Landscapes of Cultivation in Mesoamerica on the Eve of the Conquest Author(s): Thomas M. Whitmore and B. L.

Turner II Source: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 82, No. 3, The Americas before and after 1492: Current Geographical Research (Sep., 1992), pp. 402-425 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2563353 . Accessed: 05/10/2011 07:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

Landscapes of Cultivation Mesoamerica in on the Eve of the Conquest

Thomas M. Whitmore*and B. L. Turner II** *Department Geography, of of University North Carolina, Chapel Hill,NC 27599,
e-mailtmwhitmo@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu

**Graduate School of Geography, MarshInstitute, GeorgePerkins MA ClarkUniversity, Worcester, 01610,

Fax508/793-7780, e-mailbTurner@uax.clark.edu, omnet B.Turner

Abstract. Pre-Columbian Amerindian agriculturalists developedtechnologies and management practiceswith which to crop a wide rangeof ecologicalconditions, giving to a rise multiplicity cultivated of landscapes.Thisvarietywas particularly evidentin Mesoamerica, where agriculturalpractices ranged from swiddening to multicropped,hydraulically transformed wetlands.Here we explorethese indigenouscultivated landscapesas theyexistedaboutthetimeoftheColumbian Encounter.We illustrate the themthrough examination of three transectsapproximating the coursesofthe initial Spanishentradas through from the thisdiverseregion:the first extends Gulfcoast to central Mexico; the second traverses the Yucatanpeninsulafromnorthto Guaclimbs intohighland south;and thethird coastalplain. temalafrom Pacific the Second, we broadly sketch the major changes thattook place in these landscapes duringthe first phase of Spanishdomination and some of the forces that shaped these changes. Three processes were especially the significant: Amerindian the depopulation, introduction exoticbiotaand technologies, of econand the reordering landand therural of omy. Ultimately, however,reconfigured "hybrid" landscapes resultedthat reflected the unionof cultures. Last, arguethat scale ofenvironmenwe the tal transformation Amerindian of agriculture has not always been fullyappreciated,the scale of environmental degradation associated
Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 82(3), 1992, pp. 402-425

withSpanish introductionshas been overstated at times, and the contrastingideologies of nature between the two cultures has been oversimplified. KeyWords: Amerindian agriculture, Mesoamerica, sixteenth century, Columbian Encounter.

HE ColumbianEncounter opened the world to the treasuresof Amerindian plant domestication, the impacts of whichwould be global in reachand rangefar beyondagriculture se. The potato,forexper ample,increasedthe caloricbase of northern Europe,facilitating exponential its population growth after 1750,whilemaize,manioc,sweet potato,and peanut became dietary mainstays formuch of the restof the world (Hamilton 1976, 856-57, 860).Amerindian cotton was literallythefabric theindustrializationtextiles of of (Sauer1976,818),and tobacco claimsthedubious distinction "viceof choice" formuchof of theworld. Less well known is that these and other Amerindian of domesticates globalsignificance (e.g., avocado, bean, cacao, chile, papaya, squash, and tomato)coevolved with equally of impressive systems cultivation. Longbefore theColumbian Amerindian Encounter, agriculturalists developedtechnologies manhad and withwhichto crop a wide agementpractices and rangeof environments ecological condiriseto a variety landscapesof of tions,giving This was evident cultivation. variety particularly

1992 of ( Copyright byAssociation American Geographers

Landscapes of Cultivationin Mesoamerica

403

culin Mesoamerica, whereadvancedmaterial from the tureand stateorganization extended Mexico southern border the BajioinCentral of parts southeastward Guatemala,including to ofBelize,Honduras, and Nicaragua, CostaRica landscapes (Fig. 1). Some of these cultivated consistedof intermingled patchwork-like or enviMicrosystems, fine-tuned small-scale to weredomironmental variations, whileothers nated by zonal patterns keyedto the broad asenvironmental zones createdbyelevation, pect,and slope. at The conquistadores marveled these landscapes, even as they sowed the seeds of of change.A new rendering the landemerged slowerthanthatof the at a pace onlyslightly conquest itself.Within fifty years of Columbus's initiallandfall,Spanish hegemony overMiddleAmerica Mexico, (theCaribbean, was and,inthe and Central America) complete mostof the course of the sixteenth century, cultivatedlandscapes of Mesoamerica had been forever alteredfrom their former condition. This alteration followednot only from the changes in controlof the land, but from and introduction exoticbiota,technologies, of management practices well. as The cultivated landscapesof the preconquest Amerindians the implications their and of transformation, especially in Mesoamerica, have been the subject of ratherpolarized views, manyof which have been empirically uninformed (see Denevan, this volume and this agriculture Doolittle, volume).Amerindian has notalways been fully the appreciated, scale of environmental associatedwith degradation has of Spanishtransformationthisagriculture at been overstated times,and the contrasting betweenthetwocultures ideologiesof nature has been oversimplified. Here we explorethe indigenous cultivated landscapes that werewitnessed theSpanish by as adventurers theyexistedabout the timeof the Columbian Encounter. primary Our objective is to illustrate variety these landthe of the of scapes through examination threetranand different environmental sects traversing terrain.Each transectapproxisociopolitical matesthe course of one of the initial Spanish entradas throughthis diverse region: the extendsto centralMexico "Cortestransect" fromthe Gulfcoast, the "Montejotransect" from north to traverses Yucatanpeninsula the

south,and the "Alvarado transect" climbsinto highland Guatemalafromthe Pacificcoastal plain (Fig.1). Second, we broadlysketchthe majorchangesthattook place in these landscapes during first the phase of Spanishdominationand some of the forces that shaped thesechanges.Our intent neither mytholis to of ogize theaccomplishments theAmerindians nortovilify conquerors, to illustrate the but the magnitude and breadthof the changes that took place in the cultivatedlandscapes of Mesoamerica a result the ColumbianEnas of counter.

The Cortes Transect

first Cortesand hissmallband probably saw the snowcappedsummit Orizaba (5,639m) of Vefrom ship'sdeck in the vicinity modern of racruz, Mexico. Fromthatvantagepoint,they wereobserving easternflanks theAztec the of a stretched east-west from empire, domainthat the Gulfof Mexico to the Pacific Ocean and the Bajfoto the Isthmus of north-south from Tehuantepec (Figs.1, 2). More properly identithe states fiedwith "Triple Alliance" thecity of of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tacuba in the Basinof Mexico (Gibson1964,17), the empire has takenitspopularnamefrom dominant the Mexica(Tenochtitlan) their and mythical homeland,Aztlan. The Alliance commanded polita ical and economic realm unparalleled in Mesoamericanhistory, complete with a supreme ruler,professionalarmies and merand of and chants, a system taxation marketing thatsiphonedthewealthofthe empireintoits lacustrine heart.Population estimates Cenfor withthe tralMexico, roughly corresponding empire,rangefrom<10 million->50million Thistransect the Cortesrouteand parallels crosses virtually every major climatic and zone in Mesoamerica:the hot agroecological and humidtierra caliente of the GulfCoast the Plains, tierra templada(temperate land) of the coastal piedmontand the basins on the altiplano or Mesa Central, and the upper thatseparatethe basins reachesof the sierras fromone another(Figs.2, 3). Each of these withthe exceptionof the cold broad realms, was orlandsand steep slopes of the sierras,
(Denevan 1976, 77-84; 1992).

1050W

1020W ............

990w

960W ........... . . ........ .... ...... ..... ............. .. ....................... ........... ..... .... ...... ... .. .............. .......... ......... .. .................. ......... ..........

930W

900w

Me s a C e n t ra I
..... ...... Bajio Tenochtifldn

......... .......... ................ ... ......... ........ .......... ........

Yu Ve . . ........ . ..... . ....... ........ . ............. ........... .......... ...........

Montej Fig

M.

........... . ........ ................... ...... ............... .. ..... .......... . .. ..... ............. ..................

C? eligible

M E X IC O
S ur
.......... . .. ......
..........

.......... de .. ............ ... .................. ......... . ... ...... ............. ..... ........ ........ .. ... ...... .. ....... ........... ............ .. ........... ....... ....... ........... ......... ......... .... .......... ................... ............... ....... ...................... M esa Central Lakes C iti e s
200 150 300 km 200 miles
...........

Isthm us of Tehuantepec

P e t6

............... ...........
...........

...........

....

.,

.............

100
50 100

La keAtitld Gua n .......... ...... .................. ... ........... .......... .............. ....... ... . ........ ............. .. . ........ ................... .............. ...... -.indestructibility:
..... ..... .
'::. . ... ------------..

........... ............. .......... ... . .......... ........... . ....... ..... ...

GUATEMAL

....... .................... ........................... .... .................. .......... ..........

... ............ ...... ............ .... ........... ............... .... .................. ......

. . ...

. ..... ............. ............

....... ..

Figure 1. Mesoamerica, locating Cort6s, Montejo, and Alvarado transacts. Sources: adapted from Nat Geographic Society (1980) as base map only and West (1964a) forother locational information.

Ba

io

~~

~~~/

~Lakes
I

/~~~~~~~~~~~~0
P(r.
'

(
1S20

Basin~ ..... Tenochtit an) Txoo

~~~~~~~K
0alapa
I;

Toluca

Calauba~

Pueba

Tlublax.

