Seafood and the origins of farming

Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory - Anthro 490.3: Class 6

Seafood and the origins of farming

ã Copyright Bruce Owen 2003

Chronology

Moseley is confusing about chronology in part because the reality is confusing
things happened at different times at different places, making it difficult to create consistent, useful periods
that is why Moseley gives so many dates for sites and events
try plotting them on the chronology chart handout as a way of taking notes while you read

Moseley's chronological terms in the textbook (with calibrated dates):

note that in this chapter, he switches from BP to BC dates
Lithic period

up to about 4,000 cal BC
the tapering-off of the Pleistocene

Preceramic period:

about 4,000 cal BC to roughly 2,000 cal BC
the first few thousand years of stable modern climate, sea level, ecological zones
since sea level had stopped rising, preceramic sites have not been covered by the sea, as earlier sites near the shore would have been

so the evidence is more complete

Late Preceramic period, also called the Cotton Preceramic period

the later part of the Preceramic
about 3,200-2,000 cal BC

An alternative way of dividing up time that you may see in some sources

in radiocarbon years, these periods are divided at round 2000 year intervals
Paleoindian period: first arrival of people up to about 9,500 cal BC
Early Archaic period: 9,500 cal BC to 6,900 cal BC
Middle Archaic period: 6,900 cal BC to 4,800 cal BC
Late Archaic period: 4,800 cal BC to 2,000 cal BC

A big issue in the later Lithic period and the Preceramic is how people got their food, and how that changed over time

specifically, how and why the foraging, hunting, and fishing people that we saw last time began to add farming to their economies
this is important for several reasons

first, virtually all modern societies are based directly or indirectly on agriculture

so the transition to agriculture seems important in itself

second, as we will see next time, Preceramic people and their descendents built some very large structures and may have had fairly complex societies

so we want to know how they supported all that impressive activity

How can we tell when people grew their own plant foods, as opposed to collecting wild plant foods?

finding fields, canals, etc.

but we expect to see this sort of evidence only after farming has become fairly well developed and widespread, probably not at the early stages

finding remains of domesticated plants

or, if we are interested in herding, finding remains of domesticated animals

OK, so how do we recognized domesticated plants or animals, as opposed to wild ones?
Domestication

means genetic modification of the plant or animal population through human intervention in their survival and reproduction (intentional or not)

removing certain plants or animals in order to eat them leaves a selected subset to reproduce

the next generation is more like that subset that bore them

planting seeds or bringing animals together to mate means that humans are selecting which ones will reproduce

again, the next generation will have more of the traits of the selected subset

Some of the major plants domesticated in South America (a partial list)

maize (corn) (probably domesticated in Central America)
"pseudocereals": quinoa, amaranth
beans: common bean, lima bean, jack bean
roots and tubers: potato, sweet potato, yuca (manioc), jicama, oca, ulluco, achira (a rhizome), etc.
various squashes
peanut
chili pepper
tree fruits: guava, papaya, pineapple, chirimoya, avocado, lucuma, pacay
"industrial" crops

cotton (for fishing line and nets, possibly domesticated in tropical Ecuador or northernmost coastal Peru)
gourd (for making containers, floats, etc.)

medicinal domesticates: coca, tobacco

The major domesticated animals of Andean South America:

camelids: llama, alpaca
guinea pig (cuy)
dog

von Humboldt's theory of why/how domestication happened, Moseley's version:

as human populations grow, people are pushed into less favorable environments

in the Andes, that generally means higher-elevation areas

the plants and animals they know and like are scarcer or absent in these areas
so people help familiar food plants to grow in these areas beyond their natural ranges

by diverting water to them, weeding, tilling the soil, planting seeds, etc.

this has the effect of selecting for certain characteristics, intentionally or not

