Ceramic exchange and the shifting political landscape in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, 700 BCE-200 CE

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Ceramic exchange and the shifting political landscape in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, 700 BCE-200 CE

T

R. Jason Shermana, , Leah D. Mincb, Christina Elsonc, Elsa M. Redmondd, Charles S. Spencerd ⁎

a

Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, United States 100 Radiation Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States c Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United States d Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024-5192, United States b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Ceramic provenance Market exchange Gift exchange Oaxaca, Mexico

In this paper we utilize archaeometric analyses to reexamine the organization and spatial scale of ceramic exchange in the central Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, with the goal of elucidating how those interactions were related to political centralization, interpolity conflict, and social negotiation during the period when the Monte Albán (Zapotec) state formed. Building on extensive geochemical analyses of the valley’s clays and Formative ceramics, we employ relatively fine-grained provenance data to trace the movement of vessels from producers to consumers, and model the different forms of exchange through which pottery was distributed. The results of these analyses accord with earlier models positing the development of market exchange, at least of utilitarian vessels. However, the number and scale of market networks fluctuated through time due to political fragmentation and conflict prior to the subjugation of the entire valley by Monte Albán. At the same time, some elaborate pottery likely was distributed via non-market forms of exchange, such as gift-giving and direct acquisition from sponsored potters. The circulation of such pottery helped to build and maintain intra- and interpolity alliances, as well as to reinforce—and in some cases resist—increasing social differentiation within the early Zapotec state.

1. Introduction

conflict, social negotiation, and ideology (e.g., Elson and Sherman, 2007; Joyce, 2000, 2010; Joyce and Winter, 1996; Marcus and Flannery, 1996; Spencer and Redmond, 2001, 2003)—factors that may have significantly influenced patterns of economic interaction within the Valley of Oaxaca. Pointing to previous typological and stylistic studies indicating that the distribution of some pottery was restricted or uneven during particular periods, several authors have suggested that such patterns reflect the disruptive influence of political factors on regional economic networks, as well as the operation of non-market forms of exchange, such as gifting of elaborately decorated ceramics among elites (e.g., Elson and Sherman, 2007; Spencer and Redmond, 2001, 2003). Thus, research to date suggests that multiple exchange mechanisms were operative during the period of state formation. In this paper, we revisit this important case study using compositional analyses to determine ceramic provenance and track the movement of vessels involved in different forms of exchange, including both utilitarian market and elite gift exchange. Our goal is to reevaluate the degree and nature of economic interactions within the Valley of Oaxaca during the later Middle to Terminal Formative periods (700 BCE-200

The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, is often cited as a textbook example of the role of state formation in fostering specialized production and marketplace exchange (e.g., Blanton et al., 1999; Garraty, 2010: 28-29; Stark and Ossa, 2010: 102-103). Early regional survey teams systematically mapped the distributions of ceramic types valley-wide and employed these distributional patterns to trace the intensity and scale of economic interactions through time (Blanton et al., 1982, 1999; Feinman, 1980, 1982, 1986; Feinman et al., 1984a, 1984b; Kowalewski et al., 1989). These innovative studies concluded that longer-term trends of increasing ceramic homogeneity reflected the emergence and growth of a regional market system during the period when Monte Albán—the future capital of the Zapotec state—was founded and state institutions formed. But they also identified patterns indicative of greater and lesser integration, suggesting that market participation was variable in both time and space. More recent research on the formation and early structure of the Zapotec state has increasingly focused on the importance of political

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.J. Sherman), [email protected] (L.D. Minc), [email protected] (C. Elson), [email protected] (E.M. Redmond), [email protected] (C.S. Spencer). ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.101109 Received 29 May 2019; Received in revised form 24 September 2019 Available online 17 October 2019 0278-4165/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

CE), using more robust measures of exchange and incorporating recent advances in modeling distinctive artifact patterns associated with alternative mechanisms of distribution. Building on extensive analyses of the valley’s complex geology and the variety of clays that would have been available to Formative potters (Minc and Sherman, 2011), and geochemical analyses of ceramic wares and types in order to identify specific sites or areas where pottery was produced (Minc et al., 2007, 2016), we now examine the organization of exchange, as inferred from the movement of individual vessels between producers and consumers. We are concerned not only with the various mechanisms (both market and non-market) through which pottery was exchanged, but also how the nature and scale of economic interactions in the valley were shaped by factors such as interpolity conflict, regional integration, and political and ideological transformations associated with the development of state institutions (e.g., social stratification, competition within and between emergent social classes). By combining analyses of both market and non-market exchange, our results provide fresh insights into the co-evolution of political and exchange systems in the early Valley of Oaxaca.

Beyond purely economic concerns, social and political relationships were also expressed in, and reinforced by, various forms of exchange (Hirth, 2010: 229). Although elite control was not necessarily key to the development of markets (e.g., Abbott, 2010: 67-68), elites in complex societies may have enhanced their prestige by sponsoring regional marketplaces (Hirth, 2010: 237-238)—thereby spurring the widespread exchange of utilitarian goods. At the same time, Mesoamerican elites (like their counterparts in other regions of the world) displayed and bolstered their status by controlling the production and distribution of prestige goods, and cemented political alliances by gifting these valuable items to other elites (e.g., Blanton et al., 1996: 5; Brumfiel, 1994; Brumfiel and Earle, 1987; Chase and Chase, 1992; Peregrine, 1991; see also Renfrew and Cherry, 1986). For example, gift-giving was an important means of “expressing and manipulating the configuration of sociopolitical relationships” between city-states in central Mexico “during the era of political instability and competition, rife with shifting coalitions and conspiracy, internal struggle and external warfare” preceding Aztec dominance (Brumfiel, 1987b: 112). Exchange of prestige goods continued to be a primary means by which Aztec elites consolidated their power, maintained political alliances and intra-class cohesion, and distinguished themselves from commoners (Brumfiel, 1987b: 112-115; Smith, 2012: 150-151). Rulers frequently hosted feasts to which lords from other city-states were invited. Such feasts involved the consumption of food and drink, especially chocolate, from decorated ceramic serving vessels, as well as gifting of perishable prestige goods (Evans, 2001: 246-247; Smith, 2012: 150-151; Smith et al., 2003). Competitive feasts and gift-giving were fundamental to Aztec diplomacy, and “bonds forged and maintained among the nobles were so strong that they crossed political borders and even bound enemy nobles together” (Smith, 2012: 151; also Smith et al., 2003). According to Fray Diego Durán, the royal advisor Tlacaelel opined to the Mexica king Ahuitzotl that the rulers of enemy polities should be invited to a state-sponsored celebration following the completion of the Templo Mayor in 1487:

2. Market and non-market exchange: Examples and expectations Market exchange has long been identified as the hallmark of a complex economy, and archaeologists have invested a sustained effort in identifying the existence of marketplace exchange from the archaeological record (Fry, 1980; Garraty, 2010; Hirth, 1998), as well as characterizing the regional organization of commercial exchange and its implications for political support or interference (Blanton, 1983, 1985, 1996; Blanton and Fargher, 2010; Braswell, 2010; Braswell and Glascock, 2002; Minc, 2006, 2009; Stark and Garraty, 2010). At the same time, we now recognize that when market exchange occurred in ancient societies, the degree to which households and other groups relied on marketplaces to acquire goods likely varied (Garraty, 2010: 18), and other, non-market forms of exchange or provisioning undoubtedly operated at the same time (Feinman and Garraty, 2010: 171; Garraty, 2010: 14; Hirth, 1998: 453, 2010: 229, 241; Masson and Freidel, 2012; Stark and Garraty, 2010: 47, 57). Further, as Garraty (2010: 6-7, 15) emphasizes, market exchange was also embedded within and affected by larger social and political contexts and institutions (also Feinman and Garraty, 2010: 171, 173). Although Mesoamerican “markets consistently outlived regional cycles of political unification and disintegration” because of “the central provisioning role they played in the everyday lives of common people” (Hirth, 1998: 452), it is likely that periods of interpolity conflict would hinder movement and exchange—both market and non-market—across political boundaries, resulting in more localized systems of production and exchange (e.g., Ball, 1993; Bey, 2003; Foias and Bishop, 1997; Minc et al., 1994; Minc, 2006). For example, although competition and warfare among Maya polities in the Petexbatun region of Guatemala during the eighth and ninth centuries CE did not entirely disrupt pottery production and distribution systems, the endemic political conflict did result in more localized production and decreased levels of exchange (Foias and Bishop, 1997; also Demarest, 2004: 253). Similarly, ceramic exchange networks were partially constrained by city-state or confederation boundaries in the fragmented political landscape of the Valley of Mexico prior to Aztec dominance (Minc et al., 1994). Political unification of the valley during the Late Aztec period (1350–1520 CE) resulted in a larger-scale, centralized exchange system that linked most polities in the region (Garraty, 2006, 2013; Hodge and Minc, 1990; Nichols et al., 2002). Thus, lack of open conflict and increased regional political integration may facilitate exchange within larger market systems (e.g., Blanton et al., 1999: 119; Hodges 1988: 90-95), in part through the establishment of infrastructure such as market centers and transportation routes, as well as officials to adjudicate disputes, which are backed up by a centralized authority (Plattner, 1989: 181; Trombold, 1991).

“… even though we are enemies in the wars that we wage, in our festivities we should rejoice together. There is no reason why they should be excluded since we are all one. It is reasonable that there be truces and greetings among the rulers” (Durán, 1964: 192). Likewise, for Maya elites as well as commoners, feasts were among the most important settings in which status was displayed, gifts were exchanged, and social and political alliances were forged (e.g., Foias, 2002; Halperin and Foias, 2010; LeCount, 1999; Reents-Budet, 1994; Rice, 2009). The importance of feasting and gift-exchange, including pottery, among the Maya of northern Yucatán during the sixteenth century was documented by Bishop Diego de Landa, who wrote: And they have two ways of celebrating these feasts: the first, which is that of the nobles and of the principal people, obliges each one of the invited guests to give another similar feast. And to each guest they give a roasted fowl, bread and drink of cacao in abundance; and at the end of the repast, they were accustomed to give a manta to each to wear, and a little stand and vessel, as beautiful as possible (Tozzer, 1941: 92). Archaeological, epigraphic, and iconographic evidence indicates that among the pre-contact Maya, elaborately decorated ceramic vessels functioned as funerary offerings, symbols of status, and “political currency” (LeCount, 1999; Reents-Budet, 1994: 4, 74, 88). During the Late Classic period (ca. 600–800 CE), beautiful polychrome vessels bearing hieroglyphs as well as royal court scenes and other iconography were painted by elite artisans “attached” to or sponsored by Maya rulers (Ball, 1993; also Halperin and Foias, 2010; Reents-Budet, 1994: 65, 67). Such “palace school” pottery (Ball, 1993) included vessel types—vases, jars, bowls, dishes, and plates—that were used to serve food and drinks, especially cacao-based beverages, during feasts and other significant events held in palaces and elite residences (Houston et al., 1989; 2

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Reents-Budet, 1994: 75, 85-87). Elaborate polychrome pottery was also gifted among elites, often in the context of feasting, as a means of building and maintaining political alliances and obligations (Ball, 1993: 258; Foias, 2002: 233-234, 238-239; Halperin and Foias, 2010: 394; LeCount, 1999; Reents-Budet, 1994: 88; Rice, 2009: 146). Because it was used as political currency, the finest polychrome pottery was often transported long distances, in contrast to the less extensive distribution networks for utilitarian and simply decorated vessels (Foias, 2002: 233; LeCount, 1999: 241; Rice, 1987: 79, 2009: 140). Moreover, it may be possible to infer sociopolitical divisions as well as links between Maya sites and polities from the distribution of particular polychrome styles (Reents-Budet, 1994: 96; Reents-Budet et al., 1994: 164; also Ball, 1993: 259). As Ball (1993: 263) argues, the development of distinct “palace schools” in the Late Classic and the “dendritic” distribution of such pottery likely reflected “a highly fragmented sociopolitical landscape characterized by great need to symbolize local identities and signify formal ties of relation.” In such a competitive environment, marriage alliances—and the pottery vessels that were given as gifts and used to serve food during marriage negotiations—may have been particularly important (Reents-Budet et al., 2000: 117). As suggested by Reents-Budet (1994: 96-99), the differential quality of polychrome pottery may reflect the relative sociopolitical rank of elites and sites within polities; more simply decorated or lower-quality vessels may have been produced by less talented artisans sponsored by elites at smaller centers. It is important to note, however, that polychrome pottery was not exchanged and used exclusively by Maya elites. Although the finest vessels are most often associated with elite residences and burials, lower-quality polychrome pottery is also found in lower-status, even commoner, residences (Halperin and Foias, 2010: 394; Masson, 2002: 5; Reents-Budet, 1994: 98; also Rice, 2009: 147). This pattern mirrors the distribution of elaborately decorated Aztec pottery, which is found more frequently in, but not wholly restricted to, elite contexts (Smith et al., 2003: 260). The circulation of fine—or what appears to be fine—pottery among all socioeconomic groups may simply reflect a lack of social restrictions. But it may also have been the result of deliberate political strategies (LeCount, 1999). At the Maya site of Xunantunich (Belize) and the satellite hamlet San Lorenzo, elaborately decorated pottery was concentrated in elite contexts during the Late Classic (670–790 CE) but more equally distributed across both elite and commoner households during the Terminal Classic (790–1000 CE), when royal power at Xunantunich declined (LeCount, 1999). LeCount (1999: 254) argues that this shift reflects a deliberate strategy adopted by elites at the site, who “gifted decorated pottery to commoners to build vertical alliances and symbolize shared power.” Moreover, many lower-quality Maya polychrome vessels were decorated with “pseudoglyphs” likely intended to imitate the true writing painted on pottery used by the highest-status members of the elite class (MacLeod and Reents-Budet, 1994: 139). While such examples of market and non-market exchange in later Mesoamerican states can be used to inform our analyses of ceramic exchange, distinguishing different exchange mechanisms has proven methodologically challenging (e.g., Blanton et al., 1982: 55; Feinman and Garraty, 2010: 169, 176-178; Garraty, 2010: 10; Hirth, 1998: 451453; Stark and Garraty, 2010). Building on Hirth’s (1998) “distributional approach,” Stark and Garraty (2010: 34, 43-45) argue that one reliable indicator of marketplace exchange is evidence of specialized production loci coupled with broad regional distribution of large quantities of pottery, particularly utilitarian vessels. We concur with their assessment and begin by assuming that utilitarian ceramics (such as simple jars, bowls, and griddles) most likely moved through petty commodity exchange, and thus their distribution reflects primarily economic concerns. Demand curves (the value of a product relative to transport costs), infrastructure, and issues of safety and freedom of movement on the part of buyers and sellers all play a part here. Thus, we suggest that a generalized circulation of utilitarian goods among communities reflects the operation of robust market networks (Hirth,

