MxAlb3B

From Seshat Data Browser
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA Alice Williams; Gréine Jordan ♥ Majority of work carried out by Alice Williams; Gréine Jordan wrote general description and edited some of Williams's work.

♠ Original name ♣ Monte Albán IIIB and IV ♥

♠ Alternative names ♣ Monte Albán IIIB; Monte Albán IVA; Late Classic ♥

♠ Peak Date ♣ ♥


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 500 CE-900 CE ♥ “With the decline of Monte Albán around A.D. 700, the Zapotec entered into their fourth developmental stage: a period of highly competitive and militaristic “city states” which lasted until the Spanish conquest of the 1520s.”[1]

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ quasi-polity ♥ The Zapotec state began to fragment at the end of the IIIA period, and eventually formed numerous smaller competing "kingdoms", each politically independent of the others.[2][3]

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ none ♥ The Zapotec state began to fragment at the end of the IIIA period, and eventually formed numerous smaller competing "kingdoms", each politically independent of the others[4][5] although there were marriage alliances between elites, as recorded in genealogical registers. Marriage alliances became increasingly important as a political tool through the IIIB to IV periods.[6]

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣ MxAlb3A ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣ continuity ♥ The Zapotec polity went into gradual decline during this period, with population dispersal across the valley.The Zapotec state began to fragment at the end of the IIIA period, and eventually formed numerous smaller competing "kingdoms", each politically independent of the others.[7][8]
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣ Zapotec, Monte Albán V ♥ The Zapotec people continued to exist, but no longer formed a state.[9]
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ ♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥

♠ Capital ♣ none ♥ As the population at Monte Alban declined, and the Zapotec state fragmented into smaller polities, a capital cannot be named for this period.[10]

♠ Language ♣ Zapotec ♥ [11]

General Description

General description
During the Monte Alban IIIB and IV periods (500-900 CE) in the Valley of Oaxaca Monte Alban and the capital of the neighbouring state, Teotihuacaln declined, with public buildings no longer being maintained and the population of the capitals declining. A mixture of internal and external reasons for this decline are suggested, and has been summed up by Flannery and Marcus: ‘...without the ever-present competitive threat of Teotihuacan, there was one less reason to support what already had become a maladaptive concentration of population on an unproductive 400-m mountaintop.’[12] Unfortunately, detailed chronological data from this period is not present as the ceramic sequences of the IIIB and IV phases are very difficult to differentiate and radiocarbon dates have yet to refine the sequence.[13]The IIIb and IV phases have therefore been combined as one phase on this page. During this phase the population which had previously occupied the capital dispersed into smaller settlements throughout the valley and the valley became occupied by a series of militaristic ‘city states,[14] which lasted until the arrival of the Spanish in the 1520s.[15]
Population and political organization
As the Zapotec state was in a process of fragmentation into smaller polities, the actual extent of any polity in the Valley of Oaxaca is very difficult to determine for this period. [16][17] Although the polity was politically fragmented, nobles continued to occupy hereditary positions of power, which were legitimated through their relationship with their ancestors.[18] Nobles continued to have control over and exclusive access to resources and exercised rights not available to commoners “Members of ruling houses, for example, had the right to engage in warfare, take captives, play the ballgame, and offer human sacrifices.”[19]
The overall population of the valley grew during this period, although people were no longer unified under one polity. [20] The population of the whole valley has been estimated at 90,000-200,000 people. [21]

Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ Alice Williams ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ suspected unknown ♥ As the Zapotec state was in a process of fragmentation into smaller polities, the actual extent of any polity in the Valley of Oaxaca is very difficult to determine for this period.[22]

♠ Polity Population ♣ [7245-9660] ♥ People. Gary Feinman (pers. comm.): population should be larger (>100,100? will get reference)

The overall population of the valley increased during this period, but was divided into numerous (15-20, based on evidence for the MA V phase) smaller political entities.[23]

The population of the whole valley (based on the total of settlement population estimates) would have been 89,973-199,830 people.[24] A very coarse estimate of the average polity population is taken as the average between the higher and lower population estimates for the whole valley (144,901 people) divided by 15 and 20 to give a higher and lower range of polity size (9660 and 7245 people respectively). The precise numbers for the polity population estimates should not be taken as accurate predictions of polity population size.

"Table 6.1. Late Classic population in Valley of Oaxaca subareas."[25]

Etla: 24053 (MA IIIB); Central 39189 (MA IIIB); N Valle Grande 23000 (Early IIIB-IV); S Valle Grande: 13000 (Early IIIB-IV); W Tlacolula: 21000 (Early IIIB-IV); E Tlacolula: 18000 (Early IIIB-IV); Ejutla (Early IIIB-IV): 8000; Albarradas: 1000 (Early IIIB-IV); Sola: 7000 (Early IIIB-IV).[26]
Total (Monte Alban IIIB): 154,242

"Table 6.1. Late Classic population in Valley of Oaxaca subareas."[27]

Etla: 15000 (Late IIIB-IV); Central: 18000 (Late IIIB-IV); N Valle Grande: 18678 (MA IV); S Valle Grande: 9439 (MA IV); W Tlacolula: 15761 (MA IV); E Tlacolula: 24132 (MA IV); Ejutla: 3029 (MA IV); Albarradas: 2406 (MA IV); Sola: 7066 (MA IV).[28]
Total (Monte Alban IV): 113,511

"Table 11.3. Population in the largest centers, by phase, in Oaxaca and Ejutla."[29]

