relationshipand Leach (1954:6) warns that it is “meth-odologically unsound to treat different va-rieties of political systems which we nowfind in the area as independent types;they should clearly be thought of as partof a larger total system.”

In political matters the Kachin had twocontradictory ideal modes of political or-ganization, the Shan system of govern-ment which resembled the feudal hierar-chy of their lowland brethren and thegumlao system, which was egalitarian.Leach (1954:9) states:

Briefly my argument is that in terms of politicalorganization Kachin communities oscillate be-tween two polar types—gumlao ‘democracy’ onthe one hand, Shan ‘autocracy’ on the other. Themajority of actual Kachin communities are nei-ther gumlao nor Shan in type, they are organisedaccording to a system described in this book asgumsa, which is, in effect, a kind of compromisebetween gumlao and Shan ideals.

L1vhctbtftde(Trwotaa

rpl

apfetgreatbntcpbii


The gumsa community of Haplang, whereeach conducted his research in 1939 and940, was composed of 500 people in nineillages. According to tradition it shouldave had one aristocratic lineage, whosehief was the headman of one village andhe headmen of the other villages woulde his tenants with land rights due to his-

oric precedent (Leach 1954:68). In reality,our of the nine headmen could claim aris-ocratic status and three of them actuallyid. In addition, the British colonial gov-rnment recognized yet another manwith no traditional authority) as the chief.o make matters more complicated, theeal power struggle within the communityas between two factions; the first wasne of the three headmen who traced aris-ocratic heritage. The other was a non-ristocratic headman who manipulated anristocratic headman as a puppet leader.Within this factionalized political envi-

onment the gumlao and Shan ideals wereragmatically manipulated to achieve po-

itical gain. The oscillation of the gumsasystem between Shan and gumlao idealsreflect the shifting balance of internal andexternal sources of support in Kachin so-ciety. The gumsa chief needs kin backing

nd the support of a community to gainower but external economic support

rom a Shan prince to maintain it. How-ver, as a chief’s status increases his rela-ives are likely to get jealous and initiate aumlao revolution. In fact, “ . . . the gumlaoevolutionary leader is in no sense an ab-rration from the Kachin norm. As a char-cter he is just the same kind of person ashe chief against whom he revolts, an am-itious seeker after power who treats eco-omic facts with greater respect that ritual

heories . . .” (Leach 1954:263). As Britisholonial rule had decreased lowland Shanower, many Kachin chiefs received lessacking and as a result gumlao revolts had

ncreased in frequency. The inherentrony in a Kachin gumsa community is that

to be a complete autocrat (and thus reach

the Shan end of the political spectrum)would require repudiation of kin tieswhich are the basis of power. However, tobe completely egalitarian (and thus reach-ing the gumlao end of the political spec-trum) all lineages would have be equal.Such an arrangement is equally untenablebecause the mayu–dama relationship im-bedded in the Kachin language, and re-quired for all marriages, involves unequalstatus relations. Therefore, either end ofthe political continuum are hypotheticaland would be impossible in practice. It istherefore the oscillation between the twoends of the spectrum that provide aframework for political analysis. TheKachin case provides an example of thedynamic balancing act required betweeninternal and external facets of political re-lations.

In a similar vein, Blanton et al. (1996;also see Feinman 1995; Blanton 1998) haverecently defined exclusionary and corpo-rate strategies of political organization. Anexclusionary strategy is based on a mo-nopoly of external social and trade rela-tion used to establish prestige locallyamong a small “exclusive” segment of so-ciety. A corporate strategy on the otherhand, shares power among different sec-tors of society which integrates local fac-tions and allows more cohesive polities toemerge. The strength of this model is thatit identifies organizational strategies thattranscend levels of cultural complexityand thus can address universal politicalprocesses. However, as Blanton et al.(1996:2) acknowledge, the exclusionary/corporate model is useful insofar as it isunderstood in the heuristic manner that itwas formulated. No political system willactually be completely exclusionary or en-tirely corporate and there will be a con-stant dynamic between the two strategies,which are likely linked (Feinman1995:264). This is equally true for Spen-cer’s (1993) Internal–External model aswell as Flannery’s (1968) and Leach’s

mpaos

8yb1mcHwlsmdgFEVi

ut“m7ddtfo(O1Eptt1M1PE(

bgei

smthalFalp“uhtmspieo

tal1imlacQtge

c

421RANKED SOCIETIES

(1954) Gumsa–Gumlao model. Rather thanutually exclusive processes, these ex-

lanatory models must be viewed as rel-tive descriptions and one society cannly be said to be closer to one end of thepectrum when compared to another.

In under six pages, Blanton et al. (1996:–13) compare their model to over 3000ears of Mesoamerica’s history. In veryroad strokes, they (Blanton et al. 1996:8,2–13) characterize Early and Middle For-ative Mesoamerica as adhering to an ex-

lusionary strategy of political integration.owever, the discussion of this periodhen political inequality first emerged is

imited due to the extensive temporalcope of the article. As a result, there isuch room to explore the Early and Mid-

le Formative societies in a more fine-rained and regional manner. In fact,einman (1995:267–268) characterizesarly and Middle Formative society in thealleys of Oaxaca and Mexico as follow-

ng a predominantly corporate strategy.Many of the models discussed above

ltimately return to Renfrew’s (1974) dis-inction between “group-oriented” andindividualizing” chiefdoms. As with theore recent incarnations, Renfrew (1974:

6–82) provided material evidence for hisistinction between the two types of chief-oms from architectural and burial pat-

erns as well as the distribution of theseeatures across the landscape. The group-riented chiefdoms from Neolithic MaltaRenfrew 1974:75–77), Formative Valley ofaxaca and Basin of Mexico (Drennan

991b:283; Feinman 1995:267–268), andthnohistoric Hawaii (Earle 1997:210) allossess group-unifying public architec-

ure and nondifferentiated burials. In con-rast, the individualizing chiefdoms fromst-millennium B.C.E. Celtic chieftains,inoan-Mycenaean Greece (Renfrew

974:79–82), Alto Magdalena, Centralanama (Drennan 1991b:283), and thearly Bronze Age Thy region of Denmark

Earle 1997:209) all possess a limited num-

er of burials with many exotic prestigeoods and residential architecture thatmphasize individuals (and their support-ng factions).

Regardless of how one classifies a givenociety, a problem with all of the dichoto-ous models mentioned above is that

hey are each functional. They describeow political systems function but do notctually account for why or how such po-itical strategies originate. However, wheneinman (1995) discusses exclusionarynd corporate strategies specifically in re-ation to the emergence of inequality, herovides a solution when he states that. . . viable explanations of change mustltimately unravel the interplay betweenuman strategies and socio-environmen-

al opportunities and stresses. They alsoust recognize the historical nature of these

ocial transitions” (Feinman 1995:262, em-hasis mine). I return to the importance of

ncorporating historic associations intovolutionary analysis in the final sectionsf this article.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PATTERNSIN FORMATIVE SOCONUSCO

AND OAXACA

In this section, I examine the Barrahrough Conchas phases in the Soconuscond the Tierras Largas through Guada-upe phases in the Valley of Oaxaca (Table). Previous research from the two regionss first summarized. Then, employing as

uch quantitative data as has been pub-ished, I compare settlement, burial, andrchitectural evidence to documenthange through time in each region.uantitative comparisons allow patterns

o be consistently compared between re-ions and are favored where such dataxist.

Previous Research

The Soconusco is part of the fertile Pa-ific coastal plain that straddles the mod-

d

citgc(btces


ern border of Mexico and Guatemala (Fig.1). Work on the Mexican side of the bor-der began in the 1950s and 1960s (Greenand Lowe 1967; Lowe 1975; Ceja 1985). In1985, John Clark and Michael Blake beganthe “Mazatan Early Formative Project” inorder to examine the emergence of in-equality in the region (Blake 1991; Blake,Chisholm et al. 1992, Blake, Clark et al.1992; Clark et al. 1994, Clark 1991, 1994,Clark and Blake 1994). The Guatemalanside of the Soconusco was first investi-gated by Edwin Shook in the 1940s (1947)and later studied by Michael Coe andKent Flannery (1967; Coe 1961). More re-cently excavations by Michael Love (1989,1991, 1993) have focused on the MiddleFormative site of La Blanca and settlementalong the Naranjo River. For a chronolog-ical overview and phase by phase descrip-tion of these periods see Blake et al. (1995).

The Valley of Oaxaca is a broad riverinehighland valley in southern Mexico (Fig.2). The excavation of Formative periodsites began with the “Prehistory and Hu-man Ecology of the Valley of OaxacaProject” led by Kent Flannery (1976). Thebulk of work has been carried out by anumber of graduate students produced bythe Universities of Michigan and Arizona(Winter 1972; Drennan 1976; Whalen 1981;Blanton et al. 1982; Kowalewski et al.1989). Synthetic discussions of the timeperiods discussed here are included inFlannery and Marcus (1983:41–74) andMarcus and Flannery (1996:chapters 7–9).A complete chronology is provided byDrennan (1983:363–370) and a detailed de-scription of Early Formative Oaxacan ce-ramics is presented by Flannery and Mar-cus (1994).

Settlement Patterns

Theory and Expectations

Conventional wisdom among archaeol-ogists interpreting settlement data states

that a multitiered system indicates politi-cal inequality (e.g., Steponaitis 1978:420;Spencer 1982:5; Feinman and Neitzel 1984:76; Wright 1984:43; Creamer and Haas1985:742; Earle 1991b:3; Hayden 1995:63).Egalitarian subsistence farmers are ex-pected to be evenly spaced across thelandscape in small villages (close to ex-ploitable resources) forming a single levelof settlement. The existence of an addi-tional tier of settlement, above that of thevillage, is indicative of a coordinating stra-tum of society that performs nonsubsis-tence roles (i.e., craft and political special-ists) and depends, at least in part, on thelabor of others to sustain it. This qualita-tive approach describes archaeologicalcultures as possessing different numbersof settlement tiers but does not allow dif-ferences to be documented between set-tlement systems with the same number oftiers. To quantify settlement hierarchy Iemploy a methodology used by Brumfiel(1976) and Peebles (1978) and elaboratedon by Steponaitis (1981, 1986) to measurepolitical differences in population size.The model assumes that the size of a com-munity is determined by the number of itsinhabitants, which is proportional to theamount of food available. In turn, the quan-tity of food available is dependent on theproductivity of a site’s catchment area andthe flow of tribute into or out of the com-munity. Therefore, according to this model:community size 5 land available 3 the pro-

uctivity of such land 6 tribute.With single-tiered settlement patterns,

ommunity size and catchment productiv-ty are expected to correspond in a posi-ive, linear manner and therefore thereater the food supply, the more peoplean be supported at a particular siteSteponaitis 1981:324). This relationshipetween site size and catchment produc-

ivity is expected when there is no inter-ommunity political coordination andach community simply pursues its ownubsistence needs. Steponaitis (1981:325–

ad

423RANKED SOCIETIES

326) demonstrates that this correlation istrue even if tribute flow operates within acommunity as would be the case in a “big-man” society where a leader could accu-mulate wealth for competitive feasting.Such ritual exchange generally rotatesthrough several communities and wouldnot be expected to affect the size of anyindividual settlement involved in such in-tercommunity activity (Sahlins 1963). If,however, a constant and unequal flow ofresources does occur, then asymmetricalpolitical relations will cause the emer-gence of a second settlement tier.

In a two-tiered settlement system, vil-lage size is a function of catchment pro-ductivity and tribute paid, whereas thesize of a local center is a function of itscatchment productivity and tribute re-ceived from dependent villages (Stepon-aitis 1981:326). Therefore, in the two-tiered scenario, the larger size of localcenters is attributed to a number ofpeople being provisioned by the influxof tribute from surrounding villages(Steponaitis 1981:328, 1984:145–147; cf.Hirth 1984:136 –137). The flow of tributeis inferred from the concentration oflarger populations found in local cen-ters. Therefore, a two-tiered settlementpattern indicates political power beingexercised and its emergence is equatedwith the development of the most sim-ple chiefdoms.

Material and Methods

Data for the following analysis is takenfrom Early Formative settlement compo-nents in a 50-km2, 100% survey block inthe Mazatan zone of the Soconusco regionof southern Mexico (Clark et al. 1994:98–106) and from the 100% survey of the 2200-km2 floor of the Valley of Oaxaca (Kow-

lewski et al. 1989:524–525). Additionalata from outside the 50 km2 in the Maza-

tan zone are included in order to present amore complete assessment of the avail-

able data (Clark et al. 1987, 1990). I alsodiscuss Early and Middle Formative sitesfrom a 200-km2 survey block in the LaBlanca-Ocos zone on the Guatemalan sideof the Soconusco (Love 1989, 1991). Thislast source of settlement data was not re-corded as site size in hectares and soquantitative comparisons are not possible.

To apply the model, population (mea-sured as the size of each site) was re-corded on the x axis and plotted against itscatchment productivity (defined below)recorded on the y axis (Fig. 3). Expressedmathematically: site size 5 catchmentproductivity 6 tribute, where catchmentproductivity 5 catchment area 3 the pro-ductivity of land.

The crux of this model is that when asite’s catchment productivity is controlledfor, the relative quantity of tribute flowcan be measured as the difference be-tween the regression line of a region’s vil-lages and the position of local centersabove this line. The relative quantity oftribute received by these centers is thusused as a proxy measure of political poweras it reflects control over resources. In aone-tiered system, the y intercept of theregression line produced when villagesare plotted is expected to be zero, as atotal lack of catchment productivity couldsupport no people (Steponaitis 1984:143,1985:897). In a two-tiered settlement sys-tem, the y intercept of the lower tier wouldbe zero or lower and a negative numberreflects the flow of tribute out of the com-munity. Conversely, the y intercept pro-duced by the regression line of the secondtier is expected to be above zero becauseeven when there are no resources, theflow of tribute into these centers couldsustain some people. The flow of tributecan be estimated and settlement systemscan thus be compared both in terms oftheir structure (i.e., number of tiers) andthe relative quantity of political power ex-ercised (distance of local centers abovethe village level).

vd

.


Site size was measured in hectares. Sur-ey components were combined to pro-uce sites in keeping with decisions made

FIG. 3. Early Formative settlement patterns frEarly and Middle Formative settlement patternstier and those referred to in the text are named

by the respective investigators. In the Val-ley of Oaxaca, as many as nine compo-nents were combined to form the dis-

the Mazatan survey zone of the Soconusco andrm the Valley of Oaxaca. Sites from the second

omfo

425RANKED SOCIETIES

persed center of San Jose Mogote(Kowalewski et al. 1989:61). In the Soco-nusco, small survey components werecombined when they occurred in proxim-ity to large sites and fell within theircatchment area or when a number ofsmall components occurred close to eachother (see Rosenswig 1998:59–62 for com-

FIG. 3—

ponent combinations and site sizes). Allsites smaller than 1 ha were excludedfrom the following analysis because suchsmall settlements would not require largecatchment areas to sustain their popula-tion—such an assumption was also madeby Steponaitis (1981:337), who excludedsites under 2 ha.

ntinued
Co


Catchment area was defined as a 1-kmradius around each site based on Chis-holm’s (1968:131) ethnographic observa-tion that cultivating within such a distanceis optimal. The selection of a 1-km catch-ment radius is further supported bySteponaitis’ (1981:335) demonstration thatthe size of catchment radii does not pro-portionately affect catchment productivityresults, as it is only the relative productiv-ity of land that is modeled (see Steponaitis1984:144). The methodology used to calcu-late the size of site catchments is the sameas that employed by Steponaitis(1981:335–336) except that catchment areais measured from the center of a site, notits edge (Finsten et al. 1983:124–126; Hirth1984:136). Such a change in methodologyis appropriate when site size is relativelysmall (Peebles 1978; Steponaitis 1978,1983:131). The other exception to the ap-plication of this method of calculating sitecatchment area is the Jocotal phase in theSoconusco, where sites were so denselypacked that to divide overlapping catch-ment areas was not possible and insteadall catchment areas were halved.

