Prehistoric and Traditional Agriculture in Lowland Mesoamerica ...

We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.Find out moreJump to
Content
Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Prehistoric and Traditional Agriculture in Lowland Mesoamerica
Summary
Mesoamerica is one of the world’s primary centers of domestication where agriculture arose independently. Paleoethnobotany (or archaeobotany), along with archaeology, epigraphy, and ethnohistorical and ethnobotanical data, provide increasingly important insights into the ancient agriculture of Lowland Mesoamerica (below 1000 m above sea level). Moreover, new advances in the analysis of microbotanical remains in the form of pollen, phytoliths, and starch-grain analysis and chemical analysis of organic residues have further contributed to our understanding of ancient plant use in this region. Prehistoric and traditional agriculture in the lowlands of Mesoamerica—notably the Maya lowlands, the Gulf Coast, and the Pacific Coast of southern Chiapas (Mexico) and Guatemala—from the Archaic (ca. 8000/7000–2000 bc) through the Preclassic/Formative (2000 bc–ad 250) and into the Classic (ad 250–900) period, are covered. During the late Archaic, these lowland regions were inhabited by people who took full advantage of the rich natural biodiversity but also grew domesticates before becoming fully sedentary. Through time, they developed diverse management strategies to produce food, from the forest management system (which includes swidden agriculture), to larger scale land modifications such as terraces, and continued to rely on semidomesticated and wild plant resources. Although lowland populations came to eventually rely on maize as a staple, other resources such as root crops and fruit trees were also cultivated, encouraged, and consumed. The need for additional research that includes systematic collection of paleoethnobotanical data, along with other lines of evidence, will be key to continue refining the understanding of ancient subsistence systems and how these changed through time and across lowland Mesoamerica.
Keywords
Subjects
Introduction
This article covers the emergence of plant management systems and their development through time in the lowland1 regions of Mesoamerica, notably the Maya lowlands, the Gulf Coast, and the Pacific Coast of southern Chiapas (Mexico) and Guatemala (Figure 1). The time periods covered include the Archaic (ca. 8000/7000–2000 bc) but mostly focus on the Preclassic/Formative period (2000bc–ad 250) and Classic (ad 250–900) periods of these three regions. Traditional milpa agriculture as practiced by contemporary indigenous groups, in particular the Maya, is also reviewed.
Note: A full-color figure can be found in the online edition of this article at oxfordre.com/
Source: Map modified from topographical map created by Sémhur/Wikipedia Commons/CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Mesoamerica is known as one of the world’s primary centers of domestication where agriculture arose independently (Piperno & Pearsall, 1998) and where dozens of plants were brought under cultivation and later domesticated (Piperno & Smith, 2012). There is no denying that the shift from hunting and gathering to agricultural economies was a major transition in the history of humankind (Smith, 2005). Yet, Mesoamerica is rather unique, and although beyond the scope of this article, some issues with terminology, which are particularly applicable to this region, have to be considered. Domestication is often equated with agriculture, but this is problematic (Vrydaghs & Denham, 2007). Agricultural models have often been based on Eurasian ones, which include sedentary lifestyles and livestock rearing, but clearly there is a need to move away from such concepts (Harris, 2007; Vrydaghs & Denham, 2007), especially considering that larger animals were not available for domestication in Mesoamerica. The term “cultivation” has also been widely used (Smith, 2001),2 and although some scholars view it as a broadly encompassing word that also includes activities involving wild plants (e.g., Harris, 2007), the problem persists with how to qualify these early populations that do not follow more traditional (Eurasian) models.
One of the main problems is that agriculture in the Americas has often been equated with the use of maize (Zea mays ssp. mays L.; Figure 2) as a staple (Iriarte, 2007). Yet, research in the lowlands has revealed that mobile populations already used some domesticates (besides maize), even before settling down into more permanent settlements (Lohse, 2010; Rosenswig, 2006, 2015). Thus, although Archaic populations in Mesoamerica are not what many scholars would consider traditional agriculturalists, they were nonetheless food producers, bringing plants under cultivation and eventually domesticating them during this period3 (Fritz, 1994; Piperno & Flannery, 2001; Piperno & Smith, 2012; Smith, 1997). Thus these populations are perhaps better viewed as low-level food producers with domesticates (Smith, 2001), who through time developed and intensified a multitude of forest management strategies (slash-and-burn farming/managed fallows,4 horticulture/homegardens, and managed forests) that took full advantage of their natural environment in order to grow plants (Gómez-Pompa, 1987; Gómez-Pompa & Kaus, 1990; Peters, 2000; VanDerwarker, 2006) that went beyond the triad of domesticated maize, beans (Phaseolus spp.), and squash (Cucurbita spp.) (see Table 1 for select major crops and earliest appearance in the archaeological record). In fact, as will become evident, Mesoamerican populations relied on a wide range of plants, available in their gardens, fields, and forests.
Table 1. Select Major Crops and Earliest Appearance in the Archaeobotanical Record of the Three Regions
Paleoethnobotanical Research in Lowland Mesoamerica
Paleoethnobotany (or archaeobotany), along with archaeology, epigraphy, and ethnohistorical and ethnobotanical data, provide increasingly important insights into the ancient agriculture of Lowland Mesoamerica. However, a lack of paleoethnobotanical data, the most direct form of evidence regarding ancient plant use, has limited the ability of scholars working in Mesoamerica to reach a full characterization of the subsistence economy of the various societies inhabiting these areas. Understanding the subsistence economy is important in order to address larger issues within the archaeology of these societies. For the Maya, this includes rethinking the ways that larger and denser ancient Maya populations subsisted in different ecological settings besides simply relying on swidden agriculture (Chase & Chase, 1998) and in turn if increased populations led to deforestation, loss of resources, and eventual collapse (Lentz & Hockaday, 2009; Santley, Killion, & Lycett, 1986). Combined with more specialized studies that largely focus on diet, it is obvious that the collapse was not uniform (Emery & Thornton, 2008; Wright, 2006). In the case of the people native to the Olmec heartland and the Pacific Coast, this means rethinking the role of maize in the development of complexity and the continued use of a wide spectrum of resources even when maize reliance increased (Arnold, 2009; Rosenswig, 2006; Rosenswig, VanDerwarker, Culleton, & Kennett, 2015; VanDerwarker, 2006).
Considering the deep roots of Mesoamerican archaeology in the lowlands, relatively few systematic studies to recover macrobotanical remains have been carried out. Notable exceptions of important early studies mostly exist for the Maya area (Cliff & Crane, 1989; Lentz, 1999; Miksicek, 1983, 1986, 1990; Miksicek, Wing, & Scudder, 1991; Turner & Miksicek, 1984), and less so for the Soconusco (Feddema, 1993). Additionally, early microbotanical research in the Soconusco was carried out by Voorhies (1976), while Zurita Noguera (1997) conducted phytoliths studies on samples from the Gulf Coast, and pollen data in the Maya lowlands was collected by Pohl et al. (1996).
While these and more recent studies that are detailed later have provided scholars a much-needed window into ancient Mesoamerican subsistence practices, paleoethnobotanical data from these sites reflect unique ecological, social, and historical variables that cannot be extrapolated across the entire Mesoamerican lowlands. One reason for the lack of systematic paleoethnobotanical research in these tropical regions was the belief that plant remains would not survive well due to extreme wet-dry cycles (Ford & Nigh, 2009; Miksicek, 1983). Although the relative quantity of surviving plant remains may be lower in these tropical regions than in other geographical areas, the potential of recovering evidence increases if archaeologists systematically adopt recovery methods (Cagnato, 2016; Hageman & Goldstein, 2009; Morehart, 2011; Vanderwarker, 2006). While the lack of substantial botanical data is in part due to technological considerations, it is also the result of archaeologists focusing on elite contexts and answering questions relating to social organization, demography, and status (Folan, Fletcher, & Kintz, 1979; LeCount, 2001; McNeil, 2006; Morehart, Lentz, & Prufer, 2005).