1998; Masson and Freidel, 2012: 456; Stark and Garraty, 2010), whereas a reliance on local utilitarian goods could indicate conditions inimical to widespread market exchange, such as interpolity conflict or warfare. At the same time, prestige goods—including both perishable and non-perishable items, such as elaborately decorated pottery—may have been the objects of elite gift exchange. Their distribution therefore potentially reflects political rather than economic concerns, which may override considerations of efficiency and distance. In these non-commercial transactions, it is the act of giving and receiving that is important rather than the quantity of goods, as the gift serves to impose political or social debt obligations. In the archaeological record, gift exchange is identifiable as the low-frequency but generally reciprocal (dyadic) exchange of elaborate items that potentially travel long distances (Braswell, 2010). Gift exchange may exist alongside of market exchange, or may form the sole mechanism of contact between polities, in which case it may highlight conditions of conflict at variance with a stable and integrated market economy. The frequency and direction of gift-exchange may also have been affected by interpolity relations. While heightened conflict could hinder gift-giving between elites of different polities, such exchanges might have been common during periods of relative peace when the maintenance of alliances and signs of political goodwill were paramount. The use of elaborate pottery and other prestige goods as political currency may also have been particularly important during times of social and political change or instability, when power and status were being negotiated between polities (e.g., Blanton et al., 1996: 5; Brumfiel, 1987a, 1987b; Halperin and Foias, 2010; see also Renfrew’s [1986: 8] discussion of “competitive emulation” as a form of peer polity interaction). Prestige goods certainly played an important role in building alliances within polities as well. While we might expect to find elaborate pottery more frequently at larger administrative sites and in high-status contexts (e.g., elite residences and tombs, public buildings), the presence of fine pottery at smaller sites and/or in lower-status contexts may reflect deliberate strategies aimed at building vertical alliances between elites and their dependencies (Halperin and Foias, 2010; LeCount, 1999). Lower-status elites and even commoners might also attempt to elevate their own status by producing, or sponsoring the production of, imitations of highly valued pottery, or by acquiring such goods in marketplaces (e.g., Hirth, 1998; Smith et al., 2003: 242). In summary, the foregoing discussion highlights several key points. First, archaeologists have long recognized that material goods, including pottery, circulated through various forms of exchange depending on their social, political, and utilitarian value. Further, different forms of exchange, like the goods themselves, are sensitive indexes of economic interactions and political dynamics at multiple scales. Thus, careful examination of contrasting classes of goods—in this case, ceramic vessels used as utilitarian containers versus prestige items—can potentially shed light on both internal and external relations among polities in the past. 3. Background 3.1. Exchange and state formation in the Valley of Oaxaca In this study, we examine the nature and organization of ceramic exchange as a lens through which to understand political processes surrounding state formation in the Valley of Oaxaca–from the pre-state Rosario phase (700–500 BCE), to the founding of Monte Albán ca. 500 BCE, to the consolidation of a valley-wide state by the Monte Albán II period (MA II, 100 BCE-200 CE). Various lines of evidence suggest that during the Rosario phase multiple complex polities existed in the Valley of Oaxaca, and that the relationship between these polities was competitive and at times even violent. Regional surveys identified three settlement clusters, one in each of the valley’s subregions, separated by 3

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

what appeared to be a largely uninhabited buffer zone in the center of the valley (Kowalewski et al., 1989: 75; but see Winter [2011: 395, Fig. 4] for updated settlement data). Intensive excavations at San José Mogote and El Mogote—the largest centers in the northern and southern branches of the valley, respectively—have uncovered evidence of large-scale conflagrations (Marcus and Flannery, 1996: 128129; Spencer and Redmond, 2001). Moreover, a carved monument interpreted as the depiction of a sacrificed captive (Monument 3) found at San José Mogote likewise suggests some degree of interpolity warfare during the Rosario phase (Flannery and Marcus, 2003; Marcus and Flannery, 1996: 129-130). Around 500 BCE, at the beginning of the Early Monte Albán I period (Early MA I, 500–300 BCE), the site of Monte Albán was founded atop a mountain in the valley’s center (Blanton, 1978). In addition to the site’s defensible location, several lines of evidence indicate that conflict continued to be an important factor after Monte Albán was initially settled. Carved depictions of hundreds of individuals, known as the danzantes, that many researchers agree represent sacrificed and mutilated captives (similar to the individual shown on Monument 3 at San José Mogote) were displayed on an Early MA I public building (Coe, 1962: 95-96; Marcus, 1992: 393-394; cf. Urcid, 2011; Winter, 2011), and a defensive wall was built on the site’s northern and western slopes in Late Monte Albán I (Late MA I, 300–100 BCE) or MA II (Blanton, 1978: 52-54). Various models have been proposed to explain Monte Albán’s founding and the formation of state institutions in the valley (e.g., Blanton et al., 1999; Joyce, 2010; Marcus and Flannery, 1996; Spencer and Redmond, 2001, 2003; Winter, 2011). Early interpretations emphasized valley-wide political unification leading to rapid economic integration and market system development (Blanton, 1978, 1983; Blanton et al., 1982, 1999; Feinman, 1980, 1982, 1986; Feinman et al., 1984a, 1984b). In contrast, more recent research has focused on evidence of long-term conflict and negotiation among competing polities and elites. Marcus and Flannery (1996: 154) suggested that the inhabitants of San José Mogote founded Monte Albán in order to gain an advantage over rivals in the valley. Indeed, excavation data indicate that the inhabitants of El Mogote (located near the modern town of San Martín Tilcajete) did not participate in the founding of Monte Albán. Instead, settlement at El Mogote continued from the Rosario phase until the onset of Late MA I, when the site was burned and replaced by a new center, El Palenque, in a more defensible location nearby (Spencer and Redmond, 2001). The remains of a palace complex and temple precinct excavated at El Palenque signal the development of state institutions within an independent Tilcajete polity, perhaps as a result of local elites’ attempts to maintain their authority and resist the expansionist Monte Albán polity (Redmond and Spencer, 2008, 2013, 2017; Spencer and Redmond, 2001, 2003, 2004). Nevertheless, El Palenque was burned and abandoned early in the MA II period (Spencer and Redmond, 2003), and Cerro Tilcajete—a new center with clear ties to Monte Albán—was established in a hilltop location overlooking the former capitals of the Tilcajete polity (Elson, 2007). The intensity of intravalley conflict posited for the MA I period likely reflects a fluid political environment in which alliances formed, broke down, and reformed, and in which feasting and gifting of prestige goods may have been important components of negotiation. At the same time, periods of conflict between settlements or polities might have hindered economic interactions, including the exchange of ceramic vessels (e.g., Feinman and Nicholas, 2013: 53-54; Spencer and Redmond, 2001, 2003), and especially the formation of extensive market systems, which depend on the stability of infrastructure and trust in face-to-face interactions. Political obstacles to economic interaction may have eased during the MA II period, by which time communities throughout the valley were incorporated into the Monte Albán-centered Zapotec state (e.g., Elson, 2007; Feinman, 2007: 9; Marcus and Flannery, 1996: 172-194; Sherman, 2005; Spencer, 2010; Spencer and Redmond, 2001, 2003; Spencer et al., 2008). However,

some degree of intravalley variation in public architecture (Sherman, 2005: 277-278, 326), sculptural styles (Bernal, 1973; Marcus, 1983), and the distribution of certain MA II pottery types (Elson and Sherman, 2007; Kowalewski et al., 1989: 180-182) persisted. Such variation suggests that integration by the Monte Albán polity was a complex process shaped by various factors, including the different roles played by sites in the new regional system, relationships between elites of varying status (both at Monte Albán and smaller administrative centers), and—as in other Mesoamerican complex societies—the varied interests of and political strategies adopted by different social groups (e.g., Elson and Sherman, 2007; Feinman and Nicholas, 2013: 78-79; Joyce, 2010: 158-159; Kowalewski et al., 1989: 153, 199; Sherman, 2005: 326-328; see Kurnick and Baron [2016] for comparative cases). Thus, exchange of decorated ceramic vessels may have continued to play a key role in social negotiations within the early Monte Albán state. 3.2. Previous research: establishing ceramic provenance Our efforts to evaluate exchange in relation to the political developments outlined above build on prior petrographic and compositional studies of Oaxacan ceramics (e.g., Blomster et al., 2005; Herrera et al., 1999; Joyce et al., 2006; Fargher, 2007; Feinman et al., 1989, 1992; Redmond and Harbottle, 1983; Shepard 1963, 1967; Stoltman et al., 2005), as well as our own decade-long program of trace-element and mineralogical studies within the valley. As a first step toward establishing ceramic provenance at a spatial scale useful for shedding light on intraregional networks of production and exchange, we initiated the Oaxaca Clay Survey, a program of extensive raw material sampling, trace-element characterization, and petrographic analyses of field clays (Minc and Sherman, 2011). To date, we have sampled natural clays in more than 400 locations throughout the valley, and characterized their elemental concentrations via instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), with a sub-sample also analyzed for mineral composition using optical petrography of ceramic thin-sections (Minc and Pink, 2014, 2015; Minc and Sherman, 2011). The clay survey illustrates spatial trends in clay composition, and establishes a robust and fine-grained comparative framework for ceramic provenance determinations throughout the valley. In the next phase of research, we incorporated chemical and mineralogical data from a large sample of MA I and MA II sherds from the valley’s central zone and the northern part of the Valle Grande (the valley’s southern branch) in order to identify locations of Formative pottery production (Minc et al., 2016). Our results suggested that pottery was produced in at least 12 different loci in just that portion of the valley included in our study, although not all were active during all phases (Fig. 1; Minc et al., 2016). Further, although potters in each region produced a variety of vessel types, each tended to specialize in the production of a particular ceramic ware based on access to suitable raw materials. This degree of community-level specialization, particularly in the production of utilitarian vessels, would seem to necessitate the development of a market network (or networks) to facilitate the exchange of pottery (Minc et al., 2016: 41). This finding thus accorded with earlier studies based on regional survey data, which suggested that markets developed during the MA I period to move basic goods between the valley's core and subregions (Blanton et al., 1982, 1999; Feinman, 1980, 1982, 1986; Feinman et al., 1984a, 1984b; Kowalewski et al., 1989). Our study also examined the spatial distribution of production loci vis-à-vis the relative value or production cost of different pottery types, revealing some interesting shifts through time (Minc et al., 2016: 4243). In the Rosario phase and Early MA I, production loci generally produced both “costly” and utilitarian vessels. By Late MA I, the production of costly vessels was dominated by potters in the CacaotepecAtzompa locality northwest of Monte Albán, who specialized in the manufacture of elaborate cream ware (crema) vessels, while other 4

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Fig. 1. Map of the Valley of Oaxaca showing locations of important sites and Middle to Terminal Formative ceramic production areas in the central valley (for details see Minc et al., 2016). Inset indicates geographic focus of subsequent figures.

communities produced primarily (though not exclusively) utilitarian vessels. We suspect that these patterns reflect the efforts of rulers at Monte Albán to control the production and distribution of elite pottery, particularly crema vessels. In contrast, potters in the vicinity of Tilcajete—which, as we discussed above, appears to have been politically autonomous during Late MA I—produced their own elaborate (incised and modeled gray ware) vessels in addition to utilitarian pottery. By MA II, costly vessels were once again produced in various production loci, although these different sources specialized in the production of different wares/types. Production of increasingly elaborate crema pottery shifted in large part to Monte Albán, where researchers have excavated large kilns used for this purpose (Markens and Martínez López, 2009). At the same time, other potters in the Valle Grande manufactured vessels that may have been intended to imitate decorated crema pottery. The decentralized production of elaborate pottery during MA II, including the production of imitation vessels, may reflect political factors (e.g., increased demand for luxury goods, intra-elite competition, possibly elite sponsorship of production) rather than solely

economic forces (Elson and Sherman, 2007; see also Blanton et al., 1982: 81-84; Kowalewski et al., 1989: 180). At the same time, evidence for specialized production and widespread distribution of utilitarian vessels seem to indicate increasing regional integration via markets (Kowalewski et al., 1989: 180; Minc et al., 2016: 43). In summary, the results of our preceding study generally accord with the proposition that market networks developed in the valley by MA I, as evidenced by community-level production specialization and the widespread distribution of some (largely utilitarian) pottery types (see Stark and Garraty, 2010). At the same time, the more restricted production and differential distribution of particular elaborate vessels suggest that non-market factors likely were also important during some periods. In order to further explore the possibility of non-market exchange mechanisms, and to assess the scale and organization of exchange networks, it is necessary to trace the movement of specific vessels from producers to consumers. Thus, in the present study we focus on the exchange interactions—both market and non-market—through which ceramic vessels were distributed, as well as the spatial 5

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

scale of these interactions and the identity and diversity of partners involved. Further, we examine how these interactions persisted or changed through time, reflecting political and economic conditions within the valley. In this regard, ceramic exchange reflects a composite signature formed by many individual transactions or exchanges; it is less sensitive to individual events than to persistent political structures or enduring economic circumstances.