Land productivity was modeled as a con-stant by Steponaitis (1981:334–335) andproductivity was measured as all the landwithin a site’s catchment radius that couldbe cultivated. However, following Finstenet al. (1983:126–128) and Steponaitis (1983:132), I incorporate land productivity intomy calculations and employ Kowalewski’s(1982:339–354) three classes of land qual-ity for the Valley of Oaxaca. Clark (1994:215) employs a similar classification sys-tem for the major biotic communities ofthe Soconusco and so comparisons be-tween the regions are relatively direct.Both studies use the maize cultivation po-tential of land to approximate productivitymore generally. In the Soconusco,Chahuite and Riparian zones are consid-ered class I land, Tropical Deciduous For-est is class II, and Palmar and Savanna areclass III (Clark 1994:60). When calculating

the quantity of land, a simple correctionwas used to determine the contribution ofeach land type based on Clark’s (1994:215)estimates of annual crop potential. Class Iland can produce three corn crops yearlyand is counted as 133% of actual land,class II land can produce two crops andcontributes 100%, while only one crop ayear is feasibly produced on class III landand thus it contributes 50% of its actualarea. These proportions are similar toKowalewski’s (1982:151) land productivityestimates and the same correction per-centages are therefore also used for theValley of Oaxaca. Within each catchmentarea the quantity of land types was esti-mated to the nearest 10th percentile andcatchment areas were adjusted, based onland productivity, to produce an adjustedcatchment value (Rosenswig 1998:59–62).For example, if a catchment area con-tained 1000 ha of land and 10% of it wasclass I land, 50% class II land, and 40%class III land, then class I land is adjustedto 133 ha, class II land to 500 ha, and classIII land to 200 ha. In this example, thecatchment area was 1000 ha but due to theland productivity the adjusted catchmentvalue would be 833 ha.

A concern when employing settlementdata from surface survey projects is theunderrepresentation of deeply buriedsites and the fact that surface shards fromsuch sites may not give a representativepicture of the extent of these sites. This isundoubtably a problem in both regions.However, for the sake of this comparativeanalysis earlier period settlement fromboth regions are assumed to be equallyunderrepresented. Another assumption ofthis study is that population density wasthe same at each site and that all siteswere occupied for the same proportion ofeach ceramic phase. These simplifying as-sumptions are required to allow the extentof surface shard scatters to represent pop-ulation (Kowalewski et al. 1989).

427RANKED SOCIETIES

Results

The results of this analysis are pre-sented as a series of nine graphs in Figs.3A–3I that document the number of tiersof settlement in the Early and Middle For-mative Soconusco and Valley of Oaxaca.Then, Fig. 4 summarizes the relativequantity of tribute flow through time inthese regions. Overall, there appears tohave been a two-tiered settlement patternfrom both regions in most phases repre-sented in Fig. 3. However, variation in thequantity of tribute flow reveals importanttemporal and regional patterns. In theMazatan region, the results suggest anumber of polities experienced cycles offluctuating political power over time,whereas the in Valley of Oaxaca a singlecenter emerged at the beginning of theFormative period and persisted for a 1000years. While Barra and Tierras Largas set-tlement systems are quite similar, the tworegions diverge in the subsequent Loconaand San Jose phases.

FIG. 4. The relative flow of tribute in Soc

Mazatan zone of the Soconusco. In theMazatan zone of the Soconusco during theBarra phase, the site of Paso de la Amadawas more than eight times the size of thenext largest settlement (Fig. 3A). Besidesthe two sites represented on the graphthere are approximately a dozen othersites smaller than 0.5 ha excluded fromthe analysis and while these sites weresignificant during this phase they werenonetheless excluded from Fig. 3A so thatthe results are consistent with subsequentperiods. During the Locona phase, Pasode la Amada represents a possible excep-tion to the two-tiered pattern, as it wastwice as far from the regression line pro-duced by villages as other local centers(Fig. 3B). Clark (1994:199) states that whilethe size of Paso de la Amada during theLocona phase

could be interpreted as evidence of a three-tiered settlement hierarchy . . . there do not ap-pear to be any qualitative indicators of differ-ences from the other large village sites (and theirfull size remains to be determined), [and] a moreconservative interpretation is that . . . all large

usco and Valley of Oaxaca survey zones.
on


villages [are] at the same level in the settlementsystem.

Four sites in the survey zone [and possiblythree others nearby (Clark 1994:201)] werelarger than 20 ha and had platformmounds up to 3 m high, whereas none ofthe small sites in the region had platformarchitecture and all of these villages wereonly a few hectares in size. If Paso de laAmada was at the head of a three-tieredsettlement hierarchy, its power was fleet-ing and its dominant political position wasshort lived.

A two-tiered settlement pattern de-scribes the following Ocos phase andAquiles Serdan exceeded Paso de laAmada in terms of size (Fig. 3C). Fewersites larger than 1 ha existed than duringthe Locona phase but the total populationwas similar, with more people consoli-dated in the sites that persisted from ear-lier times (Clark 1994:106). There weremany relatively large second-tier villagesduring this phase which may reflect theshifting fortunes of various communitiesand a high degree of intercommunitycompetition during this 150-year period.A significant difference from Loconatimes was the rise in fortune of the site ofAquiles Serdan, which surpassed Paso dela Amada in size despite its lower catch-ment productivity. During the Cherlaphase (Fig. 3D) there were again fewersites but a more clearly defined, two-tiered settlement hierarchy returned at alower order of magnitude than the Ocosperiod. Ocos phase obsidian from threedifferent sources were differentially dis-tributed between these local centers andhomogeneously distributed within eachcenter and neighboring villages (Clarkand Salcedo 1989). Such obsidian distribu-tion indicates that a number of self-con-tained networks were focused around lo-cal centers and provides an additional,and independent, measure of political ac-tivity in the region.

The most dramatic change in settlementpatterns occurred during the Cuadrosphase (Fig. 3E) when there appears to be asingle settlement tier in the survey zone.The largest sites possessed little powerrelative to earlier phases (Fig. 4) and wereonly marginally larger than second-tiersites. The site of Paso de la Amada and LaCalentura (two original local centers)ceased to exist as centers during thisphase. However, during the Cuadrosphase more sites were larger than 1 hathan ever before. This is because the cen-ter of power shifted out of the survey zoneto the site of El Carmen, occupiedthroughout much of the Early and MiddleFormative along a 500-m stretch of theCoatan River (Clark et al. 1987:20–23).

During the Jocotal phase (Fig. 3F) an-other dramatic change occurred in thesurvey zone: A clear two-tiered settlementsystem was reestablished in the surveyzone with four local centers of the samemagnitude as those found during the Lo-cona and Ocos phases. However, the totalnumber of sites larger than 1 ha increasedfive times beyond those of any previousperiod with 71 such sites recovered in the50-km2 survey zone. The large site of ElSilencio, located across the river from ElCarmen and occupied predominantly inthe Jocotal phase, suggests there may be athird tier of settlement in the region(Clark et al. 1990). In the following MiddleFormative Conchas phase, population inthe Mazatan zone was much reduced(Blake et al. 1995:181) but there was a largesite, complete with a 20-m high mound atHuanacastal (Clark et al. 1987).

La Blanca-Ocos zone of the Soconusco. Asstated from the outset, the La Blanca-Ocossettlement data cannot be comparedquantitatively but are illuminating for aqualitative comparison with the Valley ofOaxaca. The La Blanca-Ocos zone of theSoconusco was less densely populatedthan Mazatan with only three sites largerthan 1 ha in the Ocos phase (La Victoria,

OtmlmpiJttJDsJfipiMvestr

429RANKED SOCIETIES

La Blanca, and Sage) and only two suchsites in the Cuadros/Jocotal phase (Sageand Salinas La Blanca) but none largerthan 3 ha (Fig. 1). There were no centers inthe Early Formative and a single-tieredsettlement organization existed in thiszone despite the fact that it shared thesame ceramic sequence as the Mazatanzone 25 km up the coast (Love 1989, 1991).

This one-tiered settlement systemchanged quite dramatically during theMiddle Formative when three tiers of set-tlement are documented (Love 1991:38).The paramount center of La Blanca ex-tended over an area of 100 ha with a cen-tral mound over 25 m high and at least 43residential mounds. There were two sec-ond-order sites in this area: La Zarca andEl Infierno; each with large public archi-tecture. The third tier consisted of fivemultiple household settlements. It wasnot until the Middle Formative that settle-ment ranking emerged in this zone (Love1991:60).

The Valley of Oaxaca. In the Valley ofaxaca during the Tierras Largas phase,

he site of San Jose Mogote was a littleore than four times the size of the next

argest site (Fig. 3G) and this difference isinimal when compared with subsequent

hases. A dramatic change occurred dur-ng the San Jose phase (Fig. 3H) when Sanose Mogote reached almost 80 ha in ex-ent and this large center persisted intohe Guadalupe phase (Fig. 3I) when Sanose Mogote was just under 70 ha in size.uring both of these periods, all other

ites were less than a 1/10th the size of Sanose Mogote. Rather than having an actualrst tier, the San Jose and Guadalupehase settlement patterns were character-

zed by the single large site of San Joseogote and then all other sites in the

alley (Kowalewski et al. 1989:66). How-ver, the site of Tierras Largas is the onlyite (other than San Jose Mogote) duringhese three phases larger than 3 ha. Tier-as Largas reached 6.3 ha, which is almost

the same size as San Jose Mogote duringthe Tierras Largas phase (6.8 ha). TheTierras Largas site was situated at an ag-riculturally marginal location with noclass I land within its 1-km catchment ra-dius and its unexpectedly large size (givenits poor catchment productivity) may bedue to its strategic location on the AtoyacRiver between the Etla arm and the rest ofthe valley (Fig. 2). During the San Josephase, when San Jose Mogote was expe-riencing its population explosion, TierrasLargas increased to four times its previoussize.

Tribute Flow in the Soconusco and Valley ofOaxaca

The structure of settlement (i.e., num-ber of tiers) has been discussed in theSoconusco and Valley of Oaxaca but notthe relative quantity of tribute flow. Todetermine tribute flow I have adapted themethod used by Steponaitis (1981:Fig. 3,and see the discussion in Steponaitis 1984:145–147) and simplified it for a two-tieredsettlement system (see Ackerly and Young1984 and Steponaitis 1985:898–901). Theregression line produced by villages wascalculated for each of the nine phases doc-umented in Fig. 3 (slope and y intercept ofvillages is recorded on Table 2). The dis-tance above this line was calculated foreach center. The average tribute level ofall centers was calculated for each phase(Table 2—first two columns) and it is thesenumbers that are plotted in Fig. 4. Asthere was a single second-tier site for theBarra phase in the Soconusco and all threeOaxacan phases, the largest sites and theaverage of all sites is the same. Thus, forcomparative purposes the largest site’ssize, from each Soconusco phase, is alsoincluded in Table 2. The results in Fig. 4comparatively summarize the relativequantity of tribute extracted through timein the two regions and show the detail lost

ogwspdaulaspt

iis“pat(ippqlpnptLamFiofn

tt


by only examining settlement patternsqualitatively as the number of tiers.

In the Soconusco, there appears to be afluctuating pattern to the quantity of trib-ute flow in the survey zone. A consider-able increase is evident from the Barra toLocona phases which then decreases fromthe Ocos to Cherla periods. The flow oftribute within the survey zone reached aminimal level during the Cuadros phase(Fig. 4) despite an overall increase in thenumber of sites (Fig. 3E). In the Jocotalperiod, tribute flow increased rapidly andit is during this phase that the y intercept

f villages was its lowest (Table 2), sug-esting that the greatest amount of tributeas being extracted from villages. It is

ignificant that the center of politicalower moved outside the survey zoneuring Cuadros. If the territorial unit ofnalysis encompassed the entire politicalnit, Cuadros phase tribute levels would

ikely be at least as high as earlier phasesnd Jocotal phase tribute would be highertill. However, these late Early Formativeatterns remain to be documented

hrough future survey.Obsidian patterns again elucidate polit-

TAQuantity of Tribute Extracted at Local Centers as W

in the Soconusco a

Region andphase

Average ofcenters’ tribute

Lcente

SoconuscoBarra 10Locona 24.82Ocos 21.48Cherla 10.84Cuadros 4.45Jocotal 23.42

Valley of OaxacaTierras Largas 5.79San Jose 74.12Guadalupe 65.57

cal process as the “ . . . amount of obsid-an coming into the zone increasedteadily from Barra to Cherla times” then. . . during the Cuadros and Jocotalhases the amount of incoming obsidianppears to have decreased dramatically,o less than 20% of the former amount”Clark et al. 1989:278). The initial increasesn obsidian distribution levels may be ex-lained if obsidian were being used com-etitively between factions. The subse-uent, dramatic drop in consumption

evel beginning in the Cuadros phase em-hasizes the political rather than eco-omic role of obsidian in the region. Therevious level of distribution may reflect

he “cost” of maintaining power for theocona, Ocos, and Cherla elite. Themount of tribute flow in the Soconuscoust have increased during the Middle

ormative with the emergence of the pol-ty centered at La Blanca but, as previ-usly noted, exact figures are not availableor Conchas values and so this phase isot included in Fig. 4.In the Valley of Oaxaca, tribute ex-

racted by San Jose Mogote increased be-ween the Tierras Largas and the San Jose

2as the Slope and y Intercept of Villages by PhaseValley of Oaxaca

esttribute

Slope ofvillages

y Intercept ofvillages’slopes

0 1.304 0.0092 20.714 0.0341 28.575 0.0333 211.645 0.0091 20.517 0.0951 219.1

79 20.0018 1.812 0.0029 0.957 0.0063 20.4

BLEellnd

argrs’

1045.35.11.

5.31.

5.74.65.

lbCwrai1dwdwteftO

S

431RANKED SOCIETIES

phase (to a degree unparalleled in theEarly Formative Soconusco) and then de-clined slightly in Guadalupe times. How-ever, during each of these phases, thestress on villages was minor (Table 2) andso the flow of tribute to San Jose Mogotemay have had little effect on the sites inthe rest of the valley. This would havefacilitated the integration of villages into apolitical alliance with few deleterious eco-nomic repercussions. Beginning in SanJose times, the distribution of obsidian inthe Valley of Oaxaca suggests a regionallyintegrative pattern. San Jose Mogote haddifferent proportions of obsidian sourcesin various residential wards and the pro-portions corresponded to other sites in thevalley (Marcus 1989:175–187). Parry (1983:80–81 in Marcus 1989) found that San JoseMogote Area C, Abasolo, and Tomaltepecall had similar proportions of raw materialtypes. Marcus (1989:176–177) posits that“ . . . each area or ward was occupied by adifferent descent group . . . [and thatthe] . . . wards at San Jose Mogote may beinked to neighboring hamlets throughelief in a common apical ancestor.” Areawas linked to Tomaltepec and Abasolo

ith “fire-serpent” imagery on their ce-amics and Area B was linked to Huitzond Tierras Largas with “were-jaguar”magery on their ceramics (Marcus 1989:75–176). If economic activities such as theistribution of obsidian was associatedith different lineages and such lineagesominated particular communities butere all represented at San Jose Mogote

his could have provided the social andconomic mechanism that would rein-orce political cohesion between the cen-er and periphery of power in the Valley ofaxaca.

ummary of Settlement Data

Based on the settlement data presented,the Barra phase from the Soconusco andthe Tierras Largas phase from the Valley

of Oaxaca resemble each other as a singlecenter is slightly larger than surroundingvillages. Political complexity, as measuredby the flow of tribute, is ambiguous dur-ing these initial ceramic phases. Duringthe following Early Formative phases, thesettlement trajectories of these two re-gions diverged quite dramatically, yetboth clearly indicate the establishment ofunequal political relations. In the Valley ofOaxaca, the unchallenged position of SanJose Mogote persisted through theGuadalupe times (Figs. 3H and 3I). In theSoconusco, a significant reorganizationoccurred during the Locona phase, and ahierarchical settlement system developed(Fig. 3B). However, at least four local cen-ters (and perhaps as many as seven)emerged together in close proximity toeach other.

