1 Cae Background of Tropical Agricultural Origins INTRODUCTION by any modern human being 1 total repertoire of A foods that supported ‘or thought to have been origin ‘Some geographers tropics were an 1 interested in tant early centerted archeological survey and exca ‘pis. Poor preservation oft ites hampered interpret subsistence, ive approaches f of the Amazon Bs ch plane fof the major crop d We believe that in these tropi to be found, Snadents of the probl and other cultural afi rf, 1953; Meggers and Evans, 1992; Sahl, 1998; Maloney, 1994). The tropical forest was a long tropical ecosystem to. support sedentary, ag 1957) 1 top include the suitability of the tropical forest habitat even for low. : sways (©, Bailey et al, 1989; Headland, 1987), However, doubts concerning the agricultural pote were based on examples drawn largel ‘of nonfloodplain forest, whose s contend, are atypically poor in con tle relevance tothe qué forest of resource base for foragers, we x Neotropical regions and resource base for Neotropical forgers and would have give Also, neither ofthese zones were ‘occupation and 1991) as researchers have nd Neotropics in cual origins has been the etigator in studying ly, this region could not be mo 1s of development in general (-., Fritz, 1994; Ma 1964; Smit Steward, 1949) Decades of researc questions ofthe how, when, where, and why of food production (¢g, Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989, 1996; Henry, 1989; McCorrston and Hol Price and Gebauer, 1995; of effort devoted to t is posible to tropics, people understandably extrap For example, early plant domestication in the Americas was thought tonero 5 pe 41. Background itz, 1994, 1995; Gebauer and Price, and some considerable social complexity ‘on the head when he noted: The hind of cure m which ple cawtin nthe mop ore could rate and ‘of flly domesticated and product developed more complex forms of so ie systems, ‘Although we are mainly concerned spire phen fom, {bret pcs of the wo woul bea Das roe 1 bbe fey ta each ach we [of indepen pic ong ule fo he spi heen sf iene nd ha pre the nao f apc tha pie 885, as ed) lowing isa summary of our current understanding of the evidence: ‘on the Junin argues for a different balance of the importance of plant decisions conceming settem wated plots into the forest, the felling and/or ki Domestication of pla rurbed habitats, such as quinoa (Chenopodi 4uinoa) and maca (Lepidium meyeni, a root crop of the Junin region, i perhaps iterewinned with the process of camellid domestication (Pearsall, 19893). To ‘explore the processes of plant and jeation in the Andes ant relationships to de nts inthe lowlands, which we be require a book-length treat ical data sets are 1 to high-elevation An Interpretation of two of these early data sets—Guitarerro Cave sites in the Ayacucho region, Peru—is complicated by potent dry sediments, dating a es, and, in the case of che Ayac6 1. Background .complete publication, ism has a severe impact on data ses available are from sites + periods, Lake coring, which has proven valuable he data on carly agriculture in the lowlands (see below and Chapters ial for tracing the introduction of maize into the trajectory of plant domest emsification there. Appl perspective we sue of plant and animal d ive, but we leave this task to igher elevations of the E te discovery sw Fos \der meters of voleanic ath, and A TAXONOMY OF TROPICAL FOOD PRODUCTION livation and dome sly, resulting in a lack of aster being described for any point i regions where food pro dependently arose and subsequently to larger scale entities that supported larger 2 rents, some taxonomy of food-producing behavior seems necessary t and environmental corelates ofthe various syst the social, demogra ‘through time. genetic and domestication. We use ss species thought by tropical bo ‘used ting behavior A Taxonomy of Tropical Food Production 7 range of plants from morphologically “wild” to cle seal field systems, in which domesticated plants are common 3 assaple crops. Although we envision an evolutiona {food production, they probably coexisted int depending on local ecology. The term protocultivation has been commonly used to indicate ea food production, bur it has ako denoted such manipulations of wi foragers as replanting the head of tubers into the hole lefe by the harv ated, and larger to dominate these types of re developed, opi after agriul early systems of topical food prod We beliove that, for the most part, eycle of 1 process of domestication is strictly linked (ee discussion below) of pilegenvironmental records is extremely diffi to focus om those practices that involve moving plants 4 and clearing lead to genetic changes in crop prehistoric records here are many intermediate stages between the states and their movement to prepared plots 1992). Sophisticated f tropical forest and d definition of and may promote some ‘Anderson and Posey, Groube, 1989). ed previously, they come close t0 doi ic and morphological modification of th 996; Cl ection, selective pruning, and planting of per species, particularly palms, in their natural settings in the forest (ather than in prepared plos), plus the replacement of tubers in the gr edly were characteristic of prehistoric forest peoples, and may be between humans however, they are the and producing behavior. We believe, s do many others (e, AKnts may 3 necessarily 1992). Even afier a protracted period of t volved thee of almost as 1989, p. 20). In fet, we will document a plants that were important food items during one time period later de disappear from the record altogether, ad (i) plants do not develop characteris of genuine domesticates despite a prolonged asociation with humans. developed out of dooryard horticulture, the evolutionary continuum between ‘other areas, more sedentary populations may have grown thee crops thout