4.2. Temporal patterns in vessel elaboration: Rosario phase to MA II Our sample of Rosario phase pottery is limited, and all of it comes from the site of El Mogote. Compared to pottery made in the subsequent Early MA I and especially Late MA I periods, Rosario vessels generally were less standardized and exhibited a wider range of rim forms, decorative techniques, and incised designs (Aceves Calderon, 1984; Drennan, 1976; Feinman, 1986: 364). The most elaborate Rosario vessels—particularly bowls—were made with gray pastes (e.g., Socorro Fine Gray; Fig. 2a-c). Likely used by higher-status families to serve food, such vessels have been found in association with public buildings and residences at San José Mogote (Flannery and Marcus, 2005), as well as smaller sites like Fábrica San José (Drennan, 1976), Las Bugambilias, Hacienda Experimental (Aceves Calderon, 1984), Huitzo (Flannery et al., 1970), Tierras Largas (Winter, 1972), and Tomaltepec (Whalen, 1981). Utilitarian vessels were generally made with buff and brown pastes (e.g., Fidencio Coarse, Guadalupe Burnished Brown) that, as we noted above, were essentially the same as those used to make café and crema vessels in later periods (Aceves Calderon, 1984: 90, 97; Drennan, 1976: 22; Flannery and Marcus, 2005: 473; 2015: 115–116). We should also note that our sample from El Mogote includes one fragment of an incised Atoyac Yellow-White bowl. Vessels of this type were far more common in the preceding San José and Guadalupe phases and generally used for serving or storage, but not cooking (Flannery and Marcus, 1994: 180, 192; Drennan, 1976). The vast majority of sherds in our sample date to the MA I (both Early and Late) and MA II periods. During MA I, gris, crema, and café pastes were used to make a variety of undecorated and decorated types and a range of vessel forms. Beginning in Early MA I, potters produced plain gray utilitarian vessels as well as a wide range of incised and/or modeled gris vessel forms—including bowls, jars, bottles, ladles, and effigy vessels (e.g., types G.15, G.16, G.17, G.25, and G.26)—that were likely used as serving ware (Marcus and Flannery, 1996: 158-159; Fig. 2d–e, h–m). Gris vessels constituted the majority (73%) of pottery recovered from elite MA I tombs at Monte Albán (Caso et al., 1967: Table IV; Elson and Sherman, 2007: 269). Elaborately decorated gris pottery is also common on the surface of MA I sites with administrative architecture (Feinman, 1986: 367-368) and has been found in excavations of elite contexts at smaller MA I sites like Tomaltepec (where clear evidence of gray ware production during Late MA I was also uncovered [Whalen, 1981]). Thus, it appears that during the MA I period, elite status was signaled most clearly by elaborately decorated gray ware at Monte Albán and in other regions of the valley (Elson and Sherman, 2007: 269-270; Marcus and Flannery, 1996: 158). In contrast, the earliest café and crema vessels were predominantly (though not exclusively) undecorated and utilitarian in form, including thick-walled jars, plain bowls, and comales (Feinman et al., 1984a: 167). A few early café and crema types were painted (e.g., K.3, C.2, C.4; Fig. 2f–g, n–p) and included finer vessels (especially bowls) likely used for serving. Nevertheless, in general café and crema vessels were less elaborately decorated than fine gris pottery, and less commonly found in tombs (Elson and Sherman, 2007: 268-270; Feinman et al., 1984a: 167-169). Moreover, the production of some crema-like vessels, often made with café paste (e.g., the type K.3), began during MA I; such imitation or “false” cremas have been found as far south as the neighboring Ejutla Valley (Feinman and Nicholas, 2013: 59, 72). As we noted above, the production of crema-like imitations continued, and in fact appears to have intensified, during the MA II period. Potters also began producing amarillo vessels in Early I. However, our sample includes only a handful of amarillo sherds, all of which date to MA II (see below). In Late MA I, and continuing into MA II, elaborate gray ware vessels decreased in frequency while more standardized and less elaborately decorated gris vessels became more common. In particular, relatively uniform G.12 bowls with incised lines on their interior rims and, in many cases, incised designs on their bottoms were almost certainly utilitarian vessels, and they are ubiquitous at Late MA I sites throughout

4. Tracing the movement of ceramic wares and types 4.1. Ceramic sample The ceramics included in our study include the four main wares defined by Caso et al. (1967) based primarily on paste color and texture: gris (gray, abbreviated “G”), crema (cream, abbreviated “C”), café (brown, abbreviated “K”), and amarillo (yellow or orange, abbreviated “A”). Most ceramic types produced after the founding of Monte Albán are designated by an alphanumeric code indicating their ware and type number (e.g., G.12, C.11, K.17, A.9). In contrast, ceramic types dating to pre-Monte Albán phases generally have descriptive names (e.g., Socorro Fine Gray, Atoyac Yellow-White). Although Oaxaca archaeologists do not formally assign these types to the four ware categories defined by Caso et al. (1967), similar gray, brown, and buff/cream pastes were used by earlier (Middle Formative) potters, and several preMonte Albán types clearly were “ancestral” to particular types in the Monte Albán sequence (e.g., Drennan, 1976: 22; also Flannery and Marcus, 2005: 473; 2015: 115–116). A total of 473 sherds are included in our current analyses (Table 1). Temporally, this material spans from the later Middle Formative (Rosario phase) to the Terminal Formative (MA II period). Most of the sherds were recovered from excavations at five sites in the central and northern Valle Grande/Ocotlán regions of the Oaxaca Valley: Monte Albán (N = 89), El Mogote (N = 50), El Palenque (N = 71), and Cerro Tilcajete (N = 165), all discussed above, as well as Yaasuchi (N = 56), a smaller administrative site on the western edge of the Valle Grande that may have been allied with Monte Albán as early as the MA I period (Sherman, 2005: 250-252; Sherman et al., 2010: 287-288). The sample also includes sherds from two additional sites in the northern Valle Grande where excavations have yielded conclusive evidence of ceramic production during the MA I period: Cuilapan (N = 22) and San Agustín de las Juntas (N = 20) (Markens et al., 2016; Winter, 1984: 195). Although some sherds in our sample were recovered at sites where pottery was produced, we have opted to exclude obvious wasters from this analysis because we are interested solely in vessels that were actually distributed for use. Consequently, our current sample is somewhat smaller than the sample we analyzed in the earlier phase of our research, which included production debris as well as a handful of daub fragments (Minc et al., 2016: 30). Few ceramic types in the Valley of Oaxaca were restricted to a single period. Rather, most were produced during multiple periods, although their frequencies changed through time. Thus, we are unable to assign all of the sherds in our sample to specific periods. In some cases, contextual data from excavations allow us to do so; this is particularly true for sherds from sites in the Tilcajete locality, which represent sequential occupations during the Rosario phase to Early MA I (El Mogote), Late MA I to early MA II (El Palenque), and MA II (Cerro Tilcajete) (Elson, 2007; Spencer and Redmond, 2001, 2003). Contextual information from San Agustín likewise suggests that the sherds from that site pertain to Late MA I. Unfortunately, dating pottery from Monte Albán and Yaasuchi is more challenging because it was largely recovered from mixed excavation contexts. Thus, we have assigned these sherds to broader temporal categories based largely on Caso et al.’s (1967) typological scheme: types restricted to MA I, types spanning MA I (most likely Late MA I) to MA II, and types restricted to MA II. Similarly, we have assigned the G.12 sherds from Cuilapan to a more general Late MA I-to-MA II category. 6

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Table 1 Ceramic sample included in present study. PSM*

Sherd counts

Site

Period

Ware

Types/description

Vessel forms

Min-max

Mean

Costly

Util.

El Mogote

Rosario

Gris

Ros/Early I

Other Gris

Early I

Café Gris

Socorro Fine Gray Decorated (incl. Socorro Fine Gray) Atoyac Yellow-White Plain Incised/modeled Plain Plain G.12 Incised/modeled (incl. G.15, G.17) C.2 K.3 (crema imitations)

Apaxtle Bowls, vases, jar Bowl Bowl, jar, bottle Bowls, jar Jars, plate, comal Jar Bowls Bowls, plate, pot stand Jar, comal Bowl, plate

3 5–7 7 2–4 5 2–3 3 4 4–6 3 5–6

3.0 5.9 7.0 3.3 5.0 2.2 3.0 4.0 5.3 3.0 5.5

0 9 1 0 4 0 0 0 15 0 2 31

1 0 0 3 0 5 1 7 0 2 0 19

Plain G.12 Incised/modeled (incl. G.17, G.25, G.26) C.2 C.2, C.4?, C.6, C.20 Plain K.3 (crema imitations)

Bowls, apaxtles, bottle Bowls Bowls, plates, bottles, jar Jars Bowls Jars, bowl, comal Bowls

2–5 4–6 4–8 4 4–7 2–3 6–7

3.2 4.4 5.8 4.0 6.1 2.3 6.3

0 0 28 0 7 0 3 38

5 21 0 2 0 5 0 33

Gris

G.12 Incised/modeled (G.17)

Bowls Plate

4–5 6

4.2 6.0

0 1 1

19 0 19

Gris Café

G.12 Plain

Bowls Bowls, jar

4 2

4.0 2.0

0 0 0

19 3 22

Gris Crema Gris

G.15 C.13? Plain (G.1) G.12 C.5?, C.6, C.7 K.2 K.7 (simple G.12-like decoration) K.3? (crema imitations) G.12 or A.6, plain G or A K.3 or A.9 G.21 G.29 (crema imitations) C.8, C.11, C.12 K.17 (crema imitations) A.9

Bowl, jar, tecomate? Bowl Bowl Bowls Bowls Jar Bowl Bowls Bowl, indet. Bowl Bowl Bowls Bowls Bowls Bowls, jar

5 8 3 4–5 7–8 3 6 6 2–4 7 3 7–9 7–9 8 5–7

5.0 8.0 3.0 4.1 7.4 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 7.8 8.4 8.0 5.5

3 1 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 1 0 10 5 3 4 36

0 0 1 14 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 20

Plain or simple decoration (incl. G.34) G.12, G.21 Incised/modeled (incl. G.15, G.16, G.17, G.25, G.26) G.29 (crema imitations) C.6, C.7, C.11, C.12, C.20 Plain or simple decoration (incl. K.7) K.3 (crema imitation) K.3, K.17 (crema imitations) A.9 Crema imitations

Bowls, Bowls Bowls, Bowls Bowls Bowls, Comal Bowls Bowls, Bowls

2–5 3–5 5–8 7–9 7–9 2–5 4 6–9 5–8 7–9

3.9 3.8 6.4 7.7 8.3 3.3 4.0 7.8 6.6 7.9

0 0 22 20 43 0 0 12 13 8 118

7 35 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 47

G.15, G.16, G.17 Plain G.12 Incised/modeled (incl. G.25, G.26) C.6, C.7, C.20 Plain Plain G.21 G.29 (crema imitations) C.11, C.12 K.17 (crema imitation) A.9 Imitation C.11

Bowls Jar, apaxtle Bowls Bowls Bowls, vase Jar Bowls Bowls Bowls Bowls Bowl Bowls Bowl

5–7 2–4 4–5 6–7 6–9 4 2–5 3 8–9 8–9 8 5–8 9

5.6 3.0 4.2 6.3 7.3 4.0 3.7 3.0 8.5 8.7 8.0 6.7 9.0

10 0 0 3 21 0 0 0 2 7 1 9 1 54

0 2 26 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 35

278

195

Total El Palenque

Late I

Crema Café Gris Crema Café

Total San Agustín

Late I Total

Cuilapan

Late I-II Total

Yaasuchi

MA I (Late?) I-II

Crema Café Indet. MA II

Total Cerro Tilcajete

MA II

Gris Crema Café Amarillo Gris

Crema Café

Total Monte Albán

Amarillo Other

MA I (Late?) I-II

Gris Gris

MA II

Crema Café Gris

Total

Crema Café Amarillo Other

Total

* Production step measure – see Feinman (1982). 7

jars, apaxtle jar, bottle jar, comal jar

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Fig. 2. Costly ceramics from the Rosario (a–c), Early MA I (d–i), and Late MA I (j–p) phases from El Mogote and El Palenque. (a–b) Socorro Fine Gray bowls with flared, incised rims; (c) Socorro Fine Gray wide-mouthed olla with exterior incision; (d–e) Gris outleaned-wall bowls with outcurving, incised rims (type G.15); (f–g) Café bowls with band of red paint at the rims (type K.3, imitation of C.4 or C.7); (h–i) Gris outleaned-wall bowls with everted, incised rims (type G.17); (j–k) Gris “fish plates” with modeled and incised rims (type G.17); (l–m) Gris cylindrical bowls with basal flanges and exterior incision (type G.25); (n) Café bowl with band of red paint at the rim (type K.3, imitation of C.4); (o) Crema thin-walled bowl with reddish-brown slip (type C.6); (p) Crema cylindrical bowl with flared rim and glossy black slip (type C.20). Illustration by Kayla Younkin.