The demographic disruption, and dis-appearance of settlement hierarchy in theSoconuscan survey zone during theCuadros phase, and the rapid (i.e., 50-year) reemergence of a hierarchy and in-crease in population during the Jocotalphase may be explained by the inhabit-ants of the survey zone being incorpo-rated into a polity centered at El Carmenand El Silencio on the Coatan River. Asimilar explanation has been proposedbased on evidence of an Olmec ceramicstyle and monolithic stone sculptures(Clark and Blake 1989; Blake et al. 1995).The placement of all Cuadros and Jocotalphase sites encountered by Coe and Flan-nery (1967:87) in the La Blanca-Ocos re-gion on waterways further suggests achanging settlement strategy (perhaps re-sulting from increasing regular long-dis-tance interaction along these waterways).The end of the Early Formative was whenMesoamerica’s first ceramic horizonemerged which suggests increased inter-regional contact (Sharer and Grove 1989).In the Valley of Oaxaca, the quantity oftribute flow increased hundreds of years


later than in the Soconusco but once thetransition did take place, at the end of theEarly Formative, a much higher quantityof tribute made its way to San Jose Mogotewhile in the Soconusco tribute levels werefluctuating (Fig. 4).

Although a larger regional survey isneeded for the entire Soconusco region,there is sufficient evidence to concludethat the political landscape was muchmore volatile than indicated in the Valleyof Oaxaca during this time. While part ofthe apparent political volatility in the So-conusco may be a methodological func-tion of a more refined chronology (Rosen-swig 1999), settlement patterns are stillvery different when compared to the Val-ley of Oaxaca. The fortunes of Soconuscancenters shifted significantly from one cen-tury to the next and the locus of powermigrated around the coastal plain. Thedeveloping Soconusco settlement system,with many equally sized, closely spaced,and short-lived political centers, is consis-tent with a high degree of peer polity in-teraction (Renfrew and Cherry 1986) andthe use of exotic obsidian exchange (Clarket al. 1989) is consistent with expectationsof an external basis of political authority(Spencer 1993) that may have relied on anetwork strategy of integration (Blanton etal. 1996). The Oaxacan settlement trajec-tory, on the other hand, represents a sta-ble and long-lasting (yet highly unequal)political organization with the vast major-ity of tribute flowing into San JoseMogote. In addition, the elite in San JoseMogote would have faced little competi-tion originating from within the valley.Based on the distribution of obsidian(from different sources) and ceramics(with two types of imagery) betweenwards of San Jose Mogote and outlyingcommunities, a corporate form of politicalintegration is suggested (as Feinman 1995:268 also observes) with an internal basis ofpolitical authority (Spencer 1993).

Mortuary Patterns

Theory and Expectations

Cross-cultural studies indicate thatthere is a correlation between an individ-ual’s status in life and their treatment indeath (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971; also seeBrown 1995). Based on role theory (Good-enough 1965), an individual is said to pos-sess many social personae such as father,teacher, and chief. Leaders are expected topossess a larger number of social perso-nae than an average member of the samesociety due to the greater number of socialroles they possess and functions theyserve in community matters (Tainter 1978:331–332). In this section, I roughly esti-mate the number of social personae ex-pressed at death as the number ofmortuary symbols recovered with an in-terment. In order to try and establish acomparative baseline in this study, I donot attempt to understand what a jadebead found in an individual’s mouth, redpigment covering a body, or two ceramicvessels around the interred’s feet meant toa specific group of people (for a similarapproach see O’Shea 1996:15). Instead, Isimply assume that each type of graveinclusion had a different meaning andrecord the quantity of such social mes-sages. To further nuance this approach,each type of grave inclusion is also re-corded as being recovered from one offour positions around the body. I assumethat material culture is employed pur-posefully and symbolically to communi-cate social information (Wobst 1977). Mor-tuary ritual is a purposeful and publicstage in the life cycle of an individual andthe inclusion of grave offerings, as well astheir placement, is not a random or hap-hazard occurrence (O’Shea 1984:35–36).Mortuary ritual is necessarily preformedby the living and may thus be used by afaction to express differences or similaritywith other segments of society.

433RANKED SOCIETIES

Differential numbers of social messagesascribed to certain individuals in death isinterpreted as mortuary complexity andtwo or more distinct levels of social mes-sages (when a burial populations is exam-ined) would indicate some form of socialdifferentiation operating in a culture.However, continuous or similar numbersof social messages expressed within aburial population may not be indicative ofa lack of social differentiation. Feinmanand Neitzel (1984:76) observe that

some leaders receive special funerary treat-ments of a sort that would not be visible in theprehistoric record. At death their bodies werehung from trees . . . burned, and/or eaten. . .Thus although leaders are generally differenti-ated during life by their dress and at death bytheir mortuary treatment, the absence of evi-dence of these differences in the archaeologicalrecord is not necessarily sufficient to concludethat social distinctions are not present.

Material and Method

The following analysis employs a dataset of 196 Early and Middle Formative in-terments from the Soconusco (n 5 58) andthe Valley of Oaxaca (n 5 138) regions(Appendices 1 and 2). A diversity analysisis employed to approximate the numberof social personae that are evident fromeach mortuary event. This type of analysishas been productively employed by mor-tuary analysts to quantify information ex-pressed by those who bury the dead (seeCannon 1989; Sempowski 1992; Howelland Kintigh 1996). In order to calculate thediversity scores used in the followinganalysis the presence or absence of eachartifact type recovered (e.g., jade bead, ce-ramic vessel, shell pendant, etc.) was tab-ulated regardless of its quantity. So, forexample, if five or six jade beads wererecovered around the neck of an individ-ual a score of “1” was recorded. However,an artifact type was counted more thanonce when it was recovered from multiplelocations around a body. The four loca-

tions were as follows: at the head, thebody, the legs, and in the mouth. As aresult, any artifact type could contribute amaximum of four points toward the diver-sity score. This approach results in theremains of a necklace or a pair of earringscounting only one time regardless of thenumber of pieces the archaeologist findsthem in.

As well as grave goods, the presence ofa tomb or stones covering a burial, evi-dence of pigment employed at the mortu-ary event, or secondary burials placed inassociation with a primary interment eachcontributed a point to the diversity score.In addition, the presence of cranial defor-mation contributed a point to diversityscores, not because this was part of theinterment ritual but because it is the ex-pression of a social message in life and itis ultimately the number social personaethat I am trying to estimate. Cranial de-formation would have been performedearly in life and contributed to a publicform of discourse throughout the individ-ual’s life.

There are a number of potential prob-lems with this approach: (1) not all mes-sages are expressed in a manner that ispreserved archaeologically (e.g., singingor dancing) and this could underrepresentthe quantity of documented messages, (2)a single social personae can be expressedby many symbols and this could poten-tially inflate the apparent number of socialroles being symbolized, and (3) nonperso-nae signifying grave inclusions (i.e., re-lated to the manner of death or idiosyn-cratic preferences of an individual) mayfurther inflate status symbolizing diver-sity. An additional problem relates to thesize and representativeness of the burialpopulations. Some of the burial popula-tions analyzed are small and consist of asfew as eight individuals. In addition, theregional nature of this database and thefact that burials are grouped relative toceramic phases, which last up to 300 years,


results in burial populations with no nec-essary temporal or spatial association. Asa result, the data are presented using sim-ple descriptive statistics and the prelimi-nary nature of the results is emphasized.

This quantitative assessment does notincorporate a range of possible qualitativeindicators of rank or “badges of authority”(Braun 1979). Flannery and Marcus (1990:31; Marcus and Flannery 1996:99–100) ar-gue that the seated position of burials inthe Valley of Oaxaca is an indicator ofhigh status and hereditary inequality dur-ing the San Jose phase. Clark (1991) sug-gests that mirrors may have been linkedto elite status and Carlson (1981:130) pos-tulates “ . . . an Olmec or Early Formativeorigin for a pan-Mesoamerican mirror-cult tradition of royal lineage power.”While not sensitive to such factors, diver-sity analysis is amenable to consistentcomparisons between time periods andregions, and so it provides the sort of com-mon baseline necessary to undertake acomparative analysis of mortuary pat-terns.

Quantitative Results

Seven graphs (Fig. 5) summarize the di-versity profiles of burial data. Thesegraphs show three patterns: no burial of-ferings, a continuous yet limited numberof different diversity scores, and, finally, adiscontinuous pattern of burial diversity.All periods in both regions have at least75% of burials with a diversity score of 0 or1. In the majority of time periods there area number of burials forming a continuousdistribution up to a diversity score of 5.

In the Soconusco, the Locona, Ocos, andCherla burials exhibited a continuous dis-tribution of diversity scores. The only twoburials from the Soconusco with a diver-sity score above 0 after the Cherla phasewere Middle Formative burials from ElPajon (Pailles 1980:92–106) and Huana-castal (Clark et al. 1987:23–24). Neither of

these two interments had any grave inclu-sions and both receive diversity scores of 1due to frontal occipital cranial flattening.This means that in the Soconusco, none ofthe burials discussed in this article frombetween 1000 and 650 B.C.E. contain gravegoods. Although perhaps the result ofsmall samples, it is also possible that dur-ing these periods burials were beingtreated in a different manner than in ear-lier times. If the number of Middle For-mative burials is not proportionately un-derrepresented, then this pattern maysignify a shift to mortuary ritual that doesnot leave archaeological remains as Fein-man and Neitzel suggest in the quoteabove. Such a change in mortuary ritualwould correspond with the demographicand political changes evident in theCuadros phase and it would follow thatchanges in mortuary ritual may have ac-companied the political transition occur-ring at this time. However, due to thesample size this interpretation must re-main conjectural until more work is done.

In the Valley of Oaxaca, the Tierras Lar-gas burial record exhibited a limitedamount of diversity which appear to in-crease during the San Jose phase. Fromthe Middle Formative Guadalupe phaseburial record, there is a hint that two dis-tinct levels of social status, encoded inmortuary ritual, may have emerged. Themortuary pattern from the Guadalupephase is the only example (from the casesexamined here) that suggests ranking ofburial diversity. Overall, burial diversityin the Valley of Oaxaca gradually, yet pro-gressively, increased. However, samplesize may be responsible for low TierrasLargas period diversity.

Discussion and Qualitative Assessment

The following discussion describessome of the burials from each phase thatproduced the highest diversity scores. Inthe Soconusco, a child with a mirror head-

).

435RANKED SOCIETIES

dress, a piece of greenstone behind itshead, and covered in red pigment (Clark1991) and an adult male with two ceramic

FIG. 5. Relative percentage of diversity scorSoconusco (A-D) and the Valley of Oaxaca (E-G

vessels with stone pebbles in one and amortar and stone cobbles around the body(Clark 1994:402) produced diversity scores

or Early and Middle Formative burials in the
es f


of 3 and 4 respectively. Both intermentsdate to the Locona phase and were recov-ered at the Chilo site. A female burialfrom the Cherla phase at Paso de laAmada was found with a mirror on eachside of her head, a stone bowl and cobbleat her chest, and a greenstone bead at herface—producing a diversity score of 4. Asalready noted, later period burials are notamenable to this form of analysis andsuch a change may signify evolving socialpractices, possibly curation above ground,which would have been more public andtherefore potentially a more competitiveform of display (e.g., Goldman 1970).

In the Valley of Oaxaca, a Tierras Largasphase, female burial (no. 19) was encoun-tered at the Tierras Largas site with a di-versity score of 2, as she was interred witha mano and a metate (Winter 1972:325)and a male (no. 29) was buried at San JoseMogote in a seated position with a ce-ramic vessel and thus produced a diver-sity score of 1. Of the San Jose phase buri-als with the highest diversity scores, fiveinterments were found at Tomaltepec andfour more at San Jose Mogote. Of thesenine high-diversity burials four were fe-male, three were male, and one was achild. One of the San Jose phase burials(no. 11) was a male from Tomaltepec witha diversity score of 5 and was found in aseated position with two ceramic vesselsand a greenstone celt at his feet, anothervessel at his head, with 15 greenstonebeads near his neck and 1 in his mouth(Whalen 1981:147). From the Guadalupephase, the two highest diversity burialswere both women. At Tomaltepec, burialno. 68 had a ceramic vessel at her head, achert point at her chest, and a greenstonebead in her mouth and one at her chest(Whalen 1981:152). The only burial with ahigher diversity score was an old womanfrom Fabrica San Jose (no. 39) with a scoreof 8; she was interred with a vessel at herfeet, two at her chest, and one at her head;47 round and six tabular greenstone beads

in her mouth; a brown stone bead andgreenstone pendant were recovered fromher mouth; and there was evidence of redpigment covering part of her body (Dren-nan 1976:248).

The highest diversity scores are attrib-uted to the same individuals that pos-sessed proposed high-status indicators(e.g., interment in a seated position, withred pigment, or mirrors) or those with thegreatest number of grave goods (e.g.,Burial no. 39 at Fabrica San Jose interredwith 59 individual objects or Burial no. 11at Tomaltepec with 20 objects). This cor-respondence between high diversitycounts and other possible gauges of socialstatus suggests that the preceding analysisat least roughly reflects social differencesdue to the convergence of various indica-tors of inequality. An advantage of em-ploying diversity scores in this case is thatthey are easily presented for visual com-parison between phases and across re-gions.

Summary of Mortuary Data

All of the Early Formative mortuary pat-terns in both regions suggest that burialswere not used to blatantly express socialdifferentiation. Some differences are evi-dent but the only hint of clear differenti-ation was the relatively lavish Guadalupephase Burial no. 39 from Fabrica San Jose.The results of this mortuary analysis sug-gest a corporate (Blanton et al. 1996) orgroup-oriented (Renfrew 1974) strategywas employed at the beginning of theEarly Formative periods in both the Soco-nusco and Valley of Oaxaca. However, inCuadros times in the Soconusco andGuadalupe times in the Valley of Oaxaca,changes to the mortuary programs oc-curred. In the Soconusco, no Cuadros, Jo-cotal, or Conchas phase burials were ac-companied by grave goods. In the Valleyof Oaxaca burial differentiation seems to

icwl(“attbtgCibsombdpinpd

idtgnnO

437RANKED SOCIETIES

have been present by the Middle Forma-tive Guadelupe phase.

