 |
|||||
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|
Volume 2, Number 7, 1996THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF MACROREGIONAL MESOAMERICA: WITH FOCUS ON THE CLASSIC-POSTCLASSIC TRANSITION IN THE VALLEY OF OAXACA Gary M. Feinman Copyright 1996 by Gary M. Feinman. v. 7/8/96 Abstract To date, macro-scale analyses of ancient Mesoamerica principally have debated whether or not Mesoamerica was a world system and have described macroregional processes at the eve of the Spanish Conquest. This paper defines two alternative organizational modes (corporate-based/network-based) that serve to conceptualize diversity in strategies of leadership, production, and exchange. Collective mechanisms of integration are central to corporate strategies, while network-based organization is heavily rooted in the personal connections and material accumulations of individuals. Consideration of these modes helps to define patterns of temporal and spatial diversity in the structure of the prehispanic Mesoamerican world. What prompts shifts in these macro-scale organizational strategies, and how do they inter-play with key changes at local and regional scales? To examine these questions, the often-discussed Classic-Postclassic transition in the southern highlands of Oaxaca is reconsidered. This Classic-Postclassic shift, marked by increasing volumes of long-distance exchange, growing wealth disparities, and expanded significance of elite genealogical and marriage records, signals the greater importance of network-based strategies. Prior explanations for this transition have relied largely on local stimuli (e.g. ethnic in-migration, climatic change, political collapse) to promote this shift; yet these factors seem insufficient to account for the broad spatial scope of this change. Adoption of a wider spatial perspective fosters both a more complete understanding of this Oaxaca transition, and begins an exploration of how basic formulas of economic and power relations could be transformed across one ancient world.
[Page 1] INTRODUCTION In the 21 years following Wallerstein's publication of The Modern World-System I (1974), two key issues have stirred persistent debate among researchers who have endeavored to apply (or critique the application of) this perspective to pre-capitalist (and particularly archaeologically known) societies. The first debate concerns the preferred unit of analysis, while the second focuses on the systemic properties of nonutilitarian or prestige goods. The question of analytical units stems directly from Wallerstein's proposition of World-Systems Theory in direct opposition to earlier developmentalist or evolutionary approaches (cf., Sanderson 1991), which tended to concentrate on regions. Most subsequent world-systems theorists have adhered to Wallerstein's stance on this matter. For example, Chase-Dunn and Hall (1993:851) recently asserted that "the fundamental unit of social change is the world-system, not the society." Since 1984 (Blanton and Feinman 1984), I have repeatedly called for archaeologists, most of whom have long been steeped in neo-evolutionary thought, to give more serious attention to the macroscale and the world-systems perspective. Although I recognize the importance of this broader spatial approach, I question whether it really makes sense to decide unilaterally which analytical or organizational scale is privileged. For example, in opposition to Chase-Dunn and Hall (1993), Sanderson (1991:187) asserts that in most (if not all) preindustrial contexts, processes internal to a society (like population pressure) serve as the principal stimuli for change. Yet is not this question at least partially an empirical issue, depending on context and problem? In another historical science, biological evolution, grand theorists, like Ernst Mayr (1982), have concluded that research should be conducted, and theories constructed, at various scales simultaneously (in that case from chemicals to ecosystems). I suggest that study of long-term social transitions requires multiscalar theories (from households through macroregions), and there is no reason to indelibly tar all regional-scale analysis with the prior sins (mechanistic, reductionist, and unilineal tendencies) of many neo-evolutionary approaches (e.g., Blanton et al. 1993; Blanton et al. 1996; Feinman and Neitzel 1984). [Page 2] Blanket pronouncements concerning the priority of the macroscale also run counter to the intuitive biases of most archaeologists, who tend to focus more locally. For example, I am sure that David Webster (1994:419) spoke for many of my colleagues when he commented "that the most significant of the forces that stimulate the emergence of cultural complexity in preindustrial societies and thereafter maintain and reshape it are usually quite localized." Although I also find Webster's (as well as Sanderson's