Ancient Maya plant use has been extensively studied through iconography. Plant iconography is mostly featured on painted ceramic vessels and murals, media that have more successfully withstood the test of time over organic materials such as cloth and paper (Reents-Budet, 1994). The iconographic corpus consists of mainly painted and sculpted images of plant parts, including flowers, leaves, and fruits, on a range of artifacts (Zidar & Elisens, 2009). Trees are also commonly represented, often depicted as anthropomorphic, which may stem from the idea that humans are reborn from fruit trees (Schele & Mathews, 1998). While some species have been easier to identify than others, for example waterlilies (Nymphaea sp.) and the calabash (Lagenaria sp.) and ceiba (Ceiba sp.) tree to name a few, identifying plants based on iconographic depictions is not an easy task (Reents-Budet, 1994, p. 79). Archaeologists working in the Maya region have long acknowledged the importance of two plants, maize and cacao (Theobroma cacao L., Figure 3), which together form a conceptual pairing (Martin, 2006). Both plants figure prominently in Maya iconography (McNeil, 2006) as well as having dedicatory hieroglyphic tags that specified the owner and contents of a vessel (Beliaev, Davletshin, & Tokovinine, 2010). Moreover, both plants are mentioned in the Popol Vuh, the sacred book of the Quiché Maya (Tedlock, 1996). There was also a flourishing of maize motifs during the Middle Formative period in Olmec art (Taube, 2000).
As a result of relatively few dedicated paleoethnobotanical studies and a focus on the study of maize, for the longest time the role and importance of other plant species was overshadowed, with populations believed to have heavily relied on a diet of the triad of maize, beans, and squash. While scholars have moved beyond these oversimplifications, the relative importance of other plants is a work in progress (see Ford & Nigh, 2015; Sheets et al., 2012; Simms, 2014; VanDerwarker, 2006). Fortunately, an increase in the interest of archaeologists to include a wider range of paleoethnobotanical analyses in their research along with new advances in the analysis of microbotanical remains in the form of pollen, phytoliths, and starch-grain analysis and chemical analysis of organic residues have recently contributed to our understanding of ancient plant use in the Mesoamerican lowlands (e.g., Cagnato, 2016; Loughmiller-Cardinal & Zagorevski, 2016; Powis, Cyphers, Gaikwad, Grivetti, & Cheong, 2011, Powis et al., 2013, Rosenswig, Pearsall, Masson, Culleton, & Kennett, 2014; Seinfeld, von Nagy, & Pohl, 2009; Simms, 2014). Moreover, the recovery of plant remains is figuring more prominently in the agendas of some archaeologists in lowland regions of Mesoamerica, resulting in a dramatic increase of paleoethnobotanical reports that for the most part, combine various lines of data (Abramiuk, Dunham, Cummings, Yost, & Pesek, 2011; Cagnato, 2016; Cavallaro, 2013; Dedrick, 2014; Lentz et al., 2014; Morell-hart, 2011; Simms, 2014). The results of these more recent studies, combined with past research, is discussed in more detail for each of the three regions.
Mexican Gulf Coast
Chiefdoms developed along the southern Mexican Gulf Coast during the Formative period (1400bc–ad 300), with the establishment of large civic-ceremonial centers, namely San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes (see Figure 1, blue-shaded area). Investigations have shown that Early Formative populations were only semi-sedentary, moving across the landscape seasonally or annually (Arnold, 2000) and likely relied on a mixed subsistence system, consisting of collecting and gardening5 (Killion et al., 2013). In time, as populations invested more in the swidden cycle “they created more gardens, more managed fallows, and more managed forests” (VanDerwarker, 2006, p. 110). Olmec farmers likely practiced forest- or bush-fallow shifting cultivation strategies, using the river levees and upland areas (VanDerwarker, 2006). While upland soils are less fertile, they have the advantage of being able to be cropped during both the dry and wet seasons, unlike the river levee soils that can only be cropped once but produce higher maize yields (VanDerwarker, 2006).
There is evidence that maize cultivation was taking place during the Early Formative period, corroborated by the recovery of maize phytoliths at San Lorenzo (Zurita-Noguera, 1997) and El Remolino (Wendt, 2005) and macrobotanical remains from San Lorenzo (Cyphers, 1996), Bezuapan, La Joya (VanDerwarker, 2006), and Tres Zapotes (Peres et al., 2010). Even earlier data comes from La Venta, where maize in macrobotanical form along with pollen have been reported (Rust & Leyden, 1994). These authors, based on the increase of pollen indicative of forest clearing, suggest that the levees were starting to be cleared during the Early Formative period and that, by the Middle Formative, maize cultivation became more intensive at the site. Yet, the oldest data comes from San Andres, located in Tabasco, Mexico, where Pope et al. (2001) report on the earliest evidence of maize pollen, dated to 5000bc. Other pre-Formative data come from the Tuxtla Mountain region, where pollen dating to 2780bc, has also been recovered (Goman, 1992). Interestingly, later periods (i.e., Early and early Middle Formative) did not contain maize pollen. It is only by the end of the Middle Formative period that maize is again picked up on the pollen record (Goman & Byrne, 1998).
In a pioneer multidisciplinary analysis of Olmec subsistence, VanDerwarker (2006) carried out paleoethnobotanical analysis at two Olmec settlements, Bezuapan and La Joya, located in the Tuxtla Mountains.6 Her research indicates that people at La Joya became more sedentary toward the end of the Early Formative and by the Terminal Formative had intensified maize production and harvested more fruits. In addition, she argues that greater reliance on infield production was likely, indicated from investing labor in ridging their fields and increases in substorage pits (Arnold, 2000). At Bezuapan (where ridges were also identified), maize also increased through time, with a slight decrease in the Terminal Formative period, which also coincides with a slight increase in fruit consumption. The increase in ratio of fruit trees such as avocado (Persea americana Mill.), coyol (Acrocomia mexicana),7 and sapote (Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H.E. Moore & Stearn) is seen as evidence for possible tree crop management intensification through time. Combined with the zooarchaeological data, VanDerwarker argues that increases in “garden hunting” suggest that people were intensifying their use of nearby gardens (p. 163). At Tres Zapotes, however, maize production and consumption seems to have been higher than other sites, and during the Middle Formative period, coyol production seems to decrease (Peres, VanDerwarker, & Pool, 2010). At San Carlos, the inhabitants seem to have consumed moderate amounts of maize, while consuming more fruits such as coyol and sapote (VanDerwarker & Kruger, 2012). The presence of grinding stones (manos and metates) has also been used as an indicator of changes in maize processing. Grinding implements are reported from several Formative sites (Arnold, 2009; Coe & Diehl, 1980a). Arnold writes that by the Middle Formative, there was a “pronounced shift from multi-purpose metates (grinding slabs) to single-purpose metates, as revealed in distinct grinding patterns” (p. 404). The latter are “associated with targeted grinding, such as maize processing” (p. 404).
For some scholars, the paleoethnobotanical data modify the view that maize agriculture was the stimulus for complexity in the area (see Arnold [2009] for a good summary). VanDerwarker (2006) does not believe “that maize surpluses alone could have funded the Early Formative Olmec rise to power” (p. 39). In fact, Borstein (2001) suggests that populations were more focused on aquatic resources than agriculture prior to 1000bc (see also Arnold, 2009). While Arnold certainly agrees that maize was cultivated by the Early Formative, it “does not appear to have become a staple food resource until after the development of significant socio-political differentiation at San Lorenzo. Nor can maize be linked to aggrandizing displays, as suggested in the Early Formative ceramic record of the Pacific coast” (p. 408). He also suggests that manioc (and not maize)8 may have been a staple during the Early Formative period, yet the current evidence is scant (see Pope et al., 2001). VanDerwarker and Kruger (2012) argue that there are more geographical rather than temporal differences. They note that lowland sites such as San Carlos and Tres Zapotes, where the recovery of maize was relatively high, indicates that maize reliance increased as proximity to center of developing sociopolitical power also increased.9 Thus, for them, maize would have been a luxury food at first and would have been part of feasting events. This idea is reinforced by the elevated presence of maize residues on luxury wares when compared to utility ones, which has been reported from Middle Formative San Andres and argued to indicate that maize beverages were consumed (Seinfeld et al., 2009). Different data sets emerging from different sites across the Olmec region suggest that much variation existed and that different areas took different trajectories with regards to maize adoption (VanDerwarker & Kruger, 2012, p. 528); clearly more work is necessary to better characterize this process.
