
- •Summary Contents
- •Detailed Contents
- •Figures
- •Tables
- •Preface
- •The Disciplinary Players
- •Broad Perspectives
- •Some Key Guiding Principles
- •Why Did Agriculture Develop in the First Place?
- •The Significance of Agriculture vis-a-vis Hunting and Gathering
- •Group 1: The "niche" hunter-gatherers of Africa and Asia
- •Group 3: Hunter-gatherers who descend from former agriculturalists
- •To the Archaeological Record
- •The Hunter-Gatherer Background in the Levant, 19,000 to 9500 ac (Figure 3.3)
- •The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (ca. 9500 to 8500 Bc)
- •The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (ca. 8500 to 7000 Bc)
- •The Spread of the Neolithic Economy through Europe
- •Southern and Mediterranean Europe
- •Cyprus, Turkey, and Greece
- •The Balkans
- •The Mediterranean
- •Temperate and Northern Europe
- •The Danubians and the northern Mesolithic
- •The TRB and the Baltic
- •The British Isles
- •Hunters and farmers in prehistoric Europe
- •Agricultural Dispersals from Southwest Asia to the East
- •Central Asia
- •The Indian Subcontinent
- •The domesticated crops of the Indian subcontinent
- •The consequences of Mehrgarh
- •Western India: Balathal to jorwe
- •Southern India
- •The Ganges Basin and northeastern India
- •Europe and South Asia in a Nutshell
- •The Origins of the Native African Domesticates
- •The Archaeology of Early Agriculture in China
- •Later Developments (post-5000 ec) in the Chinese Neolithic
- •South of the Yangzi - Hemudu and Majiabang
- •The spread of agriculture south of Zhejiang
- •The Background to Agricultural Dispersal in Southeast Asia
- •Early Farmers in Mainland Southeast Asia
- •Early farmers in the Pacific
- •Some Necessary Background
- •Current Opinion on Agricultural Origins in the Americas
- •The Domesticated Crops
- •Maize
- •The other crops
- •Early Pottery in the Americas (Figure 8.3)
- •Early Farmers in the Americas
- •The Andes (Figure 8.4)
- •Amazonia
- •Middle America (with Mesoamerica)
- •The Southwest
- •Thank the Lord for the freeway (and the pipeline)
- •Immigrant Mesoamerican farmers in the Southwest?
- •Issues of Phylogeny and Reticulation
- •Introducing the Players
- •How Do Languages Change Through Time?
- •Macrofamilies, and more on the time factor
- •Languages in Competition - Language Shift
- •Languages in competition - contact-induced change
- •Indo-European
- •Indo-European from the Pontic steppes?
- •Where did PIE really originate and what can we know about it?
- •Colin Renfrew's contribution to the Indo-European debate
- •Afroasiatic
- •Elamite and Dravidian, and the Inds-Aryans
- •A multidisciplinary scenario for South Asian prehistory
- •Nilo-Saharan
- •Niger-Congo, with Bantu
- •East and Southeast Asia, and the Pacific
- •The Chinese and Mainland Southeast Asian language families
- •Austronesian
- •Piecing it together for East Asia
- •"Altaic, " and some difficult issues
- •The Trans New Guinea Phylum
- •The Americas - South and Central
- •South America
- •Middle America, Mesoamerica, and the Southwest
- •Uto-Aztecan
- •Eastern North America
- •Algonquian and Muskogean
- •Iroquoian, Siouan, and Caddoan
- •Did the First Farmers Spread Their Languages?
- •Do genes record history?
- •Southwest Asia and Europe
- •South Asia
- •Africa
- •East Asia
- •The Americas
- •Did Early Farmers Spread through Processes of Demic Diffusion?
- •Homeland, Spread, and Friction Zones, plus Overshoot
- •Notes
- •References
- •Index
Current Opinion on Agricultural Origins in the Americas
According to Dolores Piperno and Deborah Pearsall (1998), the first American agriculture began very diffusely in the lowland seasonal deciduous forests of Middle America and northern South America. They suggest that it began in a very small way, early in the Holocene by about 8000 sc, with no domestic animals, as an adjunct to a hunting and gathering economy based on a limited investment in house gardens and shifting agriculture. Piperno and Pearsall are here echoing, but modifying, earlier views on the significance of the lowland tropics by Carl Sauer (1952) and Donald Lathrap (1970).
At the same time, they are posing a scenario rather different in geographical terms from that favored by Richard MacNeish, as a result of his research in the much drier Tamaulipas and Tehuacan regions of Mexico (Byers 1967; MacNeish 1972, 1992). MacNeish, like Piperno and Pearsall, favored a gradual adoption of agriculture and settling down, but in this case in the semi-arid highland regions of Mesoamerica rather than in the wetter lowlands. Even though MacNeish maintained his views until his death in 2000 (MacNeish and Eubanks 2000), phytolith evidence now suggests that teosinte, widely considered the likely ancestor of maize, was absent in the Mesoamerican highlands until its appearance as a primitive domesticate about 6,000 years ago (Pipemo and Flannery 2001; Pohl et al. 1996; Buckler et al. 1998). This absence supports, at face value, a lowland origin for maize.
One can, however, read this absence the other way, as does Hugh Iltis when he makes the intriguing suggestion that teosinte became domesticated into maize not in its lowland biological homeland, which probably lay in or close to the Balsas basin of western Mexico, but possibly in a highland region such as Tehuacan, to which ancestral forms must have been taken by humans. To make the situation even more complex, botanist Mary Eubanks favors a derivation of maize not from annual Balsas teosinte at all, but from cross-pollination between a perennial form of teosinte and another grass species Tripsacum dactyloides, a cross that probably occurred in highland Mesoamerica (MacNeish and Eubanks
2000). Matsuoka et al. (2002) also favor a highland origin for maize domestication based on genetic analysis.
All of this is, of course, a little confusing for the non-botanist. Highland or lowland? Agricultural origins in the Americas are certainly not transparent and obvious. As Iltis (2000:37) notes, discussing the homeland of maize domestication: "Clearly, we don't know, and much more aggressive archaeology is needed in Mexico." Indeed it is.