cutting and burning after more fertile lands We will ako argue that many lowland tropical societies practiced food produc tion for atleast 5000 years before the emergence of vil not be seen as cated plans. Ic is important, therefore, that we separate the issue ofthe origins of food prod the origins of agriculture; these phenomena may not have ly congruent explanations, defining food production and secking to identify w' we require that it (@) be systematic wolve preparation of plos and the pla i) provide some real contibution to the diet. Creating small plots and sowing plans in them is the first step in the cof an agricultural system; as such, we feel i reflects concems about food plans rather than simply pices, medicinal plants, or containers although we expect to see such plants represented as well) presume a social heduling of food-producing cels of ground from yeat to year -ave evidence in the archeologi le settlements located on circumscribed can be recovered artificts and, perhaps, luck, To review, Such early food-producing s Tropical Food Production Compared to Near East Food Pr POSTULATED CHARACTERISTICS OF TROPICAL FOOD PRODUCTION COMPARED TO NEAR, EAST FOOD PRODUCTION Because we have argued that tropical food product be studied on its ‘own terms, ic i informative to compare our views on the nature of eatly food production in the Neotropics to characterizations of this proces in the Near East ‘Wedo not require that many of the frst cultivated plants eventually be domesticated or even extensively cultivated later in prehistory. We do not require that early ed rapidly, i. 19 25 human generations ulivation. These twa charac food production from the Near Eastern example, in which many of the eatlest cultivated plants, such as wheat, barley, lenis and chick peas, were apparently auickly domesticated (a time period of between 30 and 200 years is thought to be a reasonable estimate for wheat and barley domestication) and continue even today to be staple foods (e., Hillman and Davies, 1990; Zohary, 1986), Furthermore, we do not requit tl plants were cukvated by sedentary people living in villages ty complex social organi by foragers in we communities, which characterized Near Neolithic, was made possible by a fairly stable and dense source supply that included many plant carbohydrates. An extended period of exploiation of some of the wild resources that came to be cultivated in the [Near Eas led to an inerease in regional human population densities in hunter-gatherer foraging ranges. Plant resource densities are structured very differently in tropical forest setings, in which especially plant carbohydrates are generally not present in substantial numbers. It is also important to remember that many of the extliest locales of Neotropical food production were sparsely populated 10,000 yeats ago. Population pressure, in the sense used by Cohen (19773) or a decrease in availble foraging territories arising from human popu of early food production Finally, we suggest thatthe wi tubers, were not subject to a lengthy taken under cultivation. We acknowledge appearance of cultivated plans during the erly Holocene, but available paleoenvi- ronmental evidence leds us to conclude that prior to 10,000 years ago, many groups ‘were emphasizing different resources on very different late-glacial sa er and in Chapter 2 s, which should not ir model of ealy food production and those proposed we discuss ized, beeween ye Near East. We10° 1, Background, will argue that thet on from fori ter the end of the Pleistocene in at leat ng, a8 0 years ee oF four regions ofthe world ‘We now discuss the explanations and theories that have been advanced to account fo the origins of food production and offer in more di wor perspective 86x; Redding, 1988; Reed, 1977; Rindos, 198: 1995) and the issue would not benefit fo treatment here. Rather, we |. explanations for the origins of food production are seven types and food production ter, 1952: Braidwood, 1960) isthe prime mover. Chi of buman 's (1952) oasis model i the first and most fimous example ofthis explanation. Cl fare the primary to food produc- ber of people and the food hese explanations to labor as they were forced ss prefered foodstuff (seeds, ubers, et) growth and climate change led to food produc- Jose, fimess-enhancing relationships existed fo years between people and the plants that came tobe domes in behavioral changes in human populations that were lrgely vated, An important part of Rindos's model is that harvest and protection of wild plants by humans begins the Some species before systematic cultivation takes place 6. Food production is seen as the of a set of, ‘made on the bass of relative re caloric yi area invested) of exploitable resources inthe environment (eg, Hawkes and O'Connell, 1992; Kaplan and Hill, 1992; Keegan, 1986; Piper Il, 1988; Winterhalder and Goland, 1993). Significant changes in food nt practices may come about through alterations ost highly valued (least costly) resources, which may re a5 environmental change or human population growth. The ou are the inclusion into the diet of new oF lite used foods that had borne unacceptably disappearance or depletion of the previously exploited re- we of these items leading to their framework of “optimal forag- \-plant association in Darwinian terms and are led behavioral or evolutionary ecology. We fi nd will discuss them in detail the chapter. 7. Various social factors (e,, desire for prestige, competitive fe cosmology) are seen as the prime forcers of subsistence changes leading to food production (.g., Bender121, Background How can these explanations be bout the New World archeol developments in modem ecologic Population Pressure pressure was by so few peop! ‘numbers of people on the landscape led to the intensification of horticulture 1975). 