The Oaxacan burial patterns indicate acontinuous increase in social differentia-tion. However, it is difficult to interpretthe total lack of gave goods recovered withCuadros, Jocotal, and Conchas burials. Ifmortuary ritual moved above ground,then this may have provided new sourcesof competitive display. Goldman de-scribes Polynesian mortuary ritual where“ . . . funeral feasts went on for a lunarmonth, during which time the royalcorpse was presented at each of the differ-ent districts . . . ” (1970:529) and “ . . . flour-shes of speech, song, and gesture, werearried over into the rites of mourning,hich added the specifics of wailing, self-

aceration, and ritualized violence”1970:531). As O’Shea (1996:4) cautions,. . . there is no necessary reason either thatny culture must express social differenceshrough its program of mortuary disposal orhat such differentiation, if present, shoulde expressed in a form that is recognizable

o archaeological inquiry.” If an above-round burial strategy began duringuadros times (or one that relied on bury-

ng perishable materials), there could haveeen considerable differentiation betweenuch burials and those that were not buriedr put into the ground without accoutre-ents. Alternatively, in the Soconusco

urial ritualism may not have been the me-ia of status expression or it is of course alsoossible that no social differentiation ex-

sted. However, interpretations based onegative evidence will have to be inter-reted contextually along with other lines ofata.Two things are evident from the preced-

ng discussion. First, based on available evi-ence, archaeologically detectable changes

o each region’s burial program (i.e., lack ofrave goods or differentiation in theirumbers) occurred earlier in the Soco-usco (1000 B.C.E.) than in the Valley ofaxaca (850 B.C.E.). Second, all such

changes in mortuary programs occurredcenturies later than political inequalityemerged in either region: 1400 B.C.E. inthe Soconusco (Clark and Blake 1994) and1150 B.C.E. in the Valley of Oaxaca (Mar-cus and Flannery 1996:93). Therefore,changes in the mortuary program musthave reinforced rather than contributed tothe emergence of inequality in both re-gions as is evident when the timing ofchanges in Figs. 5 and 3 are compared (thepossible significance of this is discussedbelow).

Architectural Patterns

Theory and Method

Feinman and Neitzel (1984:75) identifythe “ . . . most frequently reported meansof differentiating leaders is by the size,construction and location of their houses.”The use of households as status markershas been explored by archaeologistsstudying emergent complexity (Blake1991; Blanton 1995) and such behavior isborn out by ethnographic accounts (Gold-man 1970:181; Cordy 1981:73–76). In addi-tion, certain egalitarian societies employsocial leveling mechanisms that preventthe domestic expression of social differen-tiation (Wilk 1983). Therefore, the pres-ence of differential household elaborationand the expenditure of different quanti-ties of energy in domestic architecturalconstruction appear to correspond withthe social ethos of a culture (Trigger 1990).An increase in the differentiation betweenhouseholds is one of many types of mate-rial culture capable of expressing socialrelations (Wobst 1977). However, unlikeburials, as permanent fixtures on the so-cial and political landscape, domestic ar-chitecture continuously reinforce differ-ences between those who live in largeelaborate residences and those who donot. Blake (1985:51–52) emphasizes the so-

bC

PPPSSLLE

SSSTTHH


cial significance of residential differentia-tion:

the house communicates to the household theirown social worth and place within the broadersociety, and it communicates this same informa-tion to other households. As a status symbol thehouse is a statement of the relationship betweenthe household members as a group and othersimilar groups. (emphasis in original)

The type of regional, quantitative com-parisons presented in this article for set-tlement and burial evidence are difficultto obtain for architectural data due to thenumber of detailed excavations thatwould be required from all of the struc-tures in many communities and from eachtime period in a given region. This type ofdata is not yet extensive enough in eitherregion to undertake such a comparison.However, in this section architectural ev-idence is discussed as systematically asthe data permits. Residences are com-pared in terms of their size and form,which reflect both the expenditure of la-

TACalculation of Person Days of Labor Needed to B

ased on Abrams’ (1989:70) Estimate of 2.6 Persoonstruction Fill

Site Structure Phase

aso de la Amada Md. 7 Loconaaso de la Amada Md. 6 max. Loconaaso de la Amada Md. 6 Max. Ocosan Carlos Md. 1 max. Loconaan Carlos Md. 1 max. Ocosa Blanca Md. 1 Conchasa Zarca Conchasl Infierno Conchas

an Jose Mogote Str. 6 platform Tierras Largan Jose Mogote Str. 1 San Josean Jose Mogote Str. 2 San Joseomaltepec Str. 11 San Joseomaltepec Str. 12 Guadalupeuitzo Platform 4 Guadalupeuitzo Str. 3 Guadalupe

bor required in construction and the de-gree to which certain segments of the pop-ulation were differentiated from others.Public architecture is also presented andcompared between the two regions so thata complete assessment of architecturalevolution can be presented and residen-tial architecture can be discussed relativeto nonresidential buildings. All relevantarchitectural data discussed in this sectionare presented elsewhere (Rosenswig 1998:68–69) and summarized here in terms ofthe approximate amount of labor requiredto build them (Table 3).

Architectural Trajectories

The Soconusco. Limited Barra phase ar-chitectural remains have been encoun-tered at the sites of Paso de la Amada andSan Carlos and consist of simple clayfloors defined by postholes measuring asmuch as 6 3 4 m (Clark 1994:313–314).They are similar to the only known Ar-

3Structures in the Soconusco and Valley of Oaxacaays of Labor for the Procurement of Earth for

Totalvolume

of fillPerson/days

of work

Days ofwork for

20people

Weeks ofwork for

20people

2333 897 44.9 6.41167 1147 22.5 3.22434 2579 46.8 6.72983 449 57.4 8.26705 936 129 18.4

140 000 53 846 2692.3 384.610 667 4103 205.2 29.314 400 5538 276.9 39.6

26 10 0.5 0.07450 173 8.65 1.2180 69 3.45 0.5

32 12 0.6 0.09120 46 2.3 0.3450 173 8.6 1.2172 66 3.3 0.5

BLEuildn-D

as

439RANKED SOCIETIES

chaic architecture which consisted of 11postholes defining 8 3 4 m of floor spacefrom Tlacuachero (Voorhies et al. 1991:30).The data from both phases are insufficientto evaluate residential differentiation.However, beginning in the following Lo-cona phase, residential differentiation ex-ists in the Soconusco and large elite resi-dences were built on raised platformsalong side modest residences at Paso de laAmada, La Calentura, and San Carlos(Blake 1991; Clark 1994:304–373; Lesure1997).

Detailed evidence of differential resi-dence construction has been documentedat Paso de la Amada. Six successive floorswere built at one elite residence (Mound6) during the Locona phase; all floors werebetween 11 3 5 m and 22 3 10 m and werebuilt on platforms that reached a cumula-tive height of 2.8 m (Blake 1991; Blake et al.1993, n.d.). The remains of these succes-sive elite residences consisted of packedclay floors, with postholes, trash pits, andthe occasional burial under a floor. Duringthe same period, three other elite resi-dences at Paso de la Amada were built onsmaller platforms (Mounds 4, 13, and 32)and as many as 40 nonelite residentialmounds were small and had no platformsbuilt at all (Lesure 1997). The best pre-served of these nonelite residences hadfloor space of 5 3 3 m (Lesure 1995:99).Therefore, not only were there two tiers ofresidences (platform versus nonplatform)but the size and elaboration of platformswere also variable. Platform residenceshave been documented at Mounds 4, 13,32, and 6 but Mound 6 was the only one ofthese four elite residential platform thatwas rebuilt and enlarged into the follow-ing Ocos phase (Lesure 1997:Fig. 5). Inaddition, a ball court was built and aug-mented at least once during the Loconaphase; it was kept clean of artifacts andreached a total size of almost 80 m longand 40 m wide (Hill 1996; Hill et al. 1998).

During the Ocos phase, Mound 6 was

“ . . . the highest mound at the site, andthe largest building atop it was probablythe locus of most or all of the organiza-tional activities previously replicated indifferent areas of the site . . . ” (Lesure1997:232). It was during this phase thatAquiles Serdan may have surpassed Pasode la Amada in the relative quantity oftribute it received (Fig. 3B) and the elite atSan Carlos may have challenged Paso bycompetitively enlarging their residence(see next paragraph). The consolidation ofauthority at the largest household (Mound6) at Paso during the Ocos phase couldhave been an attempt by the elite family oflineage living within to more effectivelydeal with challenges from other factionswithin the community and from the elitein neighboring centers. During the Cherlaphase, Mound 6 was abandoned whileresidential platforms were enlarged atMounds 1 and 12 (Lesure 1997:233). Thiscommunity reorganization correspondswith a significant reduction in the relativequantity of tribute that Paso de la Amadareceived during the Cherla phase (Fig. 4)and so competition and/or conflict withinthe community and the abandonment ofMound 6 (after being occupied as an eliteresidence for as many as 300 years) maybe associated with the loss of power at aregional scale. This correlation suggeststhat factional competition at the local levelmay have had direct and adverse reper-cussions at the regional level. Such an in-terpretation is suggestive of the failure ofan exclusionary (Blanton et al. 1996) strat-egy of integration that depended on exter-nal sources of authority (Spencer 1993)when competing with rival factions withina polity.

The only detailed, intersite architecturaldata is from a comparison made by Clark(1994:345–349) when he examines the larg-est households at Paso de la Amada(Mound 6) and San Carlos (Mound 1) dur-ing the Locona and Ocos phases. San Car-los is one of the local centers (alluded to


previously) that falls outside the 50-km2

survey zone and so was not discussed inthe settlement section. Clark compares adozen distinct rebuilding episodes ofthese mounds during the Locona andOcos phases and concludes that construc-tion at the two elite residences appear tohave paralleled each other (Clark 1994:349). In fact, there was such temporal cor-respondence between the building se-quences of these large residences“ . . . that the occupants of both moundswere fully aware of each others’ activitiesand countered or matched any buildingactivity of the other household” (Clark1994:349). If the dominant elite faction atPaso de la Amada was competing withtheir counterparts at San Carlos and at thesame time contending with other high-status households at home, it is not sur-prising that the polity fell from regionalprominence by the Cherla phase.

During the Cuadros phase, Paso de laAmada was basically abandoned and, aswe have seen, there was virtually no flowof tribute evident within the 50-km2 sur-vey zone (although there was likely trib-ute leaving the area), obsidian distribu-tion was a fifth of previous levels (Clark etal. 1989:278), and, as discussed in the pre-vious section, burial patterns changed(see Fig. 5). The Cuadros and subsequentJocotal phases are crucial in understand-ing the cultural evolution of the region butunfortunately little recently reported workin the Mazatan region has specifically tar-geted these periods for investigation. Thesite of El Carmen was an important localeduring Cuadros times with multiplemounds a number of meters high (Clarket al. 1987:21–23). The site of El Silenciohas two large mounds and their Jocotalcomponents are each 3 to 4 m high and100 m long (Clark et al. 1990:106). As Ihave already mentioned, large sites wereconstructed on the Coatan River duringthe late Early Formative and such loca-

tions would have facilitated riverine traveland thus extraregional interaction.

In his 200-km2 survey zone in the LaBlanca-Ocos zone of the Soconusco, Love(1991) reports no architectural differentia-tion for the entire Early Formative period.The architectural innovation in the Mid-dle Formative is not domestic but thelarge size of nondomestic architecturalconstructions such as the huge Mound 1that would have towered 25 m over thesite of La Blanca (Love 1991:57). Nearbysites of La Zarca and El Infierno had non-domestic mounds reaching heights of 20and 18 m respectively during the Conchasphase. These three mounds represent anenormous investment of labor and an in-crease of several orders of magnitude overthe ball court or elite residences; in fact, Iestimate (based on Abrams 1989:70) that itmay have taken 20 people almost 2700days work (or, for example, 900 people 2months) to procure the earth needed toconstruct Mound 1 at La Blanca (Table 4).No Early Formative remains have beenfound at La Blanca in primary context andthe site was abandoned after the MiddleFormative—as a result, all of the architec-ture is securely dated to the Conchas pe-riod (Love 1989:110). In the Mazatan zone,the site of Huanacastal had a mound ap-proximately 20 m in height that has beendestroyed and turned into road fill. TheMiddle Formative component of thismound was substantial but it was not pos-sible to ascertain exact dimensions (Clarket al. 1987:23).

At the paramount center of La Blancathree low mounds near Mound 1 havebeen tested (Suboperation 25, 26, and 27)and each produced evidence of a domesticuse with floors, postholes, and trash pitsas well as human remains (Love 1989:116–167). Suboperation 25, a mound 3.5 mhigh, was the largest Conchas-phase res-idential construction excavated to datewith a living surface of at least 15 3 7 mand at least one distinct episode of plat-

441RANKED SOCIETIES

form augmentation consisting of 40 cm offill (Love 1989:118). This elite platform res-idence was similar in size and composi-tion to those documented in the Early For-mative Mazatan (Rosenswig 1998:68).Besides the three excavated elite resi-dences, at least 40 (and as many as 80)other households existed at the site, most

TASummary of Data from the Soconusco an

Timeperiod Data class Soconusco

MiddleFormative

Conchas

Settlement Center of power shifts agtiers and public architetwo tiers

Mortuary Absence of grave goods cevidence of cranial def

Domesticarchitecture

Differentiation with multplatforms and many sm

Publicarchitecture

Monumental La Blanca 2120 3 140 m at base

Late EarlyFormative

Cuadros, Joco

Settlement Center of power shifts tothree-tier settlement emJocotal

Mortuary Change in pattern, all intrecovered with no gravsample size is small


Lack of data, presumablybefore and after

Publicarchitecture

Large, low mounds reprelabor investment

Obsidian 20% of previous distribut

Early EarlyFormative

Barra, Locona, Oco

Settlement Two tiers (and possibly temerge during the Locwith as many as seven

Mortuary Diversity scores up to 4;of authority”


Differentiation beginningphase with multiple laand many small reside

Publicarchitecture

Ballcourt built during Lo

Obsidian Distribution networks beand nearby villages, uspolitical competition

of which had no platform constructionand are defined by low mounds less than1 m in height (Love 1989:105). Domesticarchitecture was thus similar from Loconathrough Conchas times with a few largeelite residences and many small houses.Therefore, status differences were empha-sized in the Soconusco through residential

4alley of Oaxaca Examined in this Article

Valley of Oaxaca

Guadalupe

, threere at top

Two tiers, large site of San Jose Mogoteand all other sites in the valley

inues,ation

First hint of stratified diversity scores atFabrica San Jose

largeresidues

Minimal differentiation; Tomaltepec eliteresidence replaced by public building

high, and Multiple forms, modest size, similarbuilding technique across the valley

San Jose

erine sites;ges in

Two tiers, large site of San Jose Mogoteand all other sites in the valley

entsoods, but

Diversity score up to 5; evidence ofcranial deformation; a few “badges ofauthority”

same as Only clear example of differentiation atTomaltepec

ting major New forms all involve modest laborexpenditure

level Distribution networks integrate San JoseMogote will other sites

herla Espiridion, Tierras Largas

initially)phaseters

Minimal differentiation compared tolater times, but San Jose Mogote islarger

w “badges Diversity score up to 2; sample size issmall

Loconaplatformss

No evidence of differentiation

a phase Small shrine in Tierras Largas phase

en centersfor

BLEd V

ainctu

ontormiple

all5 m

tal

river

erme g

the

sen

ion

s, C

hreeonacen

a fe

inrgencecon

tweed


differentiation for centuries at each of thesuccessive centers of political power.