Other resources besides maize were cultivated and collected by populations living in the Gulf Coast. A variety of beans such as the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. [Figure 4]), scarlet runner (P. coccineus L.), and tepary (P. acutifolius A. Gray), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), guava (Psidium guajava L.), grape and sapote family remains, acorns (Quercus sp.), and miscellaneous plants such as possible achiote (Bixa orellana L.) morning glory family, and trianthema (Trianthema sp.) have all been reported from La Joya and Bezuapan (VanDerwarker, 2006). Additionally, Cyphers (1996) reports the presence of squash and beans in macrobotanical form from San Lorenzo. A single manioc (Manihot esculenta Crantz) pollen grain was reported from San Andres (Pope et al., 2001), and, more recently, phytoliths of this species have been reported from San Lorenzo (Cyphers & Zurita-Noguera, 2006). Cotton (Gossypium sp.) pollen has also been reported from San Andres (Pope et al., 2001). More recently, evidence of cacao preparation and consumption between 1800 and 1000bc, through the recovery of theobromine residues on a range of vessels from an elite mortuary context San Lorenzo has been discovered (Powis et al., 2011). Additional studies of organic residues inside ceramics revealed the presence of chili peppers (Capsicum sp.) at San Lorenzo as early as 1800 cal bc (Lara, Cyphers, & Gaikwad, 2018). Macrobotanical data from San Carlos, 9 km to the southeast of San Lorenzo, has provided additional information, including the presence of evening primrose (Oenothera sp.), Forrestia sp., and possibly coco plum (Chrysobalanus icaco L.) and coyol real (Scheelea liebmannii).10 During the Classic period, plant remains from Bezuapan, as reported by VanDerwarker (2006) include maize, beans, avocado, coyol, sapote, guava, and grape family. However, besides this data set, there is currently little information regarding subsistence systems for the Classic11 and Postclassic (see Stark & Arnold [1997] for good summaries of the region).
Pacific Coast of Chiapas (Mexico) and Guatemala
The Soconusco region, known by the Aztecs as Xoconochco (Coe & Flannery, 1967) is located on a flat coastal plain between the Pacific Ocean and the Sierra Madre Mountains and covers two countries, Mexico and Guatemala (Figure 1, green-shaded area). The region, under Aztec control when Europeans arrived in the New World, was renowned for its agricultural productivity (Kennett et al., 2010 citing Gasco & Voorhies, 1989) and has “one of the most complete records of initial Early Formative period (1900–1400 cal bc) occupation in Middle America” (Rosenswig et al., 2015, p. 90).
The earliest human impacts detected in the region are in the Sipacate zone, at around 3500 cal bc.12 (Neff et al., 2006, p. 304). More recently, Kennett et al. (2010), based on pollen, phytolith, and charcoal cores, suggest that “slash-and-burn farmers” were present by 6500 cal bp; however, other reasons for this signature identified in the Archaic period, including natural fires or foragers enriching the soil, have been proposed (see Rosenswig, 2015, p. 134).
It is hard to characterize these early societies, as some were quite sedentary (Rosenswig, 2006) while others were still largely mobile (Arnold, 1999), eventually settling down by the Middle Formative Locona phase (1700–1500 cal bp). Increased political complexity is first documented at Paso de la Amada in the Mazatan region (Clark & Blake, 1994; Lesure & Blake, 2002; but see Love, 2007). By around 1000bc (Middle Formative), the focus of economic and political power shifted to the eastern side, in particular to two sites: Takalik Abaj and La Blanca (Love, 2007). By the Late Formative (400 cal bc) urban societies came to be established in the region, but during the Terminal Formative, many of the coastal sites were abandoned (Love, 2012).
Evidence of cultivation and horticulture has been found from early periods, from as early as the Archaic period where maize has been reported (Rosenswig et al., 2015). Two Archaic period individuals had high levels of C4, but it has been suggested that this may have been the result of a high reliance on marine resources (Blake, Chisholm, Clark, Voorhies, & Love, 1992). Thus, just like in the subsequent Early Formative period, maize did not play a major role in the diet of the locals. The earliest Formative phase is known as the Barra phase (1900–1700 cal bc) and saw the development of permanent villages and adoption of ceramics, while by the Locona phase rank systems developed as well as craft specialization among other features (Clark & Blake, 1994). Maize is not believed to have been an important crop in this early period, substantiated by the isotopic evidence (Blake et al., 1992); instead it has been suggested that it was likely a status food (beverage), potentially having a role in competitive feasting (see Smalley et al., 2003; but also see Arnold, 2009).
Similar to the Gulf Coast, it was only during the Middle Formative that the inhabitants of the Soconusco region began to intensify maize cultivation and consumption (Rosenswig et al., 2015). Other lines of evidence to suggest that maize and other cultivation was intensifying comes from indirect data such as the manos and metates, and ceramic graters, all starting around 1000 cal bc. In particular, it seems that manos and metates replaced mortars and pestles (Rosenswig, 2007); the former, according to Rosenswig, VanDerwarker, Culleton, and Kennett (2015), have a larger surface for grinding, which may indicate a “greater focus on processing a grain like maize as a dietary staple” (p. 99). Moreover, stable isotope studies on human bone collagen from various periods has shown that the Middle Formative population had higher levels of C4. Interestingly, even during the Middle Formative, the isotope results indicate that the population may have continued to rely on a mixed diet, even though maize levels were higher than in Early Formative period individuals (Blake et al., 1992).
The earliest published report of plant remains is probably that by Coe and Flannery (1967) who found impressions of maize cobs on and in floor layers at Salinas La Blanca, a small, Early Formative hamlet in the Ocós region of Guatemala. Impressions of maize stalks and leaves were also recovered, along with those of larger seeded fruits such as jocote (Spondias sp.), white sapote (Casimiroa sapota),13 and avocado. Based on the plant, but also animal remains, the authors suggest that the occupants lived here year-round and were a “self-sufficient, and totally sedentary hamlet, well adapted to a coastal farming life” (Coe & Flannery, 1967, p. 71). Feddema (1993) reports on seven taxa recovered through flotation from diverse contexts at four sites in the Mazatan region—Aquiles Serdán, Paso de la Amada, Chilo, and San Carlos—which span 1900 cal bc to 1200 cal bc. Her work revealed that maize, beans, and avocado dominated the samples, with smaller quantities of carpetweed (Mollugo sp.), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), and Brassica sp. seeds, all of which she associates with areas under cultivation (i.e., weedy). Jones and Voorhies (2004) carried out extensive microbotanical analyses at various Early Formative sites in the region, and their work has revealed the presence of phytoliths of maize, cucurbits, and taxa in the Annonaceae and Marantaceae families, which may have had economic value (Blake & Neff, 2011). Macrobotanical remains from another site, El Varal, include maize, possible Fabaceae, and nut fragments (Popper & Lesure, 2009). Bellacero (2010) conducted archaeobotanical analyses from Cantón Corralito, an Early Formative site. Besides finding maize, she also documented the presence of wild plants, including Solanaceaous plants (Physalis sp.; Solanum hispidum Pers.), amaranth (Amaranthus sp.), waterleaf (Talinum triangulare),14 purslane (Portulaca sp.), and Potentilla sp. More recently, Powis et al. (2008) documented the presence of cacao in the region through residue analysis. A sherd recovered from construction fill at Paso de la Amada resulted in the discovery of compounds identifiable to cacao. Even more recently, investigations at Cuauhtémoc (Rosenswig et al., 2015) suggest an increase in maize densities between the Early and Middle Formative periods and has led the authors to propose that some of the maize was grown nearby in gardens. Compared to the Middle Formative, the plant remains are more diverse in the earlier period, which includes avocado pit fragments, spurge (Euphorbiaceae family), and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana L.) seeds. The authors suggest this is likely the result of humans foraging in undisturbed areas. Other remains that were recovered from both periods include probable beans (Phaseolus spp.) and cheno/am15 seeds. While some scholars have argued for the importance of root crops to the diet in this region (Davis, 1975; Lowe, 1975), there is currently no evidence to support these claims.
Overall, this area is particularly interesting as “there is little evidence of a dramatic change in the subsistence base or resource procurement practices during the Archaic to Formative transition” (Rosenswig, 2006, p. 338). Moreover, domesticated plants were consumed in the region before the adoption of ceramics and sedentism. Macro- and microbotanical data seem to suggest that nonsedentary populations cultivated several plants, including maize and beans, and consumed cacao, avocados, and other fruits from trees. By the Middle Formative, people living in this lowland region of Mesoamerica consumed greater quantities of maize, along with avocado, beans, cheno/am, and fruit crops. Although slightly outside of the Soconusco area, at Chiapa de Corzo (Chiapas, Mexico), chili pepper residues were found on five intact vessels, recovered from burials and caches, dating between the Middle and Late Preclassic periods (Powis et al., 2013).
