Hum Ecol
DOI 10.1007/s10745-013-9578-8
Terracing in the Mixteca Alta, Mexico: Cycles of Resilience
of an Ancient Land-Use Strategy
Veronica Perez Rodriguez & Kirk C. Anderson
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Terracing is an important and ubiquitous landscape
feature in the Mixteca Alta region of southern Mexico. It is a
land-management strategy that has been in use for millennia,
perhaps starting around 300 B.C.E. We discuss terracing as an
adaptive and resilient strategy of food production and land
management that continues to be culturally significant to
modern-day farmers. Through the integration of archaeologi-
cal, geomorphological, ethnohistorical, and ethnographic data
we document the history of terracing and discuss how Mixtec
communities and terraces have responded to natural and cul-
tural perturbations through millennia. We find that different
stages in the history of terracing show parallels with the
adaptive cycles of a resilient system.
Keywords Resilience . Agriculture . Terracing . Urbanism .
Archaeology . Ethnohistory . Ethnography . Geomorphology .
Mexico . Mesoamerica . Oaxaca . Mixtec
Introduction
The Mixteca Alta is a rugged tectonic landscape of mountains
and valleys intensively modified by human activity over thou-
sands of years. Terracing has been a land-use strategy for
millennia, perhaps as early as around 300 B.C.E. (Spores
V. Perez Rodriguez (*)
Department of Anthropology, SUNY Albany,
Arts and Sciences 237, 1400 Washington Avenue,
Albany, NY 12222, USA
e-mail: verooaxaca@gmail.com
K. C. Anderson
Museum of Northern Arizona,
3101 N. Fort Valley Rd.,
Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA
e-mail: kanderson@mna.mus.az.us
1969) and is ubiquitous, especially in communities that have
little access to flat valley lands. We here characterize terracing,
whether for agricultural purposes or not, as an adaptive strat-
egy that has shown resilience. Terracing is a widespread
technology that originated in many locations around the world
(Redman 1999: 132, Fig. 6.4), but in the Mixteca Alta it is a
distinctly Mixtec practice. For example, the Triqui towns and
the steep mountainsides that surround them in the heart of
Mixteca Alta region are not terraced.
We focus on Mixtec terracing as a food-producing and
culturally important adaptive practice of land use and man-
agement. Through the integration of archaeological, ethno-
historical, and ethnographic data, we document the history
of terracing and illustrate parallels with the adaptive cycles
of a resilient system (Gunderson and Holling 2002).
Despite prolonged periods of change, stability, and at some
points, uncertainty and catastrophe, terracing is still practiced
in the region today. We explore terracing in the Mixteca Alta
as a complex socioecological system (SES) that is both adap-
tive and resilient in the context of techniques, knowledge, and
traditions shared by communities bound together by Mixtec
identity, shared history, and normative values.
The Mixteca Alta: Its People and Their Terraces
The Mixteca Alta is a mountainous region of southern Mexico
where the highland environment presents a number of envi-
ronmental challenges for farming (Fig. 1). The region has a
summer rainy season, but the amount of rain a community
receives depends on microclimatic conditions shaped by the
mountains and their rain shadows (CLICOM 2006; Kirkby
1972; Mueller et al. 2012). The high mountains are suscepti-
ble to frosts, even in the summer, and the region has few
perennial rivers. Instead, most water for agricultural fields
comes from rains, springs, and seasonal rivers and streams.

Fig. 1 Location of the Mixteca Alta in southern Mexico
Despite these challenging conditions, there is ample ar-
chaeological evidence of farming communities thriving in
the region as early as 1400 B.C.E. (Blomster 1998;
Kowalewski et al. 2009: 287; Spores 1967, 1972, 1983,
2007). These early villages were built on low hilltops and
spurs with immediate access to valley lands, and some grew
in population and social complexity, displaying the earliest
examples of monumental architecture and social rank in the
region.
Around 300 B.C.E., a handful of communities built the first
hilltop urban centers, which persisted up to Spanish contact in
1521 C.E. (Table 1). The establishment of Mixtec urban
centers represented a revolutionary change in settlement loca-
tion, the emergence of social stratification, and large invest-
ment in urban planning and construction. It is estimated that
about 62 % of the Classic and Postclassic population of the
region lived in communities of more than 1,000 inhabitants
(Kowalewski et al. 2009:341). Although not all Mixtec lived
in cities, all Mixtec cities were terraced hilltop settlements.
Many of the rural communities that surrounded and supported
these urban centers also farmed terraced slopes. By the
Postclassic period (900–1521 C.E.), the Mixteca Alta was
densely populated and dozens of communities, known locally
as ñuu and yuhuitayu, jostled for power and traded with each
other. At the point of Spanish contact, the Mixteca Alta was
home to an estimated 700,000 people who intensively farmed
Hum Ecol
and terraced most available land (Cook and Borah 1968;
Romero Frizzi 1996:144). 1
In the Colonial period Mixtec communities underwent
drastic changes. Prehispanic settlements were replaced by
Colonial settlements built in valley locations, following
European urban patterns. An estimated 80–90 % of the indig-
enous population perished as a result of Conquest, epidemics,
and Colonial living conditions (Cook and Borah 1968). Many
ancient terrace systems were abandoned and fell into disrepair
exacerbating the severe erosion that naturally occurs in the
region. But throughout the historical period up to the present
some communities continued to maintain terrace systems,
though at a much smaller scale than in Prehispanic times.
Resilient Socioecological Systems
Scholars have long recognized that ecosystems operate far
from equilibrium and homeostasis and that change, distur-
bance, uncertainty, and stochastic factors are integral parts
of ecosystem function (Balée 1998; Balée and Erickson
1
The Postclassic period was a time of dense urban occupation across
Mesoamerica. In the Basin of México, chinampas spread across the
lake to feed the Mexica Empire (Brumfiel 1991; Calnek 1972; Parsons
1976; Rojas Rabiela 1991).
Hum Ecol

Table 1 Prehispanic chronology for Mesoamerica and the Mixteca temporal dynamics of the SES of terracing by investigating
Alta. Information compiled from Joyce 2010, p. 16; Kowalewski et al.
how it has responded to various perturbations through time.
2009, p. 411; and Zarate 1987, pp.109–115
Current approaches in the fields of human ecology and
Mesoamerica Mixteca Alta ecological anthropology, including the one used here, con-
sider individuals and communities as actors and decision-
1500
makers who interact with the environment according to their
1400 Late Postclassic (Late)
beliefs and knowledge and according to the structural limits
1300 Natividad
imposed by their natural and social realities (Costanza et al.
1200
2007; Giddens 1986). Gunderson and Holling (2002) define
1100 Early resilience as a system’s ability to deal and adapt to distur-
1000 Postclassic (Early) bance while maintaining function. Nothing is said about
900 efficiency or retaining system form, or about functioning
800 in a way that is desirable or just for the entities within the
700 Late Classic (Late) system. In this context, resilience simply means the system
600 Las Flores can continue to function. For terracing, function is to retain
500 Early Classic (Early) sediments, curtail erosion, and create flat land for habitation
400 and agricultural production.
300 The trajectory of a resilient and adaptive SES follows a
200 Terminal Late Ramos series of phases (Gunderson and Holling 2002:21, 32; Fig. 2).
100 Formative The first is the exploitation or r phase, where the system and
AD/BC its functions or activities are developing. During this phase,
100 Early Ramos “rapid colonization of recently disturbed areas is emphasized”
200 Late Formative (Redman 2005). The system increases potential to implement
300 (Yucuita) changes and innovate. The various system components are not
400 Late Cruz fully connected, and thus the system is not yet rigid.
500 Middle (Cruz D) In the following conservation or k phase, the system is set
600 Formative up, functioning, and working to remain as it is, when the “slow
700 (Cruz C) accumulation and storage of energy and material are empha-
800 sized” (Redman 2005). The system and its various compo-
900 Middle Cruz nents are highly interconnected, which may lead to rigidity,
1000 (Cruz B) and anything that affects a small part of it can transform the
1100 whole. As the potential for change is reduced, the system is
1200 Early more vulnerable to uncertainty and stochastic events.
1300 Formative (Cruz A) The release or Ω phase is the point where the system
1400 changes or releases all accumulated energy or material,
1500 Early Cruz perhaps as a result of outside disturbance or because the
1600 conservation phase reached a tipping point. This point is
1700 also called one of “creative destruction” (Gunderson and
1800 Holling 2002:34). When parts of the system collapse then
1900 the question becomes whether the system will display
2000 Archaic

