atin America

Edited by

Michael B. WhitefordIowa State University

Scott WhitefordMichigan State University

Prentice HallUpper Saddle River, NJ 07458

1998

Archaeology’s Potential Contributionto the Future

Clark Erickson

ABSTRACT/SUMMARY

Archaeology can play a significant role in devel-opment projects, especially those focusing onimproving agricultural production. Local agri-cultural systems, both prehistoric and traditional,are commonly neglected by development groupsseeking to introduce Western capital-intensivetechnologies. Although research on these sys-tems has received only a minuscule percentageof funds compared to research on Western sys-tems, it has been demonstrated that many ofthese traditional systems can be both efficientand productive. Throughout the Americas, tracesof relict agricultural field systems can be found(for example, terraces, raised fields, and irriga-tion canals) that were part of once highly pro-ductive landscapes. Archaeology is unique inthat it provides the methodology to examinesuch systems in a diachronic perspective.Because many systems, such as raised fields,

From Clark Erickson, “Applied Archaeology andRural Development: Archaeology’s Potential Contribu-tion to the Future,” Journal of the Steward Anthropo-logical Society 20 (l-2): l-16, 1992.

have been completely abandoned, archaeologymay be the only way to understand these tech-nologies. Archaeological excavation of prehis-toric agricultural features can provide the modelfor the rehabilitation of these abandoned fieldsystems. A recent case of applied archaeologywhich combines raised field agricultural stud-ies and rural development in the South centralAndes of Peru is presented.

INTRODUCTION

The most direct contribution that the field of archae-ology can make to the contemporary world and thefuture is in the area of rural agricultural develop-ment. Recent research interest in prehistoric human-made landscapes (e.g., Farrington 1985; Darch1983; Denevan et al. 1987; Miller and Gleason1995; Fedick 1996; Turner and Harrison 1983, Har-rison and Turner 1978; Killion 1992) provides thebasis for what I refer to as an “applied archaeol-ogy.” Applied archaeology is the anthropologicallyinformed study of the human past, primarilythrough material remains, with a goal of employingthe knowledge gained from this research to improve

34

Applied Archaeology and Rural Development

Raised fields covering the seasonally inundated plain near Huatta, Peru. The rehabilitatedfields in the center (the dark areas flanked by water-filled canals) are surrounded bytraces of ancient raised fields.

the human condition in the contemporary world.Quite often, past human activities and culture areembedded in and layered on the landscape in theform of field patterning and boundaries, pathwaysand roads, agricultural infrastructure such as canals,terraces, and farming settlements. Archaeologicalinvestigations of the landscape can provide impor-tant insights into issues such as long-term land-use, agricultural sustainability, indigenousknowledge systems, human- vs. natural-inducedenvironmental change, and the human effect onbiodiversity. I argue that this approach is particu-larly useful for rural development, especially inareas where the archaeological record indicatesthat humans successfully managed landscapes overconsiderable periods of time.

Groups promoting rural development in devel-oping countries have slowly begun to realize thecritical need to incorporate anthropology into theirprograms if they are to succeed. Much of the fail-ure of the “Green Revolution” can be blamed onlack of understanding of local technological, social,economic, and political systems. To attempt toaddress this, agronomists, developers, and social

35

scientists involved in agricultural rural develop-ment have developed their own version of culturalecology and systems analysis known as “farmingsystems research” (Shaner et al. 1982).

Despite evidence that most contemporary land-scapes are the product of thousands of years ofchanging land use practices and human transfor-mation of regional environments, farming systemsresearch and related approaches result in what arebasically synchronic studies. Most include short-term evaluations based on questionnaires, some-times with follow-up, but these studies rarelyinclude data collected over a period of several years.The refusal to consider the long history of the tra-ditional systems being studied or modeled severelyhampers any attempts to understand present situ-ations and plan effective development strategies.The integration of archaeological approaches indevelopment studies and applied projects couldhelp resolve this critical deficiency.