Although the Formative through to the Late Postclassic is well represented in the Soconusco (Blake et al., 1992),16 there is little information regarding agricultural practices. At Chocola’, located on the transitional zone between coastal plain and central highlands, a site that reached its peak in the Late Formative, water management has been documented, but its use remains unclear (Love, 2007). However, the recent recovery of cacao residues on ceramic sherds suggests that this area was indeed an area for cacao arboriculture (Kaplan et al., 2017), and therefore the canals could have functioned to irrigate the orchards. Another important site located on the piedmont, Takalik Abaj, has evidence for strong occupation during Middle and Late Formative and also into the Terminal period. However, unlike at the site of Kaminaljuyu, located in the Guatemalan highlands, where irrigation systems for agricultural purposes have been reported starting as early as the Middle Preclassic (Popenoe de Hatch, 2002), these are believed to have stored and drained water (Marroquin, 2005). Finally, a core taken near Cerro de las Conchas supports the idea that shifting agriculture was practiced in this region during the Late Formative (Blake, 2008). For the Classic period, even less is known with regard to agricultural practices, and for the Postclassic, limited isotopic data indicates that people in the region “maintained a more mixed diet, including more C3 plants (both directly and indirectly consumed) than highland Mesoamericans” (Blake et al., 1992, p. 91). It seems that the production of cacao increased during the Late Postclassic and likely continued during the Late Postclassic after the Aztec Empire conquered the region to gain more secure access to the region’s cacao bean production (Gasco, 2006). It stands that cacao orchards were therefore present in the region, as they had been for centuries.
The Maya Lowlands
The Maya lowlands are a large expanse of territory that includes the Yucatan peninsula in southern Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, northwestern Honduras, and northern El Salvador. Ecologically, the area consists of various zones, including tropical evergreen forests (Figure 5), tropical semi-deciduous forests, and zones of grasslands, wetlands, palm communities, and mangroves (Greller, 2000) and, except for the Maya Mountains, are below 800 m in elevation (Sharer & Traxler, 2006, p. 42). The northern Maya lowlands comprise the northern half of the Yucatan Peninsula, an area which is rather flat and is generally comprised of scrub and low bush vegetation, along with low rainfall, while the southern lowlands have deeper, fertile soils and greater rainfall, providing ideal conditions for tropical rainforest growth (Sharer & Traxler, 2006). Overall, the Maya lowlands can be considered “a complex mosaic of fine-grained heterogeneity at the local level, with significant variability in landscapes between sub-regions” (Fedick, 1996a, p. 347).
Figure 5. Views of the southern Maya lowlands (left) and of the evergreen forests (right).
Source: C. Cagnato.
Numerous scholars working in different parts of the Maya lowlands have documented evidence for cultigens and landscape disturbance as early as the Archaic period in what is the country of Belize. Maize, chili peppers, squash family, bean family, cotton (Gossypium sp.), along with fruit trees and tubers such as manioc, have been reported from Archaic period sites (Jones, 1994; Jones & Hallock, 2008; Pohl et al., 1996; Rosenswig et al., 2014). Notably, Rosenswig et al. (2014) report on finding maize starch grains on tools from Archaic period contexts (8320–6560 cal bp). Other archaeologically detectable human activity on the landscape is also visible (see Beach et al., 2006). While the presence of humans in Belize during the Archaic is more or less secure, debate exists for the Central Petén Lakes region in Guatemala. Research has been ongoing for decades, and different researchers (Curtis et al., 1998; Mueller et al., 2009; Vaughan, Deevey, & Garrett-Jones, 1985; Wahl, Byrne, Schreiner, & Hansen, 2006) have reached diverging conclusions regarding the nature of forest disturbance and increased soil erosion (see Castellanos & Foias [2017] for a good review of the issue). What seems more or less certain is that horticulturalist-foragers were present in the region as “early as 3000–2500bc in some areas and by 1500bc in other parts of the Petén lowlands” (Castellanos & Foias, 2017, p. 2).17 Between the Early and Middle Preclassic (ca. 1100–900bc), permanent settlements appear with the use of ceramics in the central and southern Maya lowlands (Lohse, 2010). However, the adoption of sedentism was not uniform, as evidenced by research at the sites of Cuello and Ceibal (Hammond, 1991; Inomata et al., 2015). Agriculture intensified during this time, in particular along swamp edges (Pohl et al., 1996). The recovery of maize pollen, squash, bottle gourd (Lagenaria sp.) phytoliths, and grinding stones “provide supporting evidence for maize cultivation” (Pohl et al., 1996, p. 365). Yet, Early Preclassic carbon isotopic data suggests that maize was not an important component of the human diet during this period (Pohl et al., 1996; Tykot, van der Merwe, & Hammond, 1996; van der Merwe, Tykot, Hammond, & Oakberg, 2000).
During the Middle Preclassic (1000–400bc), ditching and canals were constructed in the Maya lowlands (Pohl et al., 1996). Macrobotanical data, both seeds and wood charcoal18 from this period, reveal the presence of a wide variety of plants, including maize, squash, beans, cotton, chili peppers, hogplum (jocote), cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.), nance (Byrsonima crassifolia [L.] H.B.K.), ramon (Brosimum alicastrum Sw.), guava, soursop (Annona spp.), avocado, and tubers such as sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas [L.] Lam.) and manioc (Lentz et al., 2014; Miksicek et al., 1991; Powis et al., 1999). Moreover, cacao residues on ceramic sherds have also been reported from this period (Powis, Valdez, Hester, Hurst, & Tarka, 2002). Late Preclassic macrobotanical data are represented by those from the site of Kokeal and include maize, allspice (Pimenta dioica [L.] Merr.), papaya (Carica papaya [L.]; Figure 6), sapodilla (Manilkara zapota [L.] P. Royen), hogplum, siricote (Cordia sp.), and cacao (Miksicek, 1983). Inhabitants at the site of Cuello continued to utilize similar resources as in the previous period (Miksicek et al., 1991). In addition, palynological and macrobotanical data from Cerros, another site in Belize, suggests that the inhabitants had access to a range of plants that included maize, chili peppers, beans, squash and a range of fruit trees, including nance, siricote, sapote, and cacao, which Cliff and Crane (1989) suggest were likely under cultivation. At Tikal, macrobotanical evidence of scarlet runner, coyol, nance, and jocote is reported, along with achira (Canna cf. indica) pollen (Lentz et al., 2014).
By the Classic period, considered by most to be the time during which the civilization reached its apogee (Sharer & Traxler, 2006), large urban cities were in place and different modes of food production existed. The site of Ceren, located in El Salvador, has yielded a rich quantity of botanical remains that were extremely well preserved due to lava and ash from the Loma Caldera volcanic eruption in ad 540. The recovery of maize, squash, beans, cotton, guava, cacao, chili peppers, agave (Agave sp.), and root casts of manioc and malanga (Xanthosoma violaceum Schott.) indicates that the inhabitants probably relied on infield and outfield systems as well as arboriculture (Lentz & Ramirez-Sosa, 2002). The recovery of cacao at Ceren, which is typically associated with the elite and rulers during the Classic period (McNeil, 2006), indicates that non-elites also enjoyed this beverage (Sheets & Woodward, 2002, p. 189).
Ancient Mayan Agriculture—Theoretical Considerations
For the most part, scholars believed that the Maya were an anomaly, developing in a resource-poor tropical setting, often close to bajos (low-lying, seasonal wetlands), yet sustaining a complex society based upon swidden agriculture (Adams, Brown, & Culbert, 1981; Sanders, 1962; see also Dunning & Beach, 2000). In light of what was known about environmental limitations of tropical forests, such as infertile soils (Meggers, 1954), it was argued that the ancient Maya practiced long-fallow swidden agriculture (Hester, 1954; Sabloff & Willey, 1967), which led to their eventual collapse (Cook, 1921; Sanders, 1962; Wiseman, 1985).
Swidden or extensive agricultural systems were for a long time synonymous with the ancient Maya, who were believed to survive on a diet of mainly maize, beans, and squash, grown in what is known locally as the milpa. Assumptions about swidden agriculture as the prevalent Maya mode of cultivation became ingrained in scholarship as early as the colonial period (McAnany, 2013), but Wilken (1971) for example questioned whether practices observed in the 16th century and more recently can be extrapolated for Maya ancestors. Moreover, population number estimates were greatly skewed following the Spanish Conquest (Drucker & Fox, 1982), and many Maya were relocated and forced to live in nucleated settlements (Atran et al., 1993; Sanders, 1962). Other factors have also played a role in how people have understood these systems, for example, in how drawings in codices and frescoes have been interpreted (see Turner, 1978; Villacorta & Villacorta, 1976). Such narratives were strongly biased by stereotypes of modern agricultural systems. Reina and Hill (1980) discuss ethnohistorical information dating to the Colonial period, as gathered from accounts or Relaciones written by Dominican friars who recorded accounts of traditional Maya lifestyles before the Spanish relocated them. Such Relaciones seemingly indicate that maize fields provided the bulk of the food, although Reina and Hill (1980, p. 78) note that historical accounts are devoid of any field measurements or information regarding the composition of the people who worked these fields.
