Methodological Challenges to Tracking Zea mays (Maize) Historical Pathways Through Macrobotanical, Microbotanical, and Stable Isotope Evidence: Maize’s Adoption and Consumption by Precontact Populations in the North American Midcontinent
Thomas E. Emerson, Kristin M. Hedman, Mary L. Simon
{"title":"Methodological Challenges to Tracking Zea mays (Maize) Historical Pathways Through Macrobotanical, Microbotanical, and Stable Isotope Evidence: Maize’s Adoption and Consumption by Precontact Populations in the North American Midcontinent","authors":"Thomas E. Emerson, Kristin M. Hedman, Mary L. Simon","doi":"10.1007/s10816-025-09699-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The process of plant domestication and subsequent adoption of agriculture have long been viewed by archaeologists as key factors in the emergence of social and political complexity. Ongoing research by botanists, archaeobotanists, and archaeologists, with ever-improving methodologies and technologies, reveal that the adoption of agriculture varies significantly in terms of chronologies, dietary intensity, and social impacts. It has become clear that broad-sweeping theories of agricultural adoption obscure meaningful micro-historical variations. Nowhere is this more true than in the Western Hemisphere, where the dates of the adoption of maize may differ in even geographically adjacent regions — thus the importance of focused regional studies of the history of maize consumption. In this review, we examine in detail the various methodological approaches employed in micro- and macro-botanical and isotopic studies and, importantly, appraise ongoing challenges to interpreting the findings of such research. We undertake this evaluation in the context of the northern midcontinent USA where these methodologies have produced regional maize histories that differ by as much as a thousand years in terms of both the presence of maize and the ultimate adoption of maize agriculture. We conclude that incorporating multiple refined methodological approaches is a key to understanding this variability.</p>","PeriodicalId":47725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-025-09699-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The process of plant domestication and subsequent adoption of agriculture have long been viewed by archaeologists as key factors in the emergence of social and political complexity. Ongoing research by botanists, archaeobotanists, and archaeologists, with ever-improving methodologies and technologies, reveal that the adoption of agriculture varies significantly in terms of chronologies, dietary intensity, and social impacts. It has become clear that broad-sweeping theories of agricultural adoption obscure meaningful micro-historical variations. Nowhere is this more true than in the Western Hemisphere, where the dates of the adoption of maize may differ in even geographically adjacent regions — thus the importance of focused regional studies of the history of maize consumption. In this review, we examine in detail the various methodological approaches employed in micro- and macro-botanical and isotopic studies and, importantly, appraise ongoing challenges to interpreting the findings of such research. We undertake this evaluation in the context of the northern midcontinent USA where these methodologies have produced regional maize histories that differ by as much as a thousand years in terms of both the presence of maize and the ultimate adoption of maize agriculture. We conclude that incorporating multiple refined methodological approaches is a key to understanding this variability.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, the leading journal in its field, presents original articles that address method- or theory-focused issues of current archaeological interest and represent significant explorations on the cutting edge of the discipline. The journal also welcomes topical syntheses that critically assess and integrate research on a specific subject in archaeological method or theory, as well as examinations of the history of archaeology. Written by experts, the articles benefit an international audience of archaeologists, students of archaeology, and practitioners of closely related disciplines. Specific topics covered in recent issues include: the use of nitche construction theory in archaeology, new developments in the use of soil chemistry in archaeological interpretation, and a model for the prehistoric development of clothing. The Journal''s distinguished Editorial Board includes archaeologists with worldwide archaeological knowledge (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, and Africa), and expertise in a wide range of methodological and theoretical issues. Rated ''A'' in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory is rated ''A'' in the ERIH, a new reference index that aims to help evenly access the scientific quality of Humanities research output. For more information visit: http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/activities/research-infrastructures.html Rated ''A'' in the Australian Research Council Humanities and Creative Arts Journal List. For more information, visit: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list_dev.htm