informatio locational

i
3960

~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

406
6000 m-

Whitmoreand Turner

5000m-

Basin

M E SA

CE

NT RA L

Orizaba Oriental Madre Sierra

Oizb

~~3000 ~~TenochtitldnBai m
2000 m
> 300

r 4000m

- Toluca

Mexico -BainPuebla Basin

of

~ ~ ~
300

~~~~~~~~~.......Piedmont
50105

lOQ .....m

25-0

300 ................

Sea L~ev 350 C'

71
250 150 200 Distance(in kilometers) 100 50

Coastal Plain
0 C

Figure3. Cort6s Profile,showing verticalreliefalong C-C' transect,as noted in Fig. 2. Sources: based on Fig. 2.

into and chestrated transformed landscapesof cultivation.

Gulf Coastal Plain and Piedmont

was landfall inhabThe area oftheSpaniards the who mastered seasonal itedbytheTotonac variationof the and environmental rhythm to coastal plainand piedmont producecrops and for local subsistenceas well as tribute, possible commerce,with the Aztec empire a offered com269).Thecoastalplainsand hills opportuniplexmosaicof microenvironmental The for ties and constraints agriculture. cultiin vatedlandscapesencountered thiscomplex of of natural consisted a patchwork difterrain withforferent cultivation typesinterspersed thatthe ests and scrubland. It is even likely were managedand mayhavesheltered forests their The orchards. Totonacorchestrated yearand with roundcultivation thespatial temporal the working conditions, in variations soil-water lands duringthe rainyseason, well-drained season (Sieand theinundated landsinthedry by landscape configured these practicesled Spaniardsto describe the lowlands around vegetaZempoala as "a gardenwithluxuriant tion"(Diaz del Castillo1956,87). of The mainstay Totonac(andMesoamerican was cultivation or generally) rainfed agriculture usually sloptiondominated well-drained, the terraceswith ing, terrainand incorporated also earth and probably earthen, rock-walled,
and maguey (metepantli)embankments(Rojas temporal. In the Gulf Coast area, such cultivamens 1988, 1992; Wilkerson 1983, 58). The (Barlow 1949; Hassig1985, 114, 115; Stark1990,

1990,20-37, 51-53; Rabiela1988,118; Sluyter 1983,64, 76). Wilkerson were a varihowever, as Perhaps important, that adaptations allowedcultivaetyofwetland tion duringthe markeddryseason (Siemens 1983, 87; 1990, 117; Vivio Escoto 1964, 212; the 58). West1964b, Insome instances, margins as and ofwetlands leveeswerecultivated water by season,facilitated theuse recededinthedry moreelabditches.In others, ofsmalldrainage of orate networks canals were used to create field systemsin wetlands proper. Siemens 1983)believesthatthesemoreelaborate (1982, in may networks also have functioned a floodflood-rerecessionalmanner.Contemporary in cessional cultivation the Gulf Coast (and the elsewhere) does notemploy elaborateand of foundinthe relics the majorcanal networks Thuswe suspectthatthe culancient systems. tivation associatedwithwetlandspropermay throughmost of the year have functioned of recession thefloods. rather thanonlyduring on of Relics wallsandembankments drylands are and canalsinwetlands abundant and fields in the GulfCoast area, althoughdatingtheir continueduse up to the eve of conquest is difficult establish(Sluyter1990; Siemens to 1982,1983). Indeed,Siemenset al. (1988,107) foundevidencethatat least one wetlandsyswas abandoned500temin Veracruz probably 700 years before the Columbian Encounter. Spanishaccounts however, southeast, Further cultivathatimply wetland describeconditions (Pohl 1985).This century tion in the sixteenth along the large evidence, relatively populations of portions the GulfCoast (Lopez de Gomara 1983, 1964,91; Stark1978,214-19; Wilkerson of extracted the by 55),and theamount tribute

in Landscapes Cultivation Mesoamerica of Aztecfrom area (Barlow the 1949),lead us to suspectthatmany the relicagricultural of featuresfoundthroughout GulfCoast zone the mayhavebeen operating thetime Spanish at of These issuesrequire contact. further investigation. In addition, Wilkerson (1983,81) speculates thatrunoff othertypesof irrigation and were used in the area. It can also be presumedthattwo typesof were foundin the area: the orchard-gardens ubiquitoussolar or calmil,carefully tended household gardens providing vegetables, fruits, condiments, medicinals, fiber and products (Siemens1983,97); and orchards, especiallyof cacao and variousfruits grownfor commercial purposes and tribute (Bergmann 1969,86, 88; Millon1955,705; Schmidt 1977, 57; Stark1974,204, 210; 1978,215). Orchard as species may have been cultivated special plots(see MontejoTransect), and/or theymay have been integrated within managedforests as describedbyAlcorn(1984)forthe modern Huastec. Field management practices were probably similar thoseused inthealtiplano, to including montones (mounded soil) or camellones (ridgedor furrowed soil) and possiblytransplanting from seedbeds (almacigos tialacalli) or (Rojas Rabiela 1988, 33, 74-75, 82; Schmidt 1977,57). While maize dominated, ethnohistoricaland ethnographic analogssuggestthat fieldswere intercropped withbeans, squash, cotton,maguey(Agavespp.), tuna (Opuntia spp.) or root crops (Rojas Rabiela 1988, 93; Sluyter 1990,56,62; Stark 1974, 205; 1978, 216). SierraMadreOriental The eastern versant the Sierra of MadreOrientalpresented formidable a escarpment septhe arating GulfCoastal Plainsand Piedmont from mineral the wealth coolerclimates and on the altiplano.Its ascent took the Spaniards from the tierra calienteto the tierra templada the fria and, ultimately tierra beyondthe20003000m saddle of the range(Fig.2). The slope is steep and ruggedthroughout, dissectedby the deep, narrow canyonsof the Gulf-bound streams (West 1964b, 52-53). Much of the mountain slope receives largeamounts oroof graphically-inducedrainfall (2000 mmrise 3000mmannually), giving to cloud forests nearthe crest(VivioEscoto1964,201). This escarpment was an agricultural transi-

407

who described "terraces . . . on every slope."

tionzone perhapsshaped less byagroecological conditionsthan by decliningpopulation pressures between the piedmont and the upperslopes. The piedmont apparently a was landscapeof terraces, Siemens(1990,145) and quotes a nineteenth-century Germanresident

As slopes grewsteeper, however, intensity the of cultivation diminished a shifting to type,althoughfog moisture the dryseason supin portedtwo maize crops annuallyin a single field some locations in (Rojas Rabiela1988,78). Ruvalcaba(forthcoming) notes sixGutierrez teenth-century cultivation frequenciesin the Sierra MadreOriental 1:8-1:10 (i.e, one year of of cultivation eight-ten for and yearsof fallow each milpaplot).Another sourcenotesshorter cycleperiods(1:4-1:5) for same region the (the on Colonial-era province Meztitlan thepresof ent-day Hildago-Veracruz border [RojasRabiela 1988, 62]).1 Localinhabitants mayhaveemalso ployeda vertical zonationstrategy, cultivating plotsat different elevations reduce risk to and augment production (Gutierrez Ruvalcaba Siemens1990,144). forthcoming; Mesa Central Crossingthe Sierra,the Spaniardsentered the greatsemiarid volcanicbasinsand ranges of the Mesa Central, encountering landscapes and appealing thattheyfound more familiar Here, a largeAmerindian populationwas arin hierarchies dominated ranged settlement by whose hinterlands city-states spread across basin floorsand up the surrounding slopes. Agriculture formedthe basis of subsistence and and commerce amongcity-states was centralto thetribute extracted theAztec. by is TheMesa Central composedofbroad,flatvolcanoes flooredbasins ringedby imposing of and broadslopes (West1964b, 47), many 42, fertile soils foragriculture whichoffered (Stevens 1964,195-296;West 1964b,47). Most of this area is above 1800 m (Figs. 2, 3). Here, was Mesoamerican crop production limited by and recurrent frosts low levelsof precipitation (Sanderset al. 1979,230) (meanannualprecipfrom mm-1000 combined 250 itation ranges m) withhighannualvariability (VivioEscoto1964, 199). Paradoxically, interior poor drainage gave riseto various on wetlands the basinfloors. While each basin differed accordingto its
than those of the tierra caliente (Figs. 2, 3).

408

Whitmoreand Turner

and occupation,commonality use of features pattern cultiof gave rise to a characteristic remained vatedlandscapes.2 uppersierras The of in forest, source of wood and regulator a terraced water.Below the forest line, rainfed dominated. Variand semiterraced cultivation were purirrigation ous forms floodwater of sued withinephemeral water courses and the along lands adjacent to them,including edges of the basins' floors into which the On proper, drainages emptied. the basinfloor where poor drainagewas common,various were adaptedto kindsof wetlandcultivation the perihumid conditions. Smallclusters villagesand hamlets of were scatteredacross the landscape. Their intencultivated sively gardens producedfoodcrops, plants condiments, ornaments, medicinal and (Evans 1990, 117, 126; Palerm 1955; Rojas Specialized Rabiela1988,92-93; forthcoming). of orchards avocado,nopal de grana(thecacti the hosting cochinealinsectused forreddye, Opuntina spp.), maguey (agave or century plant,Agave spp.), tejocote (Mexican hawthorn,Crataegus mexicana),capulin (capulin Prunuscapuli) and otherfruits occucherry, pied favoredniches (Rojas Rabiela 1988,93: forthcoming). alRainfed cultivation dominatedspatially, were adaptedto the varying thoughitsforms terrain.3 Upper and lower slopes were embraced by flights slopingmetepantli of (semiwhichpreserved terraces) soil and soil moisture (Donkin 1979, 131; Patrick 1985; Rojas Rabiela1988:118-19;Sanders1981, 192).More thana simpleslope adjustment, inmetepantli foodand fiber into corporated production the terrace using or by maguey nopalcactias berm anchors (Evans1990, 125; Patrick 1985,542; Wilken1979). Maize, beans, and squash were the mainstays of slope cultivation,but Mesoamerican cultivators grewa largevariety of other cultigens, including amaranth (Amaranthus annuus), chia (Salviahispanica), tomato, beans, squash,and chiles. works Perhapsthe mostcommonirrigation were weirsor check dams thatcapturedsilt andwater within intermittent or drainages, that spread water onto adjacent lands for floodwaterirrigation (Donkin 1979, 42, 44; GarcraCook 1985; Parsons1971, 220; Rojas Rabiela 1988, 120; 1985, 202; forthcoming; Sanderset al. 1979,222-81; Wolfand Palerm

1955, 266). Perhaps it was these featuresin Cholula that Cortes described in 1520: "the farmlands veryfertile theyhave much are and land and the greaterpart is irrigated" (1945, 146). In some cases, this techniquewas extendedto valleyfloors, whichwere straddled thatcould be fedbychannel bybroadterraces runoff water(Donkin1979,44; Rojas Rabiela 1988,120; Sanderset al. 1979,253; Wolfand Palerm 1955). Smalldamsand diversion weirscoupledwith canals provided permanentirrigation water in from springs permanent or streams selected locations(Armillas al. 1956; Doolittle1990, et 115; Millon 1957; RojasRabiela1985,198; 1988, 121; Sanderset al. 1979,260-62).Thousands of smallcontourbench terracesin the Basinof Mexico are thought have been irrigated to in thisway(Donkin1979,44; Sanderset al. 1979, 251-52). In some cases, lengthy canals, completewith aqueductsthatspannedintervening barrancas to (gullies),attest the use of permanent irrigation (Doolittle1990, 127; Donkin 1979, 42, 44; Parsons 1971, 220; Wolf and of Palerm 1955,266). At leastone instance the canalization and relocationof the flow of a in is largestream irrigation known theBasin for of Mexico (Doolittle1990,115-20).While terwas locatedthroughout Mesa Centhe racing inits withelaborateirrigation tral, association has frastructures only been well documented forthe Basinof Mexico. wetManyof the seasonal and permanent of lands and shallowlakes in the interior the of Puebla valleys Tlaxcala, Mexico,and perhaps weretransformed a network canalsand into of plantingsurfaces(wetland fields) on which cultivation could be practiced year-round (Parsons1971, 220; RojasRabiela 1985, 208; Sanders 1972,131-32; Sanderset al. 1979,275; Wilken 1969,1987).In some cases, hierarchial systems of canals channeledexcessivewaterto the indrained fields terior, creating alongtheperipheryof lakesor wetlands. The latter form of wetland cultivation reached its zenithamong the chinampas,or of "floating gardens," the Basinof Mexico,octhousands hectares the southern of of cupying freshwater lakes of Chalco and Xochimilco (Armillas 1971,653; Sanders et al. 1979,275; Westand Armillas 1952,171) (Fig.2). The actual was island(a raised artificial chinampa a narrow field),anchoredbytreesalong itsedges, and