7 od produc- became necessary to replace the depleted wild plant and animal populations Framed as such, the arrying capacity concept was subject to all kinds of dficuley tool for evaluating foraging the degradation of view ps thropological concept of earying, smonly used in ecology ‘ween predators and their prey. In contrat to the use of the concept in anthropology, the resource base of ecological predator/prey theory ‘ources are exploited by foragers, theie population sizes will ant consequences + population size and subsequent resource selection. This latter tant because if foraging and food production represent two dis 1g alternatives of 1993). The the emergence of selection among the alternatives of resource a years ago would have proceeded al Climate Change ly missed is of resource a .ed by improving paleaecological tions of environments on the eve of food production more robi 1993; Leyden the role of ‘expecially amor change not a a under select that compel and Chapter 2) Perhaps the best about the role of climate g question: Would food production \merica, the southern Levant, and have started in Me41, Background se in several regions lowed major, global -ve, was begun by people largely for the aecidents worries fom from the earth's 1) urged them oppose a wve any power to take away nature's beatty” (p. 1) lary, human cultural complexity should not prevent a seach for pattern in the evolution of food production and others in developments or lead to denial of a pattern should it become evident upon empirical study using the ing that uniformitarian processes associated with em taped subsistence decisions and accounted for major less a pare of a unique socal sphere 1 the nl development that we discuss, social causation for food production occur after the appearance of domesticated plants (eg, Cooke and Ranere, 1992b; Pearsall 1995a; Pohl etal, 1996). Emerging empirical data is ‘we identify in Chapter 4 as practicing eat food prods and do not 1s and labor-intensive foods enhancing for groups (Hayden, 1995; Price, 1995). The level of od Production Origis 15, ‘community and lear fay was 1 absence of supero constraints and even mote likely to ly rational strategies Evolutionary Theory and the Origins of Food Production ‘There are increasingly co arwinian eheories move from process to conse uence” (p. 151), in contrast to other approaches to expla (Marxism, neofune the study of process tcmphasizes “macro subject for generl- However, such gen tbe seen as explanations for the problems and thus use Ds food production and dé first articulated by Rindos (1984), hasbeen postu Darwinian theory to examine the proces (Gremillion, 1989; S of Rindos and others, especially a8 it concer the imporance of the creation and 1 ofan anthropogenic landscape near setdement before people actualy engaged in sytemuti culation and with regard tots role in eating opportunities for predomestication semiseden- tary living in various environments. As we will se, these fctor: may have been the tropical forest. However, actions between people and the pani BEET find merit in the coevolutionary th that to atk why humans beg ater, reasingly16 1, Background a foraging o food produc the past several decades, this famework comprises the ways Contributes to survival and reproduction of organisms in elation co the ecology ofthe organisms (Hawkes ea, 1997; Krebs ad Daves, 1993). In biology, i as provided fresh insights into a spectrum of complex sus, including the origins of froup living, primate social organization, and parental care and mating systems (Krebs and Daves, 1993) ‘Models drawn from behavioral ecology differ from coevolutionary and other in anthropology in a number of important ways aking by animals eapube of flexible and ‘uickly via the phenotype to ic offered transition from| types of evolutionary theory [Behavioral ecology emphasizes decisi learmed cer of reproductive fitness and, ind Wintechalder, 1992). Behavi nderlying processes, the selec nent of food producing, to identify the ‘operating to favor the est ioral changes (Russell, 1988). Distinct from sociobiological expla that particular behaviors emanating from , behavioral ecology does not posit phenotype are coded in particular ;portantly, wit 1 which has long been a the cognitive assumed to hat der, 1992 mnger term sense, evolti (One of the theories developed within the framework of evolutionary ecology ost heavily rely on (optimal foraging theory) is derived from formal cifically microee Humans are seen to be rational actors in that we Explanations of New World Food Production Origins 17 in which resources are limited and needs must be c ly met. 3 Human actors have the ability to “assess payofis and choose or learn the best ©. F.7 alternative under any given set of circumstances" (Smith and Winterhalder, 1992, p. 33). They will try diferent foraging strategies and repeat and copy are most successfal (Hawkes and O'Connell, 1992), be highly correlated with the finess of the actor and that, all ehings being equal, natural selection should have fivored more ecient strategies at the expense of less efficient strategies. “This seems to be a fair assumption because in many circumstances more food, less exposure to risks through shorter foraging time, and more time spent in ‘other than the food quest (uch as caing for chile: have been associated with increased fitness (Kaplan and. than actual food shortages are likely to select foragers do not have to absolutely max fom effcient food procurement practices (Smith, 1983) Formal testing ofthese and other predictions of optimal foraging theory with ‘modern hunters and gatherers and horticulturalss have supported the propos that energy is a usefal currency to use in foraging models and that energetic concems are major constraints on foraging decisions (eg, Alvard, 1993, 1995; Beckerman, 1993; Gragson, 1993; Hames and Vickers, 