2006; Crumley 1994; Erickson 2008; Moran 1990). Current

understandings of ecology also consider humans and our
actions as important components of virtually all ecosystems,
referred to as socioecological systems (SES) or coupled
human and natural systems (Abel et al. 2006; Costanza et
al. 2007; Liu et al. 2007). Mixtec terracing is an SES that
consists of the environment, the terraces, and the social
organization and practices of groups and individuals that
build, use, and maintain them. Here we examine the Fig. 2 Resilience cycle, modified from Gunderson and Holling 2002

resilience and adapt or change to retain its function or
whether it will transform in form and function into some-
thing else.
If a system is resilient, it then goes on to the reorganiza-
tion phase or α phase where the new system learns,
changes, copes, and reorganizes to reestablish itself and its
functions taking advantage of opportunities. At this point,
there is very high potential for change, innovation, activity,
and the establishment of new processes and relationships. In
this trajectory constant balance is not expected—instead
change and adaptation are.
These cycles of change are understood to operate in a
“nested hierarchy across time and space” called panarchy (in
Redman 2005 from Gunderson and Holling 2002). In our
study we found that the complex history of terracing also
operates at various scales and nested hierarchies that range
from the regional climatic and geological conditions in
which terraces were built to the social groups and in-
dividuals whose relationships, knowledge, and actions
built them. We use the trajectory proposed in the model
of resilience as a heuristic device to understand the
history and current state of terracing in the Mixteca
Alta. We do not evaluate the resilience model or the
resilience of Mixtec polities, but focus on terracing and
argue that this adaptive SES has shown resilience
through millennia.
The resilience model has been critiqued for being heavily
functional and systemic (Davidson 2010; Nelson et al.
2007). We argue that resilience can be conceptualized in a
flexible manner that can identify broader systemic trends
that occur across centuries, while allowing researchers to
investigate the actions of individuals and communities that
both cause and deal with the effects of these changes. The
work we present incorporates a systemic view that looks at
centuries-long cycles of change, with higher-resolution in-
formation, when available, that speak of memory, traditional
ecological knowledge, normative practices, decision-
making, and actions.
Terracing as an Adaptive Cycle
Gunderson and Holling (2002:32) propose that a complex
system that is productive will acquire resources and accu-
mulate them for the present and for the future potential they
offer. In such a system there must be “a shifting balance
between stabilizing and destabilizing forces that reflect
the degree and intensity of internal controls and the
degree of influence of external variability.” Finally, the
resilient system must be dynamic enough to generate
and sustain options and novelty that ensure that the
system is capable of coping with disturbance while
retaining function.
Hum Ecol
We find that terracing is a complex and adaptive system
that is, quite literally, productive. It acquires and accumu-
lates resources, sediments and moisture, which create agri-
cultural resources for the present and future. Terracing
results from the integration of physical and social conditions
and creates a resource (agricultural land) and a potential for
production where there were none before. Once a terrace is
constructed, future land use options are shaped by this initial
action and the potential for production it creates projects
into the future. The newly established terrace system
and the societies that depend on it work to maintain
their way of life and to stabilize the system as it faces
changes and destabilizing social and environmental
forces.
Although we discuss terracing as an adaptive system, we
do not link terracing to an expectation of improved evolu-
tionary fitness. We use the term adaptive simply to mean
that this particular practice was created and adopted to cope
or work within the Mixtec mountainous environment. At
times, this practice may have provided an added benefit of
improved food production or may have increased available
farmland. At other times, terracing would have presented
challenges because they had to be built and continuously
maintained. Also, despite terrace construction, agriculture in
the mountains remained a risky proposition.
Mixtec Terracing Today
We argue that terracing is an SES that has displayed resil-
ience. Today many Mixtec communities continue to main-
tain and farm their terraces and their basic function of
curtailing erosion, retaining sediments, and creating flat
lands continues. In 2004 and 2007 Pérez Rodríguez
interviewed ten terrace farmers from six different commu-
nities to learn about their agricultural knowledge and prac-
tices. The information they shared provides a rich body of
knowledge about terrace construction, maintenance, and
farming; about heirloom seeds; and about strategies to deal
with harsh winds, frost, and pests. It is no surprise that
traditional ecological knowledge is intimately linked with
the use and management of natural resources and is an
important component to understanding the complex interac-
tions between people and the environment (Badstue et al.
2006; Berkes 1999; Berkes and Folke 2001).
From the colder and greener hills between Huamelulpan
and Tlaxiaco to the lower and more arid areas of San Pedro
Coxcaltepec Cántaros and Nochixtlán, the method of terrace
construction is the same. Farmers report cutting green and
dry brush and piling it up in drainages to create barriers that
will stop the soils and deposits that wash down naturally
from the adjoining hills during the rainy season. From these
brush barriers bordos or barriers of soil form. Often, these
Hum Ecol
soil barriers are lined with uncut stone found nearby to
create a façade. These stones are carefully fitted together
but they are not bound with mortar. Since the soil bordos are
the first to form, short and very vertical, single rows of stone
are then placed in front to create the base of a terrace
wall. As the rains continue to wash down sediment,
additional stone rows are placed on top, making the
terrace wall grow up and back. The result is a talud
or sloped wall. Terrace walls are porous allowing excess
water to simply filter out, which prevents crop damage
from oversaturation and rotting.
The ethnographic model of terrace construction corre-
sponds well with the stratigraphic profiles of ancient ter-
races exposed in erosion cuts around the Prehispanic site of
Cerro Jazmín and with the profiles of lama-bordo terraces
excavated at the Late Prehispanic capital city of Yucundaa
(Pueblo Viejo de Teposcolula) and one of its rural satellites
in San Juan Teposcolula, the site of Nicayuju (Pérez
Rodríguez 2006; Pérez Rodríguez et al. 2011). Lama-
bordo stratigraphic profiles show that terrace walls were
essentially rock piles of uncut stone with no mortar.
Around Cerro Jazmín we identified a number of tall terrace
walls that consisted of single rows of stones that could not
have been freestanding walls (Fig. 3). These start as a very
short and vertical single-row stone wall, about 30 to 50
centimeters tall. This initial wall is at an almost 90° angle
from the ground. After this vertical segment, single stone
rows were continuously placed as the sediments filled in the
terrace and supported the stones. The top rows, however,
were no longer vertical but tilted towards the back of the
terrace to support the slope created by the terrace sediment
as it collected.
The excavated terraces at Yucundaa and Nicayuju
showed a slightly different pattern of construction. The
initial stage of the terrace wall consisted of building a
trapezoidal pile of uncut stone (Fig. 4). These piles, some
up to 50-centimeters wide, perhaps mimic the shape of the
brush barriers described in the interviews. The barriers ex-
posed in the profiles of terrace excavations are then topped
by narrower terrace walls of one or two stone rows. It
appears, based on the stratigraphy retained behind these
walls, that these subsequent rows were added as the sedi-
ments washed during the rains.
Labor Requirements of Terrace Construction
Farmers reported that all terrace construction and mainte-
nance is done by small groups of people, between four to
eight, usually members of a household. In times of labor
bottlenecks when fields need to be cleared and weeded or
when the soil needs to be churned and piled on top of the
growing plants to protect them from winds, two households
can agree to work together – an arrangement called a geesa.
Because young people are migrating out of the Mixteca
Alta, farmers sometimes have to hire two or three day
laborers to help on days of heavy planting or weeding.
Overall, the available information indicates that all the labor
requirements for terrace farming and construction can be
met by households or cooperating pairs of households. It is
unclear, however, what the labor requirements would be
without the use of oxen and plow.
Terrace Antiquity
Another line of study was to determine the age and origin of
the terraces that the modern farmers owned. In a couple of
instances the farmers reported that the terraces were
constructed by them, their parents, or their grandparents.
One interviewee remembered that his parents built the terraces
and that as a child he helped in their construction. In the
majority of interviews, however, the farmers reported that
the terraces were old, that they had always been there, and
that they were constructed by the antepasados (ancestors). It is
not uncommon to walk over artifact scatters and, in one case,
even be shown exposed Prehispanic houses and features ad-
joining the terraces that were being farmed. As the regional
data discussed below suggest, many of the terraces that exist
today are remnants of Prehispanic settlements.
We found instances of terraces that were, according to the
interviewed farmers, built in the last century. It is unclear
whether these recently constructed terraces were built on the
remains of ancient terraces that were in disrepair or if
farmers broke new ground. The process of landscape crea-
tion and modification is ongoing, and much of the knowl-
edge and practices associated with terrace use and
construction comes from a long history of terrace farming
that we are only beginning to document.
Ecological Knowledge of Terrace Farming
The interviews conducted with farmers revealed a complex
body of knowledge associated with terrace use. Farmers
have expert knowledge about the characteristics and varie-
ties of maize and other companion crops; about the sched-
ules and strategies used throughout the farming cycle; about
some of the strategies used to counter pests, and about ways
to process the byproducts of crops so nothing is wasted.
There are two types of maize cultivated in terraces: maize
“de cajete” (because farmers dig a cajete or a basin of soil
into which the seed is planted) and maize “de temporal.”2
Maize de cajete requires some form of irrigation or access to
2
This maize is also known as “tapa pie” maize because seeds are
simply thrown into the rows formed by the plow. One person drops the
seed, not too deep, and then covers (tapa) the seed with their foot (pie).
Seeds are spaced at almost a meter.