The Valley of Oaxaca. Traces of domes-tic architecture from the pre-Tierras Lar-gas, Espiridion phase have been docu-mented in Area C at San Jose Mogote by aliving surface and a series of postholes(defining floor space at least 4 m long)designated House 20 (Flannery and Mar-cus 1994:103–106). The earliest well-docu-mented architecture dates to the TierrasLargas phase and was found at San JoseMogote in a series of at least three succes-sive rebuildings of a rectangular, one-room building swept clear of artifacts andinterpreted as a shrine. The most com-plete was the final rebuilding recorded asStructure 6, a 5.4 3 4.4-m one-room,whitewashed structure on a platform 8 38 m wide, 8 m long, and 40 cm high (Flan-nery and Marcus 1994:128–129). Domesticarchitectural remains from this phase arescant but household LTL-1 from the Tier-ras Largas site is 6 3 4 m with numerouspostholes and trash pits (Winter 1972:31).The beginning of the Formative is verypoorly understood architecturally and thecursory glimpse that does exist suggestsdomestic and ritual structures are of sim-ilar size, the one example of the latterbeing whitewashed and raised on a smallplatform.

Households at San Jose Mogote duringthe San Jose phase have been interpretedas forming a continuum in social statusfrom elite to nonelite (Marcus and Flan-nery 1996:103). For example, House 13 inArea A was a simple dwelling 5 3 3 m insize. House 2 in Area C was the same sizebut whitewashed and contained a higherfrequency of deer bone and exotic arti-facts. House 16-17 in Area B was alsowhitewashed and had one room attachedto a lean-to shed containing artifacts sim-ilar to House 2 but with higher quantitiesof jade. Better quality houses are thus de-fined by being whitewashed and by theartifacts found in them. Therefore, houses

would not have been significantly differ-entiated in their size or form and the un-equal levels of wealth (measured by exoticand high labor investment artifacts) con-tained within these residences did notcorrespond to overt architectural symbolsof social ranking. This is consistent with agroup-oriented chiefdom (Renfrew 1974)that depended on a corporate strategy ofintegration (Blanton et al. 1996) and couldhave cultivated internal sources of politi-cal authority (Spencer 1993).

Rectangular whitewashed shrines suchas Structure 7 in Area C (a lime-plasteredbuilding at least 3 3 4 m in size) continuedto be built at San Jose Mogote in the earlySan Jose period. Structure 16, a secondtype of public building, was constructedduring this period, a 2.85-m wide struc-ture built on a 1-m platform (Flannery andMarcus 1994:362–363). In the latter part ofthe San Jose phase, earth was brought inand covered over Structure 16 (as well asnearby residential structures C1–C4).Atop this artificial mound Structures 1and 2 were built—each approximately18 m wide and together measuring over20 m long (Flannery and Marcus 1994:367).Structure 1 was built in three episodes;the first raised the structure 1.5 m and thesecond and third each increased the plat-form 0.5 m for a final height of 2.5 m.Structure 2 was 9–11 m east of this andcomprised a 1-m mound with two narrowstairways in it as well as two zoomorphicstone carvings.

Another form of public architecture wasthe Terminal San Jose/Early Guadalupe-phase mound designated Structure 8 atSan Jose Mogote. Structure 8 was built bycreating a 1-m-wide pile of stones, builtup in at least four episodes to a height of70 cm and “ . . . capped with a thick floorof adobe clay. The area between the re-taining walls had been filled with hun-dreds of basket loads of earth. A few post-holes were all that remained of the

pH1spscmtttaamtaMnSiBjl1pdtsota

(wMtgaamb

fvlehPcJwSwabpyaapitamchahpScd

mlGo(n8hsinFJ1nt

443RANKED SOCIETIES

building that had once stood on the plat-form” (Flannery and Marcus 1976:212).

In the Tlacolula arm of the Valley ofOaxaca, the site of Tomaltepec had high-and low-status houses from the beginningof the San Jose phase. High-status Struc-ture 11 was 4 3 8 m and raised 1 m on a

latform and is contrasted with low-statusouse 4, measuring 4.9 3 2.2 m (Whalen

981:43–45). Both of these houses were as-ociated with domestic refuse and storageits and in addition to size differences,tatus was inferred by different frequen-ies of nonlocal chert, shell ornaments,ica, obsidian, and high deer consump-

ion (Whalen 1981:59–60). It is significanthat Structure 11 and House 4 representhe only residential differentiation of sizend form (i.e., the house twice as large on

1-m platform) that has been docu-ented from the Early or Middle Forma-

ive in the Valley of Oaxaca and it was nott the heart of political power at San Joseogote. A large public building desig-

ated Structure 12 was built on top oftructure 11 and augmented this elite res-

dence by 2 m. Structure 12 is dated byurials no. 47 and 68, which were interred

ust below the floor and contained Guada-upe ceramics (Whalen 1981:64–67, 136,52). The fact that a public building re-laced a large elite household may eluci-ate the integrative strategy employed at

he community, as social differentiation isuperseded by a less exclusionary symbolf power (sensu Abrams 1989:62 in relationo architecture specifically and Blanton etl. 1996 more generally).Based on survey data, the site of Huitzo

located at the north end of the Etla arm)as a mere fraction the size of San Joseogote in the Early and Middle Forma-

ive and yet architectural evidence sug-ests this site was more than a simplegricultural hamlet. Huitzo was estimateds measuring 2.7 ha during the Early For-ative by Flannery and Marcus (1983:60)

ut Kowalewski et al. (1989:524–525) only

ound 0.8 ha of this site during their sur-ey. Either way, “At least for the Guada-upe phase, architectural patterns are notxactly congruent with the settlement sizeierarchy” (Kowalewski et al. 1989:66).latform 4 at Huitzo employed a similaronstruction method as Structure 8 at Sanose Mogote and stood 2 m high and 15 mide (Flannery and Marcus 1976:212).tructure 3 was built atop this platform,as 1.3 m high and 11.5 m wide (Marcus

nd Flannery 1996:113), and may haveeen connected to two or three other suchublic buildings arranged around a court-ard (Flannery and Marcus 1976:213). Inddition to the nondomestic architecturet Huitzo, there were three Guadalupe-hase houses (1, 3, and 6) that have been

nterpreted as high-status residences dueo their proximity to Structure 3 (Flannerynd Marcus 1983:62). Again, as at To-altepec and San Jose Mogote, public ar-

hitecture is more elaborate than house-olds and residential status differencesre not defined by the size or form of aouse. In this case it is inferred from theroximity to public architecture, while atan Jose Mogote, and the other sites dis-ussed above, elevated status is based onifferent proportions of artifact types.Finally, the small, salt-producing settle-ent of Fabrica San Jose had higher and

ower status households during theuadalupe phase, based on the quantity

f exotic goods and an elaborate burialDrennan and Flannery 1983:67). Burialo. 39, the woman with a diversity score of, was found next to floor H14 and theigh status of this house is inferred by thetatus of this associated burial and not itsmpressive size of elaborate form (Dren-an 1976:90). If this was a member of theabrica San Jose elite, sent from Sanose Mogote (as Marcus and Flannery996:113–115 suggest), her high status wasot reflected by the house she lived in and

his suggests a group-oriented (Renfrew


1974) or corporate (Blanton et al. 1996)strategy of political integration.

Summary of Architectural Data

In the Soconusco, changing size of eliteresidential architecture within communi-ties corresponds closely with political dif-ferences within the region (inferred fromthe settlement data). Beginning in the Lo-cona phase, large elite residences werebuilt, augmented, and abandoned de-pending on the political fortunes of theirinhabitants. Therefore, residential plat-form construction may both symbolicallyand physically reflect the fortunes of pow-erful factions within the polity. This resi-dential differentiation is consistent withan exclusionary strategy (Blanton et al.1996) or an individualizing chiefdom(Renfrew 1974) as long as the “individual”is taken to be a faction rather than onlythe figurehead, or chief, that represents asupporting faction.

Based on the evidence currently avail-able, Middle Formative construction ac-tivity in the Soconusco was less focusedon elite residences and relatively more en-ergy was expended in the construction ofpublic architecture, which attained a mon-umental level. However, both elite resi-dences and nonresidential architecturerequired a large labor output. If we as-sume that the Middle Formative elitesponsored the construction of nonresi-dential mounds, then both residential andnonresidential architecture attest to thepower of the elite at regional centers. Thisis consistent with an exclusionary strategythat emphasized external relations andcould also be called an IndividualizingChiefdom (again, as discussed for theEarly Formative, if individual factions arebeing emphasized). Following such an in-terpretation, specific elite factions (i.e.,households/lineages) would have beenemphasized and differentiated throughthe conspicuous consumption of labor ex-

pended in a manner that persists overtime on the social landscape. However,these symbols would have only persistedas long as a given village was occupied.Shifting political centers would have ne-cessitated new architectural projects thatredesigned the social and political land-scape every century or so and would haveconsumed large quantities of labor.

In the Valley of Oaxaca, residential dif-ferences were not emphasized and house-holds were similar in size (Table 3) andform, which suggests that hierarchy wasnot emphasized by this form of materialculture. Social distance was not created byelevating elite houses above those of theirneighbors. Instead, differences in thequantity and quality of exotic goods werehidden within certain households (whichhave been interpreted as elite) almost as ifto deemphasize economic differentiation.Throughout the entire Early and MiddleFormative periods, all residences weresmall and “ . . . even the most elaborateRosario phase residences so far discov-ered could have been built by the mem-bers of one family” (Flannery and Marcus1983:60). Such an architectural strategyrepresents a striking example of a corpo-rate mode of integration (as Feinman 1995argues) or a group-oriented (Renfrew1974) form of political organization, as itdeemphasized interpersonal differences.

Public architecture reinforced thesestrategies in the Oaxacan Middle Forma-tive, for while more energy was expendedon public architecture it was a mere frac-tion of that expended in the Soconusco(Table 3). Structures 1 and 2 at San JoseMogote are interpreted as being orga-nized in a unifying manner, as twozoomorphic sculptures on Structure 2 mayrepresent the were-jaguar and fire-ser-pent lineages who inhabited the site (Mar-cus 1989). If different social groups wererepresented at this public building itcould have helped to symbolically unifypotentially adversarial factions within the

445RANKED SOCIETIES

community. In addition, residences are in-terpreted as being elite based solely onassociated artifacts, burials, and proximityto public architecture and have little todistinguish them from nonelite residencesin appearance. Thus, while economic dif-ferences exist, the outward expression ofsocial differentiation was minimal. Mod-est signs of social differentiation in bothburials and architecture would havehelped to create internal cohesion andbolstered internal sources of political au-thority (Spencer 1993).

Table 3 shows the different levels oflabor investment in architectural activitybetween the Soconusco and the Valley ofOaxaca. Such differences demonstratethat the consumption of labor in architec-tural construction is significantly moreconspicuous in the former region andwould have consumed a much larger pro-portion of the “chiefly domestic product”(sensu Drennan 1991b:283). While the fig-ures in Table 3 may underestimate thelabor involved for masonry in Oaxaca,they do reflect the overall size of buildingsand how imposing they would be in thetwo regions. One thing is clear: the con-spicuous consumption of labor for non-functional aspects of architectural con-struction (Trigger 1990) during Early andMiddle Formative periods in the Soco-nusco reflects a political strategy that ex-pended quantities of labor unparalleled inthe contemporary Valley of Oaxaca.

I draw the reader’s attention to differinginterpretations of Mound 6 at Paso de laAmada that are relevant to the previousdiscussion. Blake (1991; Blake et al., n.d.),Clark (1994:304–373), and Lesure (1997)interpret the numerous large Early For-mative structures that they have exca-vated at Paso de la Amada as elite resi-dences. However, Marcus and Flannery(1996:90–91) contest the interpretation ofthe Locona-period occupation of Mound 6as an elite residence and instead interpretit as a “men’s house.” I favor the former

interpretation, as unequal political rela-tions are demonstrated at a regional scalein the Soconusco beginning in Loconatimes based on settlement data (Fig. 3).Therefore, the real issue is not if but howthe Soconusco elite symbolically ex-pressed their political power. However,this disagreement need not detract fromthe point I am attempting to make. If thereader substitutes the functionally neutralterm “large platform” for “elite residence”I believe the interpretations are no lessplausible.

A COMPARISON OF POLITICALPROCESSES IN THE SOCONUSCO

AND VALLEY OF OAXACA

Studying political process by examiningdiffering aspects of leadership strategyand social integration has been proposedby Leach (1954), Sahlins (1963), and Ren-frew (1974). The approach was first em-ployed in Mesoamerican archaeology byFlannery (1968) and more recently Spen-cer (1982, 1993) and Blanton et al. (1996)have expanded its application. This articleemploys such theoretical models to com-pare Early and Middle Formative societiesfrom the Soconusco and Valley of Oaxaca.This is done by comparing three classes ofdata from each region using the samesummary techniques to produce compa-rable results. Table 4 provides a chrono-logically ordered summary of the datapresented in this article.

In all but the Barra and Tierras Largasphases, the Formative societies of Oaxacaand the Soconusco were politically rankedbased on settlement data. Therefore, thedifferences discussed in this article are notdue to their “level of complexity” but in-stead appear to be the result of politicalsystems that employed different integra-tive strategies. As I have argued, a Oax-acan polity was centered at San JoseMogote and the elite in this communityappear to have employed a predomi-


nantly corporate strategy of integrationthat depended on internal sources of au-thority when compared to the elite in var-ious Soconuscan polities. The latter exhib-ited a greater degree of politicalfactionalism within each of the closelypacked polities and greater competitionbetween the elites in neighboring centers.This competition appears to be responsi-ble for a relatively more exclusionarystrategy with political authority embed-ded in the relations between polities.

In the Soconusco, settlement hierarchyclearly emerged by Locona times (Fig. 3B)and the population was clustered aroundas many as seven centers. The most pow-erful of these centers shifted often as po-litical fortunes waxed and waned and asthe quantity of tribute that flowed withinthe region fluctuated (Fig. 4). Large resi-dences were built on raised platforms atpolitical centers from Locona times on-ward and required hundreds of person/days to construct (Table 3). Such struc-tures may have functioned as the sym-bolic focus of political authority within thecommunity, as they accentuated statusdifferences between those that lived inlarge residences and those that did not.Elite residences and burials with higherdiversity scores and “badges of authority”have to date only been found at centersthat received tribute according to the re-sult in Fig. 3. Each early Early FormativeSoconuscan polity distributed obsidian tovillages within a few-kilometers radius.The dramatic replacement of obsidian dis-tribution in Cuadros times by a new me-dia of status expression (i.e., Olmec stylesand imagery) may attest to the politicalrather than economic function of such ma-terial. During the late Early Formative thecenter of political power shifted to theCoatan River and a three-tiered settle-ment system was established by Jocotaltimes. During the Middle Formative, trulymonumental architecture was constructedin the Soconusco at La Blanca; this was yet

another political center that emerged anumber of kilometers south of the Maza-tan survey zone on the Naranjo River.

During the San Jose and Guadalupephases, the dominant position of San JoseMogote in the Valley of Oaxaca settlementsystem was uncontested. However, at notime in the Early or Middle Formative didthe elite build large residences. In fact,elites in this region seem to have em-ployed residential architecture to deem-phasize economic differences. If such acomparative lack of elite status expressionwas the cause or the result of San JoseMogote’s power is not clear, but it wouldhave been a savvy strategy to avoid con-flict and maintain stability. Ceremonialarchitecture, as well as burials with higherdiversity scores, were found at sites of allsizes and may have also functioned to in-tegrate the valley as even small villagesparticipated in valleywide ceremonies.Furthermore, similar obsidian distribu-tion patterns between wards of San JoseMogote and outlying villages demon-strates economic ties (possibly mirroringkinship affiliation) that linked this politi-cal center with all parts of the valley. In-tegrative obsidian distribution patternsare first detected during the San Josephase when San Jose Mogote emerged asthe dominant center in the valley.