1982; Hawkes et al, 1982; Hawkes, 1981, 1984; Fill a, 1987; Kaplan and der, 1986, p. 37 times councerintitive, prt 1ceming food choice and subsistence change that are highly relevant to food production origins. They can be summarized as follows: () resources will enter the diet 28a function not of their own abundance but of the abundance higher ranked (east cost) resources (i) asthe abundance of higher ranked resources on the landscape declines, foragers begin to do better by investing less search time in handling lower ranked foragers will now choose it results in a higher @ and, possibly, increases nay result in human demogrS ce 18 1, Background onsiderstions of Trop Agriculture 19 tropical zone who had the necessary absence of resource stress and e time to experiment with plans and invent agriculture. He fl in the topics the necesary biological and physica factors favoring food prod sucht make pla divert (ean gpl of is obvious thatthe die brea ee sized and atcheologially documented proceses linked to the emergence of food 988) mtd tn wooded a lio yeeaateaee = yey ai for planting could eaily be achieved by {chavion ecologia concerned with human behavior have indicated (O'Connell uunnecesary), wh een ich in mutiens and mulch for che erop was wating. Only an impl the s0 im of the outer tree trunk and a digging stick were required to On the other hand, grasy lands were unlikely to have ve cultivators because of the unyielding character ofthe stoloniferous grasses and undedying sod ir - Most ofall, Sauer (1952:20) fle tat food product 2 growing or chronic swly incorporated loped by Wi ers 2 and 6) ime because of its ability t0 make robust, ary diversity, especially where paleo- tocene/Holocene boundary and ean serve Wf cost in the absence of changes in bi qualitative predictions of prey choice and ecological data are robust across the P resource distribution “not orgie om ontage of fod” and, ths, he probably woul not have pre arguments proposed cpt 25 yea the shadow of fine donot have he denake the low and lel experiment steps ow of whi a better and di Bae food : a 3 2s proxies for changi rents. We agree with Wintethalder and Smith (1992, mary theory has much to offer to the social sciences and ‘of human behavior requires evolutionary vided arch fod, potom, necesary equipment for fa eee Sacre a ly a eeeee food production wat perhaps nt the mox Tewon that people grew the fs pln Sauer believed die phyla Boi characters of Soatheaem Ada best ee a metal the equerents fr ely food prodacion and atin sor be found the peoples who practiced aiealare the et 1 ofrootand eee erpt Because rich wil | EARLY CONSIDERATIONS OF TROPICAL FOREST AGRICULTURE CARL ORTWIN SAUER, DAVID HARRIS, AND DONALD LATHRAP portant years ago, three prominent scholars, Carl 1e question of how plant d irumstances that likely were corre lated with early food-producing strategies in the tropics. Many of their ideas ropical agricultural studies today. Among their most endur~ tributions was that each viewed the tropical forest as being of immense was the inhospitable and “Green views have found few which was the dominant view of the tropical forest during their early evidence shows that food pro criticism chat stil esonates today, Hs extreme 1s, particularly because increasing empirical scholarly year. ited and bewildered early humans. is) a strong feling chat the cs somehow have occurred prior to 1994; Mangelsdo was indigenous to the u rere was (and her seed crop tropical forest root crop complex (eg, Fritz, 1995a,b) simply because the latter complex Carl Ortwin Sauer and Dispersal, deals with 1g sedentary affluent riverine Sauer’s (1952) most often cited work, Ag first arose his contention that food produns has been the exential, crystal-clear he tropical biome and his many s between humans and , 1936, 1947, 1958). gins of tropical forest food produc tion were to be sought not in the ever-wet topical ran forest but in the seasonally snd deciduous woods, where the annual punctuation 1 well-defined tropical forest plants (Sa dry zone of se of rainfall spurs the production of seeds and tubers. Here, there resource acquisition and storage, which are important prerequisites for inter tion of resource use and semisedentary living. As shown in Chapter 2, these “seasonal” types of forests once occupied large land areas throughout the Neotropics ‘Sauer’ comments on the importance of the seasonal cycle of plant production in the tropical forest long ant of the importance o phenomena by bot the nonbuman ‘most important, the season and more highly fertile soils for agricul ion to being a gener re because it receives fir less annual part of the ecological condit the cultivated plant assemblage of the New World, including maize, was largely ‘mesophytc; der warm temperature and ain and contin- hrough the rani ‘occurred under a marked dy season. Few of d Juding maize, flow, uncer ‘or of cold temperatures Sauer, 1936) come later in time for some of them “American plants complex isa the subject areas of seasonally drier forest in Richards (1952) also believes In contrast, Saver (1958) the American tropics and including soils for agri and, generally, ouside ofthe vast intrfluve region of forests, especially were the aeas that seen the earliest human pei ‘On a local scale, he proposed that the edges of water bodies essed the earliest, permanent settlements of h lnvtudes. In these disturbed, sunny habitats within the forest ‘many nutritionally and technolog stable supplies of animal food, hasized how humans using a simple and well- wology, fire, could have fundamentally altered the seasonal forest and made it a more useful habitat by encouraging the reprod heliophytic of the sterile debates concerning of the tropical forest habitat for human ex (Chapter 2) could by carefil attention to is views on the tropical bi David Harris