Landscapes of Cultivationin Mesoamerica

409

from lake muckand bioticmatericonstructed als dredgedfrom shallowlakesthemselves the was to raisethe (Wilken 1985,42). The effect surfacerelative the waterin the to planting subsurface bordering canals, providing irrigasurface tion at all times,but also facilitating if irrigation needed. Canals were regularly cleaned, and the aquatic muckwas used to fertilize fields(Armillas the 1971,653; Palerm 1973; West and Armillas 1952, 171; Wilken 1985,42).4 By the sixteenth century, chinampaswere part a state-designed controlled of and hydraulic system thatincludeddikesand sluicegates in water leveland quality thesouthcontrolling ern partsof the lacustrine network (Palerm 1973). Not only did dikes protectthe two southernlakes frombrackishLake Texcoco, butan adjacentsectionofthatlakewas diked as well,making chinampa agriculture possible on the islands of the Aztec capital (Fig. 2) (Calneck1972; Parsons1976,253; Sanderset al. 1979,154). and reIndividually as a system, chinampas and laborinput construct to quiredsignificant maintain, they but combined very high producwithrisk-reduction tivity (Armillas 1971,660; Coe 1964,98; Moriarty 1968, 473; Parsons 1976, 244-46; Sanders1972,133; Sanderset al. 1979, reducedproblems drought, of 390). Irrigation and the presenceofwatermitigated hazfrost ard. Chinampas were probably doubleand transcropped, usingdifferent cultigens plantation from seedbeds (Rojas Rabiela1985, in 165; 1988,79-80). Few cultivation systems theworldcould match their sustained levelof productivity.

was noton par Yucatanat the timeof contact withthatof theirClassic Period ancestorsof some 500-700years earlier(Chase and Rice 1985; Jones 1989; Turner 1983a,b). The Yucatanis composed of two environmental domains(Figs.4, 5) overwhicha comwere differenmon set of croppingpractices tiallyemployed in associationwith differing intensities occupation.The peninsulais a of extreme karst condilargelimestone shelf with wet-dry climate tions,dominated a tropical by (tierra increases concaliente)inwhichrainfall to siderably from northwest the southeast the (Finch 1965;Wilhelmy 1981;Wilson1980).The northern periphery the peninsulais a relaof tivelyflat,lowlyelevated plain, but starting hill withthe Puuc Hills(Figs.3, 4), a rolling or intothe Peten uplandarea extendssouthward in (Guatemala). Everywhere the north,exshallowand rocky soils,an absence of tremely surfacewater,and a pronounceddryseason impededagriculture. Encounter, the AtthetimeoftheColumbian to northern plains low weremoderately heavily the and occupied. Incontrast, central southern an was once the heart the of uplands, area that ClassicMayacivilization 1973; Turner (Culbert 1990a), were very sparsely settled in 1492 (Jones1989; Means 1917; Scholes and Roys 1968;Turner 1990a,b). Northern CoastalPlains and in the discovered Yucatan Spaniards officially 1517 (Chamberlain 1948, 61-64; Clendinnen 1987,17-18; Means 1917) onlyto findthatat survivors a shipwreck, of leasttwo Spaniards, were present amongthe Maya. One of these to menrefused return hisformer to comrades, enbut led the Maya in subsequent military them(Chamberlain counters 1948,61against 64; Means 1917).The Spaniardsbypassedthe for the conquest Yucatan Mexico,so that initial of awaited1527,whilesubjugation the peninsula followedsome twenty yearslater(Farriss 1984, 12). Led by Franciscode Montejo (the the entrada Elder), first beganon thenortheastinland. and marched erncoastofthepeninsula corthatwe followhere roughly The transect responds to the north-southcourse of takento Montejo'sroute,withsome liberties includethe interior uplandswhichMontejo's

The MontejoTransect
The Yucatan hometo thelowland Peninsula, Maya,provided radically a different experience for Spaniards the (Figs.1, 4). As intheMexican Yucatan was well peopled, case, the northern and theMayawere bothskilled cultivators and active in long-distance trade (Andrews 1983; Chamberlain 1948; Farriss 1984).Nevertheless, and spatial by such measuresas the number domainof city-states, levelof sociopolitiand cal organization affluence measured and (as by the scale and quality monumental of architecture),the conditionof the lowlandMaya in

410

Whitmoreand Turner

M exico

*~~~~~~~~~~Menrda

Valladolid
...0..
... .... ..

...........

2 4V....

~~
5

-j~~~~~~-

4' "'1~~~~~~~15

I-

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.... ... . .

Spanish

citie

Bajos

Perioic

welands
-

('<6"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
m,,.Montejo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~....... 7 \-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......... ............ 50-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..

............

co~/

'

Profile / 6T /

Contours meters in

4. the M-M' (see and Yucatdn, the pathof the Montejo Profile, Figure MontejoTransect, showing Northern U.S. DefenseMapping (1974)and National (1969)as Fig.5). Sources: adaptedfrom Agency Society Geographic base mapsand West(1964a) otherlocational for information.

Landscapes of Cultivationin Mesoamerica

411

300 m

Sea3L~e?velS L 250 M' 200 150 100 Distance (kilometers) 50 0 M

Figure MontejoProfile, 5. showing vertical relief along M-M'transect, noted Fig. Sources: as in 4. basedon Fig. 4.

party apparently avoided because of itssparse occupation. The littoral northern of Yucatan was extremely important economically the Maya, to who had converted coastal wetlands (the cienaga) intothe centerof Mesoamerican salt productionand trade. Salt was apparently transported canoe alongthecoaststo Mexby ico and Central America(Andrews 1983).The settlements salt controlling production inlay land, spread throughout northern the plains, Herethe as was mostoftheMayapopulation. Spaniards encountered large numbers of in Maya,arranged small-sized polities consisting of sizable villagesand well-tended landscapes. Thesevillages their and landshada common A morphology. smallplaza and publicmonuor ment,usuallya smallpyramid some other shrine,markedthe centerof a village,from whichhomesteads, each demarcated stone by wallsenclosing orchard-gardens, radiated outward (the elite lived closest to the center) et (Clendinnen 1987; Gomez-Pompa al. 1987). Homesteadsgave wayto open- or outfields in whichinturn various stagesoffallow, gaveway to forest, muchofwhichmayhave been managed. Here, cullingand relatedactivities may havesupported forms agroforestry kot) of (pet (Gomez-Pompaet al. 1987). This spatial arrangement was repeatedacross the northern the of with apparent plains, exception savanna areas. to Spanish documentsrefer both "plantain tions" and "orchard-gardens" the area, for using the former designation frequently elite-owned"cacao" stands situatedon the edges of Maya towns (Tozzer 1941, 194-95; The spatial Scholes and Roys1968, 171-72).5 of and arrangement concentration these plots

may have giventhe impression extensive of orchards. Mayahorticultural practices werenot welldocumented the Spaniards, by otherthan reports thatthe elite used slaves and servants to care for theirorchards,and evidence of monocropping plantation-like or labor organizationis lacking(Scholes and Roys 1968, 171-72). Orchard-gardens played an important role amongthe Mayaand theAmerindians tierra of calientein general(Killion forthcoming). Much oftheMayafoodsupply was grown orchardin as gardens, testified their by spatialextent and the quantity remainsof orchard-gardens of species takenfrom excavations Maya midof dens (Turnerand Miksicek 1984). Indeed, Gomez-Pompa colleagues(1987)arguethat and the unusualdistribution usefulspecies curof rentlyfound within ancient walled plots Yucatanare remnants ancient throughout of orchard-gardens also Folan et al. 1979). (see Individual trees and groves were apparently privately owned and inherited (Millon 1955, 700; Scholesand Roys1968,171-72). Landa referred the use of agaves, chiles, to beans, and cottonin house gardens (Tozzer 1941,194-95).Maya orchard-gardens included a large of and variety native trees, shrubs, other climate speciesadaptedto thewet-dry tropical ofthe plains(Clendinnen 1987,141; Chamberlain 1968,52; Scholes and Roys1968,171-72, 328; Tozzer 1941, 179, 230). These included agave and cotton,avocado, nance (Brysonima crassifolia), allspice (Pimentadioica), guava (Psidium guajava),sapodilla(Manilkara zapote), and mamey zapote (Calocarpum mammosum). The prevalence orchard-gardens of notwiththe standing, staplecropofthe northern Maya was at the timeof the ColumbianEncounter maize. Considerable documentation earlier by

412

Whitmore Turner and bly similarto those described by ethnographersin the nineteenth twentieth and centuries.7This slash-and-burn milpa (literally or methodinvolved cornfield) basically same the tools and crops as in the north, but utilized longerfallowcycles and lower labor inputs, for especially weeding.New plotswere cut in to January allow the woody species to dry sufficiently burningbefore the rains of for April. After several seasons ofcultivation,plot a was abandonedfora protracted periodto escape the concentration pests and weeds of there and to allow regrowth a secondary of forest. The role of orchard-gardens the uplands in thisperiodis notclear.Theymayhave during existedaround largersettlements, referbut ences to activity thiskindare sparse. House of gardenswere undoubtedly common.The forestswereverymuchthe product past Maya of activities werewellstockedwith and economic species from whichextensivecollecting took place.