Farming systems research and the “agroeco-logical approach” has emphasized the importanceof systemic interrelationships within the agricul-tural context (Altieri 1983) but it is often assumed

Part II: Prehistory

Farmers of Huatta re-constructing raised fields during the dry season. The soil is cut andmoved using chakitaqllas (Andean footplows), hoes, shovels, and carrying cloths.

that the ideal state of agriculture is equilibrium andstability (now commonly glossed under “sustain-ability”). It is doubtful that any agricultural sys-tem, past or present, has been static, and most, ifnot all, systems are probably inherently unstableand dynamic (Rindos 1984; Crumley 1995; Stahl1996). Archaeology should play a key role in devel-opment because farming systems are dynamic, his-torically contingent, and the product of hundredsof years of intentional and unintentional humanagency.

Traditionally, development workers haveassumed that indigenous and past land manage-ment systems in developing countries are ineffi-cient, backwards, and “primitive” (for critiques ofthis perspective, see Netting 1993; Wilken 1987).Many evaluation studies focus on how poorly theland is used today, neglecting the archaeologicalevidence that these same lands may have been usedproductively in the past. Development agenciescommonly fail to recognize that no environment is“pristine”; all landscapes have been used and trans-formed by humans in the past, some continuously(Denevan 1992). Farming over many centuriesaccounts for most of the disturbances. Landscapesthroughout the Americas that appear pristine or

abandoned usually show evidence of human mod-ification at some time in the past, commonly in theform of agricultural remains. Human modificationof such environments appears subtle to the unin-formed observer, but is often quite profound, espe-cially when measured in terms of increasedbiodiversity (Stahl 1996). So far, archaeology playsno part in the planning and implementation of mod-em development schemes; although in many, if notall cases, it can be demonstrated that prehistoricpeoples fully utilized the same landscapes, some-times very successfully.

Extensive archaeological remains of farmingsuch as the massive terraces lining the steep slopesof the Andes mountains are often considered to bequaint “testimony” to the accomplishments of pastcivilizations. These features and the sophisticatedtechnological knowledge they represent are notconsidered to have any practical modern use.Indigenous agricultural practices, often based onlong traditions, are rarely considered worthy ofstudy; more often, they are more something to wipeout so “progress” can occur. The “Green Revolu-tion” of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in the dis-placement of many local land races of crops bygenetically “improved” varieties, the destruction

Applied Archaeology and Rural Development 37

of prehistoric

A communal farming group in Huatta, Peru, posing in front of a newly constructed raisedfield.

a n d traditional agricultural infra- and nonirrigated terraces (Donkin 1979). In Perualone, there are between 500,000 and 1 millionhectares of terraces, of which 50 to 75 percent nowlie abandoned (Treacy and Denevan 1994; Masson1986). Raised fields (discussed below) cover largeareas of the Llanos of Venezuela, Rio San JorgeBasin in Colombia, the Rio Guayas basin inEcuador, the Llanos de Moxos in Bolivia, highlandEcuador and Colombia, and the Lake Titicaca Basinof Peru (Parsons and Denevan 1967; Denevan 1970,1983). There is now evidence that the Maya Civi-lization, once believed to have been supported byslash and bum agricul ture, was based on sophist i -cated combinations of construction of terraces, art i-ficial reservoirs, raised fields and elaborateagroforestry practices (Harrison and Turner 1978;Killion 1992; Fedick 1996). A conservative esti-mate for the area in Latin America covered byancient raised fields is 1,000 square kilometers(Denevan 1982). On the north coast of Peru, vastnetworks of prehistoric irr igation canals channeledwater over an area 20 to 40 percent larger than thatcultivated today (Moseley 1983). Archaeologicalstudies of many of these agricultural remains haveprovided a basis for understanding the origins, evo-lution, and abandonment of once productive farm-

structure through the introduction of energy- andcapital-intensive mechanized farming, and anincreased dependence on Western technology andmarkets by previously self-sufficient farming com-munit ies (Nett ing 1993). Unfortunately, this s i tua-tion continues to the present in Latin Americadriven by poorly planned development programs.The post-Green Revolution strategy has been tofocus on “appropriate,” “alternative,” or “adequate”technologies. Although not as capital intensive ast he previous approaches, most emphasize Westerntechnology (e.g., biogas production, windmillpower, small water pumps, greenhouses, and smalltractors) and rarely consider the potential indige-nous models .