Fig. 3 Photograph of eroded
gullies and exposed terraces
around Cerro Jazmín. Exposed
profile displays single stone
row terrace construction. Note
latter at bottom center for scale.
Photograph by Kirk C.
Anderson
water or moisture from the soil so fields need to be either
irrigated or naturally humid and are often adjacent to creeks
and drainages where they get underground moisture. This
maize grows slowly and can better withstand more erratic
rain and watering patterns, which are common in the months
leading up to the start of the rain season. Maize de cajete can
Fig. 4 Photograph of lama-bordo terrace built using the pile-of-rock
method. Photograph by Kirk C. Anderson
Hum Ecol
be planted as early as February, well before the start of the
rainy season, which begins around April or May. Maize de
temporal is planted later, once the rains have started, but it
quickly grows. Determining whether a particular terrace is
suitable for de cajete or de temporal maize depends on very
specific knowledge of local weather and soil conditions, and
rain shadow effects on specific terraces and slopes. All
maize fields are mixed with frijol trepador (crawling
beans), squash, and chilacayota, which is a larger fibrous
squash used to make sweet water and candy.
Some farmers are very conservative and do not plant de
temporal maize until they feel certain that the rains have
come; this requires at least two weeks of consistent, heavy
rains. Others plant this maize as early as possible during the
first rain, although they may run the risk of losing the crop if
the rain fails to come regularly as the seed is very sensitive
to drought. Maize de temporal profits from the heavy rains
that characterize the Mixtec summer, but needs to be planted
in fields that won’t become waterlogged causing the seeds to
rot. Terraces suitable for de temporal maize are more wide-
spread and often have long channels on either side dug into
the sterile caliche to divert excess water downstream. These
channels, however, need to be closely monitored and
maintained with frequent refills of soil and stone, as they
can easily turn into gullies and erosion cuts.
Comadrejas (weasels), which often live in the terrace walls,
are a significant threat to the newly planted crop since they
appear to understand the pattern and spacing of planted seeds
and the tracks left behind by the farmers. Since they eat the
seeds mainly from the first six rows, farmers plant these rows
by throwing more seeds in an irregular and dense pattern,
accepting that the weasels will eat some of the seed and hoping
that some will survive This is an example of how farmers
integrate intimate knowledge about the behavior of an animal
competitor to create strategies to naturally counter their impact.
Hum Ecol
Two to three weeks after planting, and if the rains are
constant and the crops are growing, farmers must clear the
fields of weeds that might be competing with the crop for
nutrients. This procedure, the “labra,” entails a very skilled
plow driver following the furrows twice to turn the soil over
from the top of the furrows to the base. As the soil churns
the weeds are pulled out by hand and the churned soil is
piled on top of the base of the crop to protect the plant. The
labra requires one or two days of hard labor that involves a
lot of bending down to pull the weeds and sometimes piling
soil at the base of the growing plants to protect them from
strong winds.
When the crops are about half a meter high some farmers
repeat this process (this time called an “encajonada”). The
plow is used only once to churn the soil and pile it at the
base of the crop again. If the plant is crooked, farmers take
this opportunity to straighten it while piling more soil at its
base. Some farmers call this second step the “terrada”
perhaps because the main objective is to pile soil at the base
of the crop. It appears that some younger farmers sometimes
opt not to do a terrada unless their fields are in a place that is
prone to strong winds.
After the labras and terradas the crop is left alone until
tassels grow, when some farmers “capan la milpa” or castrate
the crop. This procedure consists of pulling the tassel up and
out of the corncob. Older farmers say they always do this
because it helps the cob “get fat.” Some younger farmers say
that they don’t always do this. The tassels are used as fodder.
At this time the plant sometimes also produces, alongside the
cob, a “rejilote”, which is a fibrous “fake” cob that is covered
with husk. These are harvested early and sometimes boiled
with sugar to make a sweet treat. The remaining crop is left
until harvest in November or December.
Cycles of Terracing: The Prehispanic Period
The history of terracing and other pre-Conquest patterns of
land use have created nested hierarchies and cycles of
change (Fig. 5). As the ethnographic information suggests
terracing is an important and complex practice that has
shown resilience and persistence across millennia. We argue
that the trajectories and mechanisms proposed in the cycle
of resilience are useful heuristic devices to understand the
long history of terracing in the Mixteca Alta.
The Formative Cycle
The first cycle of terracing (Fig. 5) pertains to the initial
development and adoption of terracing in Prehispanic times,
which took place in the Middle to Late Formative periods
(Cruz Phase; 1100-300 B.C.E.). At this time, regional set-
tlement patterns show a gradual shift from early sedentary
life in small villages and hamlets located on low slopes to
the establishment of larger terraced settlements on low hill-
tops (Kowalewski et al. 2009: 290–303). Terracing possibly
started a reaction to the erosion that naturally occurs in the
region, which was exacerbated by the settlement shift into
formerly forested hilltops.
In the Late to Terminal Formative (Early Ramos Phase;
300–100 B.C.E.) several hilltop urban centers were
established, displaying a high investment in terrace con-
struction. For the first time prominent mountaintops were
chosen for settlement so terracing exploited new areas.
Spores (1969) proposed that the development of urban cen-
ters in the Mixteca Alta prompted or corresponded with the
development and construction of terrace systems, which
allowed these new cities to create areas for agricultural
production within their protected hilltop locations. He made
a distinction between two types of terraces: contour ter-
races, which follow the shape of the hill slopes, and were
mainly used to create flat surfaces for building and living,
and lama-bordo terraces, which are constructed as check-
dam terraces in the mountain drainages to capture the sed-
iments eroding down from the adjoining hills. Lama-bordos
start at higher elevations and continue down to the valleys.
From the air, these terrace systems appear as broad stair step
patterns running down the creases of the mountains (Fig. 6).
This pattern, first identified by Spores, has been supported
by subsequent regional studies and a handful of archaeolog-
ical excavations that have found that terracing was an inte-
gral part of Mixtec urbanism.
Before the establishment of the earliest urban centers in
the Terminal Formative local capitals had been built on low
slopes and hilltops where terracing started to be a commonly
used construction technique (Balkansky et al. 2004;
Kowalewski et al. 2009). Pérez Rodríguez (2008) analyzed
the spatial proximity between Late Cruz phase (Table 1)
settlements in the Central Mixteca Alta and lama-bordo
terraces and found that 10 % of the 213 settlements recorded
were adjacent to lama-bordo terraces, and up to 50 % were
within 500 to 1,000 meters of a terrace system. Of the
associated terraces, about 26 % were spatially associated
with Late Cruz phase settlements only, suggesting that these
terrace systems may date to this early, pre-urban phase. To
corroborate this thesis, however, excavated stratigraphic and
radiocarbon data would be needed.
Recently published data from exposed stratigraphic se-
quences and radiocarbon-dated paleosols from different
drainages across the Nochixtlán Valley support the idea that
lama-bordos were a Formative period agricultural innova-
tion. Mueller et al. (2012) report on lama-bordo terrace
deposits in the Yutzatoto drainage dating to 3000 B.P.
(1050 B.C.E.). They place earliest lama-bordo construction
in the Cruz C, Cruz D, and Yucuita periods, which corre-
spond to the Middle to Late Formative period.
 Hum Ecol