David Harris (1969, 1972, 1973, 19773), ike Sauer, oferred a realistic assessment tas home to prehistoric human populations by carefully dst satheress. He, g those Forget ‘manent settlements along forest and woodland mar tropical forest with dry seavons of intermediate length (3-7 mor of the tuber crops because s plants are adapted to survive2 Backes ult to digest and may have been used as before seed development) fora long period technologies The ecol slow evolut and native to Mesoamerica, and “vegec ‘and tubers common at European contact in South America. He noted possessed Seed culture crop plants may have New World. For example, the wi and the various tuber crops are not found at particularly h large d certainly not in densities remotely comparable to the wild cereal sands of the Near East. This, together with the fact that New World cultivators were dealing with plants and harvested one by one (Sauer, 1936), precluded mass harvesting, storing, a ion of genetic traits that may have contributed to slower genetic ced plants in any plo, was less more ecologically sable syste to spread as rapidly a seed culture. We w 5 that the development and spread of sash nied by the presence of maize. Harris also lad the bass for explaining the apparent ‘of integrated and specialized agricultural systems and fallAledged village life i (Reed, 1977; Flannery, 19863). Because tropical food production Donald Lathrap For many years, Donald Lachrap was the primary spokesperson in archeology for the preeminence of the humid lowlind tropical forest in New World cultural development, particularly the origins (or origin, as he saw it) of agriculture. He inspired a generation of students to pursue archeological and botanical research in co sudy and unimportane. ral origins and dispersals was always A central ean Lathrap's (1977) systems and spread ‘Other fictors also contributed to the slow evolution of agriculture inthe New World, and we digress here to consider some of them. Some crops, including nd morphological change before they became productive is of maize, which along, with view of maize, underwent prof food plant (eg, Hs, 1987). The complex gs Lathrap differed from Spinds crop that gave the initial impetus to the emergence of is very lage, protracted period 2000-3000 yeas—to produce cobs similar to those recovered from acheologi mee ice (Buckler «al, 1995). Doebey (1990, pp. 16, 24 food prod Lathaps view, the New World Neolithic was cha processasa “series of improbable mutations, by genetic modification in crops for increased yields, rescheduling of fo maize is so improbable that i i activites around food production, and demographic upset caused by increasing im food supplies. The Neolithic began wit addi tppened seversLathap's conception ofthe house garden as experimental plot was another key ‘ature of his views on the domestication process. Whether or not one accepts his arrival of botle gourd from AAfica p 19773), ateas around their dwellings, ted the process of domestica- hat semisedentary foragers thus placing the for crop evolution, propagation of bore gourd ‘as cotton and fsh poisons imposed pa of these behavioral pattems all of the other nutritionally sign wed thatthe emergence of a new behavior—| plants toa controlled space ar tion proces. ‘Much of Lathrap's influence lies origins. Thi approach had four essen ike a rad adapting to its range writen ata class paper (age area) and change: The sate of a system at any ofits state at all prior points (Lathrap, 1984) n because behavior is rooted in goals (eg. the best manioc for beer ot behavior (Lathrap, ble daa in hand the best for 1984); and (Lathrap, 1984), previously, Lathrap fee thatthe assumption that manioe and other tropical roots had their own hearth, and that maize/beans/squash was another sd from the former and a prime mover in the development Lathrap envisioned a uniform Neol Peru and a uniform agricultural substrate, tropical forest agriculture, that only diverged at ca, 3000 B.. in Mesoamerica and the Andes (Lathrap, 1970, 19733, 1984, 1987). The nature and area of origin of| lence of Sauer: lowland fisher folk, in this case along the Ama location being derived from historical (age area) data, ic., the distributions e model forthe spread of these people and the jon," a concept borrowed from ecologi- ry forthe emergence of domesticated house garden—also stemmed ffom the work of Sauer (1952) and planes Eaaly C 6 Tropical Fores Agriculture 25, ‘Anderson (1952) and Lathrap's own observations of tropical forest peoples (the Shipibe ‘An important point to be made is that the bringing together of historical and ecological approaches underlies Latrap's use of linguistic data to model population nts in Amazonia. The key to his model is an outward movement of peoples along floodplains fom the central Amazon (Lathrap, 1970) and northern ‘Colombia (Lathrap, 19772) in search of new agricultural lands. The most general description of this model, economic systems as radiating organisms (Lathrap, 197 nakes the point that if we view society as an organism ada any change ment or subsistence led specialized subsistence is not well adapted, a broader range of opti societies can be called generalized, Lathrap (1976) fle cha agriculture was more likely to emerge in a generalized society, because experimentation wi to the point that increased food. eased population resulted, into zones in which it was better adapted than previous subsistence systems. Spread ‘would slow or stop when societies were encountered that were better or as well adapted, until a change in efficiency of the agricultural sytem changed the balance cof crop, loss of da 38 will be used, and such view, agrc he one hand, expansive, and, unstable. Populations will ako expand in seatch of new land after crop flues. ‘Another key concept from Lathrap's general model concems