the valley (Feinman, 1986: 364; Feinman et al., 1989: 331; Kowalewski et al., 1989: Fig. 6.1). The widespread distribution of G.12 bowls is not surprising, given that they were stackable and more easily transported than elaborately modeled gris types (Blanton et al., 1999: 97-98). A detailed study of G.12 sherds from El Mogote, El Palenque, and Cerro Tilcajete demonstrated stylistic change in this type over time. By the MA II period, relatively “sloppy” incised decorations on the bases of G.12 bowls were more hastily executed than the more meticulous combed designs found on most Late MA I vessels (Spencer et al., 2008: 324, 334). At the same time, the increasing standardization of gris vessels appears to have been accompanied by a trend toward elaboration of crema vessels and a growing association between elite status and cream ware pottery. Although gray ware vessels were more commonly found in tombs, Caso et al. (1967: Table I) did recover high frequencies of crema sherds from Late MA I excavation contexts at Monte Albán. Thus, crema pottery—particularly decorated vessels used to serve food—may have become increasingly associated with elite status during MA I. By the MA II period, the most elaborately fashioned vessels found at Monte Albán and other sites in the valley were made with crema paste; these included painted tripod or tetrapod bowls with incised or postfiring scratched designs (Elson and Sherman, 2007; Fig. 3a). Moreover, in contrast to the MA I pattern, crema vessels were more common than gris vessels (48% versus 34%) in MA II elite tombs at Monte Albán (Caso et al., 1967: Table VII; Elson and Sherman, 2007: 269). Considerable frequencies of decorated crema sherds have also been recovered in

excavations at lower-order administrative sites like Cerro Tilcajete (Elson, 2007) and Yaasuchi (Sherman, 2005). Elaborate pottery produced during MA II also included amarillo (A.9) serving vessels with red painted designs (Fig. 3b) similar in some cases to the motifs incised on crema vessels. Although some elaborate MA I gris types continued into MA II, utilitarian gray pottery (e.g., G.12 and the similar, though even more hastily executed, type G.21) was far more common (Spencer et al., 2008). Potters also continued making low-cost café vessels. However, as we noted above, some painted and/or incised gris (G.29) and café (K.17) vessels produced in MA II may have been intended to imitate decorated crema pottery (Elson and Sherman, 2007). These types were well represented in the assemblages from Yaasuchi (Sherman, 2005) and Cerro Tilcajete (Elson, 2007) but rare at Monte Albán (Caso et al., 1967: 67). 4.3. “Utilitarian” vs. “costly” vessels In our earlier study of the regional organization of production, we categorized vessels as either “low cost/utilitarian” or more elaborate or “costly” in order to examine the relationship between the relative value or production cost of different ceramic types/wares and where they were produced (Minc et al., 2016). In the current analyses we once again categorize vessels as “utilitarian” or “costly” (see Table 1) since the ways in which pottery was exchanged and used likely differed depending on vessel quality. Our assessment of the relative “costliness” or value of pottery, and whether particular types may have been restricted to elites, is based on a number of criteria: the amount of effort invested 8

9

f

e

d

c

Assemblage composition from Spencer and Redmond (2008) based on 5573 Early MA I diagnostics from three excavation areas (Area A residences; Area A-1, Md. A; and Area B, Md. K). Assemblage composition from Spencer and Redmond (2008) based on 12,931 Late MA I diagnostics from six excavation areas (Areas I, P, G, B, W-1, and W-2). Assemblage composition from Elson (2003) based on 10,501 diagnostics from three MA II residences (Structures 1, 3, and 4). Assemblage composition from Sherman (2005:Tables 3.3, 3.4) based on 4256 diagnostics from Late MA I-II excavation contexts (Areas A and B); post-MA II sherds (N = 47) excluded. Assemblage composition based on assessment of fill from two Late MA I strata (5D and E) from Capa 10, Cala B6, MA93 by the authors (Area W Sur). Assemblage composition based on assessment of 673 diagnostics from seven MA II contexts by the authors (Area W Sur). b

a

30.8% 30.8% 3.8% 34.6% 43.4% 42.3% 9.1% 5.2% 0.41 1.13 9.27 NA 39.6% 58.5% 1.9% 0.0% 16.2% 66.0% 17.5% 0.2% 1.03 0.95 1.05 1.19 10.7% 57.9% 26.2% 5.2% 11.1% 55.3% 27.5% 6.2% 0.62 1.04 2.05 0.86 30.7% 51.2% 10.2% 7.8% 18.9% 53.1% 21.0% 6.7% 0.43 1.05 1.29 NA 12.7% 76.1% 11.3% 0.0% 5.5% 80.1% 14.5% 0.0% 4.0% 80.0% 16.0% 0.0% 7.1% 54.6% 38.3% 0.0% Crema Gris Café Amarillo

1.77 0.68 2.39 NA

Weighting Factor INAA Sample Site Weighting Factor INAA Sample Site Weighting Factor INAA Sample Site Weighting Factor INAA Sample Site Weighting Factor INAA Sample Site INAA Sample Site Ware

El Palenqueb (Late MA I) El Mogotea (Early MA I) Site

Table 2 Weighting factors applied to ware frequencies in each site assemblage.

Cerro Tilcajetec (MA II)

in their manufacture, which may be quantified using Feinman’s (1980, 1982) production step measure (PSM); vessel form and probable function (e.g., food preparation/storage vs. serving); the presence and elaborateness of decoration; degree of standardization and portability; and the kinds of cultural contexts in which different pottery types have been found. Thus, our “utilitarian” category includes vessels that would have required less effort to manufacture (PSM generally ≤ 5)—due to their simple or standardized form and lack of, or hastily executed, decoration—as well as functionally specific vessel types that likely were used to prepare or store foods or beverages (e.g., plain jars and bowls, apaxtles [large utilitarian basins], or comales [griddles]). In contrast, our “costly” category comprises vessels that were more elaborately shaped and/or decorated (most with a PSM ≥ 5) and whose form suggests they were used to serve food or beverages (e.g., decorated bowls, plates, vases, effigy vessels, and some jars). Of course, classifying vessels in this way is not always straightforward. While plain jars and comales are rather easily identified as “utilitarian,” and elaborately decorated bowls were undoubtedly “costly” serving vessels (probably indicative of high social status), some sherds in our sample are more difficult to categorize. However, our goal is not to devise a perfect binary typology. Rather, it is simply to acknowledge the likelihood that not all ceramic vessels were exchanged through the same means and to structure our analyses accordingly. Decorated pottery in the Oaxaca Valley tends to be more temporally diagnostic than plain types, some of which span the entire Monte Albán sequence (see discussion above). Thus, costly types were emphasized when our sample was initially selected, and as a consequence, such vessels are over-represented in this study (N = 278, 58.8% of sample). However, our sample also includes a large number of sherds from utilitarian vessels (N = 195) made with gris and café pastes, in addition to a handful of utilitarian crema sherds. Despite the bias toward more

Weighting Factor

Monte Albánf (MA II) Monte Albáne (Late MA I-II) Yaasuchid (Late MA I-II and MA II)

Fig. 3. Costly ceramics from the MA II period. (a) Crema vessel with orange slip, red paint, post-firing incision, and bulbous supports (type C.11, after Caso et al., 1967: Lam. X-c); (b) Amarillo tetrapod vessel with red painted design on interior (type A.9, after Caso et al., 1967: Fig. 208d). Illustration by Kayla Younkin.

1.41 1.38 2.36 0.15

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

elaborate types, we feel the sample is sufficiently robust to discern patterns in the movement of both costly and utilitarian pottery within our study area.

Table 3 Likely ceramic production sites/localities.

4.4. Weighting factors Our sample selection for this study was initially stratified according to ceramic ware (crema, gris, café, or amarillo). Within each ware, selection of individual sherds, although not formally randomized, was essentially “blind” to provenance, in that source generally cannot be determined from visual paste characteristics. (The exception is the cremas, whose relatively large, angular inclusions have been linked to exposures of meta-anorthosite west of Cacaotepec and Atzompa [Minc and Sherman, 2011: 306; Minc et al., 2016: 33].) Published data on ware frequencies from these sites, however, indicated that our sample generally under-represented cremas, while over-representing other wares (see Table 2). In part this was purposeful, in that cremas represent a known source and do not require compositional analysis to verify provenance. However, in order to provide a more accurate picture of the various ceramic providers and the degree to which they contributed ceramics to the site in question, we applied weighting factors to bring our ware percentages in line with those of each site. The prevalence of different wares was evaluated from multiple excavated contexts and average ware percentages determined for each site for each time period (Table 2); we utilize the overall site average here since this figure best represents the site-wide consumption patterns our sample was designed to evaluate. The ratio of percentages (i.e., site average:INAA sample) was then used to weight our ware counts, prior to calculating the relative popularity of each ceramic production source in a given assemblage.

Composition group

Provenance (subregion)

Likely production site(s)/ localities

S. Etla Atzompa

Southern Etla Southern Etla

NVG

North-central/eastern Valle Grande Northwestern Valle Grande Western Valle Grande Northeastern Valle Grande Eastern Valle Grande Eastern Valle Grande Eastern Valle Grande Ocotlán Central Valley Central Tlacolula

San José Mogote Atzompa, Cacaotepec, Monte Albán ?

WVG-1 WVG-2 EVG-1 EVG-2 EVG-3 Tilcajete Ocotlán High Cr Central Tlacolula

Cuilapan Yaasuchi San Agustín de las Juntas Coyotepec Reyes Mantecón Tilcajete Ocotlán Huayapan* Dainzú, Yegüih

* Note that in Minc et al. (2016) we tentatively linked this source with Tomaltepec; further clay survey identifies the source as extending from Huayapan west to Oaxaca City.

Of course, even in the aforementioned cases, ceramic production may not have been restricted to a single site in each production area; rather, in some areas pottery may have been produced in multiple neighboring communities (see Minc et al., 2016: 40-41). Nevertheless, measuring least-cost paths between likely production sources and the sites where pottery was recovered in a consistent manner allows us to estimate the relative distances over which costly versus utilitarian goods were exchanged, and whether both classes of goods exhibit similar or distinctive patterns of acquisition. For utilitarian wares we expect local production or acquisition from relatively nearby sources, with the average distance that goods were transported reflecting the scale of exchange networks. In contrast, if some more costly pottery moved largely through gift exchange, the frequency and scale of exchange interactions among sites would likely reflect personal or political relationships rather than purely economic concerns for cost efficiency, and thus be less restricted by distance. Alternatively, if costly vessels were acquired directly from attached specialists, we would expect their chemical signatures to reflect largely local production. To help discern if forms of exchange and acquisition differed significantly by vessel quality, we test whether transport distance differs for costly versus utilitarian vessels. Transport distances for vessels of these two classes were grouped into 5-km bins, and a two-way test of independence for quality and distance was computed for each time period. Here we utilize the Fisher’s exact test, rather than the more familiar chi-square analysis, owing to small cell counts in some cases (Table 4). At a finer level, we also examine consumers’ assemblages and the diversity of ceramic goods available to the inhabitants of a given site, for those cases with sufficient sample size for a given time period. If market exchange predominated, we would expect that consumers had access to a broad range of choices, even for utilitarian goods. Further, as the market system expanded, consumers would have access to goods from a greater area; thus, the diversity of production sources represented within the ceramic assemblage would be expected to increase through time (Hirth, 1998: 455). In contrast, gift exchange will be evidenced by dyadic exchanges of high quality goods from a more limited number of sources (Braswell, 2010), generating a pattern of lower assemblage diversity, and a spatial pattern of interaction potentially distinct from that generated by commodity market exchange. In order to assess these expectations, we first examine assemblage diversity (how many different producers are represented in an assemblage) and how evenly vessels are distributed among those sources, as reflected by the Shannon’s H’ statistic (Baxter, 2003: 236-237). The H’ statistic presents the calculated diversity (H) as the percent of the maximum possible (Hmax), where ‘max’ reflects the number of active

4.5. Quantitative methods and expectations The goals of our quantitative analyses are twofold. First, we attempt to shed light on the types of social and economic interactions which moved ceramic vessels among communities. Second, we examine how these interactions persisted or changed through time, relative to political and economic conditions within the valley. Here we examine the spatial scale of these interactions, as well as the directionality of exchange and the diversity of partners involved. In order to evaluate the relative importance of different forms of interaction, we use several metrics to track the nature and spatial scale of ceramic exchange. First, we assess the distance that vessels were transported from producer to consumer, calculated along the least-cost paths between production sources and the sites where the pots were recovered. Least-cost paths were determined using the “Cost Distance” function in ArcGIS, based on slope calculations derived from a 30-m DEM. In order to have set points from which to measure distances in a consistent manner, we designated specific sites—or, in two cases, centrally placed points—in the 12 production areas identified previously (Minc et al., 2016) as likely sources of pottery in our sample (see Table 3). Survey and excavation at two of these sites, San Agustín de las Juntas and Cuilapan, have yielded clear evidence of ceramic production during the later Formative periods (Blanton et al., 1982: 254, 262-263; Feinman, 1986: 356-357; Markens et al., 2016; Winter, 1984: 195). Regional survey data also suggest that gris vessels were produced at Yaasuchi during Late MA I and MA II (Feinman, 1982: 391-392), although intensive excavations at the site did not yield corroborating evidence of Formative pottery production (Sherman, 2005). Production sites utilizing the distinctive crema clays changed through time. For the earlier periods, we assumed that production occurred primarily in the Cacaotepec/Atzompa region (Feinman, 1982: 390, 1986: 356) given the lack of clear evidence for intensive production at Monte Albán proper until MA II. During the latter period, potters at Monte Albán appear to have been the major producers of this ware (Markens and Martínez López, 2009; Markens et al., 2016). 10

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Table 4 Comparison of transport distances over least-cost paths for costly vs. utilitarian vessels by time period. Transport distances (km) for costly vs. utilitarian vessels

Fisher’s Exact Test for Independence

Time period

Vessel quality

N

Mean

St. Dev.

N

p

Rosario/Early MA I

Costly Utilitarian

14 9

14.7 16

7.5 8.4

23

0.407

Early MA I

Costly Utilitarian

16 10

14.6 16.6

10.8 6

26

0.199

Late MA I

Costly Utilitarian

39 52

8.9 5.5

11.7 6.8

91

0.018

Late MA I/MA II

Costly Utilitarian

34 67

15.2 10.8

9.8 5.3

101

< 0.0001

MA II

Costly Utilitarian

155 52

15.8 11.1

9.5 6.3

207

< 0.0001

ceramic producers during that time period; the higher the percentage, the more even and hence the more diverse the assemblage. Second, using Fisher’s exact test for independence, we evaluate whether utilitarian and costly vessels were acquired from the same production sources (implying both classes of goods were distributed through similar mechanisms) or from different sources (implying distinctive forms of exchange). Finally, in order to evaluate the degree of regional integration reflected by these interactions, we examine in qualitative terms the location of trading partners relative to proposed political entities within the valley and the consistency of contact between those partners through time. Specifically, we suggest that a sudden change in interaction patterns could signal changing preferences or more restricted access to a particular producer due to political factors.