Cultural Chronology Resilience Regional Social Systemic Resilience Cycles

Phases Conditions responses
Historic/modern Re-organization Low populations, Terrace erosion;
POSTCONQUES
1810-today market economy; minor maintenance
out migration and modification
Colonial period (Massive) Conquest, Terrace erosion
T
1521-1810 C.E. release and epidemics, animal Minor terrace
minor husbandry, new maintenance &
reorganization crops and modification
industries Oxen and wheat
Late Release followed Settlement Renewed terrace
Postclassic by reorganization expansion construction
POSTCLASSIC

Phase then exploitation Population Maintenance and

1200-1521 C.E. & conservation increase massive expansion

Early Re-organization Settlement Terrace

Postclassic then exploitation expansion maintenance
Phase to conservation Population followed by erosion.
800-1200 C.E. increase Early Postclassic
soil in Cerro Jazmín
Late Classic Release Site abandonment Terrace erosion and
Phase Population site abandonment
600-800 C.E. changes
CLASSIC

Early Classic Re-organization Expansion of Terrace construction

Phase then renewed urban centers and massive
300-600 C.E. exploitation & expansion
perhaps
conservation
Late Ramos Release Site abandonment Terrace erosion and
Phase Population site abandonment
100 B.C.E. - changes
300 C.E.
FORMATIVE

Early Ramos Exploitation of First urban New terrace

Phase new areas centers construction and
300-100 B.C.E. establishment agricultural
Population growth intensification
Initial erosion
Cruz Phase Initial exploitation First sedentary Initial terrace
1100-300 settlements construction
B.C.E. Initial terracing

Fig. 5 Cycles of terrace resilience in the Mixteca Alta. Black arrows indicate the active phase that pertains to the time period