Valley of Oaxaca population (Largest center in Oaxaca): Tierras Largas: 327 (128); San Jose: 1942 (1384); Guadalupe: 1788 (774); Rosario: 1835 (564); Early I: 14652 (5250); Late I: 51339 (17242); Monte Alban II: 41927 (14492); Monte Alban IIIA: 120121 (16507); Monte Alban IIIB: 78930 (24189); Monte Alban IV: 77612 (16117); Monte Alban V: 166467 (13831).[30]

♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣ [15,000-30,000] ♥ Inhabitants. Monte Alban remained the largest settlement in the valley during this period.[31]

Population of at least 50,000 by Monte Alban IIIb (600-800 AD)[32]

"Table 11.3. Population in the largest centers, by phase, in Oaxaca and Ejutla."[33]

Valley of Oaxaca population (Largest center in Oaxaca): Monte Alban IIIB: 78930 (24189); Monte Alban IV: 77612 (16117).[34]

Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ 3: 500 CE-700 CE; 2: 700 CE-900 CE ♥ levels. Monte Alban declined in administrative importance over these periods, with Jalieza gradually becoming the largest settlement in the valley. [35] Smaller, regional towns became more important in the subvalleys.[36]

Inferred to be the IIIb phase (500-700 CE) settlement pattern:[37]

1. Primary centres-around 2 per cent of sites during this period had a population of 1000-2500 people. The larger sites had some evidence for administrative buildings, elite residences, plazas and occasional ballcourts

2. Secondary centres-around 8 per cent of sites during this period had a population of minimum 180-500 to maximum 380-1000 people.
3. Smallest settlements-most sites during this period were small isolated residences, hamlets or villages of fewer than 290 people.[38]

"Table 8.7. Monte Alban IV population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejuta."[39]

Valley of Oaxaca: Level 1: 16117; II: 5000-6222; III: 3590-4062; IV: 486-2900; V: 269-405; VI: 102-198; No rank: 8-95.[40]

♠ Administrative levels ♣ ♥ levels. Later ethnohistoric records written by the Spanish after 1520 describe the coqui or noblemen who oversaw the villages, as well as the golaba, or “lord’s solicitor” who oversaw the collection of goods and services from the villages.[41] However, it is by no means clear that the same system existed several centuries prior.

♠ Religious levels ♣ ♥ levels. Ethnohistoric records written by the Spanish after 1520 describe the presence of full-time priests, or bigaña, during this period. [42] The bigaña were ranked beneath the uija-táo (or great seer) and above the ueza-eche, huetete colanij (sacrifice or diviner).[43] However, it is by no means clear that the same system existed several centuries prior.

♠ Military levels ♣ [1-2] ♥ levels. Later Spanish written records describe the presence of military officers and soldiers (civilian conscripts) during the MA V period, which may also apply to the MA IIIB-IV phases.[44] However, it is by no means clear that the same system existed several centuries prior. Current code inferred from previous polities.

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ inferred present ♥ Descriptions in the Spanish relaciones dating to the time of the Spanish conquest provide evidence for the presence of military officers in charge of competing armies at the end of this period. Their presence in the centuries before the Spanish conquest is inferred.[45][46]

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ inferred present ♥ Inferred present from the descriptions of military officers and armies in the Spanish relaciones at the end of the subsequent MA V period.[47][48]

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ inferred present ♥ Although direct evidence for a priesthood is lacking for this period, their presence in the earlier Monte Alban phases and at the time of the Spanish conquest in the 1520s suggests that priests may continued to have been present during these intermediate periods.[49]

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sixteenth-century Spanish written records refer to bureaucratic positions, such as the positions of tribute collector, ward boss and golaba, or “lord’s solicitor” who collected goods and services from surrounding villages, and so bureaucratic positions may have been present in these earlier phases.[50][51] However, we lack adequate information about administrative structures at Monte Albán to be able to discern whether full-time specialist bureaucrats (i.e. not just chiefs or generals with administrative duties) were present.[52][53]

♠ Examination system ♣ suspected unknown ♥ There is little direct evidence for bureaucracy during this period.[54]

♠ Merit promotion ♣ suspected unknown ♥ There is little direct evidence for bureaucracy during this period.[55]

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ inferred present: 500-800 CE; [present; absent]: 800-900 CE ♥ There is little direct evidence for bureaucracy during this period.[56] However, Charles Spencer commented: 'One cannot fail to be impressed by the amount and variety of public/institutional architecture constructed between B.C. 300 and A.D. 800 in and around the Main Plaza at Monte Alban. The archaeological data indicate that much of this architectural complexity was in existence by Monte Alban II (100 B.C. through A.D. 200). Many of these buildings do not appear to have been residential and most likely served an array of religious (e.g., the various structures associated with two-room temples), military (such as Building J and perhaps the Ballcourt), and other "administrative" functions (including a variety of other public/institutional buildings the functions of which are still unclear). At the same time, it is probably also appropriate to consider the quihuitao (royal palace) to be another example of a public/institutional building. Both the main candidate for a quihuitao at Monte Alban (the Patio Hundido complex, according to Flannery) and also the example recently excavated at El Palenque (which was probably the capital of a rival independent state polity in Late Formative times) near San Martin Tilcajete (see Spencer and Redmond 2004 in Lat Am Antiq, and Redmond and Spencer 2017 PNAS) were not associated with tombs like other elite (and non-elite) residences; also, both examples had "residential" as well as "ceremonial/governmental" components. Note that the El Palenque quihuitao is securely dated to the Late Monte Albán I phase (300-100 B.C.)'.[57]