(Fig. 5). These patterns have interesting implications for our understanding of El Mogote and its relationships with other settlements (see further discussion below), but we are reluctant to make broader inferences about the regional organization of ceramic exchange during these earlier periods, particularly the Rosario phase, based on such a small sample derived from a single site. For the subsequent time intervals (Late MA I, Late MA I/MA II, and MA II), the Fisher’s exact tests for our more robust sample of pottery from five sites (El Palenque, Monte Albán, Yaasuchi, Cuilapan, and San Agustín) suggest that transport distances began to differ according to vessel quality. This trend is first visible in Late MA I (p = 0.02) and appears to have strengthened in Late MA I/MA II (p < 0.0001). A key factor contributing to this overall result is that the distribution of transport distances for costly vessels is multimodal for these time intervals (Fig. 4): while some elaborate pottery was produced locally, considerable quantities were also obtained from distant sources. In contrast, the frequencies of utilitarian vessels decrease regularly with distance (i.e., clear fall-off curves are evident) during these time intervals, with a maximum transport distance of approximately 25 km. These differences in spatial scale are reflected in changing assemblage diversity: while utilitarian assemblage diversity remains high, that of more elaborate vessels declines markedly during Late MA I/MA II, especially at Monte Albán and Yaasuchi (Fig. 5), reflecting a growing reliance on local production of elaborate ceramics at these two sites. Overall, the data for Late MA I and Late MA I/MA II suggest changes in the spatial scale of interactions, as well as shifts in the relative importance of market vs. non-market exchanges. We would emphasize, however, that these are aggregate patterns. When we consider individual site assemblages for these time intervals (see below), it is clear that the inhabitants of some settlements—particularly El Palenque—used many locally produced vessels, and thus may have depended on regional exchange networks to a lesser degree than communities that imported most or all of their pottery. For MA II pottery from Cerro Tilcajete, Monte Albán, and Yaasuchi, there is once again a highly significant difference in the distances that costly and utilitarian vessels were transported (p < 0.0001). Most utilitarian pottery was still obtained from producers located within a 15-km radius (mean 11.1 ± 6.3 km), although in contrast to the Late MA I and Late MA I/MA II patterns, frequencies of utilitarian pottery do not decrease regularly with distance (i.e., a fall-off curve is not evident; see Fig. 4). Likewise, although some elaborate vessels were obtained from relatively close sources (< 15 km), the average transport distance for costly vessels increased (mean 15.8 ± 9.5 km), and nearly 20% of such vessels—primarily cremas from Atzompa and/or Monte Albán—were transported more than 25 km. These trends are reinforced by changes seen in assemblage diversity; relative to the preceding period, costly

5. Results We begin by presenting aggregate results for our entire sample, divided into six time intervals—Rosario/Early MA I, Early MA I, MA I, Late MA I, Late MA I/MA II, and MA II—based on typological or contextual data (as discussed above). These results allow us to assess the relationships between vessel quality and the distances that vessels were transported within the study area as a whole. We then examine in greater detail the individual ceramic assemblages from sites with large sample sizes (El Mogote, El Palenque, Cerro Tilcajete, Yaasuchi, and Monte Albán), as well as exchange relationships between those sites and the particular production sources from which costly and utilitarian pottery was obtained. 5.1. Vessel quality and transport distances We began our assessment with an analysis of vessel quality versus transport distance for pottery dating to Rosario/Early MA I and Early MA I—all of which comes from El Mogote. Although our sample sizes for both periods are small, the mean transport distances are similar for utilitarian and costly vessels (Table 4). Further, the results for the Fisher’s exact tests (for distances binned into 5-km units) do not indicate significant differences in the distances that costly and utilitarian vessels were transported during these early periods (Rosario/Early MA I: p = 0.41; Early MA I: p = 0.20) (Fig. 4). As we discuss below, few vessels recovered at El Mogote match the local Tilcajete ceramic group signature. Instead, more than three quarters of the pottery was obtained from nearby sources up to 10–15 km away, and six vessels (three costly and three utilitarian) were transported more than 25 km. Assemblage diversity is relatively high for both utilitarian and more costly vessels (74% and 66%, respectively), suggesting that El Mogote was well connected to a range of producers, in spite of its non-central location 11

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Fig. 4. Comparison of transport distances (km) for costly vs. utilitarian ceramics. P-values indicate significance of Fisher’s exact test of independence between vessel quality and distance, as binned into 5-km intervals.

Fig. 5. Comparison of assemblage diversity for costly vs. utilitarian ceramics by site and time period.

ceramic assemblages become more diverse indicating exchanges with a broader number of partners and over an extensive geographic area, while utilitarian ceramic procurement networks are less diverse, suggesting a geographic contraction of exchange interactions (Fig. 5).

5.2. Vessel quality and production source Turning now to an evaluation of the specific sources of costly and utilitarian ceramics, we again utilize Fisher’s exact test to assess for independence of vessel quality and source, as well as the Shannon’s H’ 12

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Fig. 6. Production sources of Rosario/Early MA I pottery recovered at El Mogote.

5.2.2. El Palenque The exchange networks through which pottery was obtained by people in the Tilcajete locality changed significantly in the subsequent Late MA I phase, when the focus of settlement shifted to the El Palenque site. Pottery was still obtained from a variety of production areas (seven sources for costly vessels, and five sources for utilitarian ceramics), but the overall test for independence of vessel quality and source is only marginally significant for this period (p = 0.05), suggesting that costly and utilitarian vessels were obtained from many of the same sources. Further, in sharp contrast to the pattern at El Mogote, the majority of both utilitarian and costly vessels (52% and 58%, respectively) represented in the El Palenque sample was produced locally. It is worth noting here that the local Tilcajete source (as defined in Minc and Sherman [2011]; Minc et al. [2016]) has a very distinctive chemical and mineralogical signature probably representing a mix of clays; the product, however, was of generally lower quality with soft, easily eroded surfaces indicative of a low firing temperature and low durability. The limited distribution of this pottery (almost exclusively restricted to El Palenque) and the short-lived duration of it production (restricted primarily to Late MA I) reinforce our subjective evaluation that this was not a highly successful or desirable ware. Thus, we interpret El Palenque’s reliance on this ware as reflecting the limited procurement options open to the community at this time. Further, although the inhabitants of El Palenque did obtain some pottery from other sources, the scale of supply networks for both categories of pottery greatly contracted (median distance = 6.8 km), and there was reduced contact with more distant production areas to both the north and the south (Fig. 7). In particular, the EVG-1 source—from which many costly and utilitarian vessels at El Mogote were obtained—is not represented in the El Palenque sample. Instead, nearly 20% of the sample (including roughly equal numbers of costly and utilitarian vessels) was obtained from the closer EVG-2 source. Likewise, only two vessels (approximately 3% of the total sample) were obtained from Ocotlán, the production source that supplied 10% of the Rosario/Early MA I pottery (mainly utilitarian vessels) recovered at El Mogote. This reduction in the range of sources is visible as a drop in the Shannon’s H’ value for both utilitarian (58%) and costly (57%) wares. Notably, some pottery in the El Palenque sample came from more distant sources in the northern and western Valle Grande (NVG, WVG-1, and WVG-2), as well as the Etla branch of the valley (the Atzompa and S.

statistic as a measure of assemblage diversity or, conversely, preference for a specific source(s). Both of these statistics utilize ware-weighted counts or percentages in order to assess the composition and diversity of individual site assemblages, rather than our entire sample. 5.2.1. El Mogote The 50 sherds from El Mogote dating to the Rosario phase or Early MA I were combined for statistical purposes. Utilitarian pottery used at the site was obtained from six different production areas, the most important being the Ocotlán source (33% of utilitarian vessels) and the EVG-1 source (26%), both located within 15 km of El Mogote, north and south, respectively (Fig. 6). The EVG-1 source was likewise the most important supplier of costly pottery (47%), although decorated vessels were also obtained from six additional sources, particularly the distant S. Etla source (27%), possibly representing San José Mogote. Overall, the Shannon’s H’ statistic is slightly lower (66%) for costly wares, reflecting a preference for fewer, select sources, than it is for utilitarian wares (74%), which were obtained from a somewhat broader and more diverse range of suppliers. The Fisher’s exact test for independence of source and vessel quality is significant for El Mogote (p = 0.003), which suggests that the sources of costly and utilitarian vessels were distinctive. However, the exchange networks for both vessel categories were roughly equivalent in scale (median distance = 15 km). Although many vessels came from sources located relatively close to El Mogote, as noted above, small quantities of both costly and utilitarian were transported longer distances. These include three costly vessels (K.3 bowl and plate, Atoyac Yellow-White bowl) and a utilitarian café plate from the S. Etla source. In addition, two C.2 utilitarian vessels (comal and jar) were acquired from the Atzompa source. We would note that the least-cost paths connecting El Mogote and these sources, both of which are located in the northern branch of the valley, pass within a few kilometers of Monte Albán. Interestingly, none of the utilitarian vessels, and only three decorated gris (G.15, G.17) vessels, represented in the El Mogote sample were produced at or near the site. While this finding is counter-intuitive, it suggests that certain communities—such as San Agustín de la Juntas—had already become specialized as pottery producing centers (Minc et al., 2016), such that their wares were both widely available and affordable. 13

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Fig. 7. Production sources of Late MA I pottery recovered at El Palenque.

Fig. 8. Production sources of MA II pottery recovered at Cerro Tilcajete.

Etla sources, both located north of Monte Albán). Most of the vessels from the latter sources were costly—including seven crema bowls from Atzompa and one K.3 (imitation crema) bowl from the S. Etla source. Two C.2 jars, which likely were used for utilitarian purposes, were also obtained from Atzompa. Although we classified these jars as utilitarian based on their form and low PSM values, it is possible that crema pottery in general was increasingly associated with high status during the MA I period (as discussed above), which may explain why these apparently utilitarian vessels were imported from a distant source.

inhabitants of the Tilcajete ridgetop obtained pottery once again expanded and diversified (Fig. 8). Quite unlike the pottery used at El Palenque, none of the vessels in the Cerro Tilcajete sample were produced in the local Tilcajete ware. Instead, costly pottery was obtained from at least ten different non-local sources, while eight sources supplied utilitarian vessels. Indeed, procurement networks for costly pottery were most diverse during this period (Shannon’s H’ 77% of possible), slightly more so than for utilitarian vessels (64% of possible). Moreover, the test for independence is highly significant (p < 0.0001), indicating that costly and utilitarian ceramics were not obtained from the same sources. We caution, however, that this result at least partially reflects a shift in production strategy among some potting communities toward a specialization in either high-end or low-end goods (Minc et al., 2016:43).

5.2.3. Cerro Tilcajete In the MA II period, when El Palenque was abandoned and Cerro Tilcajete was established, the exchange networks through which 14

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

However, in contrast to Monte Albán (see below), the inhabitants of Yaasuchi do not appear to have had direct exchange relationships with communities further to the east in central Tlacolula. The Late MA I/MA II utilitarian assemblage at Yaasuchi was considerably more diverse. In addition to locally produced pottery, vessels were acquired from at least six different sources in the western, northern, and eastern Valle Grande—all considerably closer to Yaasuchi (median distance = 12.9 km) than the sources of more costly pottery (median = 29 km). Only one utilitarian vessel (G.12 bowl) was obtained from the Tilcajete source, and no pottery was imported from Ocotlán to the south of Tilcajete. Notably, there is no overlap in suppliers of utilitarian and elite ceramics, resulting in a highly significant test of independence (p < 0.0001). During MA II (contemporaneous with Cerro Tilcajete), the costly pottery assemblage at Yaasuchi diversified significantly, as reflected in the increase of the diversity index from 27% to 53%. This increase in diversity reflects the marked decline in the number of crema vessels imported from the Atzompa locality and/or Monte Albán (from 70% to 23% of costly pottery), combined with an increase in elaborate vessels manufactured in other communities within the Valle Grande. These included crema imitations such as locally produced G.29 bowls (42%) and K.17 bowls from the WVG-1 source (14%), along with painted amarillo (A.9) bowls obtained from the EVG-2 source (21%). Interestingly, the single MA II utilitarian vessel (G.21 bowl) included in our Yaasuchi sample was produced in the Ocotlán region nearly 20 km away.

The most abundant costly vessels in the Cerro Tilcajete sample were cremas obtained from Atzompa and/or Monte Albán (24% of costly vessels according to our ware-weighted values). Many vessels likely intended to imitate decorated crema types were also imported, including G.29 bowls from the WVG-2 source, located along the western edge of the Valle Grande (22%), as well as K.17, G.29, and other crema-like bowls from Ocotlán (11%). Elaborate gris and amarillo vessels were also obtained from the EVG-1 and EVG-2 sources (12% and 18%, respectively) to the north of Cerro Tilcajete. As noted above, utilitarian pottery was obtained from various sources, although a large majority came from producers less than 15 km from Cerro Tilcajete, particularly three sources located along the eastern edge of the valley’s southern arm: EVG-3 (32% of utilitarian vessels), which lies less than 5 km to the northwest of Cerro Tilcajete, as well as EVG-1 (30%) further to the north and Ocotlán (21%) to the south. Although closer to Cerro Tilcajete than both EVG-1 and Ocotlán, the EVG-2 source does not appear to have been a major supplier of utilitarian vessels during MA II (although it did provide more costly pottery). Interestingly, as was the case for El Mogote, a small number of utilitarian vessels used at Cerro Tilcajete—including a café (K.3) comal from northwestern Tlacolula and a gris (G.12) bowl from southern Etla—were transported from quite distant sources (> 28 km). 5.2.4. Yaasuchi Here we focus on sherds from Yaasuchi that pertain to two temporal categories: types spanning from MA I (most likely Late MA I) to MA II (N = 29), and types restricted to MA II (N = 23). While our original sample from Yaasuchi included 4 additional sherds dating to the MA I period (Table 1), we disregard these here because their chronological placement cannot be further refined (i.e., none clearly are restricted to either Early or Late MA I). Although the small sample sizes from Yaasuchi preclude definitive statements, we can still make general observations regarding the sources from which costly and utilitarian pottery was obtained during the aforementioned time intervals (Figs. 9 and 11). In Late MA I/MA II (roughly contemporaneous with the occupation of El Palenque) the costly assemblage at Yaasuchi was dominated by cremas from Atzompa and/or Monte Albán (70% of costly vessels). Several fine K.3 bowls (30%) were also transported nearly 30 km from a source in northwestern Tlacolula that we tentatively associate with the site of Huayapan.