chroniclers indicatesthatthe bulk of it was produced in fields distantfromthe walled although homesteads and orchard-gardens, walls may have been presentin these "outstructures are fields" (walls without occupation and Leventhal 1975).The common;see Freidel are cultivation practicesin these "outfields" In as of uncertain, is the intensity cultivation. LandanotedthattheMayaprethe mid-1500s, to (in paredthelandfrom January April thedry and culstick, season), plantedwitha digging tivatedby "collect[ing] togetherrefuseand to it shifting burn[ing] inorder sow" (indicating but they also had "improved" cultivation?); landsand "keptthe landwellclearedand free cultivanonshifting fromweeds" (indicating tion?)(Tozzer1941,62,64, 97; Landa1937,38). and the Because of the level of population well-defined boundariesof villagesand provwe inces in the north, suspectthata short-falwas used in whichplot low rotational system collectedand preparation focusedon burning in driedvegetation orderto provideessential the began phosphorus thesoil before rains for in April.Plotswere first sowed to maize and with subsequently intercropped squashand nithe beans.6Interestingly, region trogenfixing and hempproduction was known itscotton for no at the timeof conquest,although virtually exist.Weeding of descriptions its cultivation the the season laboruntil dominated growing fallharvest. The outfields each village wereapparently of separatedfromthose of the next by forest to acwhich,in addition possibleagroforestry for formed reserve wood fuel,hunta tivities, ing, and tame animals.Deer were, perhaps, the mostimportant the semitame of animals, controlled from birth biothrough apparently the and logicalimprinting, laterherdedfrom (Means 1917,30; villageto feed in the forest Tozzer1941,127). The Uplands to the plains, rolling Compared thenorthern karst hillsof the central area must peninsular have been a disappointment aggravation and to the Spaniards,for here the population thinned dramatically (Means1917;Scholesand Roys1968,333), and the tropicalforestprofor Spanvided a frontier refuge Mayafleeing cultivated landish control.The distinctive in scape ofthenorthern plainwas replaced the swiddensystems, possiuplandsby extensive

Alvarado Transect
Pedro de Alvaradoled the Spanishentrada intothe highland Maya realmof Guatemalain 1524,charting routesoutheastward a from the Mesa Central,followingthe Pacificcoastal northward the wellplain,beforeturning into of defendedhighlands presentday Guatemala the (Figs.1, 6). Following experience Cortes, of Alvarado broughtthousands of Aztec and Tlaxcalanwarriors subdue the Maya, who to the fought invasionin a seriesof bloodybattles.The Spaniards found populoushighlands a divided into provincesof different ethnolinhad herediguistic Maya stock.Each province statewas presbut tary rulers, no overarching ent, nor were theremanylarge citiesof the The material majesty foundintheAztecrealm. contained some of the finest region, however, soils agricultural in Mesoamericaand the lowversant a landsof itsPacific gave the Spaniards of preview yet anothersource of wealth-estateproduction cacao. of The climb fromthe PacificCoast to the homelands thehighland an of Mayatransverses zones associated of array broadagroecological withelevation(West1964a,373). The Coastal Plain (La Costa) and the Boca Costa or piedmont between comprise 40-50 km-wide a strip the ocean and highlands proper (Figs. 6, 7).

Landscapes of Cultivationin Mesoamerica

413

<

1520-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2
910

/4

> r
27401\

213

, _o , ---------o !>"m l.y jg 9t\' '-) '

15,t230'
t s E > 8\ [

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------Gatmlt

1520~~~~~~~1

910,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

:':':: :::,,',x, 1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::X::., . ::.: , . .. / ::...::.:..: , ............................... : :.:.........................................::.;r /';\ /!:

X*{-----.. ...... A ................................ _ ..............213 : .:.:.:::."': i'' ..

: : : :: : : : : :: : : : : ::

:: :

, .

_ * '

Guteal.Ct

....................................................o .

/ / ., .,:,..............................................,'':::: :/::.,:', -

.........................../..

Figure

6.

Alvarado

Profilect

showingPouthwestrn

Guate

alaf,

Guho

eAlan

la C

(1969)and (1978)as a base map and Bergmann Agency U.S. DefenseMapping Fig.7). Sources: adaptedfrom information. Orelanna(1984)forotherlocational

The coastalplain(up to about100m elevation) and the lowerBoca Costa (about100 m-460m elevation)are tierra calientewhile the upper Boca Costa (about 460-1500 m elevation)is tierra templada.Precipitation increasesinland

and withelevation,such thatportions the of Boca Costa receiveinexcess of2000mmannually(VivoEscoto1964,fig.10). Around 1000m the mountain risessteeplyto elevation, front cinder cones and composite volcanos,some of

414 4000m 3500m3000m 2500m v1 2000m

-0
1 ana _ /: :

Whitmoreand Turner

Los Altos

LakeAtitlhn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.:.::.::..::.:..::..

-.

-..:-

Sea Leve
0

Coastal Pain 25

50 75 (kilometers) Distance

100

125 A'

showing vertical relief alongA-A' transect, notedinFig.6. Sources: based on Fig.6. as Profile, |Figure 7. Alvarado

whichexceed 3000m. Abovethe 1500m contourand to the interior the versant Los of is Altos,thehighland volcanic axis,composedof smalldepressions and calderassurrounded by volcanoes (more than twenty Guatemala in alone). LakeAtitlan occupies such a calderaat 1566m.The peaksare incloudsand mist much of the timeand averageannual precipitation there reaches 3000 mm-4000mm. To the northern of theAlvarado end transect volthe canic axis giveswayto the lower-elevated and driercentral highlands. Boca Costa Verylittle knownabout Amerindian is agriculture the narrow on coastalplainproper.In the contrast, Boca Costa was a zone so prized for its agricultural that fertility Amerindian groupsvied withone anotherforitscontrol. The southwest portion the Boca Costa was of part of the greaterSoconusco (also spelled Soconosco, Xoconusco,and Xoconocho) region, extendinginto southeasternChiapas statein Mexico.Thisregion was renowned for producingand widely exporting the finest cacao in Mesoamerica (Bergmann 1969, 86; Gasco and Voorhies 1989,289; MacLeod1973, 68-79; Millon1955, 702). Cacao is a delicate species that requiresmoistbut well-drained soils, shade, protection from highwinds,and warm temperatures (mean temperatures be-

1987,157). Owing to these needs, majororchardzones were below650 m (Orellana1984, 70) where annual precipitation totals ranged between1150 mm-2500 mm. Pronounced dry seasons necessitated irrigation. Cacao was commonly germinated usingseedbeds (almato cigos)and replanted orchards (RojasRabiela 1988, 82). Another species,Theobroma tricolor, is hardier, it is notclearthatitwas grown but in extensively the Boca Costa. Major cacao beganabout 30 kminlandon the alluvial fans. Bergmann (1969,89) suggests thatthisinterior location was a responseto thedrier conditions the approaching ocean, butitalso corresponds withthe well-drained agricultural soils of the alluvial fanscharacteristic thispiedmont. of Cacao was producedover a wide area, perhaps in an orchardor plantation-like pattern. The Spaniards referred estatesand gardens to or orchards cacao, terms of thatimply only not monocropping conditionsbut possiblyirrigationas well (Armillas 1949,88; Bergmann 1969, 90; Millon 1955;RojasRabiela1988,92; Zamora Acosta 1985, 182). Cacao was intensively tended, its care including the use of shade trees (e.g., maderanegra [Gliricidia maculata H. B. and K.] or coxote [G. sapium])and protection from predators and theft (Lange1971, 240-44; Millon1955, 704; Orellana 1984, 70; Stone1977,85-86; Rojas Rabiela1988,92). The immensevalue of the cacao to Meso-

tween 180 C and 320 C, without frost) (Gasco

Landscapes of Cultivationin Mesoamerica

415

americans in itsuse as a thick was or beverage gruel. Such was the importance thisfood of thatthe cacao bean served as a mediumof in used invirtually exchange Mesoamerica, any commodity service or transaction (Millon 1955; Bergmann the 1969, 85-86). Elitescontrolled production and tradein cacao in the Boca of Costa, althoughthis controldid not require actualoccupationof the piedmont. Highland some oftheproMayacommunities governed duction in the Boca Costa, while Nahuatlspeaking groups withinthe piedmontmay have served to ensure the flowof cacao to Aztec Mexico (Bergmann 1969, 89; Orellana the 1984).AtthetimeoftheSpanishconquest, Aztec extracted tribute fromSoconusco and the Boca Costabytaxing towns controlling proof location. duction, regardless their a The Boca Costa also offered fullarray of agriculture, otherfoodsand fibers, producing Maize was double and even tripled-cropped in some locales (Fuentesand Guzman1882,64; Zamora Acosta 1985, 182), undoubtedly It the through use of irrigation. is also possible that orchards producingother crops than cacao were present. The spatialextent this of production onto the southern versant proper (betweenthe cacao zone and Los Altos)is not well understood. The slope is verysteep and rugged, and itappears to have been sparsely relative thelandsabove to occupiedat contact and below. The southernversantmay have as been used forextensive cultivation a "spillover" zone for farmers ascendingfromthe Boca Costa or descending from Altos. Los Los Altos Inaddition theubiquitous to housegardens, was cultivation practiced bothteron rainfed in racedand nonterraced fields theslopes and depressionsof Los Altos. Many slopes were intensively cultivated without terracing, particwheremounding or ularly (montones) ridging the (camellones contouring slope)wereapparsufficient impedeerosion(see Wilken to ently 1987,129-144).Although Alvarado spoke of a highly developedagriculture, Spanishdescriptionsof practices are associatedwithtemporal it to vague,making difficult distinguish shifting frompermanentcultivation (Zamora Acosta and 1985,178; Palerm Wolf 1962,336).TheAnnalsofthe Cakchiquels 1559-81) mentions (ca. cut-and-burn of techniques,but not rotation

about fields, leadingto variousinterpretations the implied frequency cultivation of (Feldman 1985, 29; Orellana 1984, 69). The apparently the extensive of mounding, use alongwith use rake ofa hoe-like instrument a scraper-like and for weeding,led Feldman (1985, 29-30)to conclude that a rainfed system,more intensive was prevalent LosAltos. in thanslashand burn, was Terracing practiced throughout highthe specific lands(Orellana1984,27-29),although of references Los Altosare few. Remnants to highpre-Hispanic terracing existinthecentral lands,andthepractice mayhavebeen followed at the timeof conquest (Guzman1962,398). Thedistribution therelic of features reflect may soil distinctions betweenthe volcanicaxis of highLosAltosand the morenortherly central landsor itmayreflect differential Spanishimin of remains the pacts.Documentation terrace volcanicaxis zone is slim,however.Lothrop (1933)foundrelicterraces aroundLakeAtitlan butdid notdesignate their function agriculfor tureas opposed to house sites. Highland Mayaterracing, general,served in as the same functions describedin the Cortes transect.Where associated with the tablon, however, irrigation common.The tablon was plot (20(literally, plank) is a raised-garden in 65 cm in height), usuallyrectangular shape withinwardly slopingsides, accompaniedby channels(Mathewson1984; Wilken irrigation 1971, 435). Ifon a sufficient slope, thetablonis on constructed terraceswith the irrigation channel located at the base of each terrace wall. Tablonesin use todayare especially freand quentaroundtheedges of LakeAtitlan on the northern slopes above the lake, although theycan be foundelsewherein the highlands evi(Altee1968; Wilken 1987).Whileno direct dence yetconfirms use of tablonesin the the two strongly sugpre-Hispanic highlands, facts werea majorcomponent highof gestthat they The is land Mayaagriculture. first thateach of thestructural elements tabloneswas known of and used bythe Maya; the second is thatthe current distribution coincideswithcontact-era social and environmental conditions that would have promotedtheiruse (Mathewson 1984,17-20; Orellana 1984, 69; Wilken1971, constithattablonsystems 435-36). It is likely in tutedmany thegardens of described Spanish accounts. The principal were those prevcropsgrown alent throughoutthe highlands of Meso-

