Society for American Archaeology

The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization by William T.

Sanders; Jeffrey R. Parsons; Robert S. Santley
Review by: Kenneth L. Brown
American Antiquity, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 884-886
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/280159 .
Accessed: 09/05/2014 12:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.80 on Fri, 9 May 2014 12:56:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 d byE wS

Edited by Ezra Zubrow

The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the necessary. The excavations which were conducted
Evolutionof a Civilization.WILLIAMT. SANDERS, during the course of these projects were primarily
JEFFREY R. PARSONSand ROBERTS. SANTLEY. oriented toward checking the survey data. Secon-
AcademicPress, New York,1979. xiii + 418 pp., 5 darily, they provided more detailed informationon
appendices, maps. the occupants of the excavated sites. Fortunatelyfor
Reviewed by Kenneth L. Brown, University of the authors,the basin has received a large numberof
Houston well-conceived and well-executed excavation pro-
jects on which the authors could draw. Unfortunate-
This book and its associated optionalmaps repre- ly, these excavations were not necessarily carried
sent one of the end results of nearly 20 years of inten- out to answer a number of questions now being
sive archaeological research within one of the most raised by archaeologists(Vaillant'swork is an exam-
importantgeographic areas in the New World. Not ple).
only are all stages of cultural complexity present Deservingspecial note is the authors'discussionof
within the prehistoric remains, but throughmuch of the employmentof samplingstrategies in the conduct
the late prehistoricperiod the Basin of Mexico exer- of intensive surface surveys. The methodologychap-
cised considerable influence over other subareas of ters and a long appendixare intendedto demonstrate
Mesoamerica.As important,muchof this culturalde- that samplingstrategies are not necessarily the best
velopment occurred within a relatively bounded procedures to follow. The authors prefer a 100%
area. This providesan almostideal laboratoryfor the sample in order to confidently reconstruct such
overall study of culture change and the processes be- variables as settlement pattern, site distribution,
hind such change. It is toward both of these "goals" population distribution, total number of sites, and
that this book is oriented. The various chapters and total population.While it is likely that no one would
appendices of the book can be divided into three in- seriously question the desirability of 100% surveys,
terrelated parts: methodology, description of the the feasibility in most areas (and given most budgets)
area and its culture history, and the processes makes this ideal all but impossible. The authors ad-
behind cultural evolutionwithin the basin. Included mit this general feasibilityproblem,but spend a great
within this latter section is a general discussion of deal of effort to show how valuable 100% samples
cultural evolutionarytheory and the contributionof are over various samplingstrategies (several types of
this study to anthropologicaltheory. Also includedis simple random and stratified random strategies). It
a brief discussion of the direction of future research appears from their tests that no sampling strategy
within the basin. This review will discuss each of (althoughsystematic strategies were not includedin
these divisions individually,since each has its con- the tests) can providean accurate picture of the total
tributionsand weaknesses. populationvariable. The other four variables could
The work utilizes much of the archaeological,eth- be more or less accurately predicted by several of
nohistoric,and ethnographicresearch that has been their tested sampling strategies-although each
conducted within the basin. However, it relies most strategy varied from variable to variable. They con-
heavily on the investigations conducted by the co- clude this discussion by stating that such strategies
authors-primarily intensive surface surveys. This may be somewhat useful given project constraints,
research was initiated by Sanders within the but they cannot be as accurate as 100% samples.
TeotihuacanValley portionof the basin. Since this in- True, but few would question that.
itial work, Parsons, Blanton, and Sanders have di- Concerning this methodology, a couple of com-
rected intensive surveys over much of the remaining ments need to be made, particularly given the bias
basin. The authors take great pains to discuss the against samplingprocedures.First, while the authors
survey methodology,and its evolution covering al- argue for their 100% sample design, they do not have
most 20 years of research by various projects.While a 100% sample. While a great deal of this is due to
there has been some modificationof the actual sur- the growth of Mexico City, some of this is due to the
vey methods over this time, the basic goals of all of actual design of some of the research. One needs only
the research projects were the same. That is, while to look at Parsons' original Texcoco area survey to
each project established its own specific problems, see that he did not survey anywhere near 100% of
each soughtthe elucidationof the culturehistoryand the area. A look at Map 4 will also reveal the lack of
the processes behind this change. Fromthe inception survey in major subareas of the basin. Thus, while
of this highlyinbredresearch, the personnelhave felt this reviewer is not questioningthe research on the
that to meet these goals a large-scale, systematic, in- basic desirability of 100% surveys, the low level at-
tensive surface survey of the entire basin area was tack on such strategies is not warranted.At least the