PREHISTORIC AGRICULTURALLANDSCAPES IN THE AMERICAS

Before the arrival of Europeans in 1492, vast areasof the Americas were farmed intensively. The steepmountain s lopes in the Andean region of Ecuador,Peru, Bolivia and Chile include remains of possiblytens of thousands of square kilometers of irr igated

38 Part II. Prehistory

Raised field platforms (10 meters wide) planted in potatoes and water-filled canals duringthe rainy season in Huatta, Peru. The water can be used for irrigation, for the productionand capture of nutrients, for aquaculture, and/or for improved crop microclimate throughthe capture of solar radiation.

ing strategies (e.g., Erickson 1996; Mosely 1983;Turner and Harrison 1983).

Unfortunately, much of the research on past agri-cultural systems remains at a descriptive and ana-lyt ical level , with l i t t le emphasis given to potent ialappl icat ion of this knowledge to contemporary s i t -uations. Ironically, Peru and Bolivia, the countrieswith the most impressive abandoned remains ofprehistoric intensive land use and modification,now have some of the worst problems of povertyand underdevelopment in the Americas. Appliedarchaeological investigation of these once produc-tive landscapes could provide viable alternativesfor contemporary rural development.

APPLIED ARCHAEOLOGY: A CASESTUDY FROM PERU

Located at 12,500 feet in the Andean Highlands,the Lake Titicaca Basin of southern Peru and north-em Bolivia is a difficult environment for farming.Frequent frosts and hailstorms, irregular rainfall

resulting in serious droughts and flooding, highaltitude, and generally poor soils characterize thiszone. Despite these environmental limitations toagriculture, the area supported dense and well-organized populat ions before the Spanish conquest .

The Lake Tit icaca Basin is one of the most mas-sively human-modified landscapes in the Ameri-cas where hundreds of square kilometers of terracesand raised fields were constructed. Raised fieldsare large elevated planting platforms designed toimprove soil fertility, to provide drainage, and toimprove microclimates. The adjoining canals exca-vated during construction conserve water for irri-gation, produce “green manure” that can be placedon the fields as an organic muck for soil fertility,store heat against radiation frosts, and may havebeen used for raising fish and economically use-ful aquatic plants (Denevan and Turner 1974; Erick-son 1985, 1992). As a system, the raised fieldsdemonstrate hydraulic sophistication in the man-agement of water resources (Lennon 1983; Kolata1993). Some 82,000 ha. of surface remains havebeen documented for the basin (Smith et al . 1968).

39

Farmers of Huatta harvesting potatoes on community raised fields. Potato yields herewere two to three times that of traditional potato fields in the community.

Soil up to two meters in depth was disturbed byprehistoric farmers to construct the raised field plat-forms and canals.

Our raised field research was conducted between1981 and 1986 in the Quechua-speaking commu-nity of Huatta (Brinkmeier 1986; Erickson 1995,1996; Erickson and Candler 1989; Garaycochea1987, 1987). Huatta is located in southern Peru onthe flat seasonally inundated plains surroundingLake Titicaca at 3,800 meters above sea level. TheRaised Field Agricultural Project combined archae-ological reconnaissance, excavation of raised fieldsand associated occupation sites, agronomic stud-ies, and agricultural experiments using recon-structed raised fields (Erickson 1994). The researchdesign was directed towards investigating (1) thesocial organization necessary for the constructionand maintenance of prehistoric raised field agri-culture, (2) the overall efficiency (labor input andproduction output) of the fields, (3) the functions ofraised fields, (4) the origins, evolution, and aban-donment of the raised fields, and (5) the potentialrole that raised field technology could have in con-temporary rural development.