In both regions, evidence of burial hier-archy is ambiguous during the initialemergence of complexity and does notshow stratified levels of elaboration de-spite political and economic evidence ofhierarchy during Early Formative times.While there are certain individuals in bothregions who may have had salient badgesof authority, clear social stratification hadnot emerged (or at least was not expressedusing archaeologically preserved remains)until late in the evolutionary sequenceexamined here. This pattern raises animportant question for the study of emer-gent inequality. Why was burial differ-entiation not emphasized in either Early

iacccsIltoTslgpa

htnwadvo1wtptpwco

tbsdnascBtmaa(clmwbofabmeagtwr

447RANKED SOCIETIES

Formative society when other classes ofdata indicate hierarchy? A pattern of set-tlement and architectural hierarchy (po-litical?) preceding burial differentiation(social?) is also reported by Renfrew(1973, 1974) in Neolithic Wessex and byCreamer and Haas (1985) in CentralAmerica. This suggests that during theemergence of inequality, the institution-alization of personalized status may takelonger to develop than faction-based status.A similar observation was made in refer-ence to Egyptian architecture by Abrams(1989:60), who suggests “ . . . that social in-equality was very high relative to social dif-ferentiation.” Such a cross-cultural pattern(documented in at least Europe, Africa,Central America, and Mesoamerica) isbased solely on archaeological observationand merits further investigation. This maymean that the Saxe–Binford program ofmortuary analysis is not useful to study theprocesses of emerging inequality in manyareas of the world because by the time itworks, the transition is long over and in-equality is firmly entrenched.

POLITICAL AND ENVIRONMENTALLANDSCAPES: EXPLAINING THE

TWO TRAJECTORIES

One explanation for the different polit-cal strategies evident in the Soconuscond the Valley of Oaxaca may lie in theontrasting characteristics of their politi-al and environmental landscapes. If weompare the two areas at an interregionalcale quite different patterns are evident.n the Soconusco, polities operated in aush environment and a number of poli-ies were clustered together but people inther regions were quite a distance away.herefore, there would have been inten-ive interaction among neighboring vil-agers, who could easily change alle-iances between any of the up to sevenolitical centers that surrounded them. Asresult, the Soconuscan elite would have

ad to work hard to maintain support, ashere was always another potential patronearby. In contrast, the Valley of Oaxacaas relatively arid and during the Early

nd Middle Formative settlement patternsemonstrate a single polity existed in thealley—however, there were numerousther political units nearby (e.g., Spencer982; Zeitlan 1993:85). Oaxacan villagesere further apart and villagers had rela-

ively fewer close neighbors when com-ared to the Soconuscan villagers. Addi-

ionally, as there was only one dominantolitical center in the valley; if villagersere not content with the political system

entered on San Jose Mogote, then theirnly choice would have been to leave.The inhabitants of the first Early Forma-

ive polities in the Soconusco would haveeen able to produce a larger agriculturalurplus and support a higher populationensity with relatvely little political orga-ization (Clark and Blake 1994:18–19). Inddition, as most animal protein con-umed during this period came from spe-ies available in nearby swamps (e.g.,lake, Chisholm et al. 1992), all subsis-

ence needs would have been met withoutoving more than a few kilometers from

ny of the Early Formative villages. Thus,s with their Archaic-period predecessorsVoorhies et al. 1991), all nutritional needsould have been acquired following a col-ector strategy (sensu Binford 1980) and

obility would have been minimal. So,hile all subsistence needs could haveeen met at a very local level, neighborsutside of the Soconusco would have beenar less accessible when compared to Oax-ca. However, within the region, neigh-oring villages were clustered together farore than can be explained by resource

xploitation alone. A dearth of frequentlyccessible groups of people in other re-ions might not have been significant athe beginning of the Early Formativehen a system of simple, competing

anked societies could have developed in


relative political isolation (though ex-changes of prestige goods occurred withpeople further afield). However, when thescale of political interaction did increaseat the end of the Early Formative, integra-tive strategies established during Barrathrough Ocos times (1550 to 1100 B.C.E.)would have influenced how the Soco-nusco interacted in a new world order, i.e.,the pan-Mesoamerican Olmec Horizon(Lee 1989).

In the Valley of Oaxaca, early sedentarylife supported relatively fewer people inproximity to each other (Kowalewski et al.1989). However, groups of people inneighboring valleys were only a short dis-tance away. Interregional contact couldhave been frequent especially if the in-habitants of the Valley of Oaxaca werehunting in the forested mountain rangesthat linked one valley to the next in amanner not dissimilar to their forager (asopposed to collector) ancestors (as Marcusand Flannery 1996:52 suggest). Therefore,extravalley interaction may have beenwell developed before political hierarchyemerged. So, while political complexityemerged later in the Valley of Oaxacathan in the Soconusco, political strategiescould have been relatively more depen-dent on interaction with other groups andless on intensifying production from thelocal environment. Such differences in thepolitical and environmental landscapes ofthe two regions may also explain why as-pects of the precocious Olmec culturewere differentially incorporated into thetwo regions (see Clark 1997:224–229). Inthe Soconusco, Olmec “foreignness” mayhave been more exotic and prestigiousand thus adopted in a more encompassingmanner, further spurring on the highlycompetitive political environment. In theValley of Oaxaca, aspects of “Olmec im-agery” may have been incorporated asone among numerous foreign sources ofprestige goods (Marcus 1989; Marcus andFlannery 1996:119–120, 138).

Hierarchical political organization inthe Soconusco appears to have emergedearly when compared to Oaxaca. How-ever, no single Soconuscan polity lastedlonger than a few generations and thecontinuous emergence of new politicalcenters across the region may have takena political toll on Soconuscan society.Such fluctuating political control wouldalso have diminished the legitimacy ofany single chief or faction. Unlike the Val-ley of Oaxaca, where San Jose Mogote wasthe Formative political center of the valleysince time immemorial, competing Soco-nuscan political factions in the Early andMiddle Formative could have harkenedback to past centers of power, of whichthere were many.

DISCUSSION

The discussion above does not accountfor the historical relationship between thetwo regions. In fact, the scenario relatedabove implicitly assumes that each cul-tural sequence unfolded independently ofthe other. A discussion of who influencedwhom or to what degree this occurred(i.e., see Sharer and Grove 1989) is beyondthe scope of this article. However, if thereader will grant the rather uncontrover-sial assertion that most sedentary EarlyFormative Mesoamerican societies wereaware of each other, then a problem withthe ahistorical scenario presented in thelast section is that it fails to account for thesequence of emergent inequality in thetwo regions. The Barra and Tierras Largasphases were not contemporaneous andneither were the Locona and San Jose pe-riods, when inequality is first evident (seeTable 4). In fact, the Locona phase began250 years (and ended 100 years) before thecommencement of the San Jose phase.Clark and Blake (1994) argue that inequal-ity emerged at the beginning of the EarlyFormative in the Soconusco as the unin-

bntOfeeHicalag

cemdtctcIoDLMepvaft

lR1sbmi

449RANKED SOCIETIES

tended consequence of competition be-tween aggrandizers. Inequality did notemerge in the Valley of Oaxaca until thelate Early Formative and at this time thetransition seems to have occurred with noquestion as to the locale of political power.Furthermore, the emergence of inequalityin the Valley of Oaxaca was accomplishedin a manner that does not appear to haverequired elite groups to distribute obsid-ian or construct impressive residences asthey did in the Soconusco. Recall Fein-man’s (1995:262) contention that “ . . . via-

le explanations of change . . . must recog-ize the historical nature of these social

ransitions.” The Soconusco and Valley ofaxaca certainly represent two very dif-

erent environmental settings and thelite in the two regions appear to havemployed different integrative strategies.owever, if the emergence of inequality

n the Soconusco represents a primary oc-urrence of ranking and the Oaxacan ex-mple a secondary occurrence of such po-itical organization, then this may help toccount for why the initial forms of inte-ration differed.While the degree to which the Soconus-

an elite employed an exclusionary strat-gy and the Oaxacan elite depended on aore corporate mode of integration un-

oubtedly changed over time, it appearshat the basic organizational tendenciesontinued into the following centuries. Inhe Late Formative, the center of powerhanged again in the Soconusco, andzapa emerged as the new political capitalf the region (Lowe et al. 1982; and seeiehl and Coe 1995:24). In Oaxaca, theate Formative center of power moved toonte Alban but this capital was appar-

ntly founded as part of a strategy torovide more internal cohesion in thealley (Blanton et al. 1993:69 –72; Marcusnd Flannery 1996:139 –143). Such a uni-ying and organized move may have ac-ually been in response to increasing

evels of internal discord evident in theosario phase (Marcus and Flannery996:121–129). In fact, the increase in Ro-ario period factional competition maye responsible for the first truly monu-ental investment in public architecture

n the valley— 412 centuries after political

inequality emerged (Flannery and Mar-cus 1983:75–77).

A comparison of Oaxacan and Soconus-can Early and Middle Formative trajecto-ries highlights the fact that a polity’s or-ganizational strategy may provide moreinsight into explaining cultural processesthan an evolutionary typology that mea-sures the degree of cultural complexity.The interpretive advantage of examiningculture in terms of the models discussedin this article (i.e., Leach 1954; Sahlins1963; Renfrew 1974; Spencer 1993; Blantonet al. 1996) is that these are evolutionarystructuring principles that can be used tocompare societies at the “same stage” orbetween “different stages” of an evolutiontypology. As Drennan (1991b:284) notes,“ . . . there are a number of importantways that chiefdoms differ from eachother, aside from being more or less de-veloped.” Or as Nelson (1995:599) puts it,“ . . . an appropriate question to ask aboutthe two polities at hand is not only “Howcomplex were they?” but also “How werethey complex?” All of the societies exam-ined in this study would be classified asintermediate by Feinman and Neitzel(1984), and except for those of the Barraand Tierras Largas time periods, theywould be called chiefdoms by others (e.g.,Service 1975). It is now a quarter-centurysince Peebles and Kus (1977; also see Ren-frew 1973) began identifying ranked soci-eties in the archaeological record. As thetitle of this essay alludes to, it is now moreelucidating to explore the integrative pro-cesses of such societies than to definethem according to evolutionary typolo-gies.


APPENDIX 1

Burial Data from the Soconusco Used to Calculate Diversity Scores

Site Burial no. Phase Diversity Sex Age Reference

Paso de la Amada 1 Locona 0 m a Clark (1994:402)Paso de la Amada 4 Locona 1 f a Clark (1994:402)Paso de la Amada Md.6#3 Locona l ? I Clark (1994:402)Chilo 1 Locona 1 f a Clark (1994:402)Chilo 2 Locona 4 m a Clark (1994:402)Chilo 3 Locona 0 m a Clark (1994:403)Chilo 4 Locona 0 ? a Clark (1994:403)Chilo 5 Locona 2 ? a Clark (1994:403)Chilo 6 Locona 0 ? c Clark (1994:403)Vivero 1 Locona 3 f c Clark (1994:403)Paso de la Amada 5 Locona 2 ? a Clark et al. (1994:71)Paso de la Amada 6 Locona 1 ? a Clark et al. (1994:72)Paso de la Amada 7 Locona 0 ? a Clark et al. (1994:73)Paso de la Amada 9 Locona 0 ? c Clark et al. (1994:75)Paso de la Amada Pz. G#1 Locona 0 f a excavated in 1995Aquiles Serdan Pit 3, l.3 Ocos 0 ? a Clark et al. (1987)Paso de la Amada Md.6#1 Ocos 2 f a Blake et al. (1993:13)Paso de la Amada Md.6#2 Ocos 0 ? l Blake et al. (1993:14)Paso de la Amada 3 Ocos 0 ? ? Ceja (1985:26)Paso de la Amada 11a Ocos 0 ? a Lesure (1995:103)Paso de la Amada 11b Ocos 0 ? a Lesure (1995:103)Paso de la Amada 12 Ocos 0 ? l Lesure (1995:103)Paso de la Amada Pz.B#3 Ocos 0 f ? Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.C#1 Ocos 1 m a Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.A#1 Ocos/Cherla 1 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz. O#1 Ocos/Cherla 0 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.R#1 Ocos/Cherla 0 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.T#1 Ocos/Cherla 0 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.X#1 Ocos/Cherla 0 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.B#1 Cherla 4 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.B#2 Cherla 2 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.C#2 Cherla 2 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.C#3 Cherla 0 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkPaso de la Amada Pz.D#1 Cherla 1 — — Excavated in 1995 by John ClarkAquiles Serdan Tr.1K, l.

18Cherla 1 f a Blake et al. (1992:87)

Paso de la Amada 8 Cherla 1 ? a Clark et al. (1994:74)Sandoval 1 Early Formative 0 ? l Clark et al. (1987:61)Paso de la Amada 2 Early Formative 0 ? ? Ceja (1985:26, 29)Villo 1 Cuadros 0 ? ? Clark et al. (1987:54)Salinas la Blanca Cut 1,

level22Cuadros 0 ? l Coe and Flannery (1967:74)

Salinas la Blanca Cut 1,level24

Cuadros 0 ? a Coe and Flannery (1967:74)

Aquiles Serdan Pit1al. 5 Cuadros 0 ? ? Blake et al. (1992:87)El Veral 4 Cuadros/Jocotal 0 ? c Clark et al. (1994:78)El Veral 1 Jocotal 0 ? a Clark et al. (1994:76)El Veral 2 Jocotal ? ? ? Clark et al. (1994:77)El Veral 3 Jocotal 0 ? a Clark et al. (1994:77)Hanacastal 1 Conchas 1 m a Clark et al. (1987:23–24)

451RANKED SOCIETIES

APPENDIX 1—Continued


Pajon 1 Conchas 1 m c Pailles (1980:24, 92–106)La Victoria 1 Conchas 0 ? a Coe (1961:25, 145)La Victoria 2 Conchas 0 ? a Coe (1961:25, 145)La Victoria 3 Conchas 0 f a Coe (1961: 25–26, 145)La Victoria 5 Conchas 0 ? a Coe (1961:146)La Victoria 6 Conchas 0 m a Coe (1961:146)Naranjo op.26 Conchas 0 ? ? Love (1989)Naranjo op.26 Conchas 0 ? ? Love (1989)Naranjo op.26 Conchas 0 ? ? Love (1989)Naranjo op.27 Conchas 0 ? ? Love (1989)Naranjo op.27 Conchas 0 ? ? Love (1989)

APPENDIX 2

Burial Data from the Valey of Oaxaca Used to Calculate Diversity Scores


Tierras Largas TL-34 TL 0 m a Winter (1972:325)San Jose Mogote SMJ-8 TL 0 f? c Winter (1972:322)Tierras Largas TL-38 TL 0 f a Winter (1972:326)Tierras Largas TL-35 TL 0 f a Winter (1972:326)Tierras Largas TL-19 TL 2 f a Winter (1972:325)Tierras Largas TL-13 TL 0 f a Winter (1972:325)Tierras Largas TL-29 TL 0 m a Winter (1972:325)Tierras Largas TL-37 TL 1 f a Winter (1972:325)San Jose Mogote 29 TL 1 m a Marcus and Flannery (1996:85)Tomaltepec 58 SJ ? m a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 57 SJ 1 f a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 44-4 SJ ? m a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 45 SJ 3 m? a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 49 SJ 1 m a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 52 SJ 0 ? a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 51 SJ 1 m? a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 50 SJ 0 ? a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 55 SJ 1 ? c Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 54 SJ 1 f? a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 53 SJ 1 ? c Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 44-3 SJ 0 f a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 33 SJ 0 f a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 32 SJ ? ? c Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 35 SJ 3 f a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 34 SJ 0 m a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 31 SJ ? f a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 24-2 SJ 2 m a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 24-1 SJ 2 f a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 30 SJ ? f? a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 29 SJ ? m? a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 43 SJ 1 ? c Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 42 SJ 4 f? a Whalen (1981:148)