aforementioned) position to be overstated, propositions in the opposite direction do not serve to encourage the serious consideration of macroscale processes in archaeology. The debate over the role of prestige goods has been, if anything, more rancorous and central to the development of preindustrial world-systems approaches. Wallerstein flatly dismissed the role of nonutilitarian goods in the creation of systemically important interregional ties. His rigid stance has been critiqued by Schneider (1970), Abu-Lughod (1989, 1993), and many others. In accord with this polarity, most archaeologists tend to line up on one side of this issue or the other. That is, they either view the role of preciosities as generally (that is cross-culturally) significant or not. Relatively little attention has been given to diachronic changes in the nature of the linkages in (or what Hall and Chase-Dunn [1993:127] have described as the "systemic logic" of) particular macroregions over time. Yet is it not most likely that the answer again lies at neither extreme position, and that the systemic significance of prestige or wealth exchange shifts with changes in the structure of world-systems and their component societal or regional pieces? THE CLASSIC-POSTCLASSIC TRANSITION IN ANCIENT OAXACA With these debates concerning analytical units and preciosities in mind, let us move to a discussion of later prehispanic Mesoamerica. The point of reference is the Valley of Oaxaca in Mexico's Southern Highlands--a large highland valley situated in a mosaic of surrounding mountain, valley, and coastal regions that comprise western Mesoamerica. The temporal focus is the so-called Classic-Postclassic period transition, which in the western half of Mesoamerica occurred roughly between A.D. 700-900. The Classic period (A.D. 200-800) was the initial era of widespread urbanization in western Mesoamerica, and was dominated by large nucleated centers, like Monte Alban in the Valley of Oaxaca and Teotihuacan in the [Page 3] Basin of Mexico. The Postclassic era (A.D. 900-1520) was a time of mostly smaller centers and polities, although it culminated with the rapid rise of Tenochtitlan and the tribute domain of the Aztec during the last century prior to Spanish conquest. In the Valley of Oaxaca, scholars have long noted the Classic-Postclassic transition as an episode of dramatic change marked by the curtailment of public building at (and the partial abandonment of) Monte Alban, the increasing importance of other valley centers (such as Mitla), and recognized shifts in the spatial arrangement of large settlements, monumental architectural styles, and ceramic forms. Interestingly, prior explanations for this transition mirror the broader history of archaeological interpretations or paradigmatic frameworks. Prior to 1970, my intellectual grandfathers, Alfonso Caso, Ignacio Bernal (1966), and John Paddock (1966, 1983), emphasized the historic presence of Mixtec speakers in sixteenth-century Oaxaca, and viewed the Classic-Postclassic transition as the consequence of an invasion or population replacement in which the region's Zapotec inhabitants were subsumed by Mixtecs. Although elements of this interpretation, such as the historic presence of some Mixtecs in the region at conquest, cannot be discounted, there seems little question that these early interpretations (like the culture history paradigm more generally) placed too much weight on ethnicity as the principal basis for societal and artifactual change. More recent generations of scholars in the region (Flannery and Marcus 1983a; Spores and Flannery 1983) have recognized problems with this early view. Many architectural and artifactual elements in the valley show strong continuities between the Classic and Postclassic periods, and the material culture of the Postclassic Valley of Oaxaca hardly duplicates that found in the neighboring Mixtec heartland. Equally important, both at Spanish contact and in this century, more people in the valley speak and define themselves as Zapotecs than Mixtecs. By 1970, the consensual framework for the interpretation of the Classic-Postclassic transition shifted from broad-scale, ethnicity-driven models of culture history to the more regionally focused, socioeconomic perspective of neo-evolutionary processualism (Finsten 1983; Flannery and Marcus 1983b; Marcus 1989). Completion of the full-coverage archaeological settlement survey of the region (Blanton et al. 1982; Kowalewski et al. 1989) revealed that the collapse of Classic period Monte Alban led to a regional "balkanization" in which the valley's population was subdivided into more than a dozen clusters, several of which were separated by sparsely inhabited buffer zones. Each of the population clusters surrounded a head town. The largest of these were more equivalent in size and architectural monumentality than were centers