416

Whitmore Turner and Causes of theTransformations The ConquestofMesoamerica in motion set a series of processes, intentional and otherwise,that penetrated every facet thephysical of and spiritual world of the Amerindian, with many the results of having significant ramificationson cultivated We landscapes. cannottreat all oftheseprocesseshere,butfocuson three of wereespecially clusters themthat significant in a direct way: theAmerindian depopulation, the introduction exoticbiotaand technoloof gies, and the reordering land and the rural of economy. The scale of Amerindian depopulationthat of accompaniedthe introduction Old World is pathogens theSpaniards nothing by short of in phenomenal, remaining unparalleled demographic history (see Lovellthisvolume).9 This in affected demographic tragedy agriculture at leasttwo ways.The landesque capital(terracing,irrigation, wetlandsystems) the intenof sivecropping of could systems theAmerindian notbe sustained with suchlosses inlabor, leadcultivated ingto thedecayof many landscapes (Cook and Borah1979,169),withthe concomenvironmental itant thattypically degradation followsfromthe lack of upkeep. This decay contributed the larger to processof landabandonment weakened Amerindwhich,in turn, ian claimsto land and led to Spanishland appropriation (e.g., Licate1981). The introduction Old World biota and of technologies, partof whatCrosby(1972)calls theColumbian imhad Exchange, wide-ranging pacts on the landscape because of the new land-uses associatedwiththemand the expansion of these uses into areas extensively utilized by Amerindians. Amongthe most drawerethoseof rangelivestock, matic previously in unknown Mesoamerica. The population exin animals plosionofgrazing early thesixteenth is to century claimedbymany havecontributed to acceleratederosion on agricultural lands, increased siltation, more frequentand profoundflooding, and losses of harvests due to herdsand the physical of predatory trampling thefields(Brand 1961,133; Chevalier 1963,93; Cook and Borah 1979, 169; Crosby, 1972, 76-77; Gibson1964,305; Morrisey 1951,116; Simpson 1952; Super 1988, 26). Chevalier (1963, 93) in claims that entirecommunities the Mesa were forcedto move,in partbecause Central of livestock and damageto croplands, the land

to america.According Feldman(1985,26), at of leastsevenvarieties maize,three squash, of nine of beans, tobacco, and, perhaps,sweet in potatohavebeen identified LosAltosinprehistoriccontext. Studies of highlandMaya communities Stadelman(1940)and others by variety indicate presenceofa muchgreater the of maize, muchof whichis assumedto have in been present antiquity. The Lake Atitlan of Basinwas a microcosm the highland landscapesin generalat contact its by times, including occupation at leastthree in and Mayagroups:the Cakchiquel thenorth east sides,theTzutujuil the southside and on Pacificslopes, and the Quiche on the north and westsides (Lothrop 1933, Thecultivated 3). landscapehereappearedas a mosaicof practicesassociatedmorewithslope thanwithcliThe upper, maticvariation withelevation. or broad slopes of the basin were apparently underintensive rainfed cultivation, complete with cascading monotonesand camellones. Further down the basin,wheredrainagesystemsfacilitated but irrigation the steepnessof on slope increased significantly (particularly side of thenorthern ofthelake),ranks terraced tablones continueddown towardsthe lake. Near lake level,almostall the smalldeltasof the drainageswere also convertedinto tablones (see Mathewson 1984).

The Fate of the Cultivated Landscapes

The repercussions the Conquest spread of Mesoamericaduringthe swiftly throughout if of first era, leaving few, century the Hispanic any,cultivated landscapesuntouched(Butzer land 1991).The conquerors reapportioned and labor under conditionsof rapidAmerindian agriculture depopulation and reconstituted the of technolthrough introduction European ogies and biota. The conquered retained, where possible and appropriate, theircrops and cropping Ultimately, however, techniques. and exbothconquerors conqueredborrowed if from tensively, differentially, one another, and the reconfigured landscapesthatresulted were not so much one culture'scultivated another'sbuttheirunion landscapereplacing on "hybrid" landscapes.8

Landscapes of Cultivationin Mesoamerica

417

the growth in cattle and sheep estancias

so abandoned maywell have contributed to

(ranches)duringthe earlysixteenth century (Chevalier 1963,83; Licate1981,114-15). Such impactsmay have been more shortlivedthanconventional wisdomasserts.Gibson (1964, 281),amongothers (e.g., Butzer and Butzer,personalcommunication), notes that the SpanishCrowninvoked and policy law directed preserving at Amerindian landsand cultivation, althoughthese efforts were apparently odds withtheforces depopulation, at of resettlement, abandonment, localapland and propriation (Licate1981,113). Discovery silof verinthenorth thecattle and producers' adaptionsof their to production strategies the new lands, led to a livestock that industry spread northward landsthat into were less intensively used in pre-Columbian an times,producing in economythatwas relatively tune withthe in environments question(Butzer and Butzer). The critical pointforour discussionis that much land thatwas once underAmerindian cultivation the highlanddomain) or was (in utilized of sparsely (north Mesoamerica proper or in lands abandoned because of depopulation)was rapidly to a new,exoticuse. The put land-cover impactsassociatedwiththislanduse change are vividly in illustrated the Gulf Coastarea,wherecattle and sheep production was pursuedon pasturescreatedby burning forest and on former wetlandfields;in either case, these were formerly Amerindian cultivatedlandscapes, altered new use (Siemens to 1992). Hispaniccrop introductions redefined also the landsto be cultivated the form culand of tivation them(Hassig1985,221).The use of on plow and draft for animals, example,placed a premium levelor gently on sloped landswith good soil depthand drainageand largefield size (Cook and Borah1979,171). In contrast, was pre-Columbian coa-based cultivation parsuitableforuse in shallowsoils and ticularly smallfields, The and on steep slopes.10 shift to plow cultivation the abandonment culand of tivated landsowingto depopulation resetand tlement mayhave alteredthe overallproportionofvalley bottom upperslope cultivation to relative pre-Hispanic times. to for foodsalso Spanishpreferences European was playeda part.Wheat cultivation carried the northern silvermines(Gibson1964,322;
across the altiplano from the Puebla basin to

Chevalier 1963,51-54; Super1988,32) because of the demand forwheat bread. This pursuit led theSpaniards introduce to irrigation the in Bajroand otherarid lands on the margins of Mesoamerica, and to rework Amerindian irrigationin the Basinof Mexico to allow winter (dryseason) cultivation (Chevalier1963, 70; Butzerand Butzer;Davis 1990). The environmentalimpactsof these shiftsin agriculture are insufficiently documentedso that more constitute pointedassessments speculation. Plantation cropsfortrans-Atlantic commerce emergedin the lowlands, although large-scale plantations were not the norm(Butzer1991, 210).The mostimportant thecropsinterms of of landscapechangewas sugarcane, whichthe Spaniards introducedwhereverecologically suitable (Chevalier 1963,74). Corteshimself esin tablisheda sugarcaneplantation the lowlands west of Tuxtlaas earlyas 1528 (Barrett 1970,11). Forthemostpart, sugarcane production in the tierra calientewas undertaken on small estates,as was Spanish-controlled productionof cacao, cotton,tobacco, and dyes (MacLeod 1973,220-24). By the close of the sixteenth also century, sugarcaneproduction spreadintowarmer uplandlocales,such as in wereesMoreloswherelarge-scale plantations tablished (Barrett 1970,4; Super1988,37), and whereitmayhavehelpedto displaceAmerindian cultivation (Chevalier 1963,82). These changeswere intertwined those with fromthe reordering land and stemming of labor.Bythe mid-sixteenth century, significant land holdingshad accrued to the Spaniards elitesinsome to Amerindian and, interestingly, areas(Gibson1964; Licate 1981;Simpson 1952). on Amerindian laborwas siphonedoff work for large Spanish estates, and the encomienda (grantsfor the controlof Amerindian labor) refocused productiongoals, and in some settlements. cases, the locationof Amerindian After mid-century, full-blownresettlement schemes(thecongregacion) relocated muchof the remaining ruralpopulation(Cline 1949). The impacts these activities of were to reduce in Amerindian cultivation some locales and increase land pressures others. on and LandscapesTransformed Traditions Retained Threeverybroadpatterns transformation of of cultivated landscapesfollowedthroughout

418

Whitmore Turner and gradedsome wetlandsystems below (Gibson 1964,305; Lopez Rfos1988). Owing to these and otherfactors, wetlandagriculture almost disappearedfromthe Mesa Central(Cortes transect), except forthe chinampasof Lakes in Chalco and Xochimilco the Basinof Mexico (whichwould decay slowly)and the drained in fields theTlaxcalan valley. Wetlandsystems, otherthan ephemeralflood-recessional practices,also disappearedin the GulfCoast Plain (Cortestransect), althoughtheirdemise may havebeen underway to previous theConquest. In the Yucatan the (Montejotransect), Spaniardsdevelopedextensive cattleestates,utilizing both Maya agricultural lands and forest well-developedcultivatedlandscape of the Maya,but,alongwithdepopulation, introthe ductionof steel cutting tools, and Maya 'escape" to theforests outsideofSpanishcontrol, probably to the disintensification Maya led of cultivation fromrotational shifting to cultivation.12 The rearrangedlandscape was comwithsmall posed of largeestatesinterspersed villages, following form milpacultivation a of thathas continued the present. to Most of the cultivated landscapes thatesof caped major change lay on the margins or For Spanishinterests control. example, agriin culture the expanse of the lowlandtropical forest betweenthe Maya highlands (Alvarado and Yucatan(Montejotrantransect) northern moreor less as it had been at sect) remained thatis extensive swiddencultivation. contact, One landscape prized by the Spaniardsthat moreor less in itspre-Hispanic survived form, at leastunderthe first phase of Spanishdomiwas thatof the cacao-producing nation, Boca The Costa and Soconusco (Alvarado transect). werequickto realizetheimportance Spaniards its of cacao amongMesoamericans and, later, value for international trade (Hamilton 1976, of 860-61).Theytookcontrol cacao producing zones largely the the through encomienda, effectofwhichwas to leave theform producof tionlargely intact. The reconfiguring the cultivatedlandof scapes did not mean thatAmerindian agricultural practicesand technologieswere lost; as of manysurvived integral components the newlandscapes.Perhaps mostimportant the of thesewas theomnipresent calmil. Smallhouseto hold gardensremained central Amerindian and peasantagriculture the throughout contact
(Farriss1984, 32).11This not only disrupted the

