FARMING AND HUNTING IN THE OLMEC WORLD

A Model of Olmec Subsistence Economy

The relationship between agricultural intensification and the emergence of political complexity has been examined in many different regions of Mesoamerica. These investigations have demonstrated that the timing of these processes varied dramatically with respect to geography, ecology, and culture history. Understanding the relationship between agricultural intensification and political complexity among the Gulf Coastal Olmec has long been hindered by a paucity of subsistence data and an ongoing debate regarding the nature of regional political complexity.
The research presented here has addressed this relationship through analyses of archaeobotanical, zooarchaeological, and isotopic data from two Formative sites in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, approximately 100 km northwest of the large Olmec capitals centered at the sites of San Lorenzo and La Venta. These analyses have revealed much about Formative farming strategies in the Tuxtlas. While it is possible to correlate changes in subsistence economy with changes in regional politics, a thorough examination of regional political economy (e.g., the mobilization of tribute from villages and hamlets to political centers) requires the excavation and analysis of additional Formative sites in the Tuxtlas. In addition, an adequate comparison between the Tuxtlas and the Lowland Olmec awaits the collection and analysis of more subsistence data from sites located in the Olmec heartland.
My goals at the outset of this project involved establishing the types of plants and animals exploited by Formative Tuxtla villagers and the frequency of their exploitation, tracing changes in subsistence from the Early to Terminal Formative periods through integrative analyses of floral and faunal remains, and determining the extent to which Formative Tuxtla villagers relied on wild versus domesticated foodstuffs. Without a doubt, this study has begun to establish an inventory of Formative plant and animal food resources in the Tuxtlas. Moreover, the analyses presented here have sought to trace changes in subsistence strategies throughout the Formative period—unfortunately, small sample sizes for the Middle and Late Formative periods have limited a clear understanding of subsistence change during these periods, although the Early and Terminal Formative periods are better understood.
Formative villagers began to intensify agricultural production sometime between the Early and Terminal Formative periods—more accurately pinpointing this transition requires the excavation and analysis of subsistence data from additional sites spanning the Formative period. In the sections that follow, I summarize the patterns presented in Chapters 4 through 6 and correlate them with changes in sedentism, regional settlement, storage, ground stone data, and evidence of field ridging. I organize the discussion by period and consider issues of tribute mobilization, volcanic activity, subsistence risk, and agricultural intensification. In so doing, I relate these regional issues to the larger theoretical topics discussed in Chapter 2.

Summary of Patterns

Analyses of the archaeobotanical, zooarchaeological, and isotopic data have offered a means through which to better understand changing subsistence in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas. Patterning in the plant data suggests an intensification of maize production during the Formative period, coupled with an increase in the harvesting of tree fruits. Evidence of garden hunting in the animal data suggests that people became increasingly committed to farming. Changes in faunal patterning during the Terminal Formative period suggest that this was a time of increased subsistence risk, probably associated with volcanic eruptions.
Moreover, isotopic data from human skeletal remains indicate that maize formed the dietary basis by the Terminal Formative. These data paint a picture of a changing subsistence economy throughout almost two millennia. Given such an expansive period, the timing of many of these subsistence-based changes is difficult to pinpoint and easily glossed over. This section synthesizes the subsistence data by period in an attempt to better understand the timing of maize intensification, the nature of subsistence risk, and the potential of tribute mobilization. In addition, I incorporate evidence of settlement, material culture, and agricultural facilities (e.g., field ridging).

The Early Formative Period (1400–1000 bc)

Tuxtla residents were relatively mobile during the Early Formative, moving seasonally or annually (Arnold 2000; McCormack 2002). It was not until the end of this period that people began to establish more permanent settlements. They grew maize using a shifting cultivation strategy, and their plots were probably scattered across the landscape in areas adjacent to prime foraging areas. In addition to planting maize, Early Formative people harvested wild and domesticated tree fruits, hunted a wide variety of terrestrial animals, and fished a great deal. Although the diet was highly diversified, the plant data indicate that maize was an important plant resource during the Early Formative.
In addition to being mobile forager-farmers, early Early Formative people were also relatively egalitarian (Arnold 2000; McCormack 2002). As population levels increased and people began to settle down toward the end of the Early Formative period, they retained an ethos of egalitarianism. A volcanic eruption coincided with this shift toward sedentism and may have influenced the decision to settle down—ashfall following the eruption would have blanketed parts of the region, thereby limiting land available for foraging and farming (McCormack 2002; Santley et al. 1997). Moreover, the abundance and distribution of wild plants and animals would have been negatively impacted.