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest there is evidence for a formal legal system during this period.[58]

♠ Judges ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest there is evidence for a formal legal system during this period.[59]

♠ Courts ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest there is evidence for a formal legal system during this period.[60]

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest there is evidence for a formal legal system during this period.[61]

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣ present ♥ Canals.[62] Gary Feinman (pers. comm.) writes that small-scale irrigation, such as check-dams and small canals were in use. [63]
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣ ♥
♠ markets ♣ present ♥ "Markets clearly have a long history in Mesoamerica before Aztec times. Back in the 1980s, I wrote a paper with Blanton and Kowalewski arguing that there were markets in Monte Albán I (ca. 500-200 BC). You can also find that argument in Ancient Mesoamerica and Ancient Oaxaca. While this may not yet be a consensual view yet, the literature on pre-Aztec markets across Mesoamerica is burgeoning."[64] Feinman and Nicholas adopt a "multiscalar perspective" in their book chapter to argue that marketplaces were a central part of the economy during the Classic period in the Valley Oaxaca.[65]
♠ food storage sites ♣ inferred absent ♥ No evidence for centralised food storage has been found at Monte Alban[66][67] although smaller storage areas dating to the IV period have been found at the Guila Naquitz cave[68] (these would presumably not have been state-owned).

Transport infrastructure

♠ Roads ♣ absent ♥ Only limited evidence for roads has been found (in earlier phases at Monte Alban), and these appear to have been restricted to within settlements. We asked Gary Feinman about roads in Oaxacan polities and he said: "It depends on what you mean by roads. There are definite roads/accessways within sites. Blanton defines some at Monte Albán and Linda [Nicholas] and I defined some at El Palmillo. These likely were not paved, but they may have been banked and were cleared. Between sites there are known 16th century trails, which were likely used for a long, long time. Again, they likely were not paved, but there were no beasts of burden."[69] Coded absent: we do not count accessways within settlements or paths and trails not constructed deliberately as roads.
♠ Bridges ♣ inferred absent ♥ Sources do not suggest there is evidence for bridges in prehispanic Valley of Oaxaca.[70]
♠ Canals ♣ inferred absent ♥ Although canals were present, they would not have been large enough to use as transport.[71]
♠ Ports ♣ absent ♥ The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ absent ♥ Sources only describe residential sites.[72]

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[73]
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Written records ♣ present ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Some examples have been found in tombs.[74] Mesoamerican civilizations, including the Maya, Aztec, Mixtec and Zapotec all possessed "a true form of writing: a series of hieroglyphs arranged in vertical columns and in many instances combined with numerals. The glyphs were at least indirectly related to a spoken language." Zapotec inscriptions are considered true writing, since the inscriptions had verbs.[75]
♠ Script ♣ present ♥ Evidence for carved glyphs and genealogical registers has been found.[76]
♠ Non-phonetic writing ♣ present ♥ Glyphs.[77]
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[78]

Kinds of Written Documents

♠ Lists, tables, and classifications ♣ present ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Some examples have been found in tombs.[79]
♠ Calendar ♣ present ♥ The ritual and secular calendars from the earlier periods continued to be in use until the Spanish conquest in the 1520s. [80]
♠ Sacred Texts ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[81]
♠ Religious literature ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[82]
♠ Practical literature ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[83]
♠ History ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[84]
♠ Philosophy ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[85]
♠ Scientific literature ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[86]
♠ Fiction ♣ absent ♥ Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Also carved glyphs denoting calendrical dates. Sources do not suggest that evidence for other types of writing has been found.[87]


Money

♠ Articles ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources do not suggest that monetary items have been found dating to this period.[88]
♠ Tokens ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources do not suggest that monetary items have been found dating to this period.[89]
♠ Precious metals ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest that monetary items have been found dating to this period.[90]
♠ Foreign coins ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest that monetary items have been found dating to this period.[91]
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest that monetary items have been found dating to this period.[92]
♠ Paper currency ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest that monetary items have been found dating to this period.[93]

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest there is evidence for a postal system during this period. [94]
♠ Postal stations ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest there is evidence for a postal system during this period. [95]
♠ General postal service ♣ absent ♥ Sources do not suggest there is evidence for a postal system during this period. [96]

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Alice Williams ♥

Military Technologies

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ absent ♥ Metalworking was not widely used in Mesoamerica, with metal products consisting mainly of small beads and ornaments.[97][98]
♠ Bronze ♣ absent ♥ Metalworking was not widely used in Mesoamerica, with metal products consisting mainly of small beads and ornaments.[99][100]
♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥ Metalworking was not widely used in Mesoamerica, with metal products consisting mainly of small beads and ornaments.[101][102]
♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥ Metalworking was not widely used in Mesoamerica, with metal products consisting mainly of small beads and ornaments.[103][104]

Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[105] only mention very little archaeological evidence for weaponry for this period, and this does not include javelins. However, weapons made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
♠ Atlatl ♣ present ♥ Present in the valley of Oaxaca since preceramic times (the Proto-Otomangueans) for hunting.[106] and, in previous periods, obsidian blades were found in Tomb 10 at San José Mogote which may have been hafted into atlatl darts.[107] In addition, glyphs depicting what may be atlatls or spearthrowers have been carved with the danzantes at San Jose Mogote.[108]
♠ Slings ♣ inferred present ♥ Sources[109] only mention very little archaeological evidence for weaponry for this period, and this does not include slings. However, weapons made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias. Moreover, Spanish documents record the use of slings at the end of the Monte Alban V period.[110] David Carballo (pers. comm.) wrote that slings for projecting stone and ceramic slingshots were present. [111]
♠ Self bow ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[112] only mention very little archaeological evidence for weaponry for this period, and this does not include bows of any kind. However, weapons made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias. Moreover, Spanish documents record the use of bows and arrows at the end of the Monte Alban V period.[113]
♠ Composite bow ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[114] only mention very little archaeological evidence for weaponry for this period, and this does not include bows of any kind. However, weapons made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias. Moreover, Spanish documents record the use of bows and arrows at the end of the Monte Alban V period.[115]
♠ Crossbow ♣ absent ♥ Hassig lists crossbows among the new military technologies the Spanish introduced to the region in the sixteenth century[116]
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ absent ♥
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ absent ♥
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ absent ♥ Gunpowder not yet invented or introduced.
♠ Handheld firearms ♣ absent ♥ Gunpowder not yet invented or introduced.

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ inferred present ♥ Sources[117] only mention very little archaeological evidence for weaponry for this period, and this does not include clubs. However, weapons made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias. David Carballo (pers. comm.) wrote that wooden clubs were present in this period. [118]
♠ Battle axes ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[119] only mention very little archaeological evidence for weaponry for this period, and this does not include axes. However, weapons made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
♠ Daggers ♣ {present; absent} ♥ Obsidian-edged wooden swords and daggers are inferred present based the presence of obsidian blades in the valley.[120] David Carballo (pers. comm.) wrote that these obsidian blades were knives rather than swords or daggers. [121]
♠ Swords ♣ {present; absent} ♥ Obsidian-edged wooden swords and daggers are inferred present based the presence of obsidian blades in the valley.[122] David Carballo (pers. comm.) wrote that these obsidian blades were knives rather than swords or daggers. [123]
♠ Spears ♣ inferred present ♥ Present in the valley of Oaxaca since preceramic times (the Proto-Otomangueans) for hunting.[124] However, it does seem to be clear whether they were also used as weapons in warfare.
♠ Polearms ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[125] only mention very little archaeological evidence for weaponry for this period, and this does not include polearms. However, weapons made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ absent ♥ Hassig lists war dogs among the new military "technologies" the Spanish introduced to the region in the sixteenth century[126]
♠ Donkeys ♣ absent ♥ Not native to region.
♠ Horses ♣ absent ♥ Hassig lists horses among the new military "technologies" the Spanish introduced to the region in the sixteenth century[127]
♠ Camels ♣ absent ♥ Not native to region.
♠ Elephants ♣ absent ♥ Not native to region.

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[128] only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
♠ Leather, cloth ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[129] only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
♠ Shields ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[130] only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
♠ Helmets ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[131] only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
♠ Breastplates ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[132] only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
♠ Limb protection ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Sources[133] only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
♠ Chainmail ♣ absent ♥ Metalworking was not widely used in Mesoamerica, with metal products consisting mainly of small beads and ornaments.[134][135]
♠ Scaled armor ♣ absent ♥ Metalworking was not widely used in Mesoamerica, with metal products consisting mainly of small beads and ornaments.[136][137]
♠ Laminar armor ♣ absent ♥ Metalworking was not widely used in Mesoamerica, with metal products consisting mainly of small beads and ornaments.[138][139]
♠ Plate armor ♣ absent ♥ Metalworking was not widely used in Mesoamerica, with metal products consisting mainly of small beads and ornaments.[140][141]

Naval technology

♠ Small vessels (canoes, etc) ♣ absent ♥ The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
♠ Merchant ships pressed into service ♣ absent ♥ The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.
♠ Specialized military vessels ♣ absent ♥ The Valley of Oaxaca is landlocked.

Fortifications

♠ Settlements in a defensive position ♣ present ♥ Monte Albán was built on a hill 400m above the valley floor and a number of other settlements were located on hilltops.[142][143]
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Monte Albán was built with a 3km defensive wall along the shallower slopes of the hill, and wooden palisades may have been present.[144]
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ present ♥ The defensive wall around Monte Alban was made of earth and stone.[145][146]
♠ Ditch ♣ inferred absent ♥ Monte Albán's fortifications are relatively well understood, but no source mentions the existence of a ditch.[147]
♠ Moat ♣ inferred absent ♥ Monte Albán's fortifications are relatively well understood, but no source mentions the existence of a moat.[148]
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ present ♥ The defensive wall around Monte Alban was made of earth and stone.[149][150]
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ absent ♥ The defensive wall around Monte Alban was made of earth and stone.[151][152]
♠ Fortified camps ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ absent ♥ Monte Albán was built with a 3km defensive wall along the shallower slopes of the hill.[153] Another wall was constructed along the northern boundary of Monte Albán, but not until the Late I or II periods.[154]
♠ Long walls ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Modern fortifications ♣ absent ♥ Gunpowder not yet invented or introduced.