Although some early scholars have theorized that denser populations inhabited the Maya lowlands (see Cooke, 1931; Gann, 1929; Ricketson & Ricketson, 1937), the traditional view of the ancient Maya suggested low populations and, in turn, an decentralized social structure (Chase & Chase, 1998). Moreover, it implied small, temporary communities, and “it was this inherent dispersion and potential mobility that was thought to be incompatible with large and dense populations” (Rice & Culbert, 1990, p. 9). As stated by Sanders (1962), “Large urban communities cannot be maintained effectively with this type of subsistence base” (p. 287). As more archaeological research was carried out, a paradigm shift occurred during the late 1960s, with scholars supporting the idea that the Maya lowlands supported larger population numbers in both urban and rural settings (Andrews, 1965; Bullard, 1960; Haviland, 1970; Turner, 1978; Willey, Bullard, Glass, & Gifford, 1965). Rice and Culbert (1990) even described the Maya lowlands region as “among the most densely populated regions of the preindustrial world” (p. 26). Population density estimates for various parts of the Maya lowlands have varied greatly in time, ranging from 30 to over 700 persons per square km, depending on whether the calculations were made for the urban centers or the hinterlands (Chase & Chase, 1996; Cowgill, 1962; Haviland, 1970; Sanders, 1962). Based on these revised numbers, scholars came to question whether or not milpa agriculture was productive enough to support a large civilization such as the Maya. Following Boserup’s (1965) theory, it was thus argued that the ancient Maya had to intensify their agricultural production in order to meet the demands of growing population. To intensify food production, the long-fallow system was not tenable; instead, they had to carry out short-fallow systems and invest in modifying their landscape through canals, terraces, and raised and drained fields (Johnston, 2003; Lentz, Dunning, & Scarborough, 2015).
Not all early scholars were convinced that the ancient Maya relied solely on extensive cultivation techniques, arguing for other methods or techniques (e.g., Palerm & Wolf, 1957; Ricketson & Ricketson, 1937; Thompson, 1931, pp. 228–229). Wilken (1971) made the excellent point that there was no reason why the Maya had to rely on only one kind of farming system, considering that other civilizations in the New World practiced several forms of intensive agriculture. These include wetland fields in South America and complex chinampas in Central Mexico (Coe, 1964). A decade earlier, Palerm and Wolf (1957) had already posited that geometric patterns identified at various lowland sites were in fact the relics of wetland agriculture. Although these discoveries had an impact on research in the Maya area, views on Maya agriculture changed dramatically only after archaeological evidence in the form of drained fields was discovered in the 1970s (Puleston, 1977; Siemens & Puleston, 1972; Turner, 1974).
Ecological conditions of tropical forests were also misunderstood. The Maya lowlands were previously thought be a homogenous ecological area, but this was not the case (Sanders, 1977; Turner & Harrison, 1978; Wiseman, 1978). Recently, scientists and scholars have argued against the idea that tropical soils are inherently nutrient-poor (see Fedick, 1996b; Johnston, 2003, pp. 142–143; Sanchez & Logan, 1992). In fact, many parts of the lowlands have mollisols, which “can be considered as one of the world’s most agriculturally important and naturally productive soils” (Fedick, 1996a, p. 341). However, the uplands do have a problem in that the soils are vulnerable to erosion (Dunning et al., 1999). Research in the Maya lowlands also shows that intentional modification of the natural landscape was extensive—but not uniform—and included large-scale terrace systems (Chase & Chase, 1990; Chase, Chase, Fisher, Leisz, & Weishampel, 2012;19Dunning, Beach, Farrell, & Luzzadder‐Beach, 1998; Healy, Lambert, Arnason, & Hebda, 1983; Rice, 1993; Scarborough, Becher, Baker, Harris, & Valdez, 1995; Turner, 1974, 1983), small-scale terraces (Dunning & Beach, 1994), wetland systems consisting of raised and drained fields (Adams et al., 1981; Siemens & Puleston, 1972; Turner & Harrison, 1983), and ditched fields (Guderjan, 2007). As Wyatt (2012) notes, some scholars argue that terraces were constructed in the Late Classic in response to an increase in population and were controlled and exploited by elites. For Wyatt, however, excavations of terraces at the site of Chan in Belize suggest these were built starting in the Middle Preclassic. Thus these were not necessarily built in response to population increases, nor were early farmers under elite control. Interestingly, terraces did not necessarily increase productivity but instead prevented decreases, and these large-scale modifications are not found where expected (i.e., near large centers) but instead were located in rural areas with smaller population numbers (Johnston, 2003, p. 139; Pohl et al., 1996). The control of water on a large scale has also been documented (Lentz, Magee, et al., 2015; Scarborough et al., 2012).
By the end of the 1970s and into the 1980s, scholars recognized that a range of land modifications was possible, allowing for different types of agricultural intensification, namely “uplands for mixed-crop farming, hillsides for terrace farming, and wetlands for raised-and drained-field cultivation” (Fedick, 1996b, p. 2). Yet, the extent of raised fields has been debated, especially with regard to when they were used and how they were constructed (Fedick, 2003). For example, some argue that they were built in the Preclassic and later abandoned (e.g., Pohl & Bloom, 1996), while others argue that they were continuously used into the Late Classic (Turner & Harrison, 1983). Recent data indicate that raised fields and canals are both earlier and existed longer, into the Terminal Classic period (Beach, Luzzadder-Beach, Guderjan, & Krause, 2015). Archaeological investigations have resulted in scholars suggesting that wetland farming was not perennial; however, seasonal farming in wetlands was possible (Lucero, 1999). Lucero also notes that there are debates on whether bajos were in fact used by the ancient Maya for seasonal wetland agriculture. Some scholars have argued that these areas are too clayey, although evidence suggests that bajos were in fact used for farming (Culbert, Fialko, McKee, Grazioso, & Kunen, 1997; Kunen, 2004; Lentz et al., 2014). Considering that wetlands and swamps make up about 40% of the southern Maya lowlands (Fedick, 2003; Lucero, 1999, p. 219), it is important to consider these areas as potential farming zones. Raised fields are noted as requiring a serious investment, both to build and to maintain (Wiseman, 1983, p. 117).
In the Maya lowlands, outfields are located at varying distances from the home (Ford & Nigh, 2015; McAnany, 2013). For those that were located too far away from the home, a second base was established. Outfields are noted as being managed less intensively than infields (Ford & Nigh, 2015). Infield milpas situated closer to the home were “continuously or nearly continuously cultivated” (Stark & Ossa, 2007, p. 389). Homegardens, also known as houselots, kitchen gardens, or simply gardens, were close to the home and intensively managed, with economic, medicinal, and ornamental plants grown (Alcorn, 1984; Lundell, 1937; Peters, 2000; Stark & Ossa, 2007).20 Homegardens in Petén (the largest department in Guatemala) and in the general Maya region were noted by several early scholars (Lundell, 1938; Wisdom, 1940). Infields and outfields have been reported archaeologically, including at Tamarindito, Tikal, and Calakmul (Dunning & Beach, 2010). In terms of composition, fields are noted as being used more for planting staples, whereas gardens were typically more diverse in their composition (Stark & Ossa, 2007). It is important to note that ethnographic studies have led to the belief that homegardens of the 20th century did not contribute large amounts of food to a household (e.g., Redfield & Villa Rojas, 1934, p. 38). Guderjan (2007) states that the “impact of the overall agricultural productivity of Blue Creek would be in the range of one percent” (p. 65). Others have argued for the opposite. Kitchen gardens can provide substantial resources (Fisher, 2014; Netting, 1977), including maize that was found to provide up to one-third of the food required for a family (Sanders & Killion, 1992, p. 18). Archaeological studies support the existence of homes with adjacent plots, with land being extensively farmed, for example at Sayil in the Puuc region (Dunning & Beach, 2010), Blue Creek (Guderjan, 2007), and Ceren (Figure 7; Lentz & Ramirez-Sosa, 2002).
Figure 7. Structure 11 at Ceren, part of Household 1. Note the kitchen garden to the left of the structure.
Source: C. Cagnato.