5.2.5. Monte Albán Our analyses of sherds from Monte Albán likewise focused on types spanning from MA I (most likely Late MA I) to MA II (N = 53) and those restricted to MA II (N = 26). Although our original sample from Monte Albán also included 10 sherds dating to MA I (Table 1), none of these can be definitely assigned to Early or Late MA I so we disregard them here. Similar to the Yaasuchi sample, the Late MA I/MA II costly assemblage from Monte Albán was dominated by crema vessels manufactured at the nearby Atzompa source or Monte Albán itself (81% of costly pottery), resulting in a low diversity measure for elaborate vessels (Shannon’s H’ 25% of maximum), while utilitarian pottery was obtained from a much broader range of sources (Shannon’s H’ 74% of maximum). Utilitarian vessels were acquired from at least seven different sources in the northern Valle Grande, southern Etla, and central

Fig. 9. Production sources of Late MA I/MA II pottery recovered at Yaasuchi. 15

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

Fig. 10. Production sources of Late MA I/MA II pottery recovered at Monte Albán.

Tlacolula, which are largely distinct from those supplying more costly pottery (Fig. 10). The test for independence is highly significant for this period (p < 0.001), confirming that costly and utilitarian ceramics generally were not obtained from the same sources. It is notable that the Late MA I/MA II sample did not include any pottery from the Tilcajete source, even though some vessels were obtained from nearby areas in the Valle Grande (including EVG-2 and EVG-3, both located immediately north of Tilcajete) as well as Ocotlán to the south (from which one costly gris vessel was obtained). At the same time, the inhabitants of Monte Albán appear to have established exchange relationships with the Dainzú region (nearly 25 km distant). Although pottery from central Tlacolula was not abundant, all five

sherds from this region in the Monte Albán sample—including fragments of one costly (G.25) and four utilitarian (G.12) vessels—date to Late MA I/MA II. As noted above, pottery from central Tlacolula was not represented in the Late MA I/MA II sample from Yaasuchi, which suggests a dyadic exchange relationship between Monte Albán and the Dainzú region rather than a generalized market network that also would have made vessels from the latter region available to people at Yaasuchi. During MA II, the costly assemblage at Monte Albán became substantially more diverse, similar to the trend observed at Yaasuchi (Fig. 11). Despite evidence for the production of crema vessels at Monte Albán proper during this period (Markens and Martínez López, 2009),

Fig. 11. Production sources of costly MA II pottery recovered at Yaasuchi and Monte Albán. 16

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

elaborate pottery was also obtained from several non-local sources, resulting in a noticeable increase in the diversity index (from 25% to 53% of maximum). In addition to many painted amarillo (A.9) bowls from the EVG-2 source, limited quantities of crema-like pottery from WVG-2 (two G.29 bowls) and S. Etla (one K.17 bowl) were also imported. In contrast, it appears that utilitarian vessels were acquired from a restricted area in the northeastern Valle Grande (EVG-1 and EVG-3), although this pattern is at least partly a function of our small sample size.

in exchange patterns are most evident in the Tilcajete locality, where the chronology of occupation is clearest. As evidence that the political conflict between the Tilcajete and Monte Albán polities may have acted as a barrier to economic interaction, Spencer and Redmond (2001: 218221) highlighted differences between the ceramic assemblages at the Tilcajete sites (El Mogote and El Palenque) and those found at Monte Albán. They also noted the relative paucity of obsidian at Tilcajete, especially during Late MA I, which might be expected if Monte Albán’s rulers were restricting the flow of this valuable resource from sources in central Mexico. Surprisingly, the new compositional data indicate that in contrast to later periods, none of the utilitarian pottery and only a handful of costly vessels recovered at El Mogote were produced on site. While much of the pottery from El Mogote (especially utilitarian vessels) was obtained from the Ocotlán source to the south, the Rosario/ Early MA I assemblage also included a few vessels produced in the far northern Valle Grande and even southern Etla, regions likely under the control or influence of Monte Albán in Early MA I. Thus, the compositional data suggest that if there was indeed conflict between the San José Mogote/Monte Albán and Tilcajete polities during the Rosario phase and Early MA I, such conflict was episodic and/or not sufficiently intense to wholly impede the exchange of pottery across the political boundaries that have been proposed. Beginning in Late MA I, there was a pronounced shift in the exchange networks linking the Tilcajete polity with other communities in the valley. Relative to the preceding period, the scale of the supply zone from which pottery at El Palenque was acquired contracted significantly, as did the diversity of the ceramic assemblage. Overall, there was a much greater reliance on locally produced, lower quality pottery, including both utilitarian and costly vessels. One possible explanation for the dramatic shift at Tilcajete is that El Palenque was economically isolated—and the local production of both utilitarian and costly pottery was stimulated—by intensified conflict with the Monte Albán polity, as Spencer and Redmond (2001) have proposed. This scenario seems likely, particularly if we consider the contemporaneous Late MA I to MA II assemblages from Monte Albán and Yaasuchi. The inhabitants of both sites acquired utilitarian pottery from a wide range of suppliers throughout the northern Valle Grande and central zone of the valley, and in the case of Monte Albán, also southern Etla and western Tlacolula—patterns that suggest robust market exchange. Regional survey data likewise suggest that the Tlacolula region, and particularly western Tlacolula, became more integrated into the “political-economic orbit” of Monte Albán during Late MA I (Feinman and Nicholas, 2013: 63). However, with the exception of a single utilitarian bowl recovered at Yaasuchi that was produced at Tilcajete, and one costly bowl in the Monte Albán assemblage that originated in Ocotlán, the compositional data indicate that the exchange networks engaged in by the inhabitants of Monte Albán and Yaasuchi did not extend into the Tilcajete/Ocotlán region. Overall, the exchange patterns in our study area during Late MA I are reminiscent of the Petexbatun region in the Late/Terminal Classic as well as the pre-Aztec Valley of Mexico, where endemic conflict and political fragmentation constrained, but did not entirely disrupt, larger-scale ceramic exchange networks (Foias and Bishop, 1997; Minc et al., 1994). Indeed, the compositional data indicate that El Palenque was not completely isolated. Although the intensity and direction of exchange relationships clearly changed during Late MA I, El Palenque’s inhabitants still acquired modest amounts of pottery from some of the same producers that supplied Monte Albán and Yaasuchi (e.g., Cuilapan, Coyotepec), and they still engaged in some longer-distance exchange. Significantly, the pottery from distant sources comprised mainly costly crema vessels produced in the Atzompa locality. Given the proximity of Atzompa to Monte Albán, as well as clear evidence of crema production at the latter site in MA II (Markens and Martínez López, 2009), it seems plausible to suggest that Monte Albán’s rulers began to control—or at least attempted to control—the production and distribution of costly crema vessels during the preceding Late MA I period (Minc et al., 2016: 43). If so, the distribution of such pottery may have been shaped by political, rather than purely

6. Discussion Potters in various locales within our study area (e.g., Atzompa, Cuilapan, San Agustín de las Juntas, Coyotepec, Reyes Mantecón, Ocotlán) began manufacturing vessels as early as the Rosario phase or MA I, and they remained major suppliers throughout the periods we considered. Communities tended to specialize in the production of particular wares or types (Minc et al., 2016), and as demonstrated in this paper, pottery from these sources was widely distributed to many different communities (although the distribution of vessels from some suppliers [e.g., WVG-2] was more restricted temporally and spatially). Specialized production coupled with widespread distribution of at least utilitarian pottery likely signals market exchange (Stark and Garraty, 2010). Thus, our new compositional data from the valley’s core generally accord with earlier models positing the development of market networks as early as the MA I period (Blanton et al., 1982, 1999; Feinman, 1980, 1982, 1986; Feinman et al., 1984a, 1984b; Kowalewski et al., 1989). At the same time, it appears that the spatial scale of these networks fluctuated through time, with multiple, truncated market spheres during certain periods (most obviously in Late MA I), rather than a single integrated regional market system. This fragmented pattern may reflect the disruptive effects of interpolity competition/conflict on the movement of people and goods throughout the valley (cf. Blanton et al., 1999: 100, 119). In addition, there are indications that different forms of exchange were operative, particularly later in time. Distribution patterns for earlier (Rosario to Early I) pottery do not differ according to vessel quality as might be expected if they were exchanged via different mechanisms (although this pattern may be due, at least in part, to small sample size). However, distributional patterns for utilitarian and costly vessels differed more significantly in Late MA I and MA II, suggesting that multiple forms of exchange (i.e., both market and non-market) and/or different exchange networks based on vessel quality existed by those periods. Communities (except for El Palenque) generally acquired utilitarian and costly vessels from different sources, and the distances the vessels were transported differed significantly. Utilitarian pottery was generally acquired from various sources and transported modest distances (no more than 15–20 km in the majority of cases), as we might expect with marketplace exchange. In contrast, many costly vessels were transported considerably longer distances—indicating that the frequency of exchange was not determined purely by economic factors (e.g., transport costs)—or they were locally produced, perhaps by sponsored or attached specialists. As we discuss below, the long-distance transport of costly vessels may be indicative of politically significant exchange relationships, including gift-giving. While it is certainly possible that some of the vessels we classified as “costly” were exchanged in marketplaces, the different distributional patterns for lower- and higher-quality pottery beginning in Late MA I suggest other factors were in play. One could speculate that the marketplaces in which utilitarian and costly vessels were exchanged were distinct, with the latter perhaps being under elite control (see Hirth’s [2010: 233–234] discussion of staple versus prestige goods markets). However, particularly for wares/types whose production was spatially restricted (e.g., cremas and crema-imitations, see below), at least some non-market exchange seems quite likely. In addition to aggregate patterns, shifts in the direction and intensity of exchange between particular sites/regions may reflect the influence of political factors on economic interactions. Temporal shifts 17

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

economic, factors. Although some decorated crema sherds have been recovered in excavations at Tilcajete, they were less abundant there than at the contemporaneous, yet much smaller, site of Yaasuchi (Spencer and Redmond, 2001: 220, 2003: Table 2; Spencer et al., 2008: Fig. 10; Sherman et al., 2010: 287). This low-frequency occurrence of crema pottery at El Palenque, found mostly in elite and public/ceremonial contexts, may reflect cycling between periods of intensified tension or open conflict between the Monte Albán and Tilcajete polities and times of relative peace. During the latter, elites at El Palenque may have been able to acquire crema vessels directly from producers at Atzompa or via intermediaries, and/or they may have received them as gifts from elites at Monte Albán, perhaps as part of diplomatic interactions (see Feinman and Nicholas [2013: 62–65; also Feinman, 2007:7-8], who likewise posit a “fluid” relationship between Monte Albán and Tilcajete that fluctuated between antagonism and periods of greater interaction). Costly crema pottery may thus have been analogous to the highly elaborate polychrome vessels gifted among Classic Maya rulers, or the few Teotihuacan-style vessels found in Early Classic (Monte Albán IIIa) elite contexts at Monte Albán, which may represent gifts from Teotihuacano nobles (Marcus and Flannery, 1996: 234; also Kowalewski et al., 1989: 249). During the MA II period, the distance that pottery was transported continued to vary according to vessel quality. Whereas most utilitarian vessels were transported less than 15 km, many costly vessels—particularly elaborate crema vessels, now produced at Monte Albán—were transported over considerably longer distances (up to 25 km). And once again, major shifts occurred at Tilcajete. In sharp contrast to El Palenque, the assemblage from Cerro Tilcajete included no locally produced pottery despite the fact that its inhabitants presumably still had access to the same raw materials used by local potters in earlier periods. Instead, both utilitarian and costly vessels were obtained from many different sources via larger-scale exchange networks that once again extended into the northern Valle Grande/central zone and southward to Ocotlán. Clearly Cerro Tilcajete (and the larger Tilcajete locality?) was integrated into a broader regional exchange system in MA II, which is not surprising given various lines of evidence indicating the incorporation of the Tilcajete polity into the Zapotec state during this period (Elson, 2007). In comparison to Cerro Tilcajete, fewer production sources were represented in the MA II utilitarian pottery assemblages from Monte Albán and Yaasuchi (although the apparent lack of diversity of utilitarian vessels at both sites may be due, at least in part, to small sample sizes). Even if Monte Albán acquired utilitarian vessels from fewer sources than Cerro Tilcajete, large majorities of vessels at both Monte Albán and Cerro Tilcajete were obtained from the same two suppliers, San Agustín de las Juntas and Reyes Mantecón (EVG-3), which suggests participation in the same utilitarian market network. Likewise, a single utilitarian vessel from Yaasuchi was produced in Ocotlán, which also supplied pottery to Cerro Tilcajete (but again, the sample size is far too small to make definitive inferences). Overall, the MA II exchange patterns suggest that regional economic interactions were facilitated by the incorporation of rival communities into the Monte Albán state, much as the political unification of the Valley of Mexico in the Late Aztec period resulted in a larger-scale exchange system linking polities throughout the region (Garraty, 2006, 2013; Hodge and Minc, 1990; Nichols et al., 2002). At the same time that marketplace exchange of utilitarian pottery was facilitated by regional political integration, the exchange of costly vessels appears to have played a key role in the dynamic sociopolitical relationships that characterized the early Monte Albán state. The compositional data indicate that the number of sources producing costly pottery increased in MA II. While Monte Albán appears to have dominated production of highly valued crema vessels, other communities in the study area began manufacturing crema-like vessels. For example, gris (G.29) vessels reminiscent of the crema types C.6 and C.7 were manufactured primarily by potters near Yaasuchi. It is not surprising, therefore, that excavations at this site yielded many G.29 s sherds (Sherman, 2005: 457-458). This type was also present, though less abundant and varied, at Cerro Tilcajete (Elson, 2007: 100, 109).