The importance of archaeological techniques in

understanding prehistoric agriculture technologyis demonstrated in the reconstruction of raised fieldsfor experimental purposes. Reconstructions had tobe based on the prehistoric models because the sys-tem has been completely abandoned. Soil profiledata on the original morphology and constructionstages were used to guide the reconstruction.

Labor for the reconstruction of raised fields forexperimental purposes was provided by Quechuafarmers using the local traditional tools (Andeanfootplow, hoe, clod breaker, and carrying cloths). Inexchange for potato seed and the harvest, severalcommunities in Huatta offered unused communalland and their labor to construct large blocks offields to expand the experiments. With the initialsuccess of the small-scale experimental fields, theprogram was expanded to include other Quechuacommunities in the area.

The results were encouraging and demonstratedthe feasibility of the reintroduction of raised fieldfarming in indigenous communities of the LakeTiticaca Basin. Archaeological investigation showedthat raised field farming has an extremely long andcomplex history extending back some 3,000 years(Erickson 1987, 1996). Our experiments docu-

4 0 Part II: Prehistory

mented how raised fields improve soil, humidity, 1989). By 1995, over 300 hectares of raised fieldsand microclimate conditions resulting in impres- had been rehabilitated in Peru and Bolivia and oversive productivity two to three times that of tradi- fifty indigenous communities had participated intional fields in the zone (Erickson 1985, 1996; various projects. Much of the work has been doneGaraycochea 1987). using incentives (food, wages, and/or seed) pro-

One major criticism leveled by development vided by the development agencies and it is notagencies at the proposed reuse of many prehistoric certain what will happen if these incentives areagricultural systems in the Americas is that the withdrawn.labor costs are too high and that complex socialorganization including centralization and admin-istrative hierarchies are necessary. Unfortunately,archaeologists and geographers have done much POTENTIAL APPLICATION OF RAISED

to reinforce this idea by wholeheartedly adopting FIELD TECHNOLOGY

the model of Ester Boserup on agricultural inten-sification and a revival of certain aspects of Karl How generally applicable is raised field technol-Wittfogel’s ideas on the need for centralization in ogy to rural development? Raised fields are only

complex irrigation systems and other intensive effective in areas of permanent wetlands or sea-forms of agriculture such as raised fields and ter- sonal inundation. Socioeconomic and political fac-races (e.g. Kolata 1993; Harrison and Turner 197X; tors will vary in areas of potential application and

Farrington 1985; Darch 1983) This may be a major must be considered in their context. In addition,misunderstanding of past agricultural systems. there is no one single model of raised field that will

In our raised field experiments we demonstrated work in all cases. The remains of raised fields (andthat over the long run, raised field farming is actu- some still functioning such as in New Guinea,ally very efficient (Erickson 1985, 1996; Garay- China, and Africa) have been found throughout the

cochea 1986, 1987; Erickson and Candler 1989). world (Farrington 1985; Denevan and Turner 1974;The long-term benefits of high continuous pro- Denevan 1970, 1982), indicating that the use of

ductivity and low maintenance easily offset labor raised fields was a common response by smallinput. Another surprising find was that raised fields farmers to many wetland and seasonally inundateddo not necessarily require centralization or admin- savanna environments. Are raised fields and other

istration. Local communal landholding groups of indigenous forms of past and present agriculture

farmers such as the traditional Andean ayllu and the panacea for all development problems? Cer-even individual farm families can effectively mobi- tainly not, and I am not suggesting that raised fieldlize the necessary labor and organization and appear technology can be applied to every wetland situa-to have also done so in the past (Erickson 1993, tion in the world, or even the Andean region. We1996). have noted above and elsewhere (Erickson and Can-