San Jose Mogote SJM-tomb3

SJ 4 m a Winter (1972:324)

San Jose Mogote SJM-12 SJ 1 ? i Winter (1972:324)Tierras Largas TL-40 SJ 0 f? a Winter (1972:327)San Jose Mogote SJM-11 SJ 0 f c Winter (1972:324)Tomaltepec 12 SJ ? m? a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 16 SJ ? m? a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 17 SJ ? f? a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 11-1 SJ 5 m a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 9 SJ 0 f a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 8 SJ 0 m a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 6 SJ 0 m a Whalen (1981:147)San Jose Mogote 17 SJ 4 f a Marcus and Flannery (1996:98)San Jose Mogote 18 SJ 4 f a Marcus and Flannery (1996:104)San Jose Mogote 1 SJ 1 f c Marcus and Flannery (1996:106)Abasolo A-1 SJ 3 ? i Winter (1972:320)Tomaltepec 20-1 SJ 4 m a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 18 SJ 1 f a Whalen (1981:147)Tomaltepec 47 G 2 f c Whalen (1981:152)Huitzo H-2 G 0 f a Winter (1972:322)Huitzo H-1 G 0 m a Winter (1972:322)Tomaltepec 68 G 4 f a Whalen (1981:152)Tomaltepec 59 G 2 f a Whalen (1981:152)Tomaltepec 56 G 2 m a Whalen (1981:152)Fabrica San Jose 20I G 1 ? c Drennan (1976:247)Fabrica San Jose 20II G 1 ? c Drennan (1976:247)Fabrica San Jose 22I G 3 ? c Drennan (1976:248)Fabrica San Jose 6 G 0 ? a Drennan (1976:247)Fabrica San Jose 8 G 1 ? a Drennan (1976:247)Fabrica San Jose 9 G 0 ? i Drennan (1976:247)Fabrica San Jose 28 G ? ? a Drennan (1976:248)Fabrica San Jose 39 G 8 f a Drennan (1976:248)Fabrica San Jose 42 G 0 m a Drennan (1976:248)Fabrica San Jose 22II G 1 ? c Drennan (1976:248)Fabrica San Jose 24 G 2 ? c Drennan (1976:248)Fabrica San Jose 25 G 1 f a Drennan (1976:248)Fabrica San Jose 3II G 1 m a Drennan (1976:247)Tierras Largas TL-24 G 1 f a Winter (1972:327)Tierras Largas TL-36I G 0 m a Winter (1972:328)Tierras Largas TL-36II G 0 f a Winter (1972:328)Tierras Largas TL-18I G 1 f a Winter (1972:327)Tierras Largas TL-18II G 0 m a Winter (1972:327)Tierras Largas TL-22 G 0 f? a Winter (1972:327)Tomaltepec 44-2 SJ 0 m a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 44-1 SJ ? m a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 41 SJ 1 f a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 38 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 37 SJ 2 ? c Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 40 SJ 2 m a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 39 SJ s m? a Whalen (1981:148)Tomaltepec 60 SJ 1 f a Whalen (1981:149)Tomaltepec 80-1 SJ 4 f a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 82 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 84 SJ 1 f? a Whalen (1981:151)

453RANKED SOCIETIES



Tomaltepec 79-5 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 79-1 SJ 4 m a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 79-3 SJ ? ? c Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 79-4 SJ 1 m? a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 85 SJ 2 ? c Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 90 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 91 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:152)Tomaltepec 92 SJ ? ? a Whalen (1981:152)Tomaltepec 89 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 86 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 87 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 88 SJ 0 m a Whalen (1981:151)Tomaltepec 65 SJ 0 f? a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 66 SJ ? ? a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 67 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 64 SJ 1 f a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 61 SJ 0 f a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 62 SJ 0 m a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 63 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 69 SJ 1 ? a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 76 SJ 3 m a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 77 SJ 0 ? i Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 78 SJ 0 f? a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 75 SJ 0 m? a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 70-1 SJ ? f a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 70-2 SJ ? ? c Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 74 SJ 1 f a Whalen (1981:150)Tomaltepec 21 SJ 2 f a Whalen (1981:147)San Jose Mogote SJM-4 SJ 0 ? c Winter (1972:323)San Jose Mogote SJM-5 SJ 1 m a Winter (1972:323)San Jose Mogote SJM-7 SJ 1 m a Winter (1972:324)San Jose Mogote SJM-6 SJ 3 ? c Winter (1972:323)San Jose Mogote SJM-11 SJ 3 ? i Winter (1972:323)Abasolo A-3 SJ 0 m a Winter (1972:321)Abasolo A-2 SJ 2 ? i Winter (1972:321)San Jose Mogote SJM-10 SJ 4 ? i Winter (1972:323)Abasolo A-4 SJ 2 ? i Winter (1972:321)San Jose Mogote SJM-9 SJ 1 ? i Winter (1972:324)Tierras Largas TL-42 SJ 0 m a Winter (1972:326)Tierras Largas TL-20 SJ 2 m a Winter (1972:326)San Jose Mogote SJM-2 SJ 0 ? c Winter (1972:324)Tierras Largas TL-4 SJ 2 f a Winter (1972:326)Tierras Largas TL-11 SJ 2 m a Winter (1972:327)Tierras Largas TI-46III G 1 ? i Winter (1972:328)Fabrica San Jose 1 G 0 f? a Drennan (1976:247)Fabrica San Jose 3I G 0 m a Drennan (1976:247)Tierras Largas TL-36III G 0 ? c Winter (1972:328)Tierras Largas TL-46I G 1 m a Winter (1972:328)Tierras Largas TL-46II G 1 f a Winter (1972:328)

A


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is a revised version of my master’sthesis written at the University of British Columbia.The thesis has been read, and valuable suggestionshave been offered, by the following individuals: Mi-chael Blake, John Clark, Timothy Hare, Marilyn Mas-son, Richard Pearson, and Michael Smith. I acknowl-edge Michael Blake for guiding the work involved inthe thesis that this article is derived from and Mari-lyn Masson for ongoing dialogue and input. Twoanonymous reviewers provided detailed critique ofform, content, and logic that have improved the ar-ticle. I also thank John O’Shea for his encouragementand advice. While the assistance mentioned abovehas benefited this article, errors in fact or interpre-tation are my responsibility alone. The article is asynthesis based on published works and does notnecessarily reflect the views of the authors whosepublications I cite. In particular, John Clark dis-agrees with many of my interpretations.

REFERENCES CITED

Abrams, E. M.1989 Architecture and energy: An evolutionary

perspective. Archaeological Method and The-ory 1:47–86.

ckerly, N. W., and D. L. Young1984 Formative Period Political Differentiation in

the Southern Valley of Mexico: A commenton Steponaitis. American Anthropologist 86:976–985.

Anderson, D. G.1994 The Savannah River chiefdoms: Political change

in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. The Univer-sity of Alabama Press, Tuscoloosa.

1996 Chiefly cycling and large scale abandon-ments as viewed from the Savannah RiverBasin. In Political structure and change in thePrehistoric Southeastern United States, editedby J. F. Scarry, pp. 150–191. Univ. of FloridaPress, Gainsville.

Arnold, J. E. (ed.)1996 Emergent complexity: The evolution of interme-

diate societies. International Monographs inPrehistory, Ann Arbor, MI.

Binford, L. R.1971 Mortuary practices: Their study and their

potential. Memoirs of the Society for AmericanArchaeology 25:6–29.

1980 Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gath-erer settlement systems and archaeologicalsite formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.

Blake, T. M.1985 Canajaste: An evolving Postclassic Maya State.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Michigan.

1991 An emerging Early Formative Chiefdom atPaso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. In Theformation of complex society in SoutheasternMesoamerica, edited by W. R. Fowler, Jr., pp.27–45. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Blake, M., B. S. Chisholm, J. E. Clark, B. Voorhies,and M. W. Love

1992 Prehistoric subsistence in the Soconusco Re-gion. Current Anthropology 33:83–94.

Blake, M., J. E. Clark, B. S. Chisholm, and K. Mudar1992 Non-agricultural staples and agricultural

supplements: Early Formative subsistencein the Soconusco Region, Mexico. In Transi-tions to agriculture in prehistory, edited byA. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price, pp. 133–151.Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

Blake, M., J. E. Clark, B. Voorhies, G. Micheals, M. W.Love, M. E. Pye, A. A. Demerest, and B. Arroyo

1995 Radiocarbon chronology for the Late Ar-chaic and Formative periods on the PacificCoast of Southeastern Mesoamerica. AncientMesoamerica 6:161–183.

Blake, M., R. G. Lesure, V. L. Feddema, W. D. Hill,D. C. Gosser, J. E. Clark, and R. Lowe

1993 Preliminary report: 1993 Excavations at Paso dela Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. Report preparedfor the Social Sciences and Humanities Re-search Council of Canada.

Blake, M., J. E. Clark, V. Feddema, M. Ryan, and R.Lesure

n.d. Early Formative architecture at Paso de laAmada, Chiapas, Mexico. Manuscript on file atthe University of British Columbia, Labora-tory of Archaeology.

Blanton, R. E.1995 The cultural foundations of inequality in

households. In Foundations of social inequal-ity, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman,pp. 105–127. Plenum, New York.

1998 Beyond centralization: Steps toward a the-ory of egalitarian behavior in Archaic states.In Archaic states, edited by G. M. Feinmanand J. Marcus, pp. 135–172. School of Amer-ican Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowalewski, andL. Finsten

1996 A dual-processual theory for the evolutionof Mesoamerican civilization. Current An-thropology 37:1–14.

B

B

B

455RANKED SOCIETIES

Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalewski, G. Feinman, andJ. Appel

1982 Monte Alban’s hinterland, Part 1: The Prehis-panic settlement patterns of the central andsouthern parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico.University of Michigan Museum of Anthro-pology, Memoirs, No. 15, Ann Arbor.

Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalewski, G. M. Feinman, andL. M. Finsten

1993 Ancient Mesoamerica: A comparison of changein three regions, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ.Press, New York.

raun, D. P.1979 Illinois Hopewell burial practices and social

organization: A re-examination of theKlunk-Gibson Mound Group. In Hopewellarchaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, editedby D. S. Brose and N. Greber, pp. 66–79.Kent State Univ. Press, Ohio.

rown, J.1995 On mortuary analysis—With special refer-

ence to the Saxe-Binford Research Program.In Regional approaches to Mortuary analysis,edited by L. A. Beck, pp. 3–26. Plenum, NewYork.

rumfiel, E. M.1976 Regional growth in the Eastern Valley of

Mexico: A test of the “population pressure”hypothesis. In The Early Mesoamerican vil-lage, edited by K. V. Flannery, pp. 234–249.Academic Press, Orlando.

1992 Distinguished lecture in archaeology:Breaking and entering the ecosystem—Gen-der, class and faction steal the show. Amer-ican Anthropologist 94:551–567.

1994 Factional competition and political develop-ment in the New World: An introduction. InFactional competition and political developmentin the New World, edited by E. M. Brumfiel,and J. W. Fox, pp. 3–13. Cambridge Univ.Press, Cambridge, UK.

Brumfiel, E. M., and J. W. Fox (eds.)1994 Factional competition and political development

in the New World. Cambridge Univ. Press,Cambridge, UK.

Carlson, J. B.1981 Olmec concave iron-ore mirrors: the aes-

thetics of a Lithic technology and the Lord ofthe Mirror. In The Olmec and their neighbors:Essays in memory of Mathew W. Sterling, ed-ited by E. P. Benson, pp. 117–147. Dumbar-ton Oaks, Washington DC.

Cannon, A.1989 The historical dimension in mortuary ex-

pressions of status and sentiment. CurrentAnthropology 30:437–458.

Ceja Tenorio, J. F.1985 Paso de la Amada: An Early Preclassic site in the

Soconusco, Chiapas. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation No. 49. BrighamYoung University, Provo.

Chisholm, M.1968 Rural settlement and land use: An essay in lo-

cation, 2nd ed. Aldine, Chicago.

Clark, J. E.1990 Olmecas, Olmequismo y Olmequizacion en

Mesoamerica. Arqueologia 3:49–56.1991 The beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia

for the Soconusco Early Formative. In Theformation of complex society in SoutheasternMesoamerica, edited by W. R. Fowler, Jr., pp.13–26. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

1994 The development of Early Formative rank soci-eties in the Soconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. Un-published Ph.D. dissertation, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

1997 The arts of government in Early Me-soamerica. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:211–134.

Clark, J. E., and M. Blake1989 El origen de la civilizacion en Mesoamerica:

Los Olmecas y Mokaya del Soconusco deChiapas, Mexico. In El Preclassico o Forma-tivo: Avances y perspectivas, edited by M. Car-mona Macias, pp. 385–403. Museo Nacionalde Antropologia, Mexico City.

1994 The power of prestige: Competitive gener-osity and the emergence of rank societies inLowland Mesoamerica. In Factional competi-tion and political development in the NewWorld, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W.Fox, pp. 17–30. Cambridge Univ. Press,Cambridge, UK.

Clark, J. E., T. A. Lee, and T. Salcedo1989 The distribution of obsidian. In Ancient trade

and tribute: Economics of the Soconusco regionof Mesoamerica, edited by B. Voorhies, pp.268–84. Univ. of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Clark, J. E., and T. Salcedo1989 Ocos obsidian distribution in Chiapas, Mex-

ico. In New frontiers in the archaeology of thePacific Coast of Southern Mesoamerica, pp. 15–24. Anthropological Research Papers, 39, Ar-izona State Univ., Tempe.

Clark, J. E., R. G. Lesure, and T. Perez Suarez1994 Investigaciones del Formativo Temprano del

Litoral Chiapaneco 1992. Informe Final Entre-gado al Consejo de Arqueologia, I.N.A.H.,Mexico.


Clark, J. E., M. Blake, B. Arroyo, M. E. Pye, R. G.Lesure, V. Feddema, and M. Ryan

1990 Reporte Final del Proyecto Investigaciones delFormativo Temprano en el Litoral Chiapaneco.Manuscript on file with I.N.A.H., Mexico.

Clark, J. E., M. Blake, P. Guzzy, M. Cuevas, and T.Salcedo

1987 Final Report to the Instituto Nacional de Antro-pologia e Historia of the Early Preclassic PacificCoast Project. New World ArchaeologicalFoundation, Provo, UT.

Coe, M. D.1961 La Victoria: An Early site on the Pacific Coast of

Guatemala. Papers of the Peabody Museumof Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 53, Pea-body Museum, Cambridge.

Coe, M. D., and K. V. Flannery1967 Early cultures and human ecology in South

Coastal Guatemala. Smithsonian Contribu-tions to Anthropology Vol. 3, SmithsonianInstitute, Washington, DC.

Cordy, R. H.1981 A study of prehistoric social change: The devel-

opment of complex societies in the HawaiianIslands. Academic Press, New York.

Cowan, C. W., and P. J. Watson (eds.)1992 The origins of agriculture: An international per-

spective. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC.

Creamer, W., and J. Haas1985 Tribe versus Chiefdom in Lower Central

America. American Antiquity 50:738–754.

Diehl, R. A., and M. D. Coe1995 Olmec archaeology. In The Olmec world: Rit-

ual and rulership, edited by E. P. Benson, pp.11–25. The Art Museum, Princeton Univer-sity, Princeton, NJ.

Drennan, R. D.1976 Fabrica San Jose and Middle Formative Society

in the Valley of Oaxaca, Museum of Anthro-pology, University of Michigan, MemoirsNo. 8, Ann Arbor.