The Middle Formative Period (1000– 400 bc)

Once people were fully sedentary, they began altering their subsistence practices and material culture. Although the subsistence data from Middle Formative contexts are few, some trends are nevertheless apparent. Tuxtla residents began to shift their faunal procurement strategies away from fish and other aquatic fauna and toward terrestrial mammals that prefer disturbed habitats. They continued to cultivate maize and to harvest avocados and coyol palm fruits. Ceramic assemblages became more diverse, indicating the development of a wider range of cooking and serving practices (McCormack 2002). The manufacture and use of ground stone tools was also more specialized than during the Early Formative period, suggesting an increased focus on maize grinding, and by extension, maize production and consumption (McCormack 2002).
Although the faunal data suggest an increase in garden hunting, which may be indicative of an increased commitment to maize-based farming, and the ground stone data suggest an increase in maize production, the plant data from this period are simply too sparse to speak to changing farming strategies. Nevertheless, it appears that maize-based farming may have become a more important subsistence strategy than it was during the Early Formative period. Villages and hamlets formed the basis of the Middle Formative settlement system in the Tuxtlas, with no known political centers established at this time (Santley et al. 1997). Individual households appear to have been independent and self-sufficient, and society at large continued to be relatively egalitarian (McCormack 2002).

The Late Formative Period (400 bc–ad 100)

The Late Formative period heralded the emergence of social ranking in the Tuxtlas. Regional population increased, and the first regional center was established at the site of Chuniapan de Abajo (Santley 1997). Despite these changes in settlement and social ranking, the level of sociopolitical complexity in theTuxtlas was not nearly as pronounced as among the lowland Olmec (McCormack 2002;Santley-Arnold 1996). Archaeobotanical evidence points to a continued focus on maize and tree fruits. Beans may have become a more important crop during this time as well. Standardized counts of maize did not change significantly at either La Joya or Bezuapan, indicating that maize consumption may have been relatively stable through time. Changes in maize kernel-to-cupule ratios, however, indicate an increase in maize processing relative to consumption at La Joya. The increase in maize processing at La Joya probably reflects a combination of settling down and focusing on maize cultivation in fields located near the residence. These changes in maize processing may also reflect an intensification of production. The faunal data suggest a continued focus on terrestrial disturbance animals indicative of garden hunting. A decrease in faunal species diversity also suggests that farming had become a less risky subsistence strategy. It is interesting that agricultural intensification corresponds to an increase in regional sociopolitical complexity. I will pursue this topic further in the discussion below. The Terminal Formative Period (ad 100–300) Regional population declined dramatically during the Terminal Formative period, and a new regional center was established at the site of Chuniapan de Arriba (Santley et al. 1997). Volcanic activity toward the end of the Late Formative and during the Terminal Formative likely influenced people’s decisions to leave the region (Santley et al. 1997). Those who stayed in the Tuxtlas continued to grow maize.
Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic data indicate that maize formed the mainstay of the Terminal Formative diet. People further intensified maize production by constructing ridged fields, and they increasingly harvested and consumed tree fruits like avocados, sapotes, and coyols. Hunting strategies, however, changed drastically from earlier periods. At La Joya, people diversified their faunal procurement by exploiting a wider range of habitats than they had during Middle and Late Formative times. At Bezuapan, people continued to focus on garden hunting but became less selective about the animals they were willing to eat. Although hunting strategies differed between these two communities, they nevertheless point to a decrease in species selectivity. I argue that this shift is indicative of increasing subsistence risk. Despite increasing risk, Terminal Formative people continued to focus their subsistence economy around farming.
It has been suggested that regional elites centered at Chuniapan de Arriba and Tres Zapotes may have commanded agricultural tribute from villages like La Joya and Bezuapan (McCormack 2002; Pool 1997). Increases in storage volume at both La Joya and Bezuapan point to the accumulation of agricultural surplus, which may have been used to help support regional leaders (Arnold 2000; Pool 1997). Indeed, residents of Bezuapan dealt with this period of risk by diversifying their garden hunting strategy, which would have allowed them to maximize their faunal returns while continuing to devote labor to their agricultural fields.
Whether or not tribute demands from regional elites could have precipitated this period of risk is another issue. Did regional elites have sufficient power that their tribute demands alone could have stressed village level subsistence? Given the scale of regional political complexity during the Terminal Formative period and the nature of chiefly power, it seems unlikely that excessive tribute demands could have been enforced. If people were dissatisfied with elite demands, they simply could have left the region, as many others chose to do at the end of the Late Formative period.

It is more likely that volcanic eruptions at the end of the Late Formative and the middle of the Terminal Formative influenced people’s decisions to alter their subsistence strategies. The short-term effects ofvolcanic eruptions and ashfall on maize production would have been devastating. It is possible that, despite increasing subsistence risk precipitated by volcanic activity, Tuxtla villagers were still encouraged to provide tribute to regional elites. Determining the flow of tribute from villages to centers, however, requires the excavation and analysis of additional data.

By Amber M. Vanderwarker in the book 'Farming, Hunting, and Fishing in the Olmec World', University of Texas Press, Austin, 2006, p.193-197. Adapted and illustrated to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.