Other technologies

Phase II Variables (polity-based)

Institutional Variables

♠ RA ♣ Gréine Jordan ♥

Limits on Power of the Chief Executive

Power distributed

♠ Constraint on executive by government ♣ suspected unknown ♥ While there is evidence of rulers the relationship between rulers and government is unclear. imagery on tomb art and carved-stone monuments shows how Classic-period political authority was more exclusionary and less communal than during the Formative (A. Joyce 2004:207- 11; Urcid 2005:154- 5). Genealogy became a key element of ideologies that legitimated the social position of corporate groups as well as rulers. Using Giddens’ (1979:193- 5) framework for understanding how ideology creates, maintains, and justifies sectional interests, genealogy can be seen as having reified status distinctions among corporate groups since the prominence of apical ancestors was fixed. The imagery presented apical ancestors of noble groups as instrumental in the cosmic creation and their continued propitiation was crucial to world-centering rituals. This belief universalized the social position of the nobility by making nobles intermediaries between commoners and the divine, since nobles were both descended from and had privileged access to important ancestors. Wealth and status was further reified since rights to property, privileges, and special offices were held via membership in the corporate group. Members of ruling houses, for example, had the right to engage in warfare, take captives, play the ballgame, and offer human sacrifices. Status within the group was further reified as a function of a person’s proximity to the apical ancestor. Indications that important offices could be inherited, such as that of rainmaker and paramount sacrificer, suggest the means through which other nobles as well as commoners could be excluded from positions of power." [155]
♠ Constraint on executive by non-government ♣ suspected unknown ♥ While there is evidence of rulers the relationship between rulers and government is unclear. imagery on tomb art and carved-stone monuments shows how Classic-period political authority was more exclusionary and less communal than during the Formative (A. Joyce 2004:207- 11; Urcid 2005:154- 5). Genealogy became a key element of ideologies that legitimated the social position of corporate groups as well as rulers. Using Giddens’ (1979:193- 5) framework for understanding how ideology creates, maintains, and justifies sectional interests, genealogy can be seen as having reified status distinctions among corporate groups since the prominence of apical ancestors was fixed. The imagery presented apical ancestors of noble groups as instrumental in the cosmic creation and their continued propitiation was crucial to world-centering rituals. This belief universalized the social position of the nobility by making nobles intermediaries between commoners and the divine, since nobles were both descended from and had privileged access to important ancestors. Wealth and status was further reified since rights to property, privileges, and special offices were held via membership in the corporate group. Members of ruling houses, for example, had the right to engage in warfare, take captives, play the ballgame, and offer human sacrifices. Status within the group was further reified as a function of a person’s proximity to the apical ancestor. Indications that important offices could be inherited, such as that of rainmaker and paramount sacrificer, suggest the means through which other nobles as well as commoners could be excluded from positions of power." [156]
♠ Impeachment ♣ suspected unknown ♥ While there is evidence of rulers the relationship between rulers and government is unclear. imagery on tomb art and carved-stone monuments shows how Classic-period political authority was more exclusionary and less communal than during the Formative (A. Joyce 2004:207- 11; Urcid 2005:154- 5). Genealogy became a key element of ideologies that legitimated the social position of corporate groups as well as rulers. Using Giddens’ (1979:193- 5) framework for understanding how ideology creates, maintains, and justifies sectional interests, genealogy can be seen as having reified status distinctions among corporate groups since the prominence of apical ancestors was fixed. The imagery presented apical ancestors of noble groups as instrumental in the cosmic creation and their continued propitiation was crucial to world-centering rituals. This belief universalized the social position of the nobility by making nobles intermediaries between commoners and the divine, since nobles were both descended from and had privileged access to important ancestors. Wealth and status was further reified since rights to property, privileges, and special offices were held via membership in the corporate group. Members of ruling houses, for example, had the right to engage in warfare, take captives, play the ballgame, and offer human sacrifices. Status within the group was further reified as a function of a person’s proximity to the apical ancestor. Indications that important offices could be inherited, such as that of rainmaker and paramount sacrificer, suggest the means through which other nobles as well as commoners could be excluded from positions of power." [157]

Social Mobility

Status

Elite status

♠ elite status is hereditary ♣ present ♥ From Phase 1: Genealogical registers of noble ancestry (including important marriages, and sometimes important life events of individuals) were recorded in stone during this period. Some examples have been found in tombs.[158]"To summarize, imagery on tomb art and carved-stone monuments shows how Classic-period political authority was more exclusionary and less communal than during the Formative (A. Joyce 2004:207- 11; Urcid 2005:154- 5). Genealogy became a key element of ideologies that legitimated the social position of corporate groups as well as rulers. Using Giddens’ (1979:193- 5) framework for understanding how ideology creates, maintains, and justifies sectional interests, genealogy can be seen as having reified status distinctions among corporate groups since the prominence of apical ancestors was fixed. The imagery presented apical ancestors of noble groups as instrumental in the cosmic creation and their continued propitiation was crucial to world-centering rituals. This belief universalized the social position of the nobility by making nobles intermediaries between commoners and the divine, since nobles were both descended from and had privileged access to important ancestors. Wealth and status was further reified since rights to property, privileges, and special offices were held via membership in the corporate group. Members of ruling houses, for example, had the right to engage in warfare, take captives, play the ballgame, and offer human sacrifices. Status within the group was further reified as a function of a person’s proximity to the apical ancestor. Indications that important offices could be inherited, such as that of rainmaker and paramount sacrificer, suggest the means through which other nobles as well as commoners could be excluded from positions of power." [159]

Religion and Normative Ideology

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni ♥

Deification of Rulers

♠ Rulers are legitimated by gods ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Iconography suggests that rulers and other elites presented themselves as conduits to the realm of the gods, intermediaries between humans and gods. [160]

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ inferred absent ♥ Iconography suggests that rulers and other elites presented themselves as conduits to the realm of the gods, intermediaries between humans and gods. [161]