Mesoamericaand beyond. The humidtierra was virtucaliente(save the northern Yucatan) allyabandoned,allowing major forest regenerin ation.Thefewremaining Amerindians these the of lowlands, armedwith introduction steel cuttingtools, increasingly moved towards labor-saving swidden cultivation. The Spansmalliards,on the other hand, introduced scale estatesdevotedto plantation crops,both introduced and native, followedby livestock production.The tierratemplada witnessed wide-spread abandonment destruction and of Amerindian agricultural landscapes and the emergenceof new ones. The generalpattern of thistransformation involved the disuse of some land, the disproportional redistribution and of otherlandsto the Spaniards, an investmentin large-scale plowand wheatcultivation and livestock on production drawing Amerindian labor (see Prem, thisvolume).Finally, cultivation and livestock rearing expanded into and the more arid segments Mesoamerica of to the landsbeyond,especially the north, and laterintoCentral America. Indigenous landscapesdominated laborby intensive cultivation, especiallyterracesand were particularly wetland systems, affected. Terracesystems were abandonedthroughout of the upper piedmonts the Mesa Centralof Mexico (Cortestransect), Altosof GuateLos mala (Alvarado and somewhat later transect), inthepiedmont theGulf tranof Coast(Cortes sect) (Donkin1979,35-36). These extensively simdistributed of systems slope modification in ply could not be maintained the face of Amerindian depopulation and relocation (Cook and Borah1979,168; Donkin1979,36) in and withthe increasing focusof cultivation and lowerbasins. valleys the wetlandagriculture, producSimilarly, tiveheartof some pre-Columbian landscapes, also fadedin significance. did so forseveral It reasonsbeyondthose of population collapse and labor shortage.Indigenous wetlandagriculture was not well understood by the Spaniards,was not centralto theirvisionof land use, and was not suitedfor appropriate plow or wheatproduction. Moreover, occuit suitablefor plow and pied lands potentially livestock production, if properly drained (Cook and Borah1979,171; Hassig1985,221). deterioration the Amerindian of Interestingly, sedimentasystems upslope lead to increased detion and otherproblemsthatapparently

Landscapes of Cultivationin Mesoamerica

419

and colonialperiods(and are stillmaintained), albeitwithEuropean additions. Field-scale surface modifications, camellonesand especially montones, endured also where well,especially maize cultivation without plow. the persisted These features were so commonin the Mesa Central thesixteenth in that century anyparcel ofcultivated was referred as a camellon land to and even abandoned lands were knownas 11acamellonada" (i.e., filled with planting mounds) (Rojas Rabiela 1988, 42-43). The metapantli(maguey-anchored terraces)also survived (Patrick 1977),perhapsbecause ofthe ease of upkeepofthe retaining wall,although it was much more spatially thanin restricted precontact times (Donkin 1979). Vestigesof drainedfields, raisedfields, and tablonesalso weatheredthe conquest, but in highly localized areas.The survival thetabl6ninGuateof mala (Alvarado was transect) due in partto its use on steep and narrow lands notsuitedfor otherforms cultivation, as Mathewson of and, (1984, 24-25)implies, because itmay havebeen appropriated the Spaniardsfortheirown by horticultural needs. Finally, variousextensive rotational systems continued be employed, to in caliente especially thetierra and inareasthat were and remained sparsely utilized.In some cases, extensive agriculture havebeen inmay troducedanew in so-calledrefuge areas-regionswherethe indigenous population to fled avoid Spanishlaws,taxes,or culture, such as thesparsely inhabited interior theMayalowof lands. These Amerindian were combined systems with Hispanic ones to createthenewcultivated landscapesof New Spain. In some cases, systemsof either weredistributed origin acrossa landscapeaccording thediffering to socioeconomicand environmental circumstances present(e.g., Spanish-dominated bottom landsand Amerindian-dominated slope lands). More the common,however, varioussystems themselves were modifiedby exchangesin biota and technology.The new cultivatedlandwere a productof agriculscapes, therefore, turalsystemslost, added, modified through and redistributed acrosstheterrain. exchange,

and beliefsabout Spanishcivilization its conquests in the New World,perhapsoverstating relative othersoto and itsbarbarism brutality legendrelated years, another cieties.In recent to the Columbian Encounterhas emerged: be what might called La leyenda verde.This the GreenLegendmythologizes achievements cultures, especially and qualities Amerindian of espeSuch interpretations, theiragriculture. in (e.g., Sale 1990; cially the popularliterature deciAmerindian 1988),attribute Weatherford in and sion making agriculture landscapealterationsto cultural values placed on the conservationof natureor on the need forharmony withnatureas muchas or morethan to the the and need for food,fiber, tribute, desirefor wealth, or the response to sociopolitical conflict change.An idealizedAmerindian and of experience usingnaturein a benignway is contrastedwith a European penchant for This or controlling rapingnaturefor profit. ways errsin severalfundamental polarization as applied to the cultivatedlandscapes of to and New Spain. Itfails appreMesoamerica ciate sufficiently natureand scale of agrithe cultural production in preconquest Mesoamericaand, hence, the scale and magnitude of itsassociatedenvironmental changes,and it the damageastendsto inflate environmental the landscapesof New sociatedwith cultivated Spain. naengineered The peoples ofMesoamerica of tureintoregional mosaicscomprised diverse to of whichcontributed exsystems cultivation The and tensiveland modification conversion. systems thelandscapesinwhich and particular theywere embedded were the resultof real of and perceived needs in the context the culand tural environmental constraints opporand to tunities. These systems servedfirst feed the elitesand but largepopulations, also to sustain structures, engagein compolitical oppressive one Polities fought anand paytribute. merce, of other thecontrol thelandand thewealth for that came from its cultivation.Production were comfamines, even shortfalls, prolonged mon throughout Mesoamerica (e.g., Hassig 1981), and changes in socioeconomiccondiand tionsled to localizeddecay,abandonment, landagricultural replacementof particular to degleading environmental scapes,ofttimes in Transformations Perspective radation 1972). (e.g., see Williams an The Columbian Encounterconstituted What became knownas La leyendanegra (theBlackLegend)encapsulated long-standing abrupt,even brutal,change in population,

420

Whitmoreand Turner the Humanities. are indebted Karl Butzer, W. We to WilliamM. Denevan, William E. Doolittle, Kent Mathewson, William Meyer, B. YlenaOgneva,Alfred and the anonymousreSiemens,AndrewSluyter, viewersfor theircommentsand critiquesof this manuscript during various stagesofpreparation. We thank in Heather Henderson assistance preparing for thefinal and for manuscript, Patti Neumann preparingthe mapsand figures.

biota, technologicalcapacity (especially in and, transportation), to a muchlesserextent, cultithatrecast Amerindian political economy of vated landscapes.The swiftness changeas exacerbated well as the changes themselves were environmental damageas some systems but abandonedand othersreconstituted, ultithat scapes emerged weremoreor lessecologto icallysustainable.It is difficult compare landscapesin these pre-and post-Columbian of as terms such attributes landand laborproor damage.In general ductivity environmental Amerindian systems mayhave been however, areaand (output unit per morelandproductive were higherin time),while Spanish systems The to laborproductivity. exception thischarshiftof acterization, course,was Amerindian ingcultivation. This reality does not demean the accomnor of cultivator, plishments the Amerindian of the does itdiminish impact the Columbian us it Rather, directs to understand Encounter. of from position balance.Both a theEncounter the pre-and postcontact landscapesofcultivationwere constructed the purposeof exfor from and as the pressures for nature, tracting thisextraction so and scale varied, didthekind Whereand of local landscapetransformation. when these pressureswere high in Mesoof extensive alterations environments america, of fortookplace. The denudation thetropical before 1000A.D. and estsoftheMayalowlands the completetransformation the Basin of of Mexico, especiallyduringAztec times, are clear examples.We can assign the negative environmental of landimpacts the emergent view of scapes of New Spain to an inherent natureembedded withinHispanicand European culture,only in a polemicthatfailsto that the materialcircumstances understand drive agricultural change. A more balanced view of this collisionof worldsforcesus to indegradation recognizethatenvironmental followsthe abandonment well-adof variably and systems theexperimentajustedintensive tion with rapidly This evolvingnew systems. was so beforethe ColumbianEncounter and remains today. so Acknowledgments
Much of the researchbehindthisworkwas supfrom National Endowment for the portedbya grant mately a series of "mestizo" cultivated land-

Notes
1. See the Montejo Transectfor descriptions of swidden slash-and-burn or cultivation called (also tumba y roza, signifying long fallow, and barbecho, short signifying fallow). 2. Thissectionis based largely information on from two largecity-state provinces encountered along Tlaxcala Cholua(inthepresand theCortesroute, ent Mexicanstatesof Tlaxcalaand Puebla),and from Basinof Mexico (including the partsof the presentday Mexicanstates of Mexico and the Distrito Federal) (Fig.2). 3. Forthe detailsof the construction, morphology, and functioning most systems of the described for see the Mesa Central, Wilken's(1987)thorough of if assessment modern-day systems, many, not in most,of whichhave theirorigins pre-Columbian times,and Rojas Rabiela's(1988) excellent of treatment early postcontact indigenoussystems. 4. The construction chinampas been thesubof has ject of considerable discussion,because few,if in times.No less an any,have been built modern authority than Humboldt refers to "the thatEuropeans chinampas, call floating gardens. ers are closelyfixedto the margins" (1966,134). to Some haveinterpreted references "floating garto while dens" as references chinampas proper, othersbelievethattheyrefer the canoes filled to with or transplantings routeto chinampas) to (on floatedacross the lakes for gathered vegetation See for and various purposes. thefollowing details moreon thechinampa dispute:Apenas1943,Bancroft 1914[1887], Bernal Gib1973,de Acosta1604, and son 1964,Leicht 1937,L6pezRfos 1988, Wilken 1985. 5. Spanishdocumentsnotwithstanding, norththe ern Yucatanis not generally consideredto have been a majorsourceof cacao (Theobroma cacao or T. bicolor)at contacttimes(Bergmann 1969). conditions Indeed, the Yucatan's hydrological seem unsuitable extensiveproduction. for The sole direct evidenceof cacao from Yucatanis the a rarevariety onlyknownin the Lacandonregion of Mexico(G6mez-Pompa, al. 1990). et 6. Landa(Tozzer1941,196) mentioned presence the of root crops, probablyjicama (Pachyrihizus erosusL.), butthesignificance rootcropsinthe of at timesis suspect.The soilsof the north contact of plainsare extremely incapable supporting thin, No and of adequateroot tuber growth. reports the whichmight use of mounding indi(montones),
There are two types: some are moveable . . . oth-