The process and evidence of domestication

we will look only at South America here

different plants, processes, and dates of domestication in North and Central America
some of these may be related to South America (especially the domestication of maize in Central America), but we won't go into that

the general pattern in the Andes:

there was no single "agricultural revolution"
instead, different plants and animals were first domesticated in different areas, at different times, and they were adopted in other places in an irregular, slow pattern

at first each plant just added a little to a fishing, hunting, and/or foraging lifestyle
some gradually became more important to the diet and were joined by additional domesticates as the millennia went by
in different places, domesticates were adopted in different orders at different times

we will look at just a few examples

there are many tens, if not hundreds of sites that have the oldest example or this or that domesticated plant in this or that area
spanning the range from around 9,500 cal BC to around 800 cal BC
Info on plants and dates here is from Deborah Pearsall 1992, The Origins of Plant Cultivation in South America, in Cowan and Watson (eds) The Origins of Agriculture

this differs from Moseley; I am not sure why
but I suspect that Pearsall, an expert in plants in the Andes, is more authoritative on this subject
I have calibrated all the dates from Pearsall, since the dates she gives for sites that I know from other sources appear to not be calibrated

Guitarrero Cave, highlands of Peru

oldest definite cultivated plants in the New World
mostly wild plants used for fiber mats and net bags, some wood fire-drills and weapon hafts
cultivated planats in the layers dating to 9,500-8,700 cal BC:

oca (a tuber)
bean, lima bean
chile pepper
lucuma (a fruit)

how do we know these were cultivated?

they are not native to the area
so they were probably grown by people and becoming domesticated

this suggests that they may have encouraged (and domesticated) local plants, too
Moseley also mentions ulluco, pacay, rhizomes (edible roots)

Tres Ventanas Cave, headwaters of the Chilca valley, central highlands of Peru

6 dates, from 9,500 to 5,300 cal BC
Pearsall associates various tubers with the earliest date (9,500 cal BC):

potato, sweet potato, ulluco, jicama, yuca (manioc)

Chilca caves, central coast of Peru, near lomas

may be as old as Guitarrero cave and Tres Ventanas cave, but may also be a bit more recent
9,500-6,900 cal BC

the same tubers as at Tres Ventanas, far up the nearby Chilca valley: potato, sweet potato, ulluco, jicama, yuca (manioc)

Ayacucho area caves

6,600-5,300 cal BC

industrial: gourds
staple: quinoa, squash
Moseley dates these caves to 9,500 cal BC

5,300-3,900 cal BC

staple: beans, potato
"condiment": lucuma
medicinal: coca

3,900-2,100 cal BC

industrial: cotton
staple: achira (an edible root)
"condiment": chili peppers

Las Vegas, coastal Ecuador (as we saw last time)

bottle gourd by 9,700 cal BC?

observed as a circular discoloration in the soil, poorly preserved
Pearsall is not convinced

primitive maize phytoliths by 6,900-5,400 cal BC

But tending plants and herding animals remained only part of a mixed subsistence base including foraging and hunting for many thousands of years...
Note that these early examples of tending plants were generally from the highlands (a marginal environment) and the tropical lowlands of coastal Ecuador
On the coast of Peru and Chile, preceramic people were apparently content to stick mostly with foraging and fishing

the sea was so rich that they didn't have to bother doing more than minimal tending of "industrial" plants and some minor foods
6,900-4,810 cal BC: gourds on north coast of Peru
5,100-3,200 cal BC: various plants on central coast of Peru

industrial: cotton, gourds
staple: bean, lima bean, squash
"condiment": chili peppers, guava

Example of a coastal preceramic village: Paloma: 5,900-3,300 cal BC

In Moseley's chronology, this is the last bit of the Lithic period and the first bit of the Preceramic period
Description of Paloma

located up the coast from the mouth of the Chilca river

near areas of lomas vegetation

water from nearby spring, or pits? or wells?
village of reed huts with mat floors
storage(?) pits, some later ones lined with grass
hearths

small ones inside huts, maybe for light
larger ones outside, for cooking

simple technology, with grinding tools, net bags
separate garbage dump
population estimated by number of huts and grinding stones: two to ten families at a time?? Maybe higher?

Paloma subsistence

Mostly seafood, some lomas plants

some small animals
many wild plants, including lomas plants
small amounts of beans, squash, gourds, and guavas, either tended or traded for with people living along the river
preponderance of fish and shellfish is based on garbage, coprolites (dried human feces), stomach contents of burials, bone chemistry...

36 depressed areas might have been sunken gardens

sunken garden: dig a broad area down to where the soil is damp, plant crops there
not dated, so they could have been made by later users of the area

Moseley points out that even fishers need land plants, either collected wild or tended

cotton for fishing lines and nets
gourds for net floats and containers
reeds for boats, house construction, etc.