during the prior Classic period, dominated by the primate capital Monte Alban. [Page 4] For the Valley of Oaxaca, these processual, regionally focused models of the Classic-Postclassic transition emphasize collapse and the resultant competition between the smaller polities that emerged. In the competitive political landscape of the Postclassic, no one center was capable of dominating either information technologies (writing) or economic relations. Geneological registers, which trace the ancestry of specific elites, have been found at several sites. These records of lineal kin ties, which have been recovered in tombs, were intended to be read by a small audience. In this regard, they differ markedly from the public monuments of the earlier Classic period (Marcus 1989:205, 1992:283-285). More intensive craft production in the region and increased volumes of obsidian artifacts have been interpreted to reflect heightened economic activity or commercialization in the absence of strong central political control during the Postclassic period (Kowalewski et al. 1983). LOOKING BEYOND THE REGION Although many elements of the processual interpretation still appear salient, a regionally focused explanation cannot account for other key aspects of the Classic-Postclassic transition in Oaxaca. For example, the increased quantities of obsidian must reflect broader-scale processes, as obsidian cannot be mined anywhere in the state of Oaxaca. General artifactual diversity also was greater during the Postclassic than earlier (Kowalewski and Finsten 1983:419), including a wider assortment of highly decorated ceramic varieties, such as polychromes, and the incredible cache of wealth and ritual items that Alfonso Caso unearthed in Tomb 7. Despite repeated excavation attempts, no Classic period tomb at Monte Alban has even come close to that concentration of wealth. Balkanization alone also cannot account for the sizeable buildup in the numbers of settlements and overall population expansion that occurred during the Postclassic period in three mountain areas that abut the valley. To the north, Drennan (1989) found a doubling of sites and population between the Late Classic and Late Postclassic. In the Peoles area to the north and northwest of the valley, Finsten (1996) reports a doubling of population in the Postclassic. To the east, in the Guirn area (Feinman and Nicholas 1995), the number of sites [Page 5] increased by more than fourfold between the Late Classic and Postclassic periods, while the population more than doubled. In each of these mountain zones, occupation was denser and more continuous than ever before. In fact, the tempo of demographic growth between the Classic and Late Postclassic periods was more rapid in these mountain zones than it was in the Valley of Oaxaca. Clearly, in the Postclassic, the physiographic limits of the Valley of Oaxaca were less of a habitational boundary than ever before. Yet, the Classic-Postclassic transition was not unique to Oaxaca. Across Mesoamerica, great political and cultural centers declined, while smaller polities vied to take their places. As with the geneological registers in Oaxaca, greater emphasis at many Mesoamerican sites was placed on the legitimation of specific lines of dynastic succession (Blanton et al. 1992; Diehl and Berlo 1989; Marcus 1992:229-249). Likewise, the Classic-Postclassic increase in the importance of wealth exchange has been noted throughout Mesoamerica (Kepecs et al. 1994; Sabloff and Rathje 1975; Smith 1988; Smith and Heath-Smith 1980). In Postclassic Mesoamerica (especially prior to the rise of the Aztecs in the last prehispanic centuries), prestige wealth was a key basis of political power. The development of core-periphery hierarchies at the macroscale (and often even the regional scale, as we saw for balkanized Oaxaca) was minimized during much of the Postclassic. Yet interpenetrating accumulation (Gills and Frank 1991:84-85), a key to world-system structure, was clearly at work as elites participated in each others' systems of labor exploitation across political boundaries through the manipulation of prestige exchanges (Kepecs et al. 1994). The ideology of this period, which crossed regional boundaries as an eclectic, "international style," (Blanton et al. 1996; Smith and Heath-Smith 1982) also fostered elaborate ornamentation and prestige wealth in a manner not present in the Mesoamerican highlands during the earlier Classic period (Baird 1989; Nagao 1989; Pasztory 1988:71). Many new varieties of prestige wealth were disseminated widely across the Mesoamerican world at this time, including elaborate metal bells and ornaments, fine paste pottery, and the polychrome ceramic tradition. Some world-system's theorists might be content if I ended this paper now. After all, what have I argued to this point? The Classic-Postclassic transition in Oaxaca was