By the Terminal Formative (Early Ramos phase; Table 1)
, when hilltop urban centers emerged throughout the Central
Mixteca Alta, 13 % of settlements (n=154) had lama-bordos
directly adjacent (Pérez Rodríguez 2008). This is interesting
because Early Ramos settlements were generally newly
established villages and urban centers that were built in
entirely different locations (Kowalewski et al. 2009:297–
303). This means that as populations moved and built new
settlements, they also built new terraces.
In the Late Ramos phase a number of urban centers were
abandoned, while a few others, Yucuita and Huamelulpan,
grew. In most locations this was a period of population
movement, site and terrace abandonment that resulted in
erosion and a period of release. The overall trend was to
re-occupy these settlements after a few centuries. By the
Early Classic period settlements were re-established and
terracing became a widespread land use and production
strategy.
The Classic Cycle
In the Classic period the number of urban centers increased.
Some were newly established cities and others were
Terminal Formative settlements that continued to be or were
re-occupied. These hilltop cities and their surrounding com-
munities occupied an area of 3,468 hectares in the Central
Mixteca Alta sub-region alone (Kowalewski et al. 2009:
305). All these urban polities invested greatly in terracing.
Although additional research is needed to fully understand
terracing and the social institutions associated with them, by
the Classic period urban communities depended on terrace
agriculture. For centuries these communities maintained
Hum Ecol
Fig. 6 Photograph of a lama-
bordo terrace system near the
town of Santiago Amatlán.
Photograph by Verónica Pérez
Rodríguez
their way of life. As their terracing practices and associated
institutions became more entrenched into the social fabric of
urbanism, terracing perhaps entered a conservation phase
where the system was rigid (Fig. 5).
Of the 344 Classic period settlements recorded in the
Central Mixteca Alta settlement patterns project, 10 % had
lama-bordo terraces adjacent to or within the settlement
(Kowalewski et al. 2009). Of these associated terraces,
28 % were solely associated with Classic-period settle-
ments, and up to 69 % were within a kilometer of a lama-
bordo (Pérez Rodríguez 2008). These trends suggest that
terracing became an ever more important agricultural and
land-management strategy.
Regional survey data from the Central Mixteca Alta
document a dramatic period of settlement transformation
and population decline in the Late Classic period
(Kowalewski et al. 2009:345–6). As settlements were aban-
doned, so were their terraces, triggering episodes of in-
creased sediment deposition and later on incision.
Research is needed on the causes and effects of this period
of change and release. A working hypothesis is that the
social institutions associated with Classic urbanism, includ-
ing terracing, became fully established and too rigid to
effectively cope with uncertainty or change and change
may have come from the political transformations that took
place elsewhere. This was a time of political upheaval across
Mesoamerica. Teotihuacan, Monte Albán, and many Maya
cities in the Lowlands were abandoned and sometimes
destroyed by their own people. Many of the Classic
Mixtec cities were also abandoned, though to date there is
no evidence of their purposeful destruction. It is unclear
how much Mixtec cities were affected by the political up-
heaval across Mesoamerica.
The Postclassic Cycle
By the Postclassic period (Natividad phase, 800-1521 C.E.)
settlements were re-occupied, new settlements were
established and populations soared. In the Central Mixteca
Alta alone 848 settlements were recorded. While 10 % of
Postclassic settlements had lama-bordo terraces directly ad-
jacent or within them, 60 % of all lama-bordos recorded
through survey and air photography are solely associated
with Postclassic occupations (Pérez Rodríguez 2008).
Although the percentage of Postclassic sites found within a
kilometer of a lama-bordo remained almost the same as in
the Classic period (68 %), the actual number of settlements
and terraces increased dramatically.
Postclassic settlements were very extensive. Most
spanned several hills and drainages, several kilometers,
and many contained several lama-bordos. In her spatial
analysis Pérez Rodríguez (2008) counted this association
of settlement with lama-bordos as one, but actually a single
extensive settlement was spatially associated with several
lama-bordos. Regional settlement-pattern and stratigraphic
data suggest that Mixtec terracing entered a period of quick
reorganization and exploitation following the Classic to
Postclassic transition. Once re-established Postclassic
terraces were numerous and impressive. However, as
our investigations at the site of Cerro Jazmín revealed,
the Postclassic period was a dynamic time for settle-
ments and terracing.
The Geomorphic Record of Terrace Resilience
The Prehispanic urban center of Cerro Jazmín was founded
on the western edge of the Nochixtlán Valley, along the

upper tributaries of the Yanhuitlán and Chiquito streams
(Fig. 1). Dramatic hill slope erosion exposes centuries of
stratified cultural activity and hill slope deposition.
Geomorphic investigations provide a detailed chronology
of terrace construction, use, and erosion (Pérez Rodríguez
et al. 2011). The major trends of Prehispanic resilience
cycles elucidated by the Cerro Jazmín geomorphic record
are also found in the regional alluvial record of landscape
changes. The following discussion integrates the local re-
cord from Cerro Jazmín with the regional record from the
Nochixtlan Valley (Mueller et al. 2012).
Cerro Jazmín was initially established in the Terminal
Formative period and was intermittently occupied through
the Postclassic (Table 1). Although Cruz Phase ceramics have
been recorded, the first major phase of occupation began with
construction of contour terraces and structures during the
Late/Terminal Formative (Early Ramos). Surface collections
suggest a period of abandonment or a hiatus in the Late Ramos
period and reoccupation in the Early Classic (200–500 C.E.),
when the city and terraces grew in size and number to house
and feed the growing urban population. No lama-bordo ter-
races for either the Ramos or Early Classic periods were
recorded, highlighting a gap in the stratigraphic record both
at Cerro Jazmín and regionally. At Cerro Jazmín erosion prior
to about 440–640 C.E. can explain the lack of earlier lama-
bordo terraces. This erosion is followed by Late Classic period
deposition (sediment storage) along the hill slopes, and stabi-
lization of the valley bottoms.
The Classic period witnessed regional expansion of urban
centers and terrace construction, and at some point the terrac-
ing cycle entered a phase of conservation when farming
communities knew how to build, maintain, and farm terraces
and focused their efforts on maintaining their way of life.
Classic period growth was reflected in regional urban centers
such as Yucuita and Yucuñudahui (Plunket 1983) and
Huamelulpan (Gaxiola 1984). However, population decline,
abandonment, and terrace erosion followed in the Late Classic
period. Although this period of erosion was not recorded in
the stratigraphic record at Cerro Jazmín or regionally, the
Classic to Postclassic transition is marked by dramatic polit-
ical transformations in the Mixteca Alta and throughout
Mesoamerica. In the Maya region the cities of the Lowlands
were abandoned. In the Valley of México the city of
Teotihuacan was destroyed and mostly abandoned. In the
Valley of Oaxaca Monte Albán was also abandoned and these
changes also swept across the Mixteca Alta where many cities
were abandoned for at least a century. At Cerro Jazmín the city
was re-occupied and its population grew dramatically by the
Postclassic period.
The Postclassic chronostratigraphic sequence at Cerro
Jazmín revealed a well-developed soil horizon dating to
the Early Postclassic (890–1150 C.E.) suggesting a period
of landscape stability that corresponds with urban re-
Hum Ecol
occupation, population growth, and terrace construction
(Pérez Rodríguez et al. 2011). We interpret this as a sign
of successful reorganization following the period of release
that occurred in the Late Classic (Fig. 5).