Orchards or areas with economic trees that were planted or encouraged are reported for the Maya (Kintz, 1990; Miksicek, 1983, p. 103; Wisdom, 1940). Colonial chroniclers describe orchards located near settlements (Fisher, 2014; Turner & Miksicek, 1984), with important trees belonging to the elite or prominent lineages (McAnany, 2013), in particular the cacao trees (Caso Barrera, & Aliphat, 2006). Evidence of cacao in residue form for the Maya area was first reported from an Early Classic vessel at Rio Azul (Hall, Tarka, Hurst, Stuart, & Adams, 1990). Folan et al. (1979) have also argued that lords and priests at the site of Coba had access to and control of the majority of the fruit trees. The importance of arboriculture and careful forest management among contemporary Maya groups is well documented (Dussol, Elliott, Michelet, & Nondédéo, 2017; Lentz & Hockaday, 2009; Thompson, Hood, Cavallaro, & Lentz, 2015). It is believed that several species of palm trees were domesticated, or at least intensively managed, by the ancient Maya (Lentz, 2000). Palms are so versatile as well as being excellent sources of protein, calories, and fat (McKillop, 1996), which would explain their ubiquity and presence in the archaeobotanical record (Cliff & Crane, 1989; Hageman & Goldstein, 2009; Lentz, 1991). Managed forests “represent the endpoint of the successional process on a site” (Peters, 2000, p. 211) and are easy to overlook, as they are less visible than other forms of plant management. However, extensive investigations indicate that the current landscape is partly, if not completely, the result of active management carried out by the ancient Maya (Ford & Nigh, 2015; Lentz & Hockaday, 2009; Thompson et al., 2015).
Besides the importance of fruit trees, evidence for the use of root crops has greatly increased in recent times (since Pohl et al., 1996), supporting early theories for their importance (Bronson, 1966; Drucker & Fox, 1982; but see Cowgill, 1971). Achira pollen has been identified at Tikal and may have grown in the bajos area (Lentz et al., 2014) but has also been identified in starch grain form (Cagnato, 2016) and possibly in phytolith form (Abramiuk et al., 2011). Achira produces starch-rich edible rhizomes (Abramiuk et al., 2011), and its leaves are also used to wrap tamales, which are then placed in underground ovens (Salazar et al., 2012). Manioc has also been reported in greater numbers. Although scholars identified manioc decades ago in the Maya region (Hather & Hammond, 1994; Pohl et al., 1996), the potential of this plant as a staple was not secured until manioc root casts from Ceren were identified (Lentz & Ramirez-Sosa, 2002). Additional support for the importance of manioc is provided by the recovery of starch grains (Figure 8; Cagnato & Ponce, 2017; Rosenswig et al., 2014). Today, the Maya grow manioc in milpas and cavities in limestone (Fedick et al., 2008; Nations & Nigh, 1980) and often cook it in underground ovens (piibs) (Salazar et al., 2012).
Sweet potatoes have also been reported, from Tikal in tuber form (Lentz et al., 2014) and in starch grain form from La Corona (Guatemala) and Los Naranjos (Honduras) (Cagnato, 2016; Morell-Hart, Joyce, & Henderson, 2014). Sweet potato pollen was also recovered from a site in Belize (Guderjan et al., 2010, p. 226). While arrowroot (Maranta sp.) is not typically recovered in macro-botanical form, starch grains of this species dominated the assemblage from Yucatan (Simms, 2014) and are also reported from Petén (Cagnato, 2016), with phytoliths recovered from middens in Belize (Abramiuk et al., 2011). Arrowroot is used to prepare foods cooked in Maya earthen ovens and as atole (Salazar et al., 2012; Simms, 2014). As noted, another tuber, malanga, has been reported from Ceren, but also from Tikal, from Late Classic contexts (Lentz et al., 2014).
Other plants have remained rather underappreciated in the archaeological record, for example edible greens, of which a wide range are reported as having been used in the Colonial period, including epazote (goosefoot, Chenopodium sp.), chipilin (Crotalaria sp.), and purslane, although the latter was considered food for the poor (Coe, 1994). Twenty-first-century gardens across Mesoamerica (including the Maya area) have edible greens growing (Casas, Otero-Arnaiz, Pérez-Negrón, & Valiente-Banuet, 2007; Ross-Ibarra & Molina-Cruz, 2002; Vieyra-Odilon & Vibrans, 2001), yet archaeologically these plants have been rather elusive. However, recent studies (Cagnato, 2016, 2018a, 2018b; Dedrick, 2014) report on the recovery of seeds of chenopods, amaranth, purslane, and Solanaceae family members. In addition, starch grains support the idea that chili peppers (Figure 9) were as important as they are today for Mexicans/Guatemalans, as they are ubiquitously recovered on artifacts, from El Peru-Waka’ in the southern Maya lowlands to sites in Belize and the northern lowlands (Cagnato, 2016, 2018a; Rosenswig et al., 2014; Simms, 2014). Their recovery suggests these plants were likely an important component of Mesoamerican diets.
Finally, organic residue analyses have also been helpful to recover additional information regarding plants in the past. After identifying cacao and chili peppers, tobacco (Nicotiana sp.), which is rather elusive archaeobotanically (but see Dedrick, 2014), has been positively identified from the presence of nicotine alkaloids inside an 8th-century codex-style flask (Loughmiller-Cardinal & Zagorevski, 2016). Previously, murals with a glyph that reads “tobacco person” (Martin, 2012) and ceramic vessels (Coe & Kerr, 1982) depicting individuals smoking cigars had suggested the use of tobacco among the ancient Maya.21
While maize was the staple crop during the Classic period across the lowlands, its relative importance across the region is something that has yet to be determined. Isotopic analyses have a long history in the region (White & Schwarcz, 1989; see Rand, Healy, & Awe [2013] for full bibliography). Notably, at Lamanai (Belize) there seems to be a decline in maize consumption in time, from Preclassic through Terminal Classic (White, Wright, & Pendergast, 1994), but the opposite is true at Pacbitun and Altar de Sacrificios (White, Healy, & Schwarcz, 1993; Wright, 2006). At Pusilha, Belize, Somerville, Schoeninger, and Braswell (2016) report that individuals living at the site had access to higher maize consumption relative to other sites in the Maya lowlands for the Late and Terminal Classic period, in addition to finding that higher-status men had preferential access to maize. At Copan, sex- and age-based differences are also reported (Reed, 1999). Overall, there were varying patterns of reliance on maize, probably more as a result of geographical location and thus environmental conditions (see Gerry, 1993; Wright, 2006).
Debates continue on how intensive Maya agricultural practices were and whether they led to environmental degradation and overexploitation of resources by the Terminal Classic period. Although the Maya collapse is now seen as a result of a combination of factors (Aimers, 2007), understanding the nature and degree of environmental impact remains an important issue. The Maya were not perfect managers of their environment (Fedick, 2010; Lentz, 2000), nor was their environment a pristine and unused landscape as imagined by the first Europeans colonizing the New World, especially Amazonia (Meggers, 1971; Roosevelt, 1989). Population pressure is believed by some scholars to have led to environmental degradation in the form of erosion through increased deforestation and modifying slopes through terracing as populations in the Maya region expanded farming and settlements on the landscape (Beach, Dunning, Luzzadder-Beach, Cook, & Lohse, 2006; Rosenmeier, Hodell, Brenner, Curtis, & Guilderson, 2002). However, research on a micro-scale indicates that environmental use and modification were variable across the Maya region, and overexploitation of natural resources was not universal (Beach et al., 2006; Fedick, 2010; McNeil, Burney, & Burney, 2010). Some scholars even argue that the Classic period was “a time of renewed cultural and ecological stability” (Ford & Nigh, 2009, p. 227).
Traditional Swidden Agriculture
This section describes in more detail the various stages of the milpa because it is one of the strategies that is best documented today among Maya and other indigenous communities of Mexico and Central America. For brevity, this section focuses mainly on traditional Maya practices.22 It should be noted that the milpa, although crucial to the Maya, “must be seen merely as a pivotal element in a highly complex natural resource multiple-use strategy, displayed over the long run” (Barrera-Bassols, & Toledo, 2005, p. 22). Thus the milpa is, and probably was, only one piece in a “multi-strategy land-use continuum” (Barrera-Bassols & Toledo, 2005, see also Ford & Nigh, 2015; Wilk, 1985).
Swidden agriculture is a means of producing food where forests are burned down to provide nutrients to the soil, which is considered poor in tropical areas (Sanchez & Logan, 1992; but see Fedick, 1996a, p. 339; Johnston, 2003). Nutrients required for agriculture are found in the vegetation, and thus by slashing and burning, the nutrients are moved into the soil (Johnston, 2003). In Petén, this type of agriculture is currently the most common subsistence practice (Fernández, Johnson, Terry, Nelson, & Webster, 2005; Nigh, 2008). Contemporary conservationists do not view swidden favorably, as they consider it a destructive form of farming (see Fox et al., 2000; Nigh & Diemont, 2013).