Landscapes of Cultivationin Mesoamerica cate major root crop cultivation, existforthe lowland Mayarealm thistime. at 7. Fordescriptions contemporary of swiddenagrithe see culture throughout Mayalowlands, Carter1969; 0. Cook 1921; Emerson and Kempton 1935; Hester1954; Higbee 1948; Redfield and Avilla 1934; Roys 1943. to 8. Licate (1981, 133)refers thishybridization 1, as rise giving to "Mexican" landscapesinthe Mesa We from thisterm Central. have refrained using because two of our transects deal withcultural thatare notMexican. or political units 9. Perhaps fueledbythe controversy stillsurthat roundsthe scale of the Amerindian depopularelatedto the Amerindian tion, the literature declineis too largeto fully here. cite population See Denevan (1976, 1992)fora usefulbibliograoverview the issue. Simof phyand a thorough ulation exercises indicate that depopulation probably approached 90 percent by 1600 (Whitmore 1991,1992). 10. A prevalent themeasserts that Amerindians typwetlands and slopes because nonically favored inundated,level terrain(between slope and shore)was not suitedto theirnonplowcultivaThis tiontechnologies. assessment too simple. is are Nonplowcultivators knownto have cultivated almosteveryconceivableterrain (Turner and Brush 1987),giventhe need to do so. 11. The development agricultural of estatesforthe monocroppingof henequen (sisal) did not until nineteenth the cenemergein theYucatan tury (Farriss 1984,34). 12. We are notcertain the impact metaltools of of on thefrequency swidden milpacultivation of or inthe region. One argument holdsthat ease the of cutting treeswithsteeltools promoted more extensivesystems cultivation, thatthe of and in more strenuouslabor involved felling trees withstone tools would have favored morefreof quent cultivation the same plot. Incidentally, Landa(Tozzer1941,121) reported the Maya that had metal but that hatchets, itis notcertain they were used in agriculture.

421

1971. Gardens on swamps. Science 174(4010):653-61. small irrigationsystem in the valley of Teotihuacan. American Antiquity :396-99. 21(4)
1914 (1887). The historyof ; Palerm, Angel; and Wolf, Eric R. 1956. A

Bancroft,Hubert H.

Mexico,beinga popularhistory the Mexican of earliest to people from primitive civilization the present time.San Francisco: Bancroft Co. R. Barlow, H. 1949. Theextent theempire the of of Culhua Mexica. Ibero-Americana Berkeley: 28. of Press. University California Barrett, Ward. 1970. The sugar hacienda of the Marquesesdel Valle.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. F. Bergmann, John 1969. The distribution cacao of in America. Annals cultivation pre-Columbian of theAssociation American of Geographers 59:8596. Bernal,Ignacio. 1973. MexicobeforeCortez:Art and history legend. New York: DoubledayAnchorPress. of Brand,Donald D. 1961. The earlyhistory the in mexico.Agrirangecattleindustry northern cultural History :132-39. 35(3) of KarlW. 1991. Spanishcolonization the Butzer, new world: Cultural and continuity change in Mexico.Erdkunde 45(3):204-19. 1992. Transfer the Mediterranean liveof stockeconomyto New Spain: Adaptations and consequences. Paper presentedat the SCOPE Scientific on Symposium Principles, Patterns, and Processes:Some LegaciesoftheColumbian Encounter, Sevilla, Spain. munication, January. E. and Calneck,Edward 1972. Settlement patterns at American chinampa agriculture Tenochtitldn. Antiquity :104-15. 37(1) E. William 1969. New lands and old tradiCarter, in tions:Kekchi cultivators the Guatemalan lowlands.Latin American 6. Monograph Gainesville: of Press. University Florida
Chamberlain, Robert S. and Butzer, Elisabeth. 1992. Personal com-

References
Acosta, Joseph de.

Society. 1880. Alcorn, Janice B. 1984. Haustec Mayan ethnoof botany. Austin: University Texas Press. Altee, Charles B., Jr. 1968. Vegetable production in Guatemala. Washington: U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment. Andrews, AnthonyP. 1983. Maya salt production and trade. Tucson: University Arizona Press. of Apenas, Ola. 1943. The pond in our backyard.

moralhistory the Indies. London: Hakluyt of

1880 [1590]. The natural and

Chase, Arlen F., and Rice, Prudence M. 1985. The

of colonization Yucatan, 1517-1550. Publication of 582.Washington: CarnegieInstitution Washington.

1948. The conquest and

Mexican 19(60):15-18. Life

Armillas, Pedro. 1949. Notas sobre sistemas de cultivo en Mesoamerica. Anales del Instituto Nacionalde AnthropologiaHistoria e 3:85-113.

lowlandMayapostclassic. of Austin:University TexasPress. F. Chevalier, 1963. Land and societyin colonial ed. America, L. B. Simpson;trans.byA. Eustis. of Press. Berkeley: University California Clendinnen,Inga. 1987. Ambivalent conquests: in Cam1517-1570. Mayaand Spaniard Yucatan, Press. bridge:Cambridge University of Cline,H. F. 1949. Civilcongregations the Indians inNewSpain,1598-1606. Hispanic The American Historical Review 29(3):349-69.

422

Whitmoreand Turner The settlement survey. A studyof changing In pre-Columbian commercial systems:The 19721973 season at Cozumel, Mexico, ed. J. A. Sabloff, W. L. Rathje, 60-76.Monograph and pp. 3. Peabody MuseumofArchaeology Ethnoland ogy.Cambridge: Harvard University. Fuentes Guzman,D., and de Francisco, y Antonio. 1882. Historiade Guatemala,o recordation florida. Natural vecinoy regidor perpetuode la cindadde Guatemala. Madrid:Biblioteca los de Americanistas. Garcia Cook,Angel. 1985. Historia la tecnologfa de en central agrfcola el altiplano desde el principio de la agricultura hastael sigloXIII.In Historia de la agricultura. Epoca prehispinica-siglo ed. XVI, T. TeresaRojasRabiela, William Sanders, and pp. 7-75. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de AntropologfaHistoria. e Gasco, Janine. 1987. Cacao and the economicinof in tegration native society colonialSoconusco, of New Spain.Ph.D. dissertation, University CalSantaBarbara. ifornia, Voorhies. 1989. The ultimate and Barbara The roleof the Soconusco as an Aztec tribute: In ed. tributary. Ancienttradeand tribute, by Barbara Voorhies,pp. 48-94. Provo: University of UtahPress. Gibson,Charles. 1964. The Aztec underSpanish of rule: A history the Indiansof the valleyof Mexico1519-1810. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gomez-Pompa, Arturo;Flores,Jose Salvador;and Sosa, Victoria. 1987. The "pet kot": A manforest the Maya. Interciencia of made tropical 12(1):10-15. Mario. 1990. Fernandez, ; ~~; andAliphat The sacred cacao grovesof the Maya. Latin America Antiquity 1(3):247-57. Gutierrez Ruvalcaba, Ignacio. Forthcoming. en Ecologfa agricultura Metztitlan, y siglosXVIy I. Pasado ypresente, XVI InAgricultura indigena: ed. by Teresa Rojas Rabiela. Mexico City: de CIESAS,Editiones las Casa Chata. de LouisE. 1962. Lasterrazas los antiguos Guzman, Revista Interamerican de mayas montanieses. CienciasSociales,2nd epoch, vol. 1(3):398-406. Earl Hamilton, 1. 1976. Whatthe new worldgave of theeconomy theold. In First imagesofAmerMichaelJ. B. ica, vol. 2, ed. FrediChiappelli, L. and Robert Benson,pp. 853-84.BerkeAllen, Press. of ley: University California of EcoHassig,Ross. 1981. The famine one rabbit: causes and socialconsequencesofa prelogical of Journal Anthropological Columbian calamity. Research 37:171-82. and transportation. 1985. Trade,tribute, The sixteenth-century politicaleconomyof the

Coe, M. D. 1964. The chinampasof Mexico. American 211(1):90-98. Scientific A Cook, 0. F. 1921. Milpa agriculture: primitive of Annual Report theSmithsontropical system. ian Institution, 1919:302-26. W. 1979. Indian F., Cook, Sherburne and Borah, and consumption Central in food production Mexico beforeand afterthe conquest (1500Mexico 1650). In Essaysin populationhistory, of vol. and California. 3. Berkeley:University Press. California Buenos y Cortes, Hernan. 1945. Cartas relaciones. S.A. Aires:Emec6Editores, exAlfred Crosby, W., Jr. 1972. The Columbian and consequencesof change:Biological cultural 2. in Studies West1492.ContributionsAmerican CT: Greenwood. port, Culbert,T. Patrick. 1973. The classic Maya co/of lapse. Albuquerque:University New Mexico Press. in and control settlement Davis,Clint. 1990. Water frontier: bordosysThe colonialMexico'sfirst Conference temoftheeastern Bajfo.Yearbook, of Latin Americanist 16:73-81. Geographers populaDenevan,W. M. 1992 [1976]. The native in tionof theAmericas 1492.Madison: UniverPress. sity Wisconsin of and Bernal. 1956. Thediscovery Diaz del Castillo, New A. trans. P. Maudslay. conquestofMexico, and Giroux. Straus York:Farrar, in terracing the Donkin,R. A. 1979. Agricultural AZ: University of New World. Tucson, aboriginal Foundation ArizonaPressfortheWenner-Gren Inc. forAnthropological Research, E. in Doolittle, William 1990. Canalirrigation prehistoric Mexico.Thesequence of technological of change.Austin:University TexasPress. R. Emerson, A., and J.H. Kempton. 1935. Agroin Yearbook the of nomic investigationsYucatan. Institution Washington of 34:138-42. Carnegie of Evans, Susan T. 1990. The productivity maguey in the Mexicoduring terrace agriculture central 1(2):117American Antiquity Aztecperiod.Latin 32. underco/oFarriss, NancyM. 1984. Mayasociety nial rule: The collective of enterprise survival. Press. University Princeton, Princeton NJ: economy. Lawrence 1985. A tumpline H. Feldman, Productionand distribution systemsin sixeasternGuatemala. CulverCity, teenth-century CA: Labyrinthos. William Jr. 1965. The karst A. landscapeof Finch, Yucatan. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Illinois. L. E. Folan,W. I.; Fletcher, A.; and Kintz, R. 1979. bark,and resin:socialorganization Fruit, fiber, ofa Mayaurbancenter. Science204:697-701. DavidA., and Leventhal, M. 1975. Richard Freidel,

in Landscapes Cultivation Mesoamerica of

of valleyof Mexico. Norman:University OklahomaPress. bases and A. Joseph 1954. Natural cultural Hester, Ph.D. dissertation, Mayasubsistence. ofancient Los of University California, Angeles. in Higbee, Edward. 1948. Agriculture the Mayan 48:457-64. Review Geographical homeland. politico von. 1966. Ensayo Alexander Humboldt, A. sobre el reinode la nueva Espaha,ed. Juan Porrua, Ortegay Medina.MexicoCity:Editorial S.A. to Grant D. 1989 Mayaresistance Spanish Jones, Alon rule:Timeand history a colonialfrontier. of buquerque: University New MexicoPress. Killion,T. Forthcoming.Gardensin prehistory. AL: of Press. University, University Alabama and before Landa,Diego de. 1937[1566]. Yucatan W. after conquest.Trans. Gates.New York: the DoverPublications. of history the W. 1971. Culture Lange,Frederick of valley Costa Rica. OccasionalPaSapoa river 4. WI: LoganMupers in Anthropology Beloit, BeloitCollege. seumofAnthropology, Leicht, Hugo. 1937. Chinampas y almdcigos flotantes.Anales del Institutode Biologia A. 1981. Creation a Mexicanlandof Licate,Jack in and organization settlement scape: Territorial Pueblabasin1520-1605. Department theeastern ResearchPapers201. Chicago: of Geography of University Chicago. The Francisco. 1964. Cort6s. life L6pezde G6mara, Trans. and ed. oftheconqueror hissecretary. by of LesleyByrdSimpson. Berkeley:University Press. California L6pez Rios, GeorginaFlorencia. 1988. Sistema agricola de chinampa: PerspectivaagroecoAutonoma l6gica. Mexico City: Universidad Chapingo. An SamuelK. 1933. Atitlan. archaeologiLothrop, of on cal studyof ancientremains the borders 444. Publication WashGuatemala. LakeAtitlan, of CarnegieInstitute Washington. ington: central America: MacLeod,MurdoJ. 1973. Spanish 1520-1720.Berkeley: Socioeconomic history, Press. of University California in horticulture Kent. 1984. Irrigation Mathewson, highland Guatemala: The tabl6n system of CO: Westview. Panajachel.Boulder, conA. of Means,Philip 1917. History theSpanish and of theItzas.Papersofthe quest of Yucatan and MuseumofAmerican Archaeology Peabody vol. HarvardUniversity, 8. CamEthnology, MA. bridge, in Rene F. 1957. Irrigation systems thevalMillon, ley of Teotihuacan. American Antiquity