After this reorganization and the development of the Early
Postclassic soil horizon, the stratigraphic record around Cerro
Jazmín reflects a second period of erosion during the transition
from the Early Postclassic to Late Postclassic occupations that
cut through the then-established terraces and the Early
Postclassic soil (Fig. 5; Pérez Rodríguez et al. 2011) between
about 1150 C.E. and 1300 C.E. when the established terraces
fell into disrepair, most likely due to the lack of terrace
maintenance or perhaps due to marked population growth.
Mueller et al. (2012) also record this release phase by
documenting valley bottom erosion between about 1150 and
1200 C.E. Drawing on communal memory, the Cerro Jazmín
inhabitants adapted to this erosion crisis and put in place an
aggressive program of terrace construction and entered a new
phase of reorganization (Fig. 5). Many of the terraces seen on
the surface of Cerro Jazmín today actually date to the Late
Postclassic and later periods. This second episode of terrace
construction trapped most sediment behind terrace walls,
leading to hill slope deposition and stability, and non-
deposition along the valley bottoms, as noted by a scarcity
of Postclassic alluvium in Mueller et al. (2012).
The phase of terrace reconstruction, exploitation, and
perhaps even conservation in the Late Postclassic might
have continued, but it was abruptly halted by Spanish
Conquest. New World land-use practices of terrace mainte-
nance were replaced by Old World land-use methods that
removed populations from the hilltops and slopes and intro-
duced livestock. During this period terraces fell into disre-
pair leading to erosion and a dramatic release cycle that
perhaps has yet to end. At Cerro Jazmín Colonial terraces
were occasionally maintained, and modern terraces are oc-
casionally built, but the widespread cultural system of
terrace-based agriculture was largely abandoned. Today,
deep gullies expose more than 12 meters of Prehispanic
alluvial and colluvial deposits. Given this deep incision,
modern farmers can only utilize lama-bordo terracing in
the smallest of drainages.
Cycles of Terracing: Colonial, Historic, and Modern
Times
In socioecological systems stochastic events are compounded
with history, culture, and memory to create unforeseen results.
In the Mixteca Alta at the end of the Postclassic period
conquest impacted Mixtec societies in ways that have taken
centuries to fully understand. Although the full impact of
Conquest is beyond the scope of this article, in terms of
terracing and land-use patterns we argue that it created a
Hum Ecol
situation where a period of reorganization and growth of
terracing was pushed into one of dramatic release. In this part
of the cycle, when terracing had been reorganized and ex-
panded in the Late Postclassic period, the Conquest resulted in
the widespread abandonment of hilltop settlements and ter-
races. The indigenous population was “congregated” into
newly established colonial settlements built on flat land in
the valley bottoms. These communities, congregaciones,
followed European gridded layouts and their location often
facilitated colonial rule. Archaeologically, it is known that
terracing is closely associated with domestic areas. Most
likely farmers lived near the terraces they worked, owned,
and maintained. After the Conquest much of the population no
longer lived around their terraces to maintain them, and this
was further aggravated in the following decades when a series
of epidemics decimated up to 80–90 % of the indigenous
population (Romero Frizzi 1996:144).
Old World Modes of Land Use
The knowledge that allowed the quick reorganization of ter-
racing was not fully lost, but was severely diminished as the
Mixtec population, and especially the elders, fell prey to age,
colonial abuses, and disease. In the post-Conquest periods
(Colonial, historic, and modern times) in the Mixteca Alta
there are different land use systems: Old World land-use
practices introduced by the Spanish and the continuation of
Prehispanic Mixtec traditions, such as terracing.
The available information on these post-Colonial cycles
comes from ethnohistorical records that document the pro-
ductive capacity of the Mixtec societies of the Late
Postclassic and the Colonial period. Some productive activ-
ities decreased their output dramatically as the population
decreased, while other newly instituted forms of production
temporarily flourished. The Spanish introduced Old World
crops and animals. Land use changed to incorporate grazing
animals and the production of silk and cochineal pigment
intended for the European market. By 1561 C.E. (40 years
after the Conquest) the town of Tejupan in the Mixteca Alta
produced 710 pounds of silk (Romero Frizzi 1996:150). For
a while, and despite the declining population, indigenous
communities produced so much silk and cochineal pigment
that their surplus fed the communal funds, which tradition-
ally (in Prehispanic times) had been used to pay for rituals
and religious ceremonies.
Ethnohistorians report a marked increase in the number
of documents dealing with disputes between the colonial
administrative and ecclesiastical authorities over the final
destination of the tithe paid by indigenous communities.
The tithe from the Mixteca Alta in 1568 C.E. was 1,077
pesos, but by 1598, this had increased to 5,468 pesos—a
large sum in the sixteenth century. By the 1620 s, however,
the indigenous capacity to produce this much had dimin-
ished: by 1625 the Mixtec tithe was down to 1,824 pesos. It
is estimated that at the time of the Conquest the Mixteca
Alta had a population of around 700,000 people. By 1620,
only 25,000 remained. While the new economic activities
were growing, the indigenous population was still declining
due to epidemics and institutional abuse. In the case of the
silk industry, competition from China and Southeast Asia
soon reduced Mixtec silk production to the minimum re-
quired to meet local and highly specialized ritual demands
(Romero Frizzi 1996:157).
During the Colonial period grazing animals acquired a
more prominent economic and social role. Initially,
Spaniards were brought to the Mixteca to manage the ani-
mals. Once local communities learned how to take care of
the animals and process their byproducts pastoralism spread.
At the start of the seventeenth century Mixtec indigenous
communities had nearly 100,000 grazing animals (Romero
Frizzi 1996:158).
While pastoralism was taking root in the Mixteca,
Prehispanic forms of agriculture and land use were in a
continuous state of change. Many of the ancient terraces
were still in use, but many more were left unattended.
Indigenous communities and individual households tried to
maintain and defend their usufruct and ownership rights, but
they were increasingly coming up against colonial adminis-
trative and religious institutions and their newly established
rights and land holdings. Communal land holdings and
terrace systems became divided into individual tracts of land
that changed hands often.
As new crops, especially wheat, were introduced,
Prehispanic terraces that were small and narrow to facilitate
human labor and digging sticks were widened to accommo-
date oxen and plow. These new modes of production,
exploited for more than five centuries, are now fully engrained
in Mixtec society. The initial potential of exploitation is now a
fixed system of conservation facing modern challenges like
rampant erosion, devalued crop prices, outmigration, and
population decline. Crop production that once sustained
Prehispanic populations and created surpluses large enough
to build impressive Colonial convents is now insufficient to
sustain the small communities that remain. The crops have
very low market value as they compete in a globalized market
under the conditions created by the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (see Stephen 2001 on the effects
of NAFTA on Oaxacan communities and migrants). NAFTA
has pitted indigenous maize from the Mixteca Alta against
subsidized, genetically engineered corn grown by transnation-
al corporations. Mixtec agricultural production is no longer
able to create wealth for the community; at best it supplements
households’ subsistence activities.
Grazing animals, which once provided Mixtec commu-
nities with the opportunity to supplement their income with

