In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

272 ticular theory but (on the other) not equally compatible with all theories. For the study of early social transformations in Mesoamerica, available rhetorical forms include the developmentalism of processual archaeology as well as characteristic historicist forms such as longterm continuity, divergence from an initial state of homogeneity, and convergence from a state of heterogeneity (see Chapter 1). Problems with the first of those (developmentalism) are now widely recognized, even as we continue to find ourselves telling developmental stories. Given linguistic diversity documented for later epochs, the last of that list of forms (convergence from initial heterogeneity) probably deserves more emphasis than it is currently accorded. To better assess both the scope to be accorded to developmentalism and the potential role of convergence from heterogeneity, we need to build up an underdeveloped mode of synthesis of evidence. “Regional” work at the scale at which individual survey projects are conducted—in areas preferentially termed zones in this book—is of course well established. Such units, from different parts of MesoamerThe deep antagonisms that characterized theoretical debate in archaeology twenty-five years ago have mostly ebbed away. These days, when we set about to narrate the origins of Mesoamerican civilization, it does not seem necessary to select a single theoretical framework—practice theory, evolutionary ecology, or what have you—as the unique scaffolding for interpretation or explanation. Plausibly, more than one framework might contribute toward a holistic narrative. That sentiment is consistent with archaeologists’ growing interest in pluralism, but if we take it seriously we create potentially daunting empirical demands. We may well enrich our accounts of the past by drawing on multiple theories, but how do we know which theories to apply in any given instance? Those issues are a rather distant backdrop to the present book. Of more immediate concern is one particular strategy among the various that might be called on to address the challenges of theoretical eclecticism. The idea is to try out, at different scales, rhetorical forms that are (on the one hand) not exclusive to any parTWELVE Concluding Thoughts macroregional synthesis in the archaeology of early mesoamerica Richard G. Lesure concluding thoughts 273 culture, and societal change. Then I show how developmentalist accounts might be scrutinized in the course of the movements between scales involved in macroregional synthesis. Finally, I consider the issue of early heterogeneity by touching on the contribution of this book to understandings of early subsistence and sociopolitical change in the Soconusco. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND OTHER PATTERNS AT LARGE SCALES Large-scale spatial patterning in transitions from the Archaic to the Formative period is of particular importance. Flannery (1986) situated the relevant social processes at a local scale. Both Piperno and Pearsall (1998) and Bellwood (2005) propose structurally different narratives that conceive key processes as unfolding at vast scales. In Piperno and Pearsall ’s formulation, the rapid spread of maize to northern South America by mobile farmerforagers was a dramatic prelude to the Formative itself. In Bellwood’s model, the adoption of agriculture would have generated such massive radial population movements from early “heartlands” that the effects may still be detectable millennia later in distributions of indigenous languages. Though the moment at which the latter phenomenon should be seen as beginning in Mesoamerica is not necessarily clear, the Archaic-to-Formative transition is the most obvious candidate (Lesure 2008); Loconaphase population spikes in the Soconusco (Figure 11.2 in this book) seem consistent with that idea. Though both proposals contrast with Flannery ’s localized processual model, Piperno and Pearsall (1998) and Bellwood (2005) differ in their expectations for large-scale structure. Piperno and Pearsall envision a dispersed transition to the Formative, with multiple, disparate centers of subsistence change; Bellwood, though acknowledging the diffuse quality of the Formative in the Americas, nevertheless expects identifiable heartlands, centers from which subsequent outward movements of ica, may be internally synthesized and then compared to reveal variation in regional settlement systems and their transformations: we might compare the Basin of Mexico to the Valley of Oaxaca or to the Tehuacán Valley (for example, Blanton et al. 1993; Drennan and Haller 2007). Interregional interaction— contact between peoples from distant regions— also has long been a focus of research. For the period of interest here, the interactions that could have led to the sharing of Olmec art have received considerable attention. A more underdeveloped mode of synthesis is the study of multiple, contiguous zones as constituting a single large-scale unit. We...

Share