23(2):160-66. (UNAM) 5(3):375-86.

423

Moriarty, R. 1968. Floating J. gardens(chinampas) in agriculture the old lakes of Mexico.America Morrisey, Richard 1951. The northward expan1. sion ofcattleranching New Spain,1550-1600. in Agricultural History 25(3):115-21. NationalGeographicSociety. 1989. Land of the Maya(map).Washington.
Orellana, Sandra L. 1984. The TzutujilMayas. Conand change, 1250-1630. Norman: Univertinuity Indigena 28(2):461-84.

Anthropologist 57(4):698-712.

velopment private of in property land.American

Washington.

1980. Mexico and Central America (map).

of sity OklahomaPress. Palerm,Angel. 1955. The agricultural bases of urbancivilization Mesoamerica.In Irrigation in civilizations:A comparative study, ed. by J. H. UnionSocial Steward, 28-42. Pan American pp. 1. ScienceMonographs Washington.
1973. Obras hidraulicasprehispanicas en el sistema lacustre del valle de Mexico. Cordoba,

Mexico: Instituto Nacionalde Anthropologfa e Historia. Eric. 1962. Potencial and Wolf, ecol6gicoy desarrollo cultural de mesoamerica. Revista
Interamericande Ciencias Sociales, 2nd epoch,

R. Parsons, jeffery 1971. Prehistoric settlementpatternsin the Texcoco region, Mexico. Memoirs of

1(2):322-45.

pp. 233-57.New York:AcademicPress. L. central Patrick, 1985. Agaveand zea in highland Mexico: The ecology and historyof the the tropics, 2, ed. I. S. Farrington, 539vol. pp. 46. Oxford:B.A.R.International Series,232. 1977. A cultural of geography the use of The metepantli seasonally dry,slopingterrain: of Mexico. Ph.D. dissertacropterraces central of tion,University Pittsburgh. Pohl, Mary. 1985. An ethnohistorical perspective on ancient fieldsand othercultiMayawetland in vationsystems the lowlands.In Prehistoric ed. economy, M. D. Pohl,PapersofthePeabody MuseumofArchaeology Ethnology, and Harvard vol. MA. University, 77, pp. 35-45.Cambridge, and R. Redfield, Robert, Avila, 1934. ChanKom:A 488. CarMayavillage.Publication Washington: of negie Institution Washington. Rojas Rabiela, Teresa. 1985. La technologra en mesoamericana el SigloXVI.InHistoagrfcola
lowland Maya environment and subsistence in intensiveagriculture Metepantli. In Prehistoric

turalchange and continuity:Essays in honor of ed. JamesBennett Griffin, by Charles E. Cleland,

theMuseumofAnthropologyAnnArbor: 3. Uniof versity Michigan. 1976. The roleof chinampa in agriculture the food supplyof AztecTenochtitlkn. CulIn

and 1955. Trade,treecultivation, the de-

424

Whitmoreand Turner at the SCOPE Scientific Symposium Princion ples, Patterns, Processes:Some Legaciesof and the Columbian Encounter. Sevilla, Spain. and , et al. 1988. Evidence a cultivar a for chronology from patterned wetlandsin central Veracruz, Mexico.Science242:105-07. of L. Simpson, B. 1952. Exploitation landin central Mexico in the sixteenth century. Ibero-AmeriPress. cana 36. Berkeley: of University California Andrew. 1990. Vestiges uplandfields of in Sluyter, A Veracruz: new perspective its Precentral on columbian humanecology.M.A. thesis,Univerof Columbia. sity British in Stadleman, Raymond. 1940. Maize cultivation northwestern Guatemala. Contributionsto American Anthropology History. and Publication 523, pp. 83-263.Washington: CarnegieInstitutionofWashington. Barbara 1974. Geography L. and economic Stark, in specialization thelower Papaloapan, Veracruz, Mexico.Ethnohistory :199-221. 21(3) . 1978. An ethnohistoric model fornative in economyand settlement patterns southern Mexico. In Prehistoric Veracruz, coastaladaptaand of tion:Theeconomy ecology maritime CentralAmerica, ed. BarbaraL. Starkand Barbara Voorhies, pp. 211-38. New York: Academic Press. 1990. The Gulf coastand central highlands of Mexico: Alternative methods interaction. for in Research Economic Anthropology 12:243-85. L. Stevens, Rayfred 1964. ThesoilsofMiddleAmerica and theirrelation Indianpeople and culto tures. In Naturalenvironments earlyculand tures,vol. 1, Handbook of Middle American Indians, ed. Robert West,pp. 265-315.AusC. tin: University TexasPress. of man Stone,Doris. 1977. Pre-Columbian in Costa Rica. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Peabody MuseumPress. C. Super,John 1988. Food, conquest,and colonizationin sixteenth-century AlSpanishAmerica. of buquerque: University New MexicoPress. M. 1941. Landa's relaci6nde las Tozzer,Alfred cosas de Yucatan.PeabodyMuseum,Paper18 (translation). Cambridge: Harvard University. B. of Turner, L. II. 1983a. Comparisons agrotechin nologies theBasinofMexicoandcentral Maya lowlands:Formative theclassicMayacollapse. to In Highland-lowland in interaction Mesoamerica. Interdisciplinary approachesed. A. G. Miller, pp. 13-47. Washington: DunbartonOaks ResearchLibrary Collection. and . 1983b. Once beneaththe forest: Prehistoric in of terracing theRio Bec region theMaya lowlands. Dellplain LatinAmericanSeries 13, CO: Westview Press. Boulder, 1990a. Population reconstruction the for central Mayalowlands:1000BC to AD 1500.In

ria de la agricultural epoca prehispinica-siglo XVI, ed. Teresa Rojas Rabielaand William T. Sanders, pp 129-232. Mexico City: Instituto e Nacionalde AntropologfaHistoria. * 1988. Las siembras ayer:La agricultura de indigenadel sigloXVI.MexicoCity:Secretarfa de Educaci6nPublicay Centro de Investigaciones y EstudiosSuperioresen Antropologfa Social. de Forthcoming.Historia la agricultura. In en Epoca prehispanica. La agricultura tierras mexicanas. las origenes sigloXX.Mexico De del S.A. City:Editorial Grijalbo of Roys,RalphL. 1943. The Indianbackground 548. colonialYucatan.Publication Washington: of CarnegieInstitution Washington. 1990. Theconquestofparadise: Sale, Kirkpatrick. Columbusand the Columbian Christopher legacy. New York:A. Knopf. T. Sanders,William 1972. The agricultural history of ofthe basinofMexico.In Thevalley Mexico, ed. EricR. Wolf, 101-59. pp. Albuquerque:Uniof versity New MexicoPress. * 1981. Ecological in adaptation thebasinof Mexico: 23,000BC to present.In Archaeology. Handbookofmiddle American ed. Indians, J.A. of Sabloff, 147-97.Austin:University Texas pp. Press. R. J. ; Parsons, R.; and Santley, S. 1979. The in basinofMexico:Ecological processes theevolution of a civilization. New York: Academic Press. D. and Sauer,Jonathan 1976. Changing perception of exploitation New World plants in Europe, I 1492-1800.n First vol. imagesofAmerica 2, ed. FrediChiappelli, 813-32.Berkeley: pp. Univerof Press. sity California Peter1. 1977. Un sistema cultivo de inSchmidt, tensivoen la cuenca del rfoNautla,Veracruz. del Nacionalde Anthropologia Boletin Instituto e Historia 3(20):50-60. Scholes,France and Roys,RalphL. 1968[1948]. V., A The MayaChontalIndiansof Acalan-Tixchel: to contribution the history ethnography and of the Yucatan of peninsula.Norman:University OklahomaPress. H. 1982. Modelling Siemens,Alfred pre-hispanic on hydroagriculture levee backslopesin northern Veracruz, Mexico. In Drainedfieldagriculture in Centraland South America, J. P. ed. British Darch,pp. 27-54.Oxford: Archaeological Series189. International Reports * 1983. Oriented raisedfields central in VeAmerican racruz. Antiquity 48(1):85-102. * 1990. Betweensummit and sea. Central in Veracruz thenineteenth century. Vancouver: of ColumbiaPress. University British * 1992. Landuse succession theGulf in lowlandson Mexico:A longview.Paperpresented

Landscapes Cultivation Mesoamerica of in

in populationhistory the Maya Precolumbian lowlands, ed. T. P. Culbertand D. S. Rice of pp. 301-24. Albuquerque: University New MexicoPress. and 1990b. The riseand fallof population in 300 Mayalowlands: BC agriculture thecentral In in Foodshortage, to present. Hunger history: ed. and deprivation, L. F. Newman, poverty, MA: BasilBlackwell. Cambridge, pp. 178-211. farming S. and Brush, B. 1987. Comparative New York:Guilford Press. systems. CharlesH. 1984. Economic and Miksicek, agriculwith prehistoric plant speciesassociated ture in the Maya lowlands.EconomicBotany 38:179-93. U.S. DefenseMapping Agency. 1978. Operational K-25. Washington. chart, navigational navigational chart, 1974. Operational J-24. Washington. chart, navigational 1965. Operational J-25. Washington. and climate A. Vivi6Escoto,Jorge 1964. Weather and environment of Central Mexico. In Natural Amervol. of cultures, 1, Handbook Middle early C. ican Indians, ed. Robert West,pp. 187-215. of Austin:University TexasPress. Weatherford, Jack. 1988. Indiangivers:How the transformed world. the Indiansof theAmericas Columbine. New York:Fawcett of C. regions midWest,Robert 1964a. Thenatural In environments early and dle America. Natural vol. cultures. 1, Handbookof MiddleAmerican of pp. Indians, 363-83.Austin:University Texas Press. and 1964b. Surface configuration associIn enated geologyof MiddleAmerica. Natural vol. vironments early and cultures, 1, Handbook of MiddleAmerican Indians, 33-83.Austin: pp. of University TexasPress. de and PedroArmillas.1952. Laschinampas M6xico. Poesfa realidad de los "jardines Americanos 50:165-82. Cuadernos flontates." of ThomasM. 1991. A simulation the Whitmore, sixteenth-century populationcollapse in the of Basinof Mexico. Annalsof the Association 81(3):464-87. Geographers American

425

* 1992. Disease and death in early colonial Mexico: Simulating Amerindian depopulation. Dellplain Latin AmericanGeography Series. CO: Westview Boulder, Press. Wilhelmy, Herbert. 1981. Weltund umweltder Maya.Munich:R. Piperand Co. Verlag. Wilken, Gene C. 1969. Drainedfieldagriculture: An intensive farming system Tlaxcala, in Mexico. The Geographical Review 59:215-41. * 1971. Food-producing systems available to theancient 36:xx. Maya.American Antiquity . 1979. Traditional slope management: An analytical approach.In Hilllands:Proceedings of an international symposium, 416-21. Morpp. WestVirginia gantown: Books. University * 1985. A noteon bouyancy otherdubiand ous characteristics the "floating" of chinampas of Mexico. In Prehistoric in intensive agriculture ed. thetropics, I. S. Farrington, 31-48.Interpp. national Series232. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports. * 1987. Good farmers: Traditional agricultural in resourcemanagement Mexico and Central America. Berkeley: University California of Press. S. K. Wilkerson, Jeffrey 1983. So greenlikea garin den: Intensive agriculture ancientVeracruz. In Drainedfield in and agriculture Central South ed. America, J.P. Darch,pp. 55-90.International Series 189. Oxford: British ReArchaeological ports. 1. Barbara 1972. Tepetate theValley in Williams, of Mexico.Annalsof the Association American of Geographers 62(4):618-26. of Wilson, EugeneM. 1980. Physical geography the In a Yucatan ed. peninsula. Yucatan, worldapart, E. H. Moseleyand E. D. Terry, 5-40. Univerpp. AL: of sity, University AlabamaPress. EricC., and Palerm, Wolf, Angel. 1955. Irrigation in theold Acolhuadomain, Mexico.Southwestof ernJournal Anthropology 11:265-81. Elias. 1985. Los Mayas las tierras Zamora Acosta, de altasen el sigloXVI.Tradici6n cambioen Guay temala.Sevilla:Diputaci6n Provincial Sevilla. de