884

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.80 on Fri, 9 May 2014 12:56:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEWS
sampling strategies permit the assessment of the
causes for variation from what was expected, while
less systematic procedures do not.
Second, one can question the authors' concern
over the predictability of total population by the
various sampling strategies. Despite their tests, one
could argue that a 100% sample is not automatically
more accurate. Of necessity, population sizes given
by archaeologists must be ranges and not absolute
figures. Such ranges are based on the other four
variables and on more or less subjective judgments
concerning the density of occupation. Such densities
are based on surface artifact distributions-on ar-
tifacts which are out of context for the most part.
While population figures are important for some pur-
poses, at this point they can represent only approx-
imations. In fact, absolute population figures, while
valuable, are not possible to achieve and are not
altogether a necessity. Relative numbers are impor-
tant, of course. Any survey procedure that permits
accurate predictions about the four other variables
and makes observations on the density of surface ar-
tifacts should provide an accurate population esti-
mate range.
The second division of the book (chapters 4-7) de-
scribes the environmental setting, the history of
prehistoric culture, the human demographic history,
and the distribution of resources and their use. The
authors have done an outstanding job in bringing
together, in a succinct and well-written fashion, the
vast array of material available. In so doing, the
authors have actually provided one of the most de-
tailed and convincing discussions of past behavior
patterns available in the archaeological literature.
One comment should be made concerning their deci-
sion to alter the normal period names. The traditional
period designations (i.e., Classic, Middle Classic)
have proven to be a problem since the names are
"value charged" and their temporal placement
highly variable. The authors use of what is essential-
ly Rowe's Central Andean terminology (i.e., Early
Horizon, First Intermediate) may remove some of the
confusion. Although the use of this system may
become as cumbersome, at least it is not as value
charged.
The final major section of the book discusses the
evolution of culture within the prehistory of the ba-
sin. Initially this involves a discussion of evolutionary
typologies (Fried, Service) and their use in an ar-
chaeological context. This is discussed at a general
level and then applied to the data derived from two
excavations: Loma Torremote and Maquixco Bajo.
These sites were selected because of the general
similarity in excavation techniques (stripping of large
areas), and because they show two points on the con-
tinuum of cultural evolution within the basin. Ethno-
historic sources and a small amount of archaeologi-
cal evidence were employed to discuss the cultural
setting at the end of the prehistoric continuum. The
authors attempt to reconstruct social, economic,
political, and religious structure and function within
cultures of the basin at these three points in time. A
major problem with this section is the lack of critical
data necessary for a complete evaluation of what the
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.80 on Fri, 9 May 2014 12:56:22 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
885
authors state. One almost gets the impression that
much of this is subjective, based on a high level of
familiarity with the data. While much of the actual
data may be published elsewhere, many readers will
likely not wish to consult numerous other sources.
More important, however, is that some of the data
are not yet published.
The authors then move on to a discussion of evolu-
tionary theory and the process behind culture
change within the basin. They outline and test a cir-
cumscription/population growth model to explain and
predict culture change. This model was first devel-
oped during a seminar held at Penn State in 1971 and
has since been applied to the Basin of Mexico. In this
book, the authors provide more detailed support for
the model and evaluate its utility vis-a-vis other types
of models. The basic attraction of this model con-
cerns two important aspects: its systematic nature
and the provision of a dynamic factor. Most other
theories concerning culture change involve primarily
external factors (cultures/ideas or the environment)
or internal decisions (warfare, cooperation) and, in
fact, do not explain culture change-since they can-
not explain why the change in behavior occurred.
The model employed provides a dynamic force-pop-
ulation growth within a circumscribed area--and
this provides a basis for predicting possible solutions
to increased population. Once culture and culture
change are viewed in this manner, then the environ-
mental setting (both natural and cultural) can be fed
into the decision-making process. The last major
chapter in the book takes this model and employs it to
explain (predict) past behavior and the evolution of
culture.
Finally, the authors provide a short section on key
areas for future research within the basin. Given the
recent position of the Mexican authorities, this chap-
ter might have been more appropriately written in
Spanish. Given the number of testable hypotheses
within the book, this chapter was almost unneces-
sary.
While this reviewer finds little wrong with the
theory and many of the interpretations included
within this book, there are major reservations con-
cerning the methodology-including both data collec-
tion and its interpretation. These reservations stem
from two basic methodological weaknesses: the lack
of sampling, particularly in the excavations, and the