substitution of crops. As agriculture spreads into zones in which it i less adaptive, new plants that allow its extension into: new zones. For for the priority of lowland vegecul ‘The final con beginning ofthis dscussio of not beet ble data, may strike some 38 thersasa weakness in Lathrap's approach. To us, this aspect of Lathrapi idea that data relevant to the origins of agriculture should be found in the lowland tropics, where preservation of botanical remains is very poor, rather than in the a lowlands (and not become fixated o 1m dry caves). Those who have looked have found, as we will discus ers 4 and 5, “There is another very preservation is very poor, then26 1, Background ‘one needs. This poi turing her disertation research at the Real Alto was brought home to Pears n southwestern Ecuador. It is no accident that a way to identify maize using inorganic residues (phytoiths) was the result. Lathrap had read alitl-known manuscript (Matsutani, 1972) about the attempt to identify (amtculated phytolits) ar che Kotosh stein Peru, and 1mid lowlands, He isthe “godfather” of phytolith THOUGHTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TROPICAL FOOD PRODUCTION, ap have had a great deal of influence on our cour views ao difer from thein in some important respects, particularly in relation to the ealiest parts of the proces. For example, we doubt that the interior ofthe Amazon Basin, including, he middle to lower stretches of the Amazon River itseli—envisioned by Lathrap as the primary cradle of agriculture—had much to do with the early cultivation ‘ation of plants, We believe this for two reasons. Fis, the distributions to have been outside or on the margins of less supply of deep alluvium subject lengthy floods were probably not dimple earliest food producers, who were Rather, the early and middle Holocene cultures of the lower Amazon River documented by Roosevelt etal. (1991, 1996) nay stand as one of the few examples of “complex hunting and gathering” that mitted by the tropical forest habitat. O forest had such poor soils and poor resource ava ‘Second, major to dramatically uct ecological settings of early plant cultivation were more ng than Sauer envisioned. Sauer believed that the tropics had remained essentially sable during the [ee Ages and thatthe post-Plestocene occt~ pants were tinder no imperative to alter or improve their food supply. They had the affluence to experiment casually with and to manipulate plants, and they could alford to fail. Although we believe that the tropical forest is fr from the implacably e have suggested (e.g, Bailey e al, 1989; in the tropics were costly t0 ex id plants and animals, resource (especialy carbohydrate) poor, and unpredictable compared with the ecological smediately preceded stances that had Thoughts on the Development of Tropical Food Production 27 “Thus, we differ from Lathrap in believing that che earliest forms of food produc- tion had as their primary goal the production of food, although a diversity of ucitarian plans, including botde gourd and cotton, were, with litle doubt, aso taken under cultivation. The dynamic ecologial circumstances to which we reer were those that accompanied the lst retreat ofthe glaciers a higher li end of the Pleistocene and the advent of the modern climate ly of greater magnitude ‘impact than anything sen in the 120,000 yeas that came before and certainly unlike anything that in the Holocene (Chapter 2). In this book, we repeatedly stress that in order to understand Neotropical food production, one must grasp how diferent the tropical world during the Late Pl the one we know today. Many currently well-watered areas now under tropical forest held habitats chat were much drier, cooler, and more open. The drier types ‘of topical forest were replaced by thorny scrub, grassy, and other kinds of oper Vegetation where herds of big game roamed and fed and where there was dia much higher les—the retur per unit of effort of foraging than tropical forest plants and animals and would have been heavily favored for exploitation by Late Pleistocene hunters s. Consequently, the abun ) animal and plant resources 3 foraging schem iving in a tropical forest and exploitation of ts resources was demanded of many human populations. However, these resources than big, ex ff some tropical forest plants a ey Was more acceptable and, beneficial ‘to human populations than thei collection. Thus, unlike Haris, we favor factors that “pulled” rather chan “pushed” people into food producti the _most important effect juncture, Subsistence needs almost certainly could have been met a they were met elewhere in the world during previous, similar times before 100,000 years ago—by adjustments in mobi until some kind of demo: the fis nitional ‘manner to dramatic perturbations in the environment. This is our answer to the28 1 Background {query of why humans never responded the multiple glacil/interglacial perturb the Pleistocene, an oft-aised objection to associating post-P tal changes with the emergence of food production (e.,, Hayden, argue that this was probably the first time that a fally modern human species ‘capable of modern cognition and behavior was confronted with sucha perturbation (Reed, 1977; Klei ‘Ther easing unwillingnes onthe par of archeologists nd paleoanthro- pologists to accept that the behavi ‘hunters and gatherers” prior to the ‘emergence of anatomically modern about 120,000 years ago was qualita tively the same as that of people practicing foraging on the eve of food production. ‘Marked differences in subsistence practices and social organization may instead have been present (¢g., Foley, 1988; Mellars, 1996; Mithen, 1996). It has been argued persuas leading to the expresion of fully modem human culture did not occur reorganization ofthe human ‘00k place between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago (Klei evidence - ca. 120,000 years ago (Brooks Ihunting and gather 1ce foraging, an emphasis on ‘complex technology, and an ability to exploit aq increasing energetic effciency—posibly occupied only approximately 5% of, hominid time span before the emergence of food production (Foley, 1988). Why food production emerged shortly after 10,000 years ago becomes much easier to understand as it becomes increasingly clear that the necessary cultural and ‘ecological prerequisites first converged at this time. nce to the timing of plant culvation and domestication worldwide reat ofthe glaciers may have represented the most extreme imate, vegetation, and, ource adjustments in several, the Neotropical lowlan during er and Sher, 1995), The few spect, ie and plant ¢ substantial evidence from deep sea and ice cores suggest thatthe magnitude of the change associated with the Pl 1e-Holocene transition was the several stadial~interstadial perturb years ago (Bush and Colinvaux, 1990; Ci obviously does not mean hem. Separating a truly people or a plant or an idea isa dificue te of no yy and ‘eandidate for Davies, wild CCucbita moschata, The facts the New World, often two nus fom different hemispheres were domesticated, ancestor of the major don ‘hat agriculeare involv for more species301 Background mn of the P| d-elevational areas of Central and at there were also lead us to believe and domestica the origins ultivation and the origins o domesticated species ae seen to be largely congruent in time and in space because wely few in number, became the stapes, seem to and probably derived ‘were developed in a very localized area) (Hillma 192; Zohary, 1989). Note that these factors do that cereal cultivation, perhaps practiced on a smaller scale, was indepen ighout a broader area of the Near East during the ca 2 major environmental changes were oct hem Jordan Valley eventually cor started in various places, especially because the influential environmental proceses mpacted large areas of Central and South America at virally the same time. The rates of di orld crop plants are currently unknown, Current molecular and botanical evidence indicates ne crops, such as maize, mi jon in many New -ading to morphological change oc- other crops subsequent to ‘These process are related to H. was jon noncenter,” whereby peoples over a wide geographic area were ‘atl cultivation and dk oa STUDYING THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGINS OF TROPICAL FOOD PRODUCTION a ‘What Kinds of Data Should We Study? question of what is worth studying is currently Some investigators are placing disproportionate reliance on remains (Fritz, 1994; Smid wwe strongly disfavor because, by not taking advantage of new developments in Jd and interdisciplinary skill, it provides a very li penpective on prehistoric plant use. Others ate seeking to improve and diversify hnobotanical techniques for gather archeological 5 ‘becoming clear that important data may oft people never lived, such as lakes and swamps. Sediments texts contin identifiable microscopic prints of human impact on the vegetation that speak of former land clearance and the presence of agricultutal plots. Often, they yain the pollen grains and phytoiths of crop plants themselves. In this book, we we faceted approach tothe evolution of fod ps simply, mul ines of evidence provide more data and robust question, espe- nateassuch athe tropics where species dive are many, and plan remains may be preferentially destroyed by cl The evidence we cite forthe evolution of topical food production is primarily ‘of four types: (i) botanical mains from archeological sites, tubers, wood, com, and cob fragments) and microfosl (pl len and phyto Takes and lage swamps, near sites where people these “off ste” con- sacteristics and Gv) the molecular prints of reveal in very deualed terms the relation ts and often provide strong hints as to under cultivation, From time to time, we alo consider other forms of evidence, such 26d geogrs 2s suggest ns of crop plant wild ancestors on the eve of food production, ar and paleoecological data, and the timing and nature of atic perturbations as revealed id swamp sediments. This geographic areas of crop gers and incipient cultivators occupied. We argue that the records of vegetational change in the Neotropics at the close of the Pleistocene may even serve as proxies for resource density and foraging return rates di bution through time and permit estimates of relative te Pleistocene and early Holocene periods What the Different Classes of Botanical Remains Canbiguiis Recovery 28 flotation in the Zaha excavate iques, as were a number of from the lave pre és. To examine the transition ce on agriculture on the from the appes ind subject to repositioning in deposits. AMS dating advance for our understanding ofthe age of these and other dating of desiccated ‘without its own what is dated must results should chen be evaluated with true for other pla specimens, Preservation of botanical macroremai and Central America discused in Chapters 4 and 5. Ald not produce a perfect record of past foodways (.e., some foods are eaten away fiom the site or completely consumed, leaving no seeds or husks), preservation roduces 2 new suite of biases: Only foods that come into contact and recovery, and only material that survives with be identified. Tuberous pars of plants are notorious for their failure to enter the record of carbonized mater Ifsite soils are high in dense cays, asis usual in the humid eropi swelling may break up material, leaving fewer to recover and further confounding identification. Deeply bus le component sites can also be broken up by soil compaction and presure. Figure of charred material can drop off with depth and age in sits in alluvial soils with high clay content. This example, fiom the Juma River valley, Ecuador, represents