Recently, scholars have pushed for viewing forms of agricultural and management strategies as more nuanced. While swidden is typically understood as the cause of deforestation, it should be understood as an “undetermined number of agricultural systems” (Conklin, 1954, p. 1). When swidden is carefully carried out, it does not have to equate with destruction of an environmental system but rather can provide many benefits, including soil enrichment, wildlife support, and production of useful resources (Peters, 2000). Thus the availability of labor and skill can in certain cases lead to the creation of more fertile areas during the milpa cycle (Nigh, 2008; Nigh & Diemont, 2013). As noted by Fox et al. (2000, p. 521) shifting cultivation should not be equated with simply using fire to burn down large tracts of land for cow pasture or development. The literature is ripe with evidence from around the world that supports the use of swidden (e.g., Balée, 1994; Conklin, 1954).
Milpa derives from a Nahuatl word and is a combination of the words millipan, milli (to cultivate) and pan (place) (Ford, Jaqua, & Nigh, 2012). The Maya milpa “entails a rotation of annual crops with a series of managed and enriched intermediate stages of short-term perennial shrubs and trees, culminating in the re-establishment of mature closed forest on the once-cultivated parcels of land” (Nigh & Diemont, 2013, p. 46). Scholars have proposed that the ancient Maya, like some traditional Maya today, practiced and managed “high-performance milpa,” a term used by Wilken (1971) and also known as the “traditional milpa” (e.g., Nigh, 2008) or as “intensive milpa”; the latter can be considered as “intensive forms of cultivation, not to be confused with long-fallow slash-and-burn systems” (Wiseman, 1978, p. 84). These cultivation systems include short or few fallows and high labor investment and are highly productive (Sheets & Woodward, 2002). Short fallow systems are also reported from sites such as Tikal and Ceren (Lentz et al., 2014; Sheets & Woodward, 2002). To make these systems more sustainable, intercropping was likely practiced as it is done today (Flores & Kantun Balam, 1997; Ford & Nigh, 2015) and is also reported from ethnohistorical records (Caso Barrera & Aliphat, 2006; Pohl, 1985, p. 39).
This complex subsistence strategy, carried out by some contemporary Maya groups, requires more skill and labor but also enriches the soil and the vegetation. This is achieved through careful use of fire (Nigh & Diemont, 2013). Studies on swidden agriculture have noted that burning the forest has positive effects; namely it releases nutrients into the soil, reduces pests, and counters problems associated with leaching (Nigh & Diemont, 2013; but see Johnston, 2003, p. 143). Ethnohistorical accounts describe how the Maya cultivated milpas, with the firing of a field being a “delicate operation” (Reina & Hill, 1980, p. 76). During the slashing and burning of the forest, select trees considered useful are spared (Alcorn, 1984; Cowgill, 1961; Emerson, 1953; Lundell, 1937). Milpas today consist of polyagricultural systems with diverse species grown, often including species common to various indigenous groups in Mexico and Central America (Cowgill, 1961; Ford & Nigh, 2015; Nations & Nigh, 1980; Toledo, Ortiz-Espejel, Cortés, Moguel, & Ordoñez, 2003).
Cycles of swidden as observed in current societies vary in length and details (see Nations & Nigh [1980] for Maya population analogues). The conventional model that many proponents of tropical ecology have supported is that farmers could not cultivate a field for more than two years in a row, as the soil loses fertility and there is a decrease in crop yields. This is supported by studies of some Maya farmers that have noted the decrease in crop yield within two to three years of cultivation (e.g., Alcorn, 1984; Atran et al., 1993; Cowgill, 1961; Emerson, 1953; Lucero, 1999; Lundell, 1937; Redfield & Villa Rojas, 1934, p. 24; Wilk, 1985, p. 50). This is not restricted to the contemporary Maya, as indicated by 16th-centuryRelaciones, which relate that the land could be used for only two years to successfully grow maize (Reina & Hill, 1980). Other sources, however, suggest that historic period milpa farmers could use the field for more than 20 years (Pohl, 1985, p. 40). Although this time frame is relatively long, it is closer to what scholars have documented for other Maya farmers such as the Lacandon, Yucatec, Tsotsil, Tztezal, and Kekchi, who cultivate their fields between two and five years (Casagrande, 2004; Diemont, Bohn, Rayome, Kelsen, & Cheng, 2011; Ford & Nigh, 2009; Lentz, 2000; Nations & Nigh, 1980; Wilk, 1985). Subsequently, weeds become a more important problem the longer a field is cultivated, as weeds thrive in “nutrient-poor environments” (Johnston, 2003, p. 132; see also Emerson, 1953).
Johnston (2003) strongly argues against the idea that a decrease in soil fertility is due to the leaching of nutrients but rather that this is due to the increase in weeds, which will absorb the majority of the nutrients in the soil after the second year of cultivation. As noted by Emerson (1953), “One might reasonably question how such weeds as amaranths in a second-year milpa could grow to a height of 2–3 meters with a spread of branches nearly equal to their height if the soil were nearing exhaustion” (p. 58). Thus intensive weeding and mulching would be necessary to keep the field fertile beyond two years, as decomposing vegetation on the surface will be more important in providing nutrients to the soil than ash (Johnston, 2003). The effects of weeding on crop output were widely studied by Steggerda (1941), who demonstrated that longer use of a field could be successfully achieved through weeding.
Weeding techniques among Maya populations are well documented (Cowgill, 1961, p. 22–24; Nations & Nigh, 1980; see also Johnston, 2003; Wisdom, 1940). The contemporary or nontraditional method involves only weeding the field a few times in a season, allowing the weeds to go to seed (Emerson, 1953). The more traditional method consists of removing the entire plant including the roots as soon as it sprouts, thus preventing the weeds from going to seed and lessening the chances of regrowth (Wisdom, 1940). The latter allows for longer use of the field, a practice noticed among the Lacandon Maya (Nations & Nigh, 1980). Of course, this traditional method is also more labor-intensive (Johnston, 2003). Bringing soils and ash from domestic fires to areas of cultivation has been noted to fertilize terraces and other cultivation areas (Hansen, Bozarth, Jacob, Wahl, & Schreiner, 2002; Wilken, 1987). Archaeologically, the presence of wood ash on terraces, as reported by Wyatt (2008), supports the idea that past farmers were using similar strategies to increase soil fertility.
During periods of fallow, the land is not “useless,” nor is it abandoned (Ford & Nigh, 2009; Kintz, 1990; Nations & Nigh, 1980), as plants that grow during this time include weedy herbaceous species and pioneer shrubs, which make these places “excellent sites for gathering wild foods and medicinal plants and hunting game” (Lentz, 2000, p. 96), a theme that resonates with other parts of the world (Balée, 1994). Maya groups have different terms for every stage in the milpa cycle. One such group, the Lacandon, is one of the few groups that continues to perform traditional farming and hunting (Nations & Nigh, 1980), thus the value of observing their techniques and methods. The Lacandon have first and second bush fallow stages (robir and jurup), followed by two secondary forest stages (Diemont et al., 2011). The Yucatec Maya will rest the land after using it for milpa for about three years, known as yerba. Two years later, useful plants are planted to help the forest regenerate (Diemont et al., 2011), leading to the creation of a secondary forest (10–25 years). Diemont and colleagues also studied a community of Yucatec and Tsotsil Maya and found that they had three fallow stages, namely the arbusto (5–10 years), the acahual (10–25 years), and the mature forest, selva (25 years). Different groups have varying fallow times; for example, the Yucatec Maya interviewed by Kintz (1990) considered 50 years to be an ideal number, but population pressure with limited land did not allow this.
Scholars have noted that transplanting useful plants into fallow fields may also occur (Diemont et al., 2011). Moreover, trees are noted as being planted purposefully in these fallow areas in order to restore the natural ecology. For example, the Lacandon Maya actively manage certain plants that have been quantifiably shown to increase the fertility of the soil, namely by planting balsa (Ochroma pyramidale [Cav. ex Lam.] Urb., Diemont et al., 2006). The Yucatec Maya mention using allspice to restore their fallow fields (Diemont et al., 2011). Other groups were also found to use diverse native species to enhance the restoration of their forest (Diemont et al., 2011). Among these Maya groups, mature or primary forest was attained between 20 to 30 years after the forest was first cut down and cultivated (Diemont et al., 2011; Nigh, 2008). The Spaniards who encountered the Itza Maya in Central Petén in the 16th and 17th centuries also documented this type of system; the latter had small plots of milpa and planted or encouraged species in their abandoned milpas (acahuales) (Caso Barrera & Aliphat, 2006).