The present situation in Huatta and nearby com- dler 1989) that the social, political, and economicmunities is very favorable to the rapid adoption of situation has (inevitably) changed considerably

raised field technology. The plains have remained since the Spanish conquest and in many cases thelittle used except for limited grazing since the fields local indigenous infrastructure (traditional landwere abandoned. These marginal lands with little tenure, original crops, tools, social organization,

potential, once part of haciendas and later a failed and sectorial fallow systems) necessary for raisedgovernment cooperative, were recently turned over field agriculture is gone.

to indigenous communities which have begun suc-cessfully to exploit them using raised field tech-nology. This is the only means to use this land APPLIED ARCHAEOLOGY: ADDITIONALintensively without major capital investment. The CASE STUDIESpositive response to raised field technology is notonly at the community level. Many individual farm- The rehabilitation of raised fields in Huatta is a caseers who learned the technology by participating in study of applied archaeology and the potential thatthe communal groups have transferred this knowl- archaeological methodology can contribute to ruraledge to their private fields (Erickson and Candler development. Archaeological approaches to other

Applied Archaeology and Rural Development 41

ANTUKUQ WARU WARUN

Primera Version Experimental 1986Proyecto Agrícola de l o s Campos Elevados, Puno Peru’

Como C o n s t r u i r Waru Waru?

Covers of two agricultural extension booklets used by the Raised Field AgriculturalProject to train local farmers in raised field agricultural technology (drawings are by DanBrinkmeier). These manuals were used with a video program in the Quechua language.

42 Part II: Prehistory

abandoned agricultural landscapes have also shown ment a chinampa program in the late 1970s in thepotential. Three cases are summarized below. wetlands near Villahermosa (Gomez Pompa et al.

1982; Denevan 1982). This program, the Camel-Andean Terracing: The remains of ancient ter- lones Chontales Project, was declared a failure,

racing (andenes) can be found throughout the despite high praise and posi t ive publici ty, and nearAndean region, especial ly in Central and Southern mythical status. Continuous crop failures, highPeru and Bolivia. In many places, these terraces costs, lack of markets for the crops produced, andextend cont inuously f rom val ley bot tom to the high discontent with communal labor organization haspeaks of mountains. Recent archaeological and been pointed to as the causes of this fai lure (Chapingeographical research in highland Peru (Treacy and 1988). Many of the technical problems were dueDenevan 1994, Treacy 1989) has suggested that to the short-sighted approach the government usedterrace rehabili tation may be possible where aban- (e.g., heavy machinery, which dug canals too deeplydoned remains are found. Between 1981-1987, into the lake sediments, placing sterile subsoil onstrong interest in terrace rehabil i tat ion was demon- the raised field platforms). Many of these problemsstrated by the Peruvian government and various could have been avoided if archaeologists had beennongovernment organizations. Impressive recon- consulted on the project. Little of the knowledgestruction projects were plannedwith hopes of even- of the contemporary chinampa farmers of Mexicotually putt ing al l abandoned terraces back into use was used in the construction and planning, nor wasand also applying this technology to nonterraced any of the archaeological information collectedslopes. Government ministr ies even competed with during years of excavations in prehistoric raisedeach other for community participation. Unfortu- fields used. As an afternote, the local Chontalesnately little, if any, of the construction of terraces Maya made the chinampas highly productive afterwas based on archaeological or agronomic infor- the government abandoned the project and they aremation. At first , the model for terrace construction requesting that more be constructed. Other chi-and reconstruction was that developed by United nampa projects throughout Mexico have been suc-States Soil Conservation Service and applied to cessful as agronomic experiments, but few haveCentral America by the USAID more than two had posit ive impact for rural development (Gomez-decades ago. The projects, although apparently sue- Pompa 1988; Chapin 1988).cessful in some si tuat ions, were fraught with social ,economic, and political problems (Gelles 1988; Desert Farming in the Negev: The classicTreacy 1989). The use of detailed archaeological example of archaeology’s successful contribution toand agronomic studies of the terraces such as those rural development is the Negev project in Israel inconducted by Denevan and colleagues for the Colca the 1960s directed by Michael Evenari (EvenariValley, combined with long-term agronomic exper- et al. 1971). Here, archeologists, working closelyimental studies could have prevented some of the with agronomists , ecologists , botanists , and hydrol-problems facing terrace reconstruction projects ogists, were successful in applying information(Treacy and Denevan 1994). Terracing probably gained from the detailed study of the prehistorichas much potential in the Andes, it will just need remains of structures that were used to collectmore archaeological investigation to develop ade- runoff after infrequent rains. The discovery of ruinsquate models for reconstruction. of farmsteads and larger settlements with associ-