the sale of milk, hides, and wool, are now identified by these
same communities as a cause of erosion. Around Cerro
Jazmín, Prehispanic terraces sit 20 meters above the modern
gullies. Mixtec communities now realize, after 500 years of
pastoralism, that the loss of ground cover from grazing and
from the abandonment of terracing since the Colonial period
has exacerbated the erosion to which the region is naturally
susceptible due to its geology, climate, and seasonal rain
patterns. The cycle of pastoralism is at the very limit; per-
haps a period of release has already begun as communities
are tirelessly fighting to conserve both their herds and the
soil.
On the southern slope of Cerro Jazmín the modern town
of Santa María Tiltepec has only a few hundred inhabitants
today and they are hardly able to keep up with erosion and
maintenance of their terraces. 3 They have identified grazing
animals as a threat to agricultural production and they have
agreed to phase out goats and reduce the number of sheep a
family can own. These initiatives are very controversial.
Pastoralism has become an important part of Mixtec life.
At all festivities, Mixtec prepare barbacoa—sheep or goat
roasted in a pit with maize and agave leaves. Many house-
holds have refused to reduce their herds, which for centuries
have been a sign of wealth and prosperity.
The migration of young people to larger cities has con-
tributed to the overall stagnation of farming and grazing in
the Mixteca Alta (Cohen 2001). The phase of conservation
is reaching its limits. Based on the proposed resilience
model, it would appear that the system will move into a
phase of transformation, release, and destruction. Some
communities, like Magdalena Peñasco, have had to rein-
force government buildings with stilts since the land has
eroded from under them. Across the region there are areas
where the topsoil is gone and the exposed surfaces are red
Yanhuitlán beds or exposed white caliche (a hardened ac-
cumulation deposit of calcium carbonate where agricultural
production is virtually impossible). It is uncertain whether
this will be a phase of “creative destruction” that can give
way to new phase of reorganization.
Colonial and Modern Terracing
Based on interview data and from current efforts by activists
and communities to revitalize terraces, we argue that today
Prehispanic-style terracing is in a period of reorganization
and revitalization after a long history of abandonment and
destruction following the Colonial period. Although farmers
are farming on ancient terraces, conditions are drastically
different. The narrow Prehispanic terraces have been
3
It is estimated that Cerro Jazmín had up to 15,000 people in the
Postclassic period.
Hum Ecol
modified and widened to accommodate draft animals or
occasionally tractors. Manure and fertilizers are used to
enrich terrace soils and different crops are cultivated, in-
cluding GMO tomatoes that are grown in elaborate
government-subsidized greenhouses. Finally, the crops are
mainly grown to supplement household subsistence since
market forces have driven down the crop prices, making
agriculture a less desirable profession for young people.
Discussion
In using the model of resilience to understand the complex
history of terracing, we have presented archaeological, geo-
morphic, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic data which char-
acterize various stages of the resilience cycle. In reviewing
the available information across the millennia we have
found ample evidence to suggest that terracing has been a
very dynamic and recurring adaptive practice for the
Mixtec. Terraces have changed in the way they have been
used or abandoned, how they have been farmed (more
intensively or less) to respond to population, political and
economic circumstances, and trade. The crops grown on
terraces have changed and the construction and size of the
terraces themselves have been adapted to accommodate
different technologies. Although much about terracing has
changed across time, it continues to serve its basic function
of sediment retention, erosion control, and the creation of
flat land for living and production.
Current structural conditions under which terracing and
farmers operate are dramatically different from historical
conditions, and it remains to be seen whether current efforts
to maintain and reorganize terraces truly amount to a large-
scale system re-organization. As researchers all we can do is
make our knowledge about the long and complex history of
terracing available to the Mixtec communities who are to
decide their own future.
Addressing Critiques of the Resilience Model
The resilience model has been critiqued for being overly
materialistic, for focusing on large-scale phenomena. A
system’s resilience focuses on maintaining function and
not necessarily form. Also the initial exposition of the
resilience cycle expressed no concern for whether the
changes to the overall socioecological system are just, cul-
turally appropriate, or even desirable for affected individuals
or groups (Crane 2010; Kirchhoff et al. 2010; Nelson et al.
2007). Some scholars would argue that, when taken to
extremes, the concept of resilience could justify an unjust
system, e.g., poverty, which seems to persist despite targeted
but generally insufficient efforts to eradicate it.
Hum Ecol
The fact that a complex system can be persistent to the
point of resilience should be decoupled from any additional
argument that resilience suggests an inherent success and
should be left alone, especially in the face of suffering and
injustice. In such cases the concept of resilience could be used
as a powerful tool to fully understand the components of the
resilient, but negative or unjust, system to identify ways to
address and solve the problems or injustices it creates.
Another often cited critique of resilience is that it does
little to account for or recognize the role of individuals and
their beliefs, preferences, decisions, and actions as they
influence the system (Davidson 2010). We have found that
the model is flexible enough to consider such factors when
the researcher is aware of them and when the cycle that is
being studied occurs at a smaller temporal and spatial scale,
one where individuals or community actions can be seen.
In the model of terracing resilience presented in this article,
data about the initial cycles are at the archaeological scale of
centuries, where individuals are hard to identify. In the Late
Postclassic period, however, a “novel surprise” (Nelson et al.
2007) occurred– the Spanish Conquest and the establishment of
Colonial government, when historical documents become
available allowing for greater understanding of individuals’
and communities’ actions and reactions to new developments.
Historical records prove that despite the massive loss of indig-
enous life, the newly established methods of colonial land use
and subsistence took root in an environment that had never
been exploited in that way before. Nevertheless, during the
centuries of Colonial rule and then after the establishment of
the Mexican Republic, farmers kept using and maintaining their
terraces, passing on the knowledge associated with keeping
these terraces productive. We argue that at present the terraces
in the Mixteca Alta may be in a phase of reorganization.4
Is Resilience an Appropriate Model?
Although we find value in the critiques addressed above, we
argue that the strength of the resilience model lies in its ability
to look at large as well as small spatial, temporal scales and
nested scales, which works well with data available to archae-
ologists and geomorphologists (Costanza et al. 2007; Redman
2005; Redman and Kinzig 2003; van der Leeuw and Redman
2002). In addition, this model also allows for a macro view of
embedded relationships and phenomena, which are able to be
seen when one gains access to the actions and motivations of
4
Grassroots organizations like CEDICAM (Center for Integral
Campesino Development of the Mixteca, “Hita Nuni”) are working
to reestablish terraces in communities like Tilantongo to combat ero-
sion, support farmers and their agricultural production, and teach new
generations about this ancestral way of life (Malkin 2008). The farmers
interviewed across the region expressed keen interest in keeping their
traditional terraces maintained and productive.
individuals and communities; this is the case when archaeo-
logical evidence is complemented with ethnohistorical and
ethnographic data.
Although the resilience model aims to identify patterns
that operate at larger systemic scales, we found that some of
the changes were rooted in actors’ motivations, beliefs, and
practices. The model of resilience leaves room for the study
of individuals and communities when the researcher is
aware of them and when the data are available. There is
strength in investigating a phenomenon at scales that change
from the systemic shifts that can only be seen across centu-
ries to the present-day actions of individuals who choose to
maintain and farm terraces and then agree to be interviewed.
Nelson et al. (2007) argue that adaptation occurs at the
scale of the individual actor, whereas resilience is systemic.
The use of terracing, which may have begun as an individ-
ual’s adaptation to the Mixtec highlands, has become over
time, a system of demonstrated resilience. Admittedly, we
are unable to assess if the way that terrace agriculture
operates today is sustainable, culturally appropriate, or as
effective and/or efficient as was anticipated by its original
Prehispanic practitioners. However, modern-day terrace
farmers still produce crops and find value and meaning in
maintaining and farming their terraces even if they view this
practice as not always profitable. Farmers report that they
engage in terrace farming as a way to counter erosion, to
support their families and their communities, to ensure an
annual maize supply for the household, and to continue
working the land in the way the Mixtec have for millennia.
We conclude that terrace-based agriculture exhibits re-
markable resilience to environmental and cultural perturba-
tions. However, our data also suggest that the extreme
perturbations currently occurring, namely global climate
change and globalized economies, present a threat to
terraced-based agricultural systems in the Mixteca Alta.
References
Abel, Nick, David H. M. Cumming, and John M. Anderies 2006
Collapse and Reorganization in Socio-Ecological Systems:
Questions, Some Ideas, and Policy Implications. Ecology and
Society 11(1):17 [online].
Badstue, L. B., Bellon, M. R., Berthaud, J., Juarez, X., Rosas, I. M.,
Solano, A. M., and Ramirez, A. (2006). Examining the Role of
Collective Action in an Informal Seed System: A Case Study
from the Central Valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. Human Ecology
34(2): 249–273.
Balée, W. (1998). Historical Ecology: Premises and Postulates. In
Balée, W. L. (ed.), Advances in Historical Ecology. William L.
Balée. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 13–29.
Balée, W. L., and Erickson, C. L. (eds.) (2006). Time and Complexity
in Historical Ecology: Studies in the Neotropical Lowlands.
Columbia University Press, New York.