Year-round occupation was possible
But contact with distant people, or travel, is also indicated

Cacti from one-two days' walk away
Obsidian from 400 km away

Spondylus shell from Ecuador ("spiny oyster" with red lip, prized for ornaments, later used in ceremonial contexts)

Nearby, next to the river floodplain, was another village: Chilca I

probably occupied at the same time as La Paloma
but continued a little longer, after Paloma was abandoned
4,500-3,000 cal BC (dates calibrated from Pearsall 1992)
location by floodplain was better for tending plants
not surprisingly, a few more food plants than at Paloma:
various beans, squash, jicama (a tuber), achira (an edible root), caygua (somewhere between a zucchini and a green bell pepper)

Another coastal preceramic fishing village: Huaca Prieta

3,000-1,400 cal BC
Chicama valley (coast north of Moche valley)
mostly seafood
plus beans, squash, fruits, achira, peppers
and industrial crops (cotton, gourd)
known from important early excavations
pyroengraved gourds

Moseley's "Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization" (MFAC) hypothesis

complex societies in the Old World that built impressive monuments were all based on agriculture
but agriculture may not be the only possible basis for rise of complex societies
specifically, very early large monuments and social complexity on the coast of Peru were supported by an economy that depended heavily on fish and shellfish, with some farming for industrial crops and minor foods
MFAC as summarized by Moseley in the text, pg. 110: rich marine resources provided a basis for a "neolithic revolution" comparable to that associated with farming, supporting

sedentism
population growth
formation of large communities

many people in frequent contact, a "critical mass" of interactions

development of complex societies
building large monuments (our focus next time)

support for the MFAC hypothesis

large preceramic monuments were built precisely in the areas with richest fisheries, suggesting a causal relationship

summary of resources used in early Andean prehistory on the coast, with MFAC in mind:

first, mobile foragers using game and wild plants

low population density, small groups, mobile

by late Lithic period, they used more marine resources

especially shellfish
not very seasonal, so they allow permanent settlement (sedentism)
increasing use of rich marine resources fed continuing population growth
population grew until seafood was not a supplement, but a requirement

they were "locked in" in the same way the people who take up farming eventually are

Late preceramic period (also called "cotton preceramic") 3200-2000 cal BC

as population grew beyond what the most easily accessible marine foods could support, they elaborated their fishing technology

this required intensive gathering, and eventually tending, of "industrial" plants
cotton: the first significant crop, and most important for a long time, needed for fishing lines and nets
gourd for net floats and containers
hence this period is sometimes called the "Cotton Preceramic", 3200-2000 cal BC

only minor food crops, since marine resources were easier
little organization was needed for this economy
population got very large at some sites, and in regions with numerous modest sites
this mixed economy of maritime resources and minor farming supported early developments such as

craft production

bone, stonework, woodwork, gourd pyroengraving
baked clay figurines, spindle whorls, etc. presaged ceramics
twined (not woven) textiles

some variability in mortuary treatment

[we'll look at this next time]
suggesting some minor differences in social statuses
mostly by sex and age
but also some among within these groups, especially among adult males: incipient leaders or aristocracy?

monumental architecture

[We'll look at this next time]
may have required a large, organized, controlled work force - not everyone agrees

Initial period, starting about 2000 cal BC

pottery came into use

Moseley and Burger both suggest that pottery and agriculture often go together
but parts of the Andes may be exceptions
in my work on the far south coast, I have found large sites located well inland, where no sane fisher would live, with garbage full of domesticated plant remains, dating over 1000 years before the first pottery

farming replaced fishing as the main subsistence resource

requires building canal systems to irrigate more area outside floodplain
the important shift in the Andes was not the invention of agriculture, or even its adoption as a sideline, but the commitment to it after millennia of incidental farming

Moseley suggests that Preceramic people were "preadapted" to develop irrigated farming, so they could make the change rapidly

they already had the material and social know-how to farm

fishing had long required them to tend industrial crops (cotton, gourds, reeds) for lines, nets, floats, boats
and they had long tended minor staple foods for carbohydrates (tubers, beans, squashes)
and "condiment" crops (chili peppers, fruits)

they could free up labor for building canals and preparing fields because the maritime economy was so productive
they already had the corporate authority needed to motivate and coordinate group work

or at least many people see such authority implied by the monumental architecture