ated agricultural features in the inhospitable desertChinampa Agriculture: Chinampas, a form of had long been an enigma for Israelis. Archaeolog-

raised field agriculture, provided a major portion ical invest igat ion of these remains, combined withof the food production for sustaining the large Aztec the experimental reconstruction of several farmsurban center and capital of Tenochtitlan. Similar based on the archaeological information, providedraised fields are now believed to have provided the foundation for the development program. Themuch of the support for the densely populated urban success of this applied archaeology project demon-centers in the Maya lowlands (Harrison and Turner strated that development of the desert is possible1978; Turner and Harrison 1983). The state gov- using the knowledge available to the prehistoricemment of Tabasco, Mexico, attempted to imple- inhabitants of the area.

APPLIED ARCHAEOLOGY: WHAT CANBE DONE?

The failure of development projects to considerpast land use is common for Ecuador, Peru, andBolivia. Prehistoric terraces, irrigation canals, andraised fields are ignored as if they do not exist.Although the modest raised field rehabilitation pro-ject has been successful in relatively small areasaround Lake Titicaca, each year thousands of raisedfields are plowed under by tractors for monocrop-ping, or bulldozed away for roads, bridges, cause-ways, and housing. What is remarkable about thisdestruction of potentially useful archaeologicalresources is that the policies of the Peruvian andBolivian governments and international develop-ment agencies are responsible for much of thisdestruction. Examples include the USAID-spon-sored irrigation project and the projects of theNational Agrarian University and the Ministry ofAgriculture to introduce capital intensive agricul-ture to Illpa, near Huatta. These projects haveresulted in the destruction of large areas of prehis-toric raised fields (Erickson and Candler 1989).

Capital-intensive agricultural systems, espe-cially the crops used in such systems, have receiveda disproportionate amount of the research funds,whereas thousands of potentially important foodcrops go unstudied. We know very little about non-Western systems (precise figures of yields, effi-ciency, input-output, production, and sustainability)which makes it nearly impossible to compare themto modern Western systems. Agronomists oftendeclare that traditional systems are not as efficientas modem systems, but we have so little data (espe-cially in the long term) for comparison. Experi-mentation based on archaeological models derivedfrom ancient field forms may provide viable alter-natives to introduced, nonlocal systems.

What can be done to remedy the situation?Archaeologists should be included in developmentplanning as regular consultants. The training ofarchaeology students in developing countries forarchaeological investigation of prehistoric agri-cultural systems is critical. What is drasticallyneeded is increased funding for archaeology stu-dent training and projects investigating non-West-em traditional and prehistoric agricultural systems.Many of the projects, such as mapping, documen-tation, and basic description of past land-use sys-

Applied Archaeology and Rural Development 43

terns, could be done without huge funding. Archae-ology could play a part, just as cultural anthropol-ogists play a critical role in the planning andevaluation of today’s development projects.