1983 Appendix: Radiocarbon dates for the Oax-aca Region. In The Cloud People: Divergentevolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civiliza-tions, edited by K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus,pp. 363–370. Academic Press, New York.

1991a Cultural evolution, human ecology, and em-pirical research. In Profiles in cultural evolu-tion: Papers from a conference in honor of ElmanR. Service, edited by A. T. Rambo and K.Gillogly, pp. 113–135. Museum of Anthro-pology, University of Michigan, Anthropo-logical Papers No. 85, Ann Arbor.

1991b Pre-Hispanic chiefdom trajectories in Me-soamerica, Central America and NorthernSouth America. In Chiefdoms: Power, economyand ideology, edited by T. Earle, pp. 263–287.Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

1996 One for all and all for one: Accounting forvariability without losing sight of regulari-ties in the development of complex society.In Emergent complexity: The evolution of inter-mediate societies, edited by J. E. Arnold, pp.25–34. International Monographs in Prehis-tory, Ann Arbor.

Drennan, R. D., and K. V. Flannery1983 The growth of site hierarchies in the Valley

of Oaxaca: Part II. In The Cloud People: Diver-gent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civili-zations, edited by K. V. Flannery and J. Mar-cus, pp. 65–71. Academic Press, New York.

Earle, T. (Ed.)1991a Chiefdoms: Power, economy and ideology. Cam-

bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Earle, T.1991b The evolution of chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms:

Power, economy and ideology, edited by T.Earle, pp. 1–15. Cambridge Univ. Press,Cambridge, UK.

1997 How chiefs come to power: The political econ-omy in prehistory. Stanford Univ. Press, Stan-ford, CA.

Feinman, G. M.1995 The emergence of inequality: A focus on

strategies and processes. In Foundations ofsocial inequality, edited by T. D. Price andG. M. Feinman, pp. 255–279. Plenum, NewYork.

Feinman, G., and J. Neitzel1984 Too many types: An overview of sedentary

prestate societies in the Americas. Advancesin Archaeological Method and Theory 7:39–102.

Finsten, L., G. Feinman, R. E. Blanton, and S. A.Kowalewski

1983 A comment on Steponaitis’ determination ofcatchment productivity. American Anthropol-ogist 85:124–129.

Flanagan, J. A.1989 Hierarchy in simple “egalitarian” societies.

Annual Review of Anthropology 18:245–266.

Flannery, K. V.1968 The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A

model for inter-regional interaction in for-mative times. In Dumbarton Oaks Conferenceon the Olmec, edited by E. P. Benson, pp.79–117. Dumbarton Oaks Research Libraryand Collection, Washington, DC.

457RANKED SOCIETIES

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

Flannery, K. V. (edr.)1976 The Early Mesoamerican village. Academic

Press, Orlando, FL.

Flannery, K. V., and J. Marcus1976 Evolution of the public building in forma-

tive Oaxaca. In Culture change and continuity:Essays in honor of James Bennet Griffin, editedby C. E. Cleland, pp. 205–221. AcademicPress, New York.

1990 Borron, y Cuenta Nueva: Setting Oaxaca’sArchaeological Record Straight. In DebatingOaxaca archaeology, edited by J. Marcus, pp.17–69. Anthropological Papers, Museum ofAnthropology, University of Michigan No.84, Ann Arbor.

1994 Early Formative pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca,Mexico. Museum of Anthropology, Univer-sity of Michigan, Memoirs No. 27, Ann Ar-bor.

Flannery, K. V., and J. Marcus (eds.)1983 The Cloud People: Divergent evolution of the

Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. AcademicPress, New York.

Fried, M. H.1967 The evolution of political society: An essay in

political anthropology. Random House, NewYork.

1975 The notion of tribe. Cummings, Menlo Park,CA.

Goldman, I.1970 Ancient Polynesian society. Univ. of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Goodenough, W. H.1965 Rethinking “status” and “role”: Toward a

general model of the cultural organizationof social relationships. In The relevance ofmodels in social anthropology, edited by M.Banton, pp. 1–24. A.S.A. Monographs.

Green, D. F., and G. W. Lowe1967 Altamira and Padre Piedra: Early Preclassic sites

in Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation No. 20. BrighamYoung University, Provo, UT.

Hayden, B.1995 Pathways to power: Principles for creating

socioeconomic inequalities. In Foundations ofsocial inequality, edited by T. D. Price andG. M. Feinman, pp. 15–86. Plenum, NewYork.

Hayden, B., and R. Gargett1990 Big man, big heart?: A Mesoamerican view

of the emergence of complex society. AncientMesoamerica 1:3–20.

Hill, W. G.1996 Mesoamerica’s earliest ballcourt and the origins

of inequality. Paper presented at the 61st an-nual meetings of the SAA, New Orleans.

Hill, W. D., M. Blake, and J. E. Clark1998 Ball court design dates back 3,400 years. Na-

ture 392:878–879.Hirth, K. G.

1984 Catchment analysis and Formative settle-ment in the Valley of Mexico. American An-thropologist 86:136–143.

Howell, T. L., and K. W. Kintigh1996 Archaeological identification of kin groups

using mortuary and biological data: An ex-ample from the American Southwest. Amer-ican Antiquity 61:537–554.

Kowalewski, S. A.1982 Population and agricultural potential: Early

I through V. In Monte Alban’s Hinterland, Part1: The Prehispanic settlement patterns of thecentral and southern parts of the Valley of Oax-aca, Mexico, pp. 149–180. University of Mich-igan Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs,No. 15, Ann Arbor.

Kowalewski, S. A., G. M. Feinman, L. Finsten, R. E.Blanton, and L. M. Nicholas

1989 Monte Alban’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanicsettlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla and Ocot-lan, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs ofthe University of Michigan Museum of An-thropology, No. 23, Ann Arbor.

Leach, E.1954 Political systems of Highland Burma: A study of

Kachin social structure. G. Bell and Sons, Lon-don.

Lee, Jr., T. A.1989 Chiapas and The Olmec. In Regional perspec-

tives on the Olmec, edited by R. J. Sharer andD. C. Grove, pp. 198–226. Cambridge Univ.Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lesure, R. G.1995 Paso de la Amada: Sociopolitical dynamics in an

Early Formative community. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.

1997 Early Formative platforms at Paso de laAmada, Chiapas, Mexico. Latin American An-tiquity 8:217–235.

Liu, L.1996 Settlement patterns, chiefdom variability,

and the development of early States inNorth China. Journal of Anthropological Ar-chaeology 15:237–288.

Love, M. W.1989 Early settlements and chronology of the Lower

Rio Naranjo, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D.

M

M


dissertation, University of California, Berke-ley.

1991 Style and social complexity in FormativeMesoamerica. In The formation of complex so-ciety in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited byW. R. Fowler, Jr., pp. 47–76. CRC Press, BocaRaton, FL.

1993 Ceramic chronology and chronometric dat-ing: Stratigraphy and seriation at La Blanca,Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 4:17–29.

Lowe, G. W.1975 The Early Preclassic Barra phase of Altamira,

Chiapas. Papers of the New World Archae-ological Foundation No. 38. Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, UT.

Lowe, G. W., T. A. Lee, Jr., and E. Martinez Espinosa1982 Izapa: An introduction to the ruins and monu-

ments. Papers of the New World Archaeo-logical Foundation No. 31. Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, UT.

Marcus, J.1989 Zapotec chiefdoms and the nature of Forma-

tive religions. In Regional perspectives on theOlmec, edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C.Grove, pp. 148–197. Cambridge Univ. Press,Cambridge, UK.

Marcus, J., and K. V. Flannery1996 Zapotec civilization: How urban society evolved

in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hud-son, London.

cGuire, R. H.1983 Breaking down cultural complexity: In-

equality and heterogeneity. Advances in Ar-chaeological Method and Theory 6:91–142.

aybury-Lewis, D.1974 Akwe-Shavante society. Oxford Univ. Press,

New York.

Nelson, B. A.1995 Complexity, hierarchy, and scale: A con-

trolled comparison between Chaco Canyon,New Mexico and La Quemada, Zacatecas.American Antiquity 60:597–618.

O’Shea, J. M.1984 Mortuary variability: An archaeological investi-

gation. Academic Press, New York.1996 Villagers of the Maros: A portrait of an Early

Bronze Age society. Plenum, New York.

O’Shea, J. M., and A. W. Barker1996 Measuring social complexity and variation:

A categorical imperative? In Emergent com-plexity: The evolution of intermediate societies,edited by J. E. Arnold, pp. 13–24. Interna-tional Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Ar-bor.

Ortner, S. B.1984 Theory in anthropology since the Sixties.

Society for Comparative Study of Society andHistory 26:126–166.

Pailles, H. M.1980 Pampa El Pajon, An early Estuarine site, Chia-

pas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Ar-chaeological Foundation, No. 44. BrighamYoung University, Provo, UT.

Paynter, R.1989 The archaeology of equality and inequality.

Annual Review of Anthropology 18:369–399.

Peebles, C. S.1978 Determinants of settlement size and loca-

tion in the Moundville phase. In Mississip-pian Settlement Patterns, edited by B. D.Smith, pp. 369–416 Academic Press, NewYork.

Peebles, C. S., and S. M. Kus1977 Some archaeological correlates of ranked

societies. American Antiquity 42:421–448.

Plog, F.1974 A study of prehistoric change. Academic Press,

New York.

Price, T. D., and G. M. Feinman (eds.)1995 Foundations of social inequality. Plenum, New

York.

Price, D. T., and A. B. Gebauer1995 Last hunters–first farmers: New perspectives on

the prehistoric transition to agriculture. Schoolof American Research Press, Santa Fe, NewMexico.

Rambo, A. T.1991 The study of cultural evolution. In Profiles in

cultural evolution: Papers from a conference inhonor of Elman R. Service, edited by A. T.Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 23–109. Museumof Anthropology, University of Michigan,Anthropological Papers No. 85, Ann Arbor.

Renfrew, C.1973 Monuments, mobilization and social organi-

zation in Neolithic Wessex. In The explana-tion of culture change: Models in prehistory,edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 539–558. Duck-worth, London.

1974 Beyond a subsistence economy: The evolu-tion of social organization in prehistoric Eu-rope. In Reconstructing complex societies: Anarchaeological colloquium, edited by C. B.Moore, pp. 69–95. Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 20.

1986 Introduction: Peer polity interaction and so-cio-political change. In Peer polity interactionand socio-political change, edited by C. Ren-

S

S

459RANKED SOCIETIES

frew and J. F. Cherry, pp. 1–18. CambridgeUniv. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Renfrew, C., and J. F. Cherry (eds.)1986 Peer polity interaction and socio-political

change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,UK.

Rosenswig, R. M.1998 A comparison of Early and Middle Formative

political development in the Soconusco and Val-ley of Oaxaca: Settlement, mortuary and archi-tectural patterns. Unpublished M.A. thesis,Department of Anthropology and Sociology,The University of British Columbia, Van-couver.

1999 Time and the visibility of political cycling inFormative Mesoamerica. Paper presented atthe Society for American Archaeology 64thAnnual Meetings, Chicago.

ahlins, M. D.1963 Rich man, poor man, big-man, chief: Politi-

cal types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Com-parative Studies in Society and History 5:288–303.

axe, A.1970 Social dimensions of mortuary practice. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Michigan, AnnArbor.

Schrire, C.1984 Wild surmises on savage thoughts. In Past

and present in hunter gatherer studies. Editedby C. Schrire, pp. 1–26. Academic Press,New York.

Sempowski, M. L.1992 Economic and social implications of varia-

tion in mortuary practices at Teotihuacan. InArt, ideology and the city of Teotihuacan, editedby J. C. Berlo, pp. 27–58. Dumbarton Oaks,Washington.

Service, E. R.1975 Origins of the state and civilization: The process

of cultural evolution. Norton, New York.

Sharer, R. J., and D. C. Grove (eds.)1989 Regional perspectives on the Olmec. Cam-

bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Shook, E. M.1947 Guatemalan Highlands. In Carnegie Institute

of Washington yearbook. No. 46, pp. 179–184.Carnegie Institute, Washington, DC.

Spencer, C. S.1982 The Cuicatlan Canada and Monte Alban. Aca-

demic Press, New York.1993 Human agency, biased transmission and the

cultural evolution of chiefly authority. Jour-nal of Anthropological Archaeology 12:41–74.

1997 Evolutionary approaches in archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Research 5:209–264.

Steponaitis, V. P.1978 Location theory and complex chiefdoms: A

Mississippian example. In Mississippian set-tlement patterns, edited by B. D. Smith, pp.417–453 Academic Press, New York.

1981 Settlement hierarchies and political com-plexity in nonmarket societies: The Forma-tive Period of the Valley of Mexico. AmericanAnthropologist 83:320–363.

1983 More on estimating catchment productivityin the Valley of Mexico. American Anthropol-ogist 85:129–135.

1984 Some further remarks on catchments, non-producers, and tribute flow in the Valley ofMexico. American Anthropologist 86:143–148.

1985 A rejoinder to Ackerly and Young’s Com-ments on my analysis of Formative Periodsites in the Valley of Mexico. American An-thropologist 87:897–904.

1986 Political growth and agricultural intensifica-tion: An extension of the Valley of MexicoModel. American Anthropologist 88:706–708.

Tainter, J. A.1978 Mortuary practices and the study of prehis-

toric social systems. Advances in Archaeolog-ical Method and Theory 1:105–141.

Trigger, B. G.1990 Monumental architecture: A thermody-

namic explanation of symbolic behaviour.World Archaeology 22:119–132.

1993 Early civilizations: Ancient Egypt in context.American Univ. in Cairo Press, Cairo.

1998 Sociocultural evolution: Calculation and contin-gency. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Voorhies, B., G. H. Michaels, and G. M. Riser1991 Ancient shrimp fishery. National Geographic

Research and Exploration 7:20–35.

Werner, D.1981 Are some people more equal than others?:

Status inequality among the Mekranoti In-dians of Central Brazil. Journal of Anthropo-logical Research 37:360–373.

Whalen, M.1981 Excavations at Tomaltepec: Evolution of a For-

mative community in the Valley of Oaxaca Mex-ico. Museum of Anthropology, University ofMichigan, Memoir No. 12, Ann Arbor.

Whilmsen, W.1989 Land filled with flies: A political economy of the

Kalahari. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Wilk, R. R.1983 Little house in the jungle: The causes of

variation in house size among modern Kek-

W

W


chi Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology 2:99–116.

Winter, M. C.1972 Tierras Largas: A Formative community in the

Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, University of Arizona.

obst, H. M.1977 Stylistic behavior and information ex-

change. In Papers for the director, edited byC. E. Moore, pp. 317–342. AnthropologicalPapers, Museum of Anthropology, No. 61.University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

olf, E.1982 Europe and the people without history. Univ. of

California Press, Berkeley.Wright, H. T.

1984 Prestate political formation. In On the evolu-tion of complex prestate societies: Essays in

honor of Harry Hoijer, 1982, edited by T.Earle, pp. 41–77. Undena, Malibu, CA.

Yoffee, N.1993 Too many chiefs? (or, safe texts for the ‘90s).

In Archaeological theory: Who sets the agenda?,edited by N. Yoffee and A. Sheratt, pp. 60–78. Univ. of Cambridge Press, Cambridge,UK.

1995 Political economy in Early Mesopotamianstates. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:281–311.

Zeitlan, R. N.1993 Pacific Coast Laguna Zope: A regional

center in the Termianl Formative Hinter-lands of Monte Alban. Ancient Mesoamerica4:85–101.

Some Political Processes of Ranked Societies...Some Political Processes of Ranked Societies Robert M. Rosenswig Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

Documents