Burger does not...

needed to mobilize labor and direct canal construction
to organize maintenance work
and to adjudicate water distribution so that the system could function without breaking up
although some ethnohistorians argue that such projects were managed by cooperating families and villages without a corporate authority

but we don't know if they were originally built without it...

some fishing settlements continued, but new, large settlements appeared inland in the river valleys

where they must have focussed on agriculture
and where they built ever larger ceremonial structures

if already-existing authorities associated with earlier Preceramic monuments had organized canal construction and use, they might immediately have had some control over the new agricultural means of production

hence access to food for staple finance
and also power over farmers who depended on the canal water
the shift to irrigated agriculture could thus have been a big kick up in social complexity and the power of political/religious institutions

since fishers and farmers had to live in different places, two distinct social groups developed

with large-scale trading of food between them
probably contributing to increasing specialization and differences in social roles, wealth, and status

Moseley has adjusted MFAC since he first formulated it in 1975

Originally, it was pretty overstated, strongly stressing fish and shellfish almost to the exclusion of other foods

this was based on preliminary inspection of early sites, which are full of fish bone and shell

MFAC inspired a lot of research, which applied better methods and found wild and cultivated plants in these sites
Moseley has adjusted MFAC to take these findings into account
the modern version of MFAC emphasizes

an extremely productive combined resource base

seafood for protein
cultivated plants for carbohydrates

that required and encouraged a complex division of labor and economy

specialized fishers vs. specialized farmers
large-scale transportation and exchange of food between them

this productive, complex economy was made possible by the earlier mostly maritime adaptation

which "preadapted" or equipped people for a rapid shift to committed farming

this is still different from standard Old World "neolithic revolution" models

in which seafood plays no role
and in which specialization and exchange are separate developments with different causes, not inherent parts of the commitment to agriculture

in the modern version of MFAC, seafood was crucial, but was not the only resource

a similar increase in farming occurred in the mountains at roughly the same time

as people focussed more on casual farming, population shifted from the high puna to bottomlands of sierra valleys where plants grew more easily
although they did build ceremonial structures, they seem to have been conglomerations of individual projects built by separate families for small-group use, not planned ceremonial centers serving large groups

As at Kotosh, which we will look at next time
probably remained simpler, village-level societies

fishing was obviously not part of the process in the highlands...

The fuss over Caral, in the Supe valley

it dates to the Late Preceramic period: about 2,700-2,000 cal BC
and it has large monumental architecture (more on that next time)
yet its inland location and the remains in garbage there indicate that it was a farming community, dependent on irrigation, not just the naturally-watered floodplain

with a lot of seafood obtained either directly or, more likely, by trade with coastal maritime specialists

Moseley's MFAC emphasizes that seafood supported Late Preceramic complex societies, with minor (albeit essential) contributions from agriculture
Burger's version in today's reading is a bit more fully detailed and balanced, emphasizing the complementary roles of both, but still acknowledges that Late Preceramic complex society probably would not have been possible with the rich sea resources

Burger also argues that large monuments may not necessarily imply complex, stratified social organization

Pringle says that since Caral is earlier than any comparable "urban" center on the coast, so seafood cannot have been the crucial factor.

instead, farming was the basis for large sites and monuments, just as in the rest of the world
and such sites obviously must have had complex, stratified, "urban" societies
but: was Caral really "urban" or "complex"? (a subject for next time)
was it really "first"?
was it really independent of marine resources?

Shady Solis, Haas, and Creamer say that

this is one of the first places where people shifted from marine foraging to irrigation agriculture

but did they really "shift", if they ate so much seafood?

this is a very large site with large monuments and presumably complex social organization, unprecedented in scale at this date, with 16 other large, related sites in the same valley

so it may be where the pattern of large ceremonial centers first arose
do you recognize the origin-center -> civilization horizon model?