Normative Ideological Aspects of Equity and Prosociality

♠ Ideological reinforcement of equality ♣ absent ♥ "Nobles were distinguished from commoners by dress, access to exotic goods, control of esoteric knowledge (e.g., special rituals, literacy), participation in restricted rituals, and by residing in architecturally elaborate houses. Perhaps nowhere is the special social position of nobility as clearly portrayed as in imagery on carved-stone monuments and tomb murals. Nobles are shown in elaborate attire, sometimes dressed as jaguars, richly ornamented and often shown in the act of dominating captives, performing human sacrifice, marrying, or communicating with ancestors." [162] "To summarize, imagery on tomb art and carved-stone monuments shows how Classic-period political authority was more exclusionary and less communal than during the Formative (A. Joyce 2004:207- 11; Urcid 2005:154- 5). Genealogy became a key element of ideologies that legitimated the social position of corporate groups as well as rulers. Using Giddens’ (1979:193- 5) framework for understanding how ideology creates, maintains, and justifies sectional interests, genealogy can be seen as having reified status distinctions among corporate groups since the prominence of apical ancestors was fixed. The imagery presented apical ancestors of noble groups as instrumental in the cosmic creation and their continued propitiation was crucial to world-centering rituals. This belief universalized the social position of the nobility by making nobles intermediaries between commoners and the divine, since nobles were both descended from and had privileged access to important ancestors. Wealth and status was further reified since rights to property, privileges, and special offices were held via membership in the corporate group. Members of ruling houses, for example, had the right to engage in warfare, take captives, play the ballgame, and offer human sacrifices. Status within the group was further reified as a function of a person’s proximity to the apical ancestor. Indications that important offices could be inherited, such as that of rainmaker and paramount sacrificer, suggest the means through which other nobles as well as commoners could be excluded from positions of power." [163]

♠ Ideological thought equates rulers and commoners ♣ absent ♥ "Nobles were distinguished from commoners by dress, access to exotic goods, control of esoteric knowledge (e.g., special rituals, literacy), participation in restricted rituals, and by residing in architecturally elaborate houses. Perhaps nowhere is the special social position of nobility as clearly portrayed as in imagery on carved-stone monuments and tomb murals. Nobles are shown in elaborate attire, sometimes dressed as jaguars, richly ornamented and often shown in the act of dominating captives, performing human sacrifice, marrying, or communicating with ancestors." [164] "To summarize, imagery on tomb art and carved-stone monuments shows how Classic-period political authority was more exclusionary and less communal than during the Formative (A. Joyce 2004:207- 11; Urcid 2005:154- 5). Genealogy became a key element of ideologies that legitimated the social position of corporate groups as well as rulers. Using Giddens’ (1979:193- 5) framework for understanding how ideology creates, maintains, and justifies sectional interests, genealogy can be seen as having reified status distinctions among corporate groups since the prominence of apical ancestors was fixed. The imagery presented apical ancestors of noble groups as instrumental in the cosmic creation and their continued propitiation was crucial to world-centering rituals. This belief universalized the social position of the nobility by making nobles intermediaries between commoners and the divine, since nobles were both descended from and had privileged access to important ancestors. Wealth and status was further reified since rights to property, privileges, and special offices were held via membership in the corporate group. Members of ruling houses, for example, had the right to engage in warfare, take captives, play the ballgame, and offer human sacrifices. Status within the group was further reified as a function of a person’s proximity to the apical ancestor. Indications that important offices could be inherited, such as that of rainmaker and paramount sacrificer, suggest the means through which other nobles as well as commoners could be excluded from positions of power." [165]
♠ Ideological thought equates elites and commoners ♣ absent ♥ "Nobles were distinguished from commoners by dress, access to exotic goods, control of esoteric knowledge (e.g., special rituals, literacy), participation in restricted rituals, and by residing in architecturally elaborate houses. Perhaps nowhere is the special social position of nobility as clearly portrayed as in imagery on carved-stone monuments and tomb murals. Nobles are shown in elaborate attire, sometimes dressed as jaguars, richly ornamented and often shown in the act of dominating captives, performing human sacrifice, marrying, or communicating with ancestors." [166] "To summarize, imagery on tomb art and carved-stone monuments shows how Classic-period political authority was more exclusionary and less communal than during the Formative (A. Joyce 2004:207- 11; Urcid 2005:154- 5). Genealogy became a key element of ideologies that legitimated the social position of corporate groups as well as rulers. Using Giddens’ (1979:193- 5) framework for understanding how ideology creates, maintains, and justifies sectional interests, genealogy can be seen as having reified status distinctions among corporate groups since the prominence of apical ancestors was fixed. The imagery presented apical ancestors of noble groups as instrumental in the cosmic creation and their continued propitiation was crucial to world-centering rituals. This belief universalized the social position of the nobility by making nobles intermediaries between commoners and the divine, since nobles were both descended from and had privileged access to important ancestors. Wealth and status was further reified since rights to property, privileges, and special offices were held via membership in the corporate group. Members of ruling houses, for example, had the right to engage in warfare, take captives, play the ballgame, and offer human sacrifices. Status within the group was further reified as a function of a person’s proximity to the apical ancestor. Indications that important offices could be inherited, such as that of rainmaker and paramount sacrificer, suggest the means through which other nobles as well as commoners could be excluded from positions of power." [167]

♠ Ideology reinforces prosociality ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ production of public goods ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Moralizing Supernatural Powers