Balkansky, A. K., Rodríguez, V. P., and Kowalewski, S. A. (2004).
Monte Negro and the Urban Revolution in Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin
American Antiquity 15(1): 33–60.
Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge
and Resource Management. Routledge, New York.
Berkes, F., and Carl, F. (2001). Back to the Future: Ecosystem
Dynamics and Local Knowledge. In Gunderson, L. H., and
Holling, C. S. (eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations
in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington D.C,
pp. 121–146.
Blomster, J. P. (1998). At the Bean Hill in the Land of the Mixtec:
Early Formative Social Complexity and Interregional Interaction
at Etlatongo, Oaxaca, Mexico. Yale University, New Haven.
Brumfiel, E. M. (1991). Agricultural Development and Class
Stratification in the Southern Valley of Mexico. In Harvey, H.
R. (ed.), Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico: A Two-
thousand-Year Perspective. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Calnek, E. E. (1972). Settlement Pattern and Chinampa Agriculture at
Tenochtitlan. American Antiquity 37(1): 104–115.
CLICOM (2006). Climatología computarizada. Servicio Meteorológico
Nacional y Comisión Nacional del. Nacional del Agua, México.
Cohen, J. H. (2001). Transnational Migration in Rural Oaxaca,
Mexico: Dependency, Development, and the Household.
American Anthropologist 103(4): 954–967.
Cook, S. F., and Borah, W. W. (1968). The Population of the Mixteca
Alta, 1520–1960. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Costanza, R., Graumlich, L., Steffen, W., Crumley, C., Dearing, J.,
Hibbard, K., Leemans, R., Redman, C. L., and Schimel, D.
(2007). Sustainability or Collapse: What Can We Learn from
Integrating the History of Humans and the Rest of Nature?
Ambio 36(7): 522–527.
Crane, Todd A. 2010 Of Models and Meanings: Cultural Resilience in
Socio-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 15(4):19 [online].
Crumley, C. L. (1994). Historical Ecology: A Multidimensional
Ecological Orientation. In Crumley, C. (ed.), Historical Ecology:
Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. School of
American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 1–16.
Davidson, D. J. (2010). The Applicability of the Concept of Resilience
to Social Systems: Some Sources of Optimism and Nagging
Doubts. Society and Natural Resources 23(12): 1135–1149.
Erickson, C. L. (2008). Amazonia: The Historical Ecology of a
Domesticated Landscape. In Silverman, H., and Isbell, W.
(eds.), The Handbook of South American Archaeology.
Springer, New York, pp. 157–184.
Gaxiola, M. (1984). Huamelulpan: Un Centro Urbano de la Mixteca
Alta. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.
Giddens, A. (1986). The Constitution of Society. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Gunderson, L. H., and Holling, C. S. (eds.) (2002). Panarchy:
Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems.
Island Press, Washington D.C.
Joyce, A. A. (2010). Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos. Ancient Peoples
of Southern Mexico. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA
Kirchhoff, T., Brand, F. S., Hoheisel, D., and Grimm, V. (2010). The One-
Sidedness and Cultural Bias of the Resilience Approach. GAIA
Ecological Perspectives for Socience and Society 19(1): 25–32.
Kirkby, M. (1972). The Physical Environment of the Nochixtlan Valley,
Oaxaca. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology 2.
Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
Kowalewski, S. A., Balkansky, A. K., Stiver, L. R., Walsh, T. J.,
Pluckhahn, J. F., Chamblee, V. P., Rodríguez, V. Y., Espinoza,
H., and Smith, C. A. (2009). Origins of the Ñuu: Archaeology in
the Mixteca Alta, Mexico. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E.,
Pell, A. N., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E.,
Hum Ecol
Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C. L., Schneider, S. H., and
Taylor, W. W. (2007). Complexity of Couples Human and Natural
Systems. Science 317(5844): 1513–1516.
Malkin, Elisabeth 2008 Ways of Ancient Mexico Reviving Barren
Lands. In The New York Times: May 13.
Moran, E. F. (1990). Ecosystem Ecology in Biology and
Anthropology: A Critical Assessment. In Moran, E. F. (ed.), The
Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice.
The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 3–40.
Mueller, R. G., Joyce, A. A., and Borejsza, A. (2012). Alluvial
Archives of the Nochixtlán Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: Age and
Significance for Reconstructions of Environmental Change.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 321–322:
121–136.
Nelson, Donald R., W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown 2007
Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a
Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources (32):395-419.
Parsons, J. R. (1976). The Role of Chinampa Agriculture in the Food
Supply of Aztec Tenochtitlan. In Cleland, C. E. (ed.), Cultural
Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett
Griffin. Academic Press, Waltham, pp. 233–257.
Pérez Rodríguez, V. (2006). States and Households: The Social
Organization of Terrace Agriculture in Postclassic Mixteca Alta,
Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 17(1): 3–22.
Pérez Rodríguez, V. (2008). Household Labor and Landscape
Transformation in Ancient Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico.
In Cliggett, L., and Pool, C. A. (eds.), Economies and the
Transformation of Landscape. AltaMira Press, Lanham, pp.
77–102.
Pérez Rodríguez, V., Anderson, K. C., and Neff, M. K. (2011).
The Cerro Jazmín Archaeological Project: Investigating
Prehispanic Urbanism and Its Environmental Impact in the
Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology
36(2): 83–99.
Plunket, P. S. (1983). An intensive survey in the Yucuita sector of the
Nochixtlan Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.
Redman, C. L. (1999). Human Impact on Ancient Environments. The
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Redman, C. L. (2005). Resilience Theory in Archaeology. American
Anthropologist 107(1): 70–77.
Redman, Charles L., and A. P. Kinzig 2003 Resilience of Past
Landscapes: Resilience Theory, Society, and the Longue Durée.
Conservation Ecology 7(1):14 [on line].
Rojas Rabiela, T. (1991). Ecological and Agricultural Changes in the
Chinampas of Xochimilco-Chalco. In Harvey, H. R. (ed.), Land
and Politics in the Valley of Mexico: A Two Thousand-Year
Perspective. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp.
275–290.
Romero Frizzi, María de los Ángeles 1996 El sol y la cruz: Los pueblos
indios de Oaxaca colonial. México D.F.: Centro de Investigaciones y
Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social and Instituto Nacional
Indigenista.
Spores, R. (1967). The Mixtec Kings and Their People. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Spores, R. (1969). Settlement, Farming Technology, and Environment
in the Nochixtlan Valley. Science 166(3905): 557–569.
Spores, R. (1972). An Archaeological Settlement Survey of the
Nochixtlan Valley, Oaxaca. Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
Spores, R. (1983). Middle and Late Formative Settlement Patterns in
the Mixteca Alta. In Flannery, K. V., and Marcus, J. (eds.), The
Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec
Civilizations. Academic Press, Waltham, pp. 72–74.
Spores, R. (2007). Ñuu Ñudzahui: La Mixteca de Oaxaca: La
Evolución de la Cultura Mixteca desde los Primeros Pueblos
Hum Ecol
Preclásicos hasta la Independencia. Instituto Estatal de Educación
Pública de Oaxaca, Oaxaca.
Stephen, L. (2001). Globalization, The State, and the Creation of
Flexible Indigenous Workers: Mixtec Farmworkers in Oregon.
Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World
Economic Development 30(2–3): 189–214.
van der Leeuw, S., and Redman, C. L. (2002). Placing Archaeology at
the Center of Socio-natural Studies. American Antiquity 67(4):
597–605.
Zarate, R. (1987). Excavaciones de un sitio preclassico en San Mateo
Etlatongo Nochixtlan, Oaxaca, Mexico. BAR International Series
No. 322, Archaeopress, Oxford.