CONCLUSIONS: THE FUTUREOF ARCHAEOLOGYIN DEVELOPMENT

Archaeology has traditionally had the problem ofnot being considered very relevant, with at best anindirect application (Ford 1973). Throughout the1960s and 1970s the “lawlike generalizations ofhuman behavior” were regarded by many as ourmost important contribution to the larger world(Watson et al. 1984 and others). Now, such claimsare rarely heard and statements are much moremodest. Recent articles speculating on the futureof archaeology have stressed the importance ofconservation of archaeological resources, use ofDarwinian and sociobiological evolutionary mod-els, and the adoption of new rigorous methods andtechnologies for more precise data collection, espe-cially using the recent advances in remote sensingand computer hardware and software (Fagan 1989;Nash and Whitlam 1985). If archaeology is to con-tinue to be funded at an adequate level in the future,I suggest that we may have to demonstrate a moredirect, practical application. One important contri-bution of archaeology is that our methods can beapplied to understanding long-term landscape use,which may have implications for rural develop-ment and understanding the history of local envi-ronments. I also suggest that development agenciesand planners use archaeological insight on pastland use. Most areas of the underdeveloped worldshow evidence of previous, long-term, successfuluse of the land by humans, often taking the formof massive transformations of the earth throughterracing, irrigation, and raised fields. Before impos-ing capital-intensive systems or “appropriate tech-nology” developed in and for the Westernagricultural context, development organizationsshould seriously consider indigenous alternatives.Archaeological techniques can provide criticalinformation on the stmcture and functioning ofthese ancient farming systems.

Time is running out for archaeologists, agron-omists, geographers, and developers as many agri-

44 Part II: Prehistory

cultural technologies with potential for rural devel-opment are being lost . Many functioning tradit ionalsystems are marginalized or have been eradicatedby the introduction of capital-based systems.Ancient and tradit ional landscapes are rapidly dis-appearing under the plow or are being replacedwith monocropping and mechanized agriculture.As a result , once-productive rural populations arebeing displaced, causing massive migrations tourban areas. Genetic erosion of local races ofimportant crops is severe in such areas. Many ofthe traditional social institutions that organizedlabor exchange, controlled crop fallowing cycles,and provided access to community land are disap-pearing.

What is being argued here is not a naive roman-tic “return to the past,” but a plea for the need toinvestigate and experiment with past agriculturalsystems as potent ial ly viable al ternat ive models forrural development.

REFERENCES

Altierei, Miguel A., 1983. Agroecology: The ScientificBasis of Alternative Agriculture. Division of Biolog-ical Control, University of California, Berkeley.

Brinkmeier, Daniel A., 1985. A Plan for DisseminatingInformation about Traditional Agriculture to Indige-nous Farmers in the Department of Puno, Peru. Mas-ters Thesis , department of Journalism and MassCommunication, Iowa State University, Ames.

Chapin, Mac, 1988. The Seduction of Models: ChinampaAgriculture in Mexico. Grassroots Development12(l):&17.

Crumley, Carol (ed.), 1994. Historical Ecology: Cul-tural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. Schoolof American Research Advanced Seminar Series.

Darch, J. P. (ed.), 1983. Drained Fields of the Americas.British Archaeological Reports, International Series,no. 189, Oxford.

Denevan, William M., 1970. Aboriginal Drained FieldCultivation in the Americas. Science 169:647-654.

1982. Hydraulic Agriculture in the AmericanTropics: Forms, Measures, and Recent Research. InMaya Subsistence, edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp.181-203, Academic Press, New York.

-, 1992. The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of theAmericas in 1492. Annals of the American Associa-tion of Geographers 82:396-385.

Kent Mathewson, and Gregory Knapp (eds.),1987. Pre-Hispanic Agricultural Fields in the Andean

Region. British Archaeological Reports, InternationalSeries, No. 359, Part i and ii, Oxford.

and B. L. Turner II, 1974. Forms, Functions,and Associations of Raised Fields in the Old WorldTropics. Journal of Tropical Geography 39:24-33.

Donkin, R. A., 1979. Agricultural Terracing in the Abo-riginal New World. University of Arizona Press, Tuc-s o n .

Erickson, Clark L. , 1985. Applicat ions of PrehistoricAndean Technology: Experiments in Raised FieldAgriculture, Huatta, Lake Titicaca, Peru, 1981-1983.In Prehistoric Intensive Agriculture in the Tropicsedited by Ian Farrington, pp. 209-232, British Archae-ological Reports, International Series, No. 232,Oxford.