The compositional data indicate that the production of K.17 vessels, which were similar to the crema types C.12 and C.20, was more geographically dispersed, with as many as six different sources—including four in the Valle Grande (especially Cuilapan and Ocotlán), and one in Etla—producing these high-value imitations. Modest quantities of K.17 sherds were recovered at both Cerro Tilcajete and Yaasuchi (Elson, 2007: 113; Sherman, 2005: 467), indicating that these café vessels—in addition to G.29 vessels—were exchanged among lower-order centers within the Valle Grande. In contrast, although our analyses confirmed that a limited number of G.29 and K.17 vessels were imported at Monte Albán, excavation data indicated that both types were rare at the Zapotec capital (so rare, in fact, that Caso et al. [1967: 53, 67] considered these types to be “intrusive”). In addition, costly amarillo (A.9) vessels with red-painted designs, some of which were similar to incised designs on crema pottery, were produced at Coyotepec and, to a lesser extent, San Agustín de las Juntas. Although A.9 pottery was imported at Cerro Tilcajete, Yaasuchi, and Monte Albán, regional survey data suggest that this type was most common within the Valle Grande and Tlacolula (Kowalewski et al. 1989: 168-170, Fig. 7.16). All of the sources of costly pottery noted above (as well as others) are well represented in the assemblage from Cerro Tilcajete. While the MA II assemblages from Monte Albán and particularly Yaasuchi are somewhat less diverse, this reflects a predominance of locally produced vessels (cremas at Monte Albán, G.29 s at Yaasuchi), whereas all costly vessels used at Cerro Tilcajete were produced off-site. We suggest that the proliferation of new types and suppliers in MA II reflects an increased demand for costly pottery driven, at least in part, by the use of elaborately decorated vessels as a form of political currency. As noted previously, various lines of evidence suggest that integration in the early Monte Albán state was a complex process shaped by a number of sociopolitical factors, including the different roles played by sites in the new regional system, relationships among elites of varying status, and the particular interests of and political strategies employed by different social groups (e.g., Elson and Sherman, 2007; Feinman and Nicholas, 2013: 778-79; Joyce, 2010: 158-159; Kowalewski et al., 1989: 153, 199; Sherman, 2005: 326-328). Given the uneven distribution of particular costly pottery types in MA II (Elson and Sherman, 2007; Feinman and Nicholas, 2013: 85-88; Kowalewski et al., 1989: 180-182), it seems likely that some ceramic vessels functioned as prestige goods that marked elite status, while differential access to such pottery reflected and reinforced differences within the elite class (Elson and Sherman, 2007). As Elson and Sherman (2007) have proposed, the relationship between elites at Monte Albán and lower-order administrative centers in the valley may have been mediated, in part, by the gifting of elaborate pottery, particularly crema vessels bearing incised designs associated with Cociyo (Lightning), one of the most powerful forces in Zapotec cosmology. Such transactions were intended to strengthen political and ideological ties among the elite class and to integrate lower-status elites at smaller administrative centers into the new regional hierarchy headed by Monte Albán. However, assemblage data from Cerro Tilcajete and, to an even greater extent, Yassuchi indicate that elites at these centers did not have access to the full array of “fancy” crema vessels manufactured at or near the Zapotec capital. In order to compensate for the restricted supply of true cremas, elites at smaller sites may have encouraged or sponsored the local production of imitation serving vessels (such as the types G.29 and K.17), thereby circumventing Monte Albán’s attempts to control the production and distribution of highly valued pottery. If this proposition is correct, then elites residing in the Valle Grande may have acquired crema imitations directly from potters and/or as gifts from other elites. At the same time, it appears that access to these “costly” types was not restricted by status, and such pottery may have been exchanged in various ways. While G.29 and K.17 sherds were recovered from elite contexts at Yaasuchi and Cerro Tilcajete, both types (especially G.29) were also found in association with a lowerstatus residence at the latter site (Elson, 2007: 65, Table 4.7). This may indicate that some crema imitations were exchanged in marketplaces, 18

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al.

where lower-status families with sufficient means could acquire these “costly” vessels. Alternatively, elites at smaller administrative centers may have gifted crema imitations to lower-status families as a deliberate strategy to build vertical relationships at the local level (analogous to the distribution of elaborate pottery among commoners at Xunantunich during the Terminal Classic [LeCount, 1999]). Regardless of exactly how crema-like vessels were exchanged, the fact that such pottery was manufactured and circulated among various communities and social groups outside the capital—in contrast to the more restricted production and distribution of elaborate crema vessels from Monte Albán—undoubtedly reflects the complex interplay between sociopolitical and economic relationships within the early Zapotec state. In sum, the new compositional data allow us to detect the movement of individual vessels from potters to consumers and thereby refine previous models of ceramic exchange in the Valley of Oaxaca based primarily on typological, stylistic, and/or site assemblage data. The results of our analyses accord with earlier models positing the development of market exchange (at least of utilitarian vessels) by the MA I period. At the same time, it appears that the number and scale of market networks in the valley may have fluctuated through time. Regional political fragmentation and open conflict prior to the subjugation of the entire valley by Monte Albán likely hindered economic interactions across political boundaries, but not entirely. The results of our analyses also suggest that market exchange was accompanied by other, non-market forms of exchange of more costly vessels, such as gift-giving and/or direct acquisition from sponsored potters, particularly from Late MA I onward. The production and distribution patterns for elaborate pottery, as well as imitations, likely reflect a fluid political environment in which costly vessels were used as a form of political currency. The circulation of these highly valued items helped to build and maintain intra- and interpolity alliances, as well as to reinforce—or in some cases resist—the increasing sociopolitical differentiation that accompanied state formation. Thus, the relationship between ceramic exchange and political factors was dynamic and changing; while the latter shaped the former, the reverse was also true. We would emphasize that our analyses focused only on the central and southern portions of the valley, and that fine-grained compositional data for MA I to II pottery from excavation contexts are not currently available for other parts of the valley, particularly the eastern (Tlacolula) branch. Once such data become available, they will allow us to assess whether the nature and scale of exchange networks in those regions during the period of state formation were similar to those in our study area.

National Science Foundation (9303129 and 0921133), the National Geographic Society (6519-99 and 9361-13), and the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). Christina Elson’s fieldwork at Cerro Tilcajete was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., the University of Michigan, and the AMNH. Research at Yaasuchi by Jason Sherman was funded by a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship and the University of Michigan. Finally, we wish to thank Kayla Younkin for preparing the ceramic drawings, Sarah Walker for calculating least-cost distances and travel times, and Gary Feinman for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.101109. References Abbott, D.R., 2010. The rise and demise of marketplace exchange among the prehistoric Hohokam of Arizona. In: Garraty, C.P., Stark, B.L. (Eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 61–83. Aceves Calderón, P.M., 1984. Cerámica de la Fase Rosario del Valle de Oaxaca, México. Unpublished Licenciatura thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Mexico. Ball, J.W., 1993. Pottery, potters, palaces, and polities: some socioeconomic and political implications of Late Classic Maya ceramic industries. In: Sabloff, J.A., Henderson, J.S. (Eds.), Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C., pp. 243–272. Baxter, M.J., 2003. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Percheron Press, New York. Bernal, I., 1973. Stone reliefs in the Dainzú area. In: The Iconography of Middle American Sculpture. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, pp. 13–23. Bey III, G.J., 2003. The role of ceramics in the study of conflict in Maya archaeology. In: Brown, M.K., Stanton, T.W. (Eds.), Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 19–30. Blanton, R.E., 1978. Monte Albán: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec Capital. Academic Press, New York. Blanton, R.E., 1983. Factors underlying the origin and evolution of market systems. In: Ortiz, S. (Ed.), Economic Anthropology: Topics and Theories. Monographs in Economic Anthropology 1. Society for Economic Anthropology, pp. 51–66. Blanton, R.E., 1985. A comparison of early market systems. In: Plattner, S. (Ed.), Markets and Marketing. Monographs in Economic Anthropology 4. University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 399–416. Blanton, R.E., 1996. The Basin of Mexico market system and the growth of empire. In: Berdan, F.F., Blanton, R.E., Boone, E.H., Hodge, M.G., Smith, M.E., Umberger, E. (Eds.), Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 47–84. Blanton, R.E., Fargher, L.F., 2010. Evaluating causal factors in market development in premodern states: a comparative study, with critical comments on the history of ideas about markets. In: Garraty, C.P., Stark, B.L. (Eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 207–226. Blanton, R.E., Feinman, G.M., Kowalewski, S.A., Nicholas, L.M., 1999. Ancient Oaxaca: The Monte Albán State. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Blanton, R.E., Feinman, G.M., Kowalewski, S.A., Peregrine, P.N., 1996. A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Curr. Anthropol. 37 (1), 1–14. Blanton, R.E., Kowalewski, S., Feinman, G., Appel, J., 1982. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part I: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoir 15. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Blomster, J.P., Neff, H., Glascock, M.D., 2005. Olmec pottery production and export in ancient Mexico determined through elemental analysis. Science 307, 1068–1072. Braswell, G.E., 2010. The rise and fall of market exchange: a dynamic approach to ancient Maya economy. In: Garraty, C.P., Stark, B.L. (Eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 127–140. Braswell, G.E., Glascock, M.D., 2002. The emergence of market economies in the ancient Maya world: obsidian exchange in Terminal Classic Yucatán, Mexico. In: Glascock, M.D. (Ed.), Geochemical Evidence for Long-Distance Exchange. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, CT, pp. 33–52. Brumfiel, E.M., 1987a. Consumption and politics at Aztec Huexotla. Am. Anthropol. 89, 676–686. Brumfiel, E.M., 1987b. Elite and utilitarian crafts in the Aztec state. In: Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K. (Eds.), Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 102–118. Brumfiel, E.M., 1994. Factional competition and political development in the New World: an introduction. In: Brumfiel, E.M., Fox, J.W. (Eds.), Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–13. Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K., 1987. Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: an

7. Data availability Trace-element data for clays and ceramics included in this study are being archived through the Oregon State University library (see https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu), and mineralogical data were published previously in Minc and Sherman (2011) and Minc et al. (2016). Declaration of Competing Interest None. Acknowledgments We thank Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) for permission to conduct research at El Mogote, El Palenque, Cerro Tilcajete, and Yaasuchi, and to analyze the clays and ceramics in this study. We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance we received from Dr. Marcus Winter, Lic. Cira Martínez López, Dr. Robert Markens, and the staff of INAH Oaxaca. Ceramic/clay sample collection and analyses were supported in part by grants from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the National Science Foundation (1005945) to PI Leah Minc. The investigations at El Mogote and El Palenque by Charles Spencer and Elsa Redmond were funded by the 19