lack of testing (in some cases the nontestability) of
ethnographic analogies. In the first case, it has
already been noted that the authors avoided sam-
pling procedures in their surveys. Given the large area
covered, this is likely a minor problem and one which
they do recognize. However, they do not seem to real-
ize the major problem they have with their excavated
materials. This problem is essentially one of sam-
pling. Given the nature of the research projects, the
large number of sites, the long temporal framework,
and the general bias of the researchers toward
survey, an adequate sampling of all site types for all
time periods would have been impossible. That is not
the complaint, although it is a problem. The com-
plaint is that without a sampling procedure there is
no way of evaluating how representative the exca-
 886 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
vated data are, either in terms of the sites they came
from or the particular time period, or just how com-
parable the data sets are. This problem is absolutely
critical to the authors' evolutionary arguments. In
both excavations (at Loma Torremote and Maquixco
Bajo), contiguous areas were investigated. While this
allows a reconstruction of the events that occurred in
small portions of the sites, it is not possible to
evaluate how representative they are of their respec-
tive sites. Excavations within the other portions of
those sites were not made. In terms of comparisons
between the two sites, we have no basis for assessing
their comparative standing. Are the differences evo-
lutionary as the authors suggest, or are the differ-
ences a function of the excavation of noncomparable
remains? There are really no independent means of
assessing this, yet it is critical to their arguments
concerning evolution within the basin. Interpretation
of structure and function require much more care in
the sampling of archaeological sites than can be
found in this research. (This is a major problem
within archaeology as a whole.)
The problem of ethnographic analogies and ar-
chaeological interpretation has been debated recent-
ly. The authors of this book support the idea that
analogies are "best" if they come from cultures at a
similar level of complexity and/or if they come from
the same general culture area. They do not appear to
feel it is necessary to test their analogies. Rather, they
are simply stated. The problem is that it is impossible
to make an independent assessment of the appro-
priateness of the analogy. It is obvious that the authors
are aware of the need for testing (i.e., their discussion
of locational models, pp. 403-406), but they have
chosen to ignore it. This has the further ramification
that a number of their arguments lack persuasive-
ness. Examples of this latter problem abound: the
discussion of carrying capacity (pp. 371-378), some-
thing which is central to the population pressure
model; the discussion of the contribution of meat in
the diet (pp. 281-287, Appendix D), and so on. The
lack of adequate testing and explanations makes
these sections appear loose and somewhat scattered.
This, in turn, detracts from the central point of the
book and weakens it.
Before concluding this review the maps should be
mentioned. While the maps may be purchased separ-
ately, they should be used in conjunction with the
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.80 on Fri, 9 May 2014 12:56:22 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 45, No. 4,1980]
text. Technically the maps are of high quality. They
are clear and fairly easy to interpret. The only prob-
lem is that unless someone purchases two sets of
maps, comparison of settlement between adjacent
time periods is difficult. Each sheet contains two
maps-one on each side of the paper. Successive
time periods were placed on the front and back.
Since the sheets are large, constantly turning them
over to compare site distributions can be both frus-
trating and painful (paper cuts are now an occupa-
tional hazard). The maps are indispensable when
reading the culture history section of the book. They
are, however, a problem to carry around as they are
housed in a cardboard box, open on one side. While
my copy came with a rubber band holding the maps
in, a higher quality rubber would have permitted me
to avoid the unscheduled deposition of the maps on a
rather crowded sidewalk.
Finally, it is hoped that before the second printing
this book receives a much closer editing. A majority
of the editorial problems are likely typographical er-
rors. However, a rather large number of nonsen-
tences and nonwords can be encountered. A number
of other problems could also be cleared up by closer
editing. An example of this would be the statement
concerning salt processing stations that "none of
these sites have ever been excavated" (p. 172),
followed on page 175 by a discussion of the excava-
tion of such a site. Further, does it make sense to use
a word ("tepetate") several times over the course of
16 pages and then add a footnote to define it? To com-
pound that problem, the same word has been defined
160 pages earlier, but in a different way.
With some problems, this is one of the finest books
currently available on the prehistory of any area of
the world. This work should be attractive for a num-
ber of reasons and to a variety of researchers. Any-
one interested in culture change will benefit since the
book combines data, a culture history, and the testing
of an interpretive model. One can easily find the
arguments and react to them. A major drawback to
such widespread use, however, is its tremendously
inflated price. Even granting the possibly small au-
dience for the book and maps, the price is way out of
line. This is unfortunate because the book represents
a significant contribution to anthropology and to our
knowledge of human beings and their cultural evolu-
tion.