Discussion and Conclusion
Decades of research across the lowlands have revealed important clues to the nuanced ways in which food was produced by ancient populations that lived in diverse parts of Mesoamerica. Yet it is the increased attention to collecting a range of data (macro- and microbotanical, organic residues, isotopes) from archaeological projects that is challenging, or sometimes supporting, interpretations. It is also encouraging to see evidence of plants, which were reported missing from the archaeobotanical record in the 1990s (see Lentz, 1991), appear in various forms in the archaeobotanical record. In particular, it was proposed long ago that root crops may have been an important part of the diet (Bronson, 1966; Lowe, 1975); however, there was no evidence at the time to support such claims (Flannery, 1973). While the role of the root crops along the Pacific Coast remains unclear, research in other lowland regions leaves little doubt that root crops were important food resources. Yet, there is still much work that needs to be done across the Mesoamerican lowlands to determine their diversity, where these were grown (gardens, raised fields, etc.), and when they were adopted: Could they have been staples before the adoption of maize? Rigorous starch grain analysis and palynology may help address these issues.
It is key to consider the importance of other plants, both before maize was a staple but also long afterwards, and to move away from what Iriarte (2007) calls “traditional maize-centric formulations” (p. 176). An increase in the recovery of plant materials not only shows the richness of past plant use and the use of various management systems, but it also allows for quantitative analyses (convincingly done by VanDerwarker, 2006) to be made regarding the importance of certain plants, notably maize. While maize eventually became a staple for Mesoamerican societies, its role during the transition from mobile to sedentary lifestyles, and toward the development of complex societies, seems to be less key than previously argued (Killion, 2013; Rosenswig et al., 2015; VanDerwarker & Kruger, 2012).
To reconstruct ancient agriculture effectively, it will be important to continue implementing techniques that will allow the recovery of even the smallest seed, or microbotanical, element. It is only through the systematic collection and analysis of multiple data sets that it will be possible to refine our understanding of ancient subsistence systems and how these changed through time and across space. In effect, considering the geographical extent of lowland Mesoamerica, it is impossible to talk about one agricultural system that can be applied to ancient Mesoamerican populations as a whole. There is much that scholars have yet to learn regarding intra/intersite and regional differences and to evaluate the individual pathways taken by different groups in their pathways to food production, from the collection of wild plants to managing the landscape. To do this, archaeologists will need to consider collecting samples from a wider range of contexts (e.g., focus on non-elite contexts and smaller sites), in order to better represent past populations (see also Arnold, 2000). In addition, directly dating (and in some cases re-dating; see Long, Benz, Donahue, Jull, & Toolin, 1989; Smith, 2005) archaeobotanical materials and considering the secureness of the archaeological contexts (Fritz, 1994) will be essential. The use of innovative technologies (e.g., LIDAR) has greatly challenged the way in which the landscape is viewed and has laid to rest any debates regarding the ability of Maya farmers to intensively manage their natural environment. The use of this technology elsewhere in lowland Mesoamerica may provide some additional data (see for example Canuto et al., 2018).
In conclusion, it is evident that the ancient Mesoamericans who inhabited the various lowlands regions were engaged in modifying their natural environment from as early as the Archaic period and by the Middle Formative/Preclassic periods had started to invest more time and labor in the construction of canals and terraces. The intensified use of forest management strategies enabled people to gain access to a broad range of resources, from homegardens to the carefully managed forests. Unique ways to deal with local environments, such as sinkholes in the northern lowlands, were also devised. These various forms of management continue to be practiced by indigenous communities, thus perpetuating ancient subsistence systems.
Bellacero, C. M. (2010). Subsistence patterns, social identity and symbolism at the Early Formative period site of Cantón Corralito, Chiapas, Mexico (Doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Blake, M., & Neff, H. (2011). Evidence for the diversity of Late Archaic and Early Formative plant use in the Soconusco region of Mexico and Guatemala. In R. G. Lesure (Ed.), Early Mesoamerican social transformations: Archaic and Formative in the Soconusco region (pp. 47–66). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Borstein, J. A. (2001). Tripping over colossal heads: Settlement patterns and population development in the upland Olmec heartland (Doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Cagnato, C. (2018a). Shedding light on the nightshades (Solanaceae) used by the ancient Maya: A review of existing data, and new archaeobotanical (macro- and microbotanical) evidence from archeological sites in Guatemala. Economic Botany, 72, 180–195.
Clark, J. E., & Blake, M. (1994). The power of prestige: Competitive generosity and the emergence of rank societies in lowland Mesoamerica. In E. Brumfiel & J. Fox (Eds.), Factional competition and political development in the New World (pp. 17–30). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Emerson, R. A. (1953). A preliminary survey of the milpa system of maize culture as practiced by the Maya Indians of the northern part of the Yucatan Peninsula. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 40(1), 51–62.
Gasco, J. (2006). Soconusco cacao farmers past and present: Continuity and change in an ancient way of life. In C. L. McNeil (Ed.), Chocolate in Mesoamerica: A cultural history of cacao (pp. 322–337). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Gasco, J., & Voorhies, B. (1989). The ultimate tribute: The role of the Soconusco as an Aztec tributary. In B. Voorhies (Ed.), Ancient trade and tribute: Economies of the Soconosco region of Mesoamerica (pp. 48–94). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Inomata, T., MacLellan, J., Triadan, D., Munson, J., Burham, M., Aoyama, K., . . . Yonenobu, H. (2015). Development of sedentary communities in the Maya lowlands: Coexisting mobile groups and public ceremonies at Ceibal, Guatemala. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(14), 4268–4273.
Martin, S. (2006). Cacao in ancient Maya religion: First fruit from the maize tree and other tales from the underworld. In C. McNeil (Ed.), Chocolate in Mesoamerica: A cultural history of cacao (pp. 154–183). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Matsuoka, Y., Vigouroux, Y., Goodman, M. M., Sanchez, J., Buckler, E., & Doebley, J. (2002). A single domestication for maize shown by multilocus microsatellite genotyping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(9), 6080–6084.
McNeil, C. L., Burney, D. A., & Burney, L. P. (2010). Evidence disputing deforestation as the cause for the collapse of the ancient Maya polity of Copan, Honduras. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(3), 1017–1022.
Piperno, D. R., & Flannery, K. V. (2001). The earliest archaeological maize (Zea mays L.) from highland Mexico: New accelerator mass spectrometry dates and their implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(4), 2101–2103.
Powis, T. G., Cyphers, A., Gaikwad, N. W., Grivetti, L., & Cheong, K. (2011). Cacao use and the San Lorenzo Olmec. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(21), 8595–8600.
Ranere, A. J., Piperno, D. R., Holst, I., Dickau, R., & Iriarte, J. (2009). The cultural and chronological context of early Holocene maize and squash domestication in the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(13), 5014–5018.
Scarborough, V. L., Dunning, N. P., Tankersley, K. B., Carr, C., Weaver, E., Grazioso, L., . . . Lentz, D. L. (2012). Water and sustainable land use at the ancient tropical city of Tikal, Guatemala. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(31), 12408–12413.
Smith, B. D. (2005). Reassessing Coxcatlan Cave and the early history of domesticated plants in Mesoamerica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(27), 9438–9445.
Taube, K. (2000). Lighting celts and corn fetishes: The Formative Olmec and the development of maize symbolism in Mesoamerica and the American Southwest. In J. E. Clark & M. E. Pye (Eds.), Olmec art and archaeology in Mesoamerica (pp. 297–337). Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
VanDerwarker, A. M., & Kruger, R. P. (2012). Regional variation in the importance and uses of maize in the Early and Middle Formative Olmec heartland: New archaeobotanical data from the San Carlos Homestead, southern Veracruz. Latin American Antiquity, 23(4), 509–532.
Voorhies, B. (1989). Settlement patterns in the western Soconusco: Methods of site recovery and dating results: New frontiers in the archaeology of the Pacific Coast of Mesoamerica. Arizona Research Papers, 39, 329–369.
Notes
3. Note that the regions discussed in this article are not where the major crops (maize, squash, beans) are believed to have originated from in Mesoamerica. For studies on where such crops originated, readers can refer to a range of publications, which includes genetic as well as microbotanical studies (e.g., Kraft et al., 2014; Kwak, Kami, & Gepts, 2009; Matsuoka et al., 2002; Piperno, Ranere, Holst, Iriarte, & Dickau, 2009; Ranere, Piperno, Holst, Dickau, & Iriarte, 2009; van Heerwaarden et al., 2011).
Related Articles
Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).