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al. introduction. In: Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K. (Eds.), Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–9. Caso, A., Bernal, I., Acosta, J., 1967. La Cerámica de Monte Albán. Memorias del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 13, Mexico. Chase, A.F., Chase, D.Z., 1992. Mesoamerican elites: assumptions, definitions, and models. In: Chase, D.Z., Chase, A.F. (Eds.), Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, pp. 3–17. Coe, M.D., 1962. Mexico. Praeger, New York. Demarest, A., 2004. Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Drennan, R.D., 1976. Fábrica San José and Middle Formative Society in the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoir 8, Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Durán, F.D., 1964 [1581]. The Aztecs: The History of the Indies of New Spain, translated with notes by D. Heyden and F. Horcasitas. Orion Press, New York. Elson, C.M., 2003. Elites at Cerro Tilcajete: A Secondary Center in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Elson, C.M., 2007. Excavations at Cerro Tilcajete: A Monte Albán II Administrative Center in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoir 42, Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Elson, C.M., Sherman, R.J., 2007. Crema ware and elite power at Monte Albán: ceramic production and iconography in the Oaxaca Valley, Mexico. J. Field Archaeol. 32, 265–282. Evans, S.T., 2001. Aztec noble courts: men, women, and children of the palace. In: Inomata, T., Houston, S.D. (Eds.), Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya. Volume One: Theory, Comparison, and Synthesis. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 237–273. Fargher, L., 2007. A microscopic view of ceramic production: an analysis of thin-sections from Monte Albán. Latin Am. Antiquity 18, 313–332. Feinman, G., 1980. The Relationship Between Administrative Organization and Ceramic Production in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The City University of New York Graduate Center. Feinman, G., 1982. Patterns in ceramic production and distribution, periods Early I through V. In: Blanton, R.E., Kowalewski, S., Feinman, G., Appel, J., Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part I: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoir 15. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 181-206. Feinman, G., 1986. The emergence of specialized ceramic production in Formative Oaxaca. In: Isaac, B.L. (Ed.), Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico. JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, pp. 347–373. Feinman, G.M., 2007. The last quarter century of archaeological research in the central valleys of Oaxaca. Mexicon 29, 3–15. Feinman, G.M., Banker, S., Cooper, R.F., Cook, G.B., Nicholas, L.M., 1989. A technological perspective on changes in the ancient Oaxacan grayware ceramic tradition: preliminary results. J. Field Archaeol. 16, 331–344. Feinman, G.M., Blanton, R., Kowalewski, S., 1984a. Market system development in the prehispanic Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. In: Hirth, K.G. (Ed.), Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 157–178. Feinman, G.M., Kowalewski, S.A., Banker, S., Nicholas, L.M., 1992. Ceramic production and distributioin in Late Postclassic Oaxaca: stylistic and petrographic perspectives. In: Bey, G.J., Pool, C.A. (Eds.), Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 235–260. Feinman, G.M., Kowalewski, S., Blanton, R., 1984b. Modeling ceramic production and organization change in the pre-Hispanic Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. In: van der Leeuw, S.E., Pritchard, A.C. (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, pp. 295–338. Feinman, G.M., Garraty, C.P., 2010. Preindustrial markets and marketing: archaeological perspectives. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 39, 167–191. Feinman, G.M., Nicholas, L.M., 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology (new series) 43, 1–330. Flannery, K.V., Winter, M., Lees, S., Neely, J., Schoenwetter, J., Kitchen, S., Wheeler, J.C., 1970. Preliminary Archaeological Investigations in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, 1966-1969. Report to the National Science Foundation and the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. Flannery, K.V., Marcus, J., 1994. Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoir 27, Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Flannery, K.V., Marcus, J., 2003. The origin of war: new 14C dates from ancient Mexico. PNAS 100, 11801–11805. Flannery, K.V., Marcus, J., 2005. Excavations at San José Mogote 1: The Household Archaeology. Memoir 40, Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Flannery, K.V., Marcus, J., 2015. Excavations at San José Mogote 2: The Cognitive Archaeology. Memoir 58, Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Foias, A.E., 2002. At the crossroads: the economic basis of political power in the Petexbatun region. In: Masson, M.A., Freidel, D.A. (Eds.), Ancient Maya Political Economies. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 223–248. Foias, A.E., Bishop, R.L., 1997. Changing ceramic production and exchange in the Petexbatun region, Guatemala: reconsidering the Classic Maya collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 8 (2), 275–291. Fry, R.E., 1980. Models of exchange for major shape classes of Lowland Maya pottery. In: Fry, R.E. (Ed.), Models and Methods in Regional Exchange. SAA Papers No. 1. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC, pp. 3-18. Garraty, C.P., 2006. The Politics of Commerce: Aztec Pottery Production and Exchange in the Basin of Mexico, A.D. 1200–1650. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Human Evolution and Social Change. Arizona State University, Tempe. University Microfilms, Ann

Arbor, MI. Garraty, C.P., 2010. Investigating market exchange in ancient societies: a theoretical review. In: Garraty, C.P., Stark, B.L. (Eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 3–32. Garraty, C.P., 2013. Market development and expansion under Aztec and Spanish rule in Cerro Portezuelo. Ancient Mesoamerica 24, 151–176. Halperin, C.T., Foias, A.E., 2010. Pottery politics: Late Classic Maya palace production at Motul de San José, Petén, Guatemala. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 29, 392–411. Herrera, R.S., Neff, H., Glascock, M.D., 1999. Ceramic patterns, social interaction, and the Olmec: neutron activation analysis of Early Formative pottery in the Oaxaca highlands of Mexico. J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 967–987. Hirth, K.G., 1998. The distributional approach: a new way to identify marketplace exchange in the archaeological record. Curr. Anthropol. 39, 451–476. Hirth, K.G., 2010. Finding the mark in the marketplace: the organization, development, and archaeological identification of market systems. In: Garraty, C.P., Stark, B.L. (Eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 227–247. Hodge, M.G., Minc, L.D., 1990. The spatial patterning of Aztec ceramics: implications for prehispanic exchange systems in the Valley of Mexico. J. Field Archaeol. 17, 415–437. Hodges, R., 1988. Primitive and Peasant Markets. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Houston, S.D., Stuart, D., Taube, K.A., 1989. Folk classification of Classic Maya pottery. Am. Anthropol. 91, 720–726. Joyce, A.A., 2000. The founding of Monte Albán: sacred propositions and social practices. In: Dobres, M., Robb, J. (Eds.), Agency in Archaeology. Routledge Press, London, pp. 71–91. Joyce, A.A., 2010. Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA. Joyce, A.A., Neff, H., Thieme, M.S., Winter, M., Elam, J.M., Workinger, A., 2006. Ceramic production and exchange in Late/Terminal Formative period Oaxaca. Latin Am. Antiquity 17, 579–594. Joyce, A.A., Winter, M., 1996. Ideology, power, and urban society in prehispanic Oaxaca. Curr. Anthropol. 37, 33–86. Kowalewski, S.A., Feinman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R.E., Nicholas, L., 1989. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoir 23. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Kurnick, S., Baron, J. (Eds.), 2016. Political Strategies in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. LeCount, L.J., 1999. Polychrome pottery and political strategies in Late and Terminal Classic lowland Maya society. Latin Am. Antiquity 10 (3), 239–258. MacLeod, B., Reents-Budet, D., 1994. The art of calligraphy: image and meaning. In: Reents-Budet, D. (Ed.), Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 106–163. Marcus, J., 1983. Monte Albán II in the Macuilxochitl area. In: Flannery, K.V., Marcus, J. (Eds.), The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Academic Press, New York, pp. 113–115. Marcus, J., 1992. Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Marcus, J., Flannery, K.V., 1996. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson, New York. Markens, R., Martínez López, C., 2009. El Sistema de producción cerámica en Monte Albán durante el Preclásico Tardío y el Clásico Tardío. In: Robles García, N.M. (Ed.), Bases de la Complejidad Social en Oaxaca: Memoria de la Cuarta Mesa Redonda de Monte Albán. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico, D.F., pp. 123–152. Markens, R., Martínez López, C., Winter, M., 2016. Los hornos de cerámica prehispánicos a través del tiempo en el Valle de Oaxaca. In: Pomedio, C., Danneels, A. (Eds.), Memorias del Primer Coloquio de Tecnología Cerámica. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F. Masson, M.A., 2002. Introduction. In: Masson, M.A., Freidel, D.A. (Eds.), Ancient Maya Political Economies. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 1–30. Masson, M.A., Freidel, D.A., 2012. An argument for Classic era Maya market exchange. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 31, 455–484. Minc, L.D., 2006. Monitoring regional market systems in prehistory: models, methods, and metrics. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 25 (1), 82–116. Minc, L.D., 2009. Style and substance: evidence for regionalization within the Aztec market system. Latin Am. Antiquity 20 (2), 343–374. Minc, L.D., Hodge, M.G., Blackman, M.J., 1994. Stylistic and spatial variability in Early Aztec ceramics: insights into pre-imperial exchange systems. In: Hodge, M.G., Smith, M.E. (Eds.), Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm. IMS Studies on Culture and Society Series No. 6. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY, Albany, NY, pp. 133–173. Minc, L., Pink, J., 2014. Trace-Element Analysis of Oaxacan Ceramics: Insights into the Regional Organization of Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Valley of Oaxaca during the Late Classic (AD 550–850). Technical report. State University Archaeometry Lab, Oregon. Minc, L.D., Pink, J.R., 2015. Investigaciones en la Organización Regional de la Producción de Cerámica y el Intercambio en el Valle de Oaxaca durante el Clásico Tardio (550850 d.C.), Resultados de Análisis Químicos de Arcillas y Cerámicas. Informe Final al Consejo de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México. Minc, L.D., Sherman, R.J., 2011. Assessing natural clay composition in the Valley of Oaxaca as a basis for ceramic provenance studies. Archaeometry 53, 285–328. Minc, L.D., Sherman, R.J., Elson, C., Spencer, C.S., Redmond, E.M., 2007. “M Glow Blue”: archaeometric research at Michigan’s Ford Nuclear Reactor. Archaeometry 49, 215–228.

20

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56 (2019) 101109

R.J. Sherman, et al. Minc, L.D., Sherman, R.J., Elson, C., Winter, M., Redmond, E.M., Spencer, C.S., 2016. Ceramic provenance and the regional organization of pottery production during the later Formative periods in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico: results of trace-element and mineralogical analyses. J. Archaeol. Sci. Reports 8, 28–46. Nichols, D.L., Brumfiel, E.M., Neff, H., Hodge, M., Charlton, T.H., Glascock, M.D., 2002. Neutrons, markets, cities, and empires: a 1000-year perspective on ceramic production and distribution in the Postclassic Basin of Mexico. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 21 (1), 25–82. Peregrine, P., 1991. Some political aspects of craft specialization. World Archaeol. 23 (1), 1–11. Plattner, S., 1989. Markets and marketplaces. In: Plattner, S. (Ed.), Economic Anthropology. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 171–208. Redmond, E.M., Harbottle, G., 1983. Neutron-activation analysis of ceramics from the Valley of Oaxaca and the Cuicatlán Cañada. In: Redmond, E., Fuego y Sangre: Early Zapotec Imperialism in the Cuicatlán Cañada, Oaxaca. Memoir 16, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 185-205. Redmond, E.M., Spencer, C.S., 2008. Rituals of sanctification and the development of standardized temples in Oaxaca. Mexico. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 18, 239–266. Redmond, E.M., Spencer, C.S., 2013. Early (300-100 B.C.) temple precinct in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. PNAS 110 (19), E1707–E1715. Redmond, E.M., Spencer, C.S., 2017. Ancient palace complex (300–100 BC) discovered in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. PNAS 114, 3805–3814. Reents-Budet, D., 1994. Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Reents-Budet, D., Bishop, R.L., MacLeod, B., 1994. Painting styles, workshop locations and pottery production. In: Reents-Budet, D. (Ed.), Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 164–233. Reents-Budet, D., Bishop, R.L., Taschek, J.T., Ball, J.W., 2000. Out of the palace dumps: ceramic production and use at Buenavista del Cayo. Ancient Mesoamerica 11, 99–121. Renfrew, C., 1986. Introduction: peer polity interaction and socio-political change. In: Renfrew, C., Cherry, J.F. (Eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–18. Renfrew, C., Cherry, J.F., 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rice, P., 1987. Economic change in the lowland Maya Late Classic period. In: Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K. (Eds.), Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 76–85. Rice, P., 2009. Late Classic Maya pottery production: review and synthesis. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 16, 117–156. Shepard, A., 1963. Beginnings of ceramic industrialization: an example from the Oaxaca Valley. In: Shepard, A. (Ed.), Notes from a Ceramic Laboratory 2. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 1–24. Shepard, A., 1967. Preliminary notes on the paste composition of Monte Albán pottery. In: Caso, A., Bernal, I., Acosta, J. (Eds.), La Cerámica de Monte Albán. Memorias del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 13, Mexico. Sherman, R.J., 2005. Settlement Heterogeneity in the Zapotec State: A View from Yaasuchi, Oaxaca, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Sherman, R.J., Balkansky, A.K., Spencer, C.S., Nicholls, B.D., 2010. Expansionary dynamics of the nascent Monte Albán state. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 29, 278–301. Smith, M.E., 2012. The Aztecs, 3rd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Smith, M.E., Wharton, J.B., Olson, J.M., 2003. Aztec feasts, rituals, and markets: political uses of ceramic vessels in a commercial economy. In: Bray, T.L. (Ed.), The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires. Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 235–268. Spencer, C.S., 2010. Territorial expansion and primary state formation. PNAS 107, 7119–7126. Spencer, C.S., Redmond, E.M., 2001. Multilevel selection and political evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, 500–100 B.C. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 20, 195–229. Spencer, C.S., Redmond, E.M., 2003. Militarism, resistance, and early state development in Oaxaca, Mexico. Social Evolution and History 2, 25–70. Spencer, C.S., Redmond, E.M., 2004. A Late Monte Albán I phase (300–100 B.C.) palace in the Valley of Oaxaca. Latin Am. Antiquity 15, 441–455. Spencer, C.S., Redmond, E.M., 2008. Proyecto de Investigación Arqueológica en San Martin Tilcajete: Un Centro Subregional del Periodo Formativo en el Valle de Oaxaca: Investigaciones en El Mogote (SMT-11a) y El Palenque (SMT-11b), Temporadas 1993-2007. Informe Técnico (Final) para el Consejo de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Spencer, C.S., Redmond, E.M., Elson, C.M., 2008. Ceramic microtypology and the territorial expansion of the early Monte Albán state in Oaxaca, Mexico. J. Field Archaeol. 33, 321–341. Stark, B.L., Garraty, C.P., 2010. Detecting marketplace exchange in archaeology: a methodological review. In: Garraty, C.P., Stark, B.L. (Eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 33–58. Stark, B.L., Ossa, A., 2010. Origins and development of Mesoamerican marketplaces: evidence from South-Central Veracruz, Mexico. In: Garraty, C.P., Stark, B.L. (Eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 99–126. Stoltman, J.B., Marcus, J., Flannery, K.V., Burton, J.H., Moyle, R.G., 2005. Petrographic evidence shows that pottery exchange between the Olmec and their neighbors was two-way. PNAS 102, 11213–11218. Tozzer, A.M., 1941. Landa’s Relación de las Cosas de Yucatan: A Translation. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. XVIII. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Trombold, C.D., 1991. Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Urcid, J., 2011. Los oráculos y la Guerra: el papel de las narrativas pictóricas en el desarrollo temprano de Monte Albán (500 a.C.-200 d.C.). In: Robles García, N.M., Rivera Guzmán, A.I. (Eds.), Monte Albán en la Encrucijada Regional y Disciplinaria: Memoria de la V Mesa Redonda de Monte Albán. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 163–237. Whalen, M.E., 1981. Excavations at Santo Domingo Tomaltepec: Evolution of a Formative Community in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoir 12, Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Winter, M., 1972. Tierras Largas: A Formative Community in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Winter, M., 1984. Exchange in Formative highland Oaxaca. In: Hirth, K.G. (Ed.), Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 179–214. Winter, M., 2011. Social memory and the origins of Monte Albán. Ancient Mesoamerica 22 (2), 393–409.

21