Sandweiss and Moseley reply:

Aspero, near the mouth of the Supe valley, is several centuries earlier and has significant monumental architecture

earliest date about 3,000 cal BC, and it is not on the earliest stage of construction, so building probably started earlier: 3,100 or 3,200 cal BC
so Caral is not the first such site

(although it is much larger)

Aspero is on the coast, and people at Aspero got virtually all their protein from the sea

so marine resources were essential
and probably supported the beginning of a pattern that later was elaborated at Caral

recent versions of MFAC emphasize that

seafood was essential for protein
plants provided carbohydrates
it was the conjunction of these that made large, permanent settlements and monumental architecture possible
My interpretation of their point here:

the point is that seafood was essential

not that it was the only food

Haas and Creamer reply:

Caral and the other inland Supe sites are much bigger than Aspero

[I'm not sure what that proves here, though]

Aspero might not be earlier than some inland sites, since many are still not dated

[true, but it is the oldest we know of, until we discover otherwise]

The settlement and building at Aspero depended on domesticated cotton, gourds, etc. for fishing gear, so agriculture was necessary.

[This is in agreement with the modern version of MFAC.]

The marine food at Caral suggests that Caral produced industrial plants for coastal fishers, who in exchange produced seafood for inland farmers, making the coastal developments dependent upon substantial irrigation agriculture

that is, Aspero did not produce its own crops by small-scale farming on nearby naturally-watered floodplain
[This may have been true when Caral was flourishing

but that does not tell us what supported the people at Aspero several centuries earlier
they could well have raised their own minor crops at that time without irrigation]

Haas and Creamer see Caral as proving that committed, irrigation agriculture was necessary for urban, complex societies to arise, just as in the rest of the world

they seem to take this as disproving MFAC

Moseley and Sandweiss see Caral as confirming that seafood was essential to the process

they take this as confirming MFAC
their point is that Pringle, Shady Solis, Haas, and Creamer are attacking an obsolete, simplistic version of MFAC that Moseley and Sandwiess no longer support

Do you see any resolution here?

plants were mostly domesticated in marginal, inland environments, but played only minor roles in subsistence there for a long time
they were gradually adopted by fishing people on the coast, particularly cotton and gourds for fishing equipment, and some crops for carbohydrates
in the centuries around 2000 cal BC, some of the people on the coast and in the coastal valleys made a significant commitment to irrigation agriculture

which raises the real question: why would fishers commit to farming?

population pressure?

no evidence that populations were anywhere near the limits of what the sea could support
no general pattern of increasing biological stress in burials
no shift to less-favored foods that would be expected if the resources were getting used up

climate change?

no evidence for it is generally recognized
plants and animals in garbage are similar to those of today, so people usually conclude that the climate was probably similar
but some of my recent work does suggest that climate may have been involved

the shift to farming on the far south coast, very isolated and culturally different from the central coast of Peru, happened at about the same time
this would be quite a coincidence if there were not some large-scale process that affected both areas at the same time
in fact, ice cores and other global climate data indicate a drastically dry, dusty period between about 2,500 and 1,500 cal BC
why this would encourage people to farm is not clear, but it would have affected both areas in a similar way at the time that they both became committed to agriculture

cultural or political reasons?

farming was encouraged by elites who were emerging from the process of building Preceramic monuments, in order to further their own ends of production and/or control?

that is, fishing was hard for elites to control and extract surplus from
but farming and irrigation allowed possibilities for control of the product by whoever had rights to the land and/or canals

problem: if so, why did people on the far south coast, who show no signs of emerging elites or monumental architecture, shift to farming at the same time?

decline of lomas resources over time, maybe due to some combination of population growth, over-exploitation by people, and climate shifts?

declining size of firewood from lomas plants at Paloma suggests that the lomas was being picked clean
continued occupation of Chilca I after Paloma was abandoned also suggests decline of lomas resources

Chilca I was in the river valley, with access to less fragile vegetation
where diverting river water to expand the area of plant growth is relatively easy
compared to lomas plants that depend on fog and are far from any water source
there is not much you can do to encourage lomas growth

may have led to increasing emphasis on tended plants, gradual shift towards more farming
but again, why at about the same time from the north coast to the far south coast?

lomas resources are highly localized and variable
if this was the cause, people should have committed to agriculture at even more wildly different times in different places

maybe some combination of these factors, or something else...?