part of broader macroscale processes that were initiated by the fall of major Classic period urban centers, like Teotihuacan, Monte Alban, and the cities of the Maya Peten, between A.D. 700-900. These changes ushered in a more fragmented, pan-regional, political landscape that was interconnected primarily through the exchange of prestige goods. In this Postclassic landscape, physiographic boundaries were more open, core-periphery hierarchies were [Page 6] minimized, and prestige goods underlaid a key basis of local power through their role in their attraction and manipulation of factional labor. Prestige goods would be seen as having systemic-defining properties, which they did at this time, and the macroscale could be proclaimed predominant. A MULTISCALAR PERSPECTIVE Many of these macroscale observations also remain salient. Yet again, the macroscale approach leaves important aspects of the Oaxaca Classic-Postclassic transition unexplained. For example, major differences in Classic and Postclassic period public architecture exist. Classic period sites feature focal central plazas that often are fairly large. The Main Plaza at Monte Alban is a primary example; there is no question regarding the location of the central precinct at the site. In contrast, Postclassic sites, like Mitla, often have multiple plazas and architectural complexes of roughly equal size and importance. Postclassic plazas tend to be more closed, smaller, and, sometimes, residential in nature. In addition, how would a purely macroscale perspective account for the unsurpassed accumulation of wealth in Postclassic Tomb 7. The mere importance of Postclassic prestige goods does not explain this accumulation, unequaled in any prior era, especially since no Postclassic Oaxaca settlement equaled the size or monumentality of Classic period Monte Alban. From a simple unilinear perspective, one might have expected to find the greatest concentrations of burial wealth during the Classic period when Monte Alban was clearly the largest and most monumental center in the region. Postclassic Oaxaca centers were more even in size, and smaller than Classic period Monte Alban. Likewise, from a purely macroscale perspective, one might have expected select Classic period interments to contain the most elaborate offerings, since Monte Alban's and the Valley of Oaxaca's interregional influence and power were seemingly greater at that time. Yet although many Classic period tombs have been excavated, the greatest accumulation of prehispanic Oaxacan grave wealth is Postclassic in date. Sampling issues and "negative evidence" always could be raised to "account for" Tomb 7. Yet differences in the distribution of grave wealth, when considered with the aforementioned architectural distinctions for the Classic and Postclassic periods, [Page 7] seems to signal possible key differences in the way in which Valley of Oaxaca society was organized during these two phases. Interpersonal networks and the exchange of wealth were more critical in the Postclassic, while monumental architecture and the activities associated with it seem to have had a larger role in Classic period society (Blanton et al. 1996). A further issue concerns Monte Alban's interregional connections during the Classic period. Although the extraregional flows of prestige wealth were less than later, and the physiographic region of the Valley of Oaxaca did more-or-less define a Classic period settlement frontier, it would be inaccurate to assume that macroscale processes were nonexistent or unimportant during the Classic. For example, Marcus (1983) suggests that a political meeting of significance between Teotihuacan and Monte Alban was commemorated at Monte Alban on the Classic period Lpida de Bazan and on carved stones that were part of the South Platform at the south end of the Main Plaza (Marcus 1983). Byland and Pohl (1994) argue that alliances with Monte Alban helped to sustain population centers in the Mixteca Alta that collapsed after Monte Alban's demise. Space does not permit it, but many more evidences of apparently important interregional connections could be amassed for the Classic period. But the nature of those extraregional linkages appear to have been rather different during these two phases. Where does this leave us? First, I suggest that a Mesoamerican world-system existed in the Classic period, but (at least in western Mesoamerica) it was a world-system with a somewhat different "system logic" and was based less directly on wealth exchange than was the later Postclassic world. This implies even for one world-system, ancient Mesoamerica, a blanket statement cannot be made regarding the significance of prestige exchange. The role of such exchanges appears to have varied in systemic importance over time. In a cross-cultural comparison, even greater variation might be expected. Second, I would argue