approximately 3000 year of deposition (E, Enguall, personal communica tion). Although some of the decline in charcoal abundance correlates with a change mn, density of charred material begins to high (Chrough the 120- al and taphonomic factors. The i ive problem arises when one tries to compare the and abundance of pant species among assemblages with very dif of these ewo factors. For example, in Fig, 1.1, where de: richnes are both correlated with increasing the presence of charred maize in the upper levels, but not rpretive dilemma outlined previously, we ake stance of not attempting to quantify charred macroremain data from341 Background @ % Wo WS HS 1S SO ORS Depth in em som with depth 3 te fom the hamid, wand pics ate available forthe region dies in examining chang roto rot a new technique in Neotropical acheolo et al, 1984, 1986), but as fir present the first data fom the humid tropics inthe form of grains recovered from Studying the Problem of the Origine of Tropical Food Production 38 nding bases from archeo- the grains survived on these tools because they became e ices, where they were protected from the ished by Reichert ( ‘of more than 300 spec tamples contain a divest mn the ashes of wood or grases changing presences and frequencies of phyto times to decipher changes in human plant use [Identification criteria for many ofthe lowland crops that can be identified by phytoliths (maize, squash, achira, arowroo palm) have been pub- 1987; Pearsall, 1989; Pi 19882, 19893) and wil 1d here. However, we do employ the result of a new method for: 5 produced in the rinds of Cucu leaving the remains were wild or domesticated species (Pipero a (ee discussion ofthe Vega sive in Chapeer 4). We also briefly summarize ident tion criteria for some cro are not yet Holst, 19966)361. Badground for our understanding of extly tropical food production. Such an approach is posible because when phytliths form in living plant cells some of the organic ‘material of the cell becomes trapped inside the phytolith, and trem: long periods of time. Ako, because the carbon is locked within remains protected from the various modes of postdepositional contamination over tionship to "C determi wn terms of phyolth asemblages dated by asociaton with sand ‘bound wp in humic of the proces of extracting pl considerations of the emergence and spread of food production has not been a ye New World. We realize that for those not familiar pollen or phytolith analysis and the topical flora following the sequence of nal changes in paleoecological diagrams can be heavy going. Whenever arate the results ‘we emphasize that echniques is ew people ae carrying out the work and many of them have, at one time or another, collab the techniques are ‘mostly standardized, This m concerted effors to build reference collections forests, including those where botanists have identified, mapped, and er epee str ey genera (more than 160 taxa are now routinely being identified in lake sediments pollen than once fouteross using chese small gent be viewed as the reproductive equi We ako emphasize plant and animal aso i for the complex and diverse tropical forests are not as undecipherable as people identity major vegetational association the course and causes of climatic and vegetational change long paleoecological sequences for Colombia, Panama, Belize, Br36-1. Background of crops identified by phy the studies we discuss has n some cases, through dating of asociated charcoal, in others , jon, and in several important cases by direct AMS dating of posible because when phytoliths fo ‘material of the cell becomes trapped inside the phytolith, and it remains there over long periods of time. Also, because the carbon is locked within silica bodies, it remains protected from the various modes of postdepositional contamination over fe of the phytoith. Because individual phytoliths obviously cannot be dated, phytoliths extracted ftom a single soil sample are evaluated as an assemblage ndfal of dir is all chat is needed for a radiocarbon determination > dates on phytoliths can be evaluated by hic positioning of a series of dates as well s derived from other cultural materials, ith asemblages dated by asocation with st evidence that downward moven cor arifcts, there is special problem in arch mixed (e.., by earthworms in upper strata, construction of later features), phytolths obviously terial, fn tropical soils phytolihs are chemically bound colloids (emidecayed organic matter) and clays; the process of extr these bonde—phytoit poration of paleoecological seq rence and spread of food pr are by no me: possible, we we ‘of the paleaecological data discussed in this volume. However, we emphasize that ical paleoecology in the humid lowland tropics based on these techniques is the work and many of them the techniques are 1e way of a useful pollen record beca production, preservation, ty eg, Faegri, 1966), palynolo sist are finding that po zone (¢g, Bush and C 1996 ab). concerted efforts to build refer forests, ‘genera from d pollen types e., Bush 1 Jones, 1994). Parallel develo rch that | vegetational ique in way of production or ily improves the robustness and the prec reconstruction because the limitations of one tec are offet by the strengths ofthe 0 1953). Neotropical palynology, ins why ns (insect 1 outcrossing ig for the complex and diverse asociations of tropical forests are not as undecipherable as people the past 15 years, a group of ecoloy se where archeological and a testify to the early development and growth of food produc~ of families and genera are likely to represent cool ed or litle to no seasonality of rainfall, We nd genera of plants are likely to replace an existing arboreal ulated or removed by humans. Species-specifc identi- & Js not required to rev y types and, tov ‘vegetational change thty and provides inf