♠ Moral concern is primary ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is certain ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing norms are broad ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is targeted ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement of rulers ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by elites ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by commoners ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in afterlife ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in this life ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is agentic ♣ inferred absent ♥

These data were reviewed by expert advisors and consultants. For a detailed description of these data, refer to the relevant Analytic Narratives, reference tables, and acknowledgements page. [168] [169] [170]

References

  1. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383, p376
  2. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p183
  3. ↑ Caso, et al, 1967 and Acosta, 1965, cited in Balkansky, A. K. (1998). "Origin and collapse of complex societies in Oaxaca, Mexico: Evaluating the era from 1965 to the present." Journal of World Prehistory 12(4): 451-493.
  4. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p183
  5. ↑ Caso, et al, 1967 and Acosta, 1965, cited in Balkansky, A. K. (1998). "Origin and collapse of complex societies in Oaxaca, Mexico: Evaluating the era from 1965 to the present." Journal of World Prehistory 12(4): 451-493.
  6. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p184
  7. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p183
  8. ↑ Caso, et al, 1967 and Acosta, 1965, cited in Balkansky, A. K. (1998). "Origin and collapse of complex societies in Oaxaca, Mexico: Evaluating the era from 1965 to the present." Journal of World Prehistory 12(4): 451-493.
  9. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  10. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  11. ↑ Marcus, J. and K. V. Flannery (1996). Zapotec civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley, Thames and Hudson London, p4. 27
  12. ↑ (Flannery & Marcus 1983, 183) Flannery, Kent and Marcus, Joyce. 1983. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Museum of Anthropology. New York: Academic Press. p.183https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/CNG67KKA
  13. ↑ (Flannery & Marcus 1983, 184) Flannery, Kent and Marcus, Joyce. 1983. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Museum of Anthropology. New York: Academic Press. p.184 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/CNG67KKA
  14. ↑ (Flannery & Marcus 1983, 184) Flannery, Kent and Marcus, Joyce. 1983. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Museum of Anthropology. New York: Academic Press. p.184https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/CNG67KKA
  15. ↑ (Flannery & Marcus 1976, 376) Flannery, Kent V. and Joyce. Marcus. 1976. ‘Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos.’ American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. p.376 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/QKPEF5Q8
  16. ↑ (Marcus & Flannery 1996) Marcus, Kent and Flannery, Joyce. 1996. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/SHF4S8D7
  17. ↑ (Flannery & Marcus 1983) Flannery, Kent and Marcus, Joyce. 1983. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Museum of Anthropology. New York: Academic Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/CNG67KKA
  18. ↑ (Joyce 2009, 198) Joyce, A.A. 2009. 'Peoples of America: Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico'. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 198. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/JPXCWSSG
  19. ↑ (Joyce 2009, 215-217) Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 215-217 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/JPXCWSSG
  20. ↑ (Flannery & Marcus 1983) Flannery, Kent and Marcus, Joyce. 1983. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Museum of Anthropology. New York: Academic Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/CNG67KKA.</
  21. ↑ (Kowalewski et al. 1989) Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. 1989. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/JH54I6Q3
  22. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  23. ↑ Feinman, G. M., et al. (1985). "Long-term demographic change: A perspective from the valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 12(3): 333-362. p359-61
  24. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor
  25. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2017, 84) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2017. Settlement Patterns in the Albarradas Area of Highland Oaxaca, Mexico: Frontiers, Boundaries, and Interaction. Fieldiana Anthropology, 46(1):1-162. Publication 1572. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-46.1.1
  26. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2017, 84) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2017. Settlement Patterns in the Albarradas Area of Highland Oaxaca, Mexico: Frontiers, Boundaries, and Interaction. Fieldiana Anthropology, 46(1):1-162. Publication 1572. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-46.1.1
  27. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2017, 84) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2017. Settlement Patterns in the Albarradas Area of Highland Oaxaca, Mexico: Frontiers, Boundaries, and Interaction. Fieldiana Anthropology, 46(1):1-162. Publication 1572. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-46.1.1
  28. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2017, 84) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2017. Settlement Patterns in the Albarradas Area of Highland Oaxaca, Mexico: Frontiers, Boundaries, and Interaction. Fieldiana Anthropology, 46(1):1-162. Publication 1572. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-46.1.1
  29. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 183) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1
  30. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 183) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1
  31. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor
  32. ↑ (Gendrop and Heyden 1975, 76-91) Gendrop, Paul. Heyden. Doris. 1975. Pre-Columbian Architecture of Mesoamerica. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers. New York.
  33. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 183) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1
  34. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 183) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1
  35. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p234
  36. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p234
  37. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p188-9
  38. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p188-9
  39. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 135) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1
  40. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 135) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1
  41. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. p376
  42. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. p376
  43. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People. New York. p350
  44. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. p376
  45. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. p376
  46. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p217-8
  47. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. p376
  48. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p217-8
  49. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p182
  50. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. p376
  51. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p217
  52. ↑ Gary Feinman, pers. comm., January 2018.
  53. ↑ Charles Spencer, pers. comm., January 2018.
  54. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  55. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  56. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  57. ↑ Charles Spencer, pers. comm., January 2018.
  58. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  59. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  60. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  61. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  62. ↑ Kirkby, A. (1973). "The use of land and water resources in past and present Valley of Oaxaca. Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs No. 5." Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
  63. ↑ (Feinman, Gary. Personal Communication with Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. Email. April 2020)
  64. ↑ Gary Feinman, personal communication to Peter Turchin and Jenny Reddish, March 2020.
  65. ↑ (Feinman and Nicholas 2010) Gary M. Feinman and Linda M. Nicholas. 2010. "A Multiscalar Perspective on Market Exchange in the Classic-Period Valley of Oaxaca." In Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 85-98. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
  66. ↑ Feinman, G. M. and Nicholas, L. M (2012) The Late Prehispanic economy of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico: weaving threads from data, theory, and subsequent history. Political Economy, Neoliberalism, and the Prehistoric Economies of Latin America. Vol 32: 225-258. p235
  67. ↑ Blanton, R. E., et al. (1982). The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Regents of the University of Michigan, the Museum of Anthropology, p55
  68. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p206