that the differences in public architecture and tomb accumulation underlie key distinctions in the nature of rulership between Classic and Postclassic Oaxaca. Classic period rule was focused on the corporate integration of societal segments through integrative rituals carried out in monumental settings and central plazas that were replicated across the region. Rule was relatively anonymous, perhaps resting in certain offices, such as the heads of certain corporate groups. In contrast, Postclassic rule in Oaxaca appears to have been more closely linked to specific individuals, who lived in elaborate residential complexes, and derived their importance through their network of allies and familial ties. The geneological registers of this period establish legitimacy through lineal descent and patrimonial rhetoric. The control of wealth was tied to the control of factions, and together these form key bases of power. Yet, [Page 8] the significance of factions is evidenced in the multifocal layout of most Postclassic centers. Tomb 7 with its massive concentration of loot exemplifies the importance of prestige wealth and elaborate personal adornment at this time. By now it may be evident that the Classic-Postclassic differences in Oaxaca correspond to a degree with the broader pan-Mesoamerican patterns. But if one looks beyond Oaxaca, the parallels weaken somewhat. Although the Postclassic centers of Xochicalco (in Morelos) and Chichen Itz (in Yucatan) participated in the Postclassic world of prestige exchanges, they had public architectural complexes that belie a more corporate orientation than is found at Postclassic Oaxacan sites. Clearly then, if we are to understand major historical transitions (like the Classic-Postclassic transition in Oaxaca and Mesoamerica), we cannot design our research at only one scale, nor should we expect theories designed for a single scale to provide adequate or complete answers. A more multiscalar approach that bootstraps, rather than juxtaposes, theories from different spatial vantages seems requisite. References Cited Abu-Lughod, J. 1989 Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350. Oxford University Press, New York. 1993 Discontinuities and Persistence: One World System or a Succession of Systems? In The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? edited by A. G. Frank and B. K. Gills, pp. 278-291. Routledge, London. [Page 9] Baird, E. T. 1989 Stars and War at Cacaxtla. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan A.D. 700-900, edited by R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, pp. 105-122. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Bernal, I. 1966 The Mixtecs in the Archaeology of the Valley of Oaxaca. In Ancient Oaxaca: Discoveries in Mexican Archaeology and History, edited by J. Paddock, pp. 345-366. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Blanton, R. E., and G. M. Feinman 1984 The Mesoamerican World-System. American Anthropologist 86: 673-682. Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowalewski, and P. N. Peregrine 1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37: 1-31. Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalewski, and G. M. Feinman [Page 10] 1992 The Mesoamerican World-System. Review 15: 419-426. Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalewski, G. M. Feinman, and L. M. Finsten 1993 Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalewski, G. M. Feinman, and J. Appel 1982 Monte Alban's Hinterland, Part I: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs No. 15. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Byland, B. E., and J. M. D. Pohl 1994 Political Factions in the Transition from Classic to Postclassic in the Mixteca Alta. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, pp.117-126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chase-Dunn, C., and T. D. Hall 1993 Comparing World-Systems: Concepts and Working Hypotheses. Social Forces 71: 851-886. [Page 11] Diehl, R. A., and J. C. Berlo 1989 Introduction. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan A.D. 700-900, edited by R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, pp. 1-8. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Drennan, R. D. 1989 The Mountains North of the Valley. In Monte Alban's Hinterland, Part II: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotln, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, by Stephen Kowalewski et al., pp. 367-384. Memoirs No. 23. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Feinman, G. M., and J. Neitzel 1984 Too Many Types: An Overview of Sedentary Pre-State Societies in the Americas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol 7, edited M. B. Schiffer, pp. 39-102. Academic Press, Orlando. Feinman, G. M., and L. M. Nicholas 1995 Reconocimiento Sistematico de Asentamientos Prehispnicos en el Area de Guiren, Oaxaca, Mexico. Final field report prepared for the Instituto Nacional de [Page 12] Antropologia e Historia, Mexico. Copies available from authors. Finsten, L. 1983 The Classic-Postclassic Transition in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico: A Regional Analysis of the Process of Political Decentralisation in a Prehistoric Complex Society. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University, West Lafayette. 1996 Periphery and Frontier in Southern Mexico: The Mixtec Sierra in Highland Oaxaca. In Pre-Columbian World Systems, edited by P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, in press. Flannery, K. V., and J. Marcus 1983a An Editorial Opinion on the Mixtec Impact. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, pp. 277-279. Academic Press, New York. 1983b The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Academic Press, New York. Gills, B. K., and A. G. Frank 1991 5000 Years of World System History: The Cumulation of Accumulation. In Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, edited by C. Chase-Dunn and T. D. Hall, pp. 67-112. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. [Page 13] Hall, T. D., and C. Chase-Dunn 1993 The World-Systems Perspective and Archaeology: Forward into the Past. Journal of Archaeological Research 1: 121-143. Kepecs, S., G. Feinman, and S. Boucher 1994 Chichen Itza and its Hinterland. Ancient Mesoamerica 5: 141-158. Kowalewski, S. A., R. E. Blanton, G. M. Feinman, and L. Finsten 1983 Boundaries, Scale, and Internal Organization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 32-56. Kowalewski, S. A., G. M. Feinman, L. Finsten, R. E. Blanton, and L. M. Nicholas 1989 Monte Alban's Hinterland, Part II: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotln, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs No. 23. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. [Page 14] Kowalewski, S. A., and L. Finsten 1983 The Economic Systems of Ancient Oaxaca: A Regional Perspective (with comments). Current Anthropology 24: 413-441. Marcus, J. 1983 Teotihuacan Visitors on Monte Alban Monuments and Murals. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, pp. 175-181. Academic Press, New York. 1989 From Centralized Systems to City-States: Possible Models for the Epiclassic. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan A.D. 700-900, edited by R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, pp. 201-208. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1992 Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Mayr, E. 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Interitance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London. [Page 15] Nagao, D. 1989 Public Proclamation in the Art of Cacaxtla and Xochicalco. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan A.D. 700-900, edited by R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, pp. 83-104. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Paddock, J. 1966 Oaxaca in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Ancient Oaxaca: Discoveries in Mexican Archaeology and History, edited by J. Paddock, pp. 83-242. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 1983 Mixtec Impact on the Postclassic Valley of Oaxaca. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, pp. 272-279. Academic Press, New York. Pasztory, E. 1988 A Reinterpretation of Teotihuacan and its Mural Painting Tradition. In Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees: Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan, edited by K. Berrin, pp. 45-77. The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, San Francisco. Sabloff, J. A., and W. L. Rathje 1975 The Rise of a Maya Merchant Class. Scientific American 233(4): 73-82. [Page 16] Sanderson, S. K. 1991 The Evolution of Societies and World Systems. In Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, edited by C. Chase-Dunn and T. D. Hall, pp. 167-192. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Schneider, J. 1970 Was There a Precapitalist World-System? Peasant Studies 6: 20-29. Smith, M. E. 1988 Long-Distance Trade under the Aztec Empire: The Archaeological Evidence. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix. Smith, M. E., and C. M. Heath-Smith 1980 Waves of Influence in Postclassic Mesoamerica? A Critique of the Mixteca-Puebla Concept. Anthropology 4(2): 15-50. [Page 17] Spores, R., and K. V. Flannery 1983 Sixteenth-Century Kinship and Social Organization. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, pp. 339-342. Academic Press, New York. Wallerstein, I. 1974 The Modern World-System I. Academic Press, New York. Webster, D. 1994 Comment on "Living on the Edge: Core/Periphery Relations in Ancient Southeastern Mesoamerica," by E. M. Schortman and P. A. Urban. Current Anthropology 35: 419-420. [Page 18] |
|
 Top |
Archive | Vol. 2 |