  69. ↑ Gary Feinman, personal communication to Peter Turchin and Jenny Reddish, March 2020.
  70. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  71. ↑ Kirkby, A. (1973). "The use of land and water resources in past and present Valley of Oaxaca. Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs No. 5." Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
  72. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  73. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  74. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p184
  75. ↑ Joyce Marcus. February 1980. Zapotec Writing. Scientific American. Vol 242. No 2. Scientific American, Nature America, Inc. pp.50-67. URL: http://www.jstor.rg/stable/24966257
  76. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  77. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  78. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  79. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p184
  80. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  81. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  82. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  83. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  84. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  85. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  86. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  87. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  88. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  89. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  90. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  91. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  92. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  93. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  94. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  95. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  96. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  97. ↑ Coe, M. D., Koontz, R. (2013) Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (7th ed.) Thames and Hudson, London, p157
  98. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finten, L., Blanton, R. E., Nicholas, L. M. (1989) Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor.
  99. ↑ Coe, M. D., Koontz, R. (2013) Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (7th ed.) Thames and Hudson, London, p157
  100. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finten, L., Blanton, R. E., Nicholas, L. M. (1989) Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor.
  101. ↑ Coe, M. D., Koontz, R. (2013) Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (7th ed.) Thames and Hudson, London, p157
  102. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finten, L., Blanton, R. E., Nicholas, L. M. (1989) Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor.
  103. ↑ Coe, M. D., Koontz, R. (2013) Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (7th ed.) Thames and Hudson, London, p157
  104. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finten, L., Blanton, R. E., Nicholas, L. M. (1989) Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor.
  105. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  106. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p36
  107. ↑ Marcus, J. and K. V. Flannery (1996). Zapotec civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley, Thames and Hudson London, p133
  108. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p153
  109. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  110. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People. New York. p217-8
  111. ↑ (Carballo, David. Personal Communication with Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. Email. April 2020)
  112. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  113. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People. New York. p217-8
  114. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  115. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People. New York. p217-8
  116. ↑ (Hassig 1992, 143) Hassig, Robert. 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. London; Berkeley: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/E9VHCKDG
  117. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  118. ↑ (Carballo, David. Personal Communication with Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. Email. April 2020.
  119. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  120. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  121. ↑ (Carballo, David. Personal Communication with Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. Email. April 2020.
  122. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  123. ↑ (Carballo, David. Personal Communication with Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. Email. April 2020.
  124. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York., p36
  125. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  126. ↑ (Hassig 1992, 143) Hassig, Robert. 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. London; Berkeley: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/E9VHCKDG
  127. ↑ (Hassig 1992, 143) Hassig, Robert. 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. London; Berkeley: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/E9VHCKDG
  128. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  129. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  130. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  131. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  132. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  133. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  134. ↑ Coe, M. D., Koontz, R. (2013) Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (7th ed.) Thames and Hudson, London, p157
  135. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finten, L., Blanton, R. E., Nicholas, L. M. (1989) Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor.
  136. ↑ Coe, M. D., Koontz, R. (2013) Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (7th ed.) Thames and Hudson, London, p157
  137. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finten, L., Blanton, R. E., Nicholas, L. M. (1989) Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor.
  138. ↑ Coe, M. D., Koontz, R. (2013) Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (7th ed.) Thames and Hudson, London, p157
  139. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finten, L., Blanton, R. E., Nicholas, L. M. (1989) Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor.
  140. ↑ Coe, M. D., Koontz, R. (2013) Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (7th ed.) Thames and Hudson, London, p157
  141. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finten, L., Blanton, R. E., Nicholas, L. M. (1989) Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, The Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Volume II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor.
  142. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383.
  143. ↑ Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor
  144. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804
  145. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p150
  146. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804
  147. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  148. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York.
  149. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p150
  150. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804
  151. ↑ Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p150
  152. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804
  153. ↑ Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804
  154. ↑ Marcus, J. and K. V. Flannery (1996). Zapotec civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley, Thames and Hudson London, p151
  155. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico pp. 215-217. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  156. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico pp. 215-217. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  157. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico pp. 215-217. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  158. ↑ Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p184
  159. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico pp. 215-217. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  160. ↑ (Feinman, Gary. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email)
  161. ↑ (Feinman, Gary. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email)
  162. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico p. 198. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  163. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico pp. 215-217. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  164. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico p. 198. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  165. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico pp. 215-217. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  166. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico p. 198. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  167. ↑ Joyce, A.A. 2009. Peoples of America : Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico pp. 215-217. Hoboken, GB: Wiley-Blackwell.
  168. ↑ http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  169. ↑ http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  170. ↑ http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html
Retrieved from "http://seshatdatabank.info/browser/index.php?title=MxAlb3B&oldid=30897"