1987. The Dating of Raised Field Agriculturein tie Lake Titicaca Basin of Peru. In Pre-HispanicAgricultural Fields in the Andean Region, edited byWilliam M. Denevan, Kent Mathewson and GregoryKnapp, pp. 373-383, British Archaeological Reports,International Series, No. 359, Oxford.

1988. Raised Field Agriculture in the Lake Tit-icaca Basin: Putting Ancient Andean Agriculture Backto Work. Expedition, 30(2):8-16.

, 1992. Prehistoric Landscape Management inthe Andean Highlands: Raised Field Agriculture andits Environmental Impact. Population and Environ-ment 13(4):285-300.

, 1993. The Social Organization of PrehispanicRaised Field Agriculture in the Lake Titicaca Basin.In Economic Aspects of Water Management in thePrehispanic New World. Research in EconomicAnthropology Supplement 7, JAI Press, Greenwich,Connecticut, pp. 369-426.

1994. Methodological Considerat ions in theStudy of Ancient Andean Field Systems. In TheArchaeology of Garden and Field. University of Penn-sylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 111-152.

1996. Investigacidn arqueológica del sistemaagrícola de los camellones en la Cuenca del LagoTiticaca del Perú PIWA, Centro de Información parael Desarollo, La Paz.

, and Kay L. Candler, 1989. Raised Fields andSustainable Agriculture in the Lake Titicaca Basin.In Fragile Lands of Latin America: Strategies forSustainable Development, edited by John Browder,pp. 230-248. Westview Press, Boulder.

Evenari, Michael, Leslie Shanan, and Naphtali Tadmore,1971. The Negev: The Challenge of a Desert. Har-vard University Press, Cambridge.

Fagan, Brian (ed.), 1989. A.D. 2050: A 21st Century Viewof the Human Past . In Archaeology special issue,42( 1).

Farrington, Ian (ed.), 1985. Prehistoric Intensive Agri-

Applied Archaeology and Rural Development 45

culture Tropics. British Archaeological Reports, Andenes y camellones en el Peru Andino: historia,International Series, No. 232, Part I and III, Oxford. presente y futuro, edited by Carlos de la Torre and

Fedick, Scott L. (ed.), 1996. The Managed Mosaic: Manuel Burga, pp. 207-216, Consejo Nacional deAncient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use. Uni- Ciencia y Tecnologfa, Lima.versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Miller, Naomi, and Kathryn Gleason (eds.), 1994. The

Ford, Richard I., 1973. Archeology Serving Humanity. In Archaeology of Garden and Field. University of Penn-Research und Theory in Current Archeology, edited by sylvania Press, Philadelphia.Charles L. Redman, pp. 83-93, John Wiley and Sons, Mosely, Michael E., 1983. The Good Old Days WereNew York Better: Agrarian Collapse and Tectonics. American

Garaycochea Z., Ignacio, 1986. Rehabilitacion de camel- Anthropologist 85:773-799.lones en la Comunidad Campesina de Huatta, Puno. Nash, Ronald J., and Robert G. Whitlam, 1985. Future-Unpublished thesis, Department of Agronomy, Uni- Oriented Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archae-versidad National del Altiplano, Puno, Peru. ology 9(2):95-108.

, 1987. Agricultural Experiments in Raised Fields Netting, Robert McC., 1993. Smallholders, Household-in the Titicaca Basin, Peru: Preliminary Considera- ers: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sus-t ions. In Pre-Hispanic Agricultural Fields in the tainable Agriculture. Stanford Universi ty Press ,Andean Region, edited by William M. Denevan, Kent Stanford.Mathewson, and Gregory Knapp, pp. 385-398, British Rindos, David, 1984. The Origins of Agriculture: AnArchaeological Reports, International Series, No. Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, New York.359, Oxford. Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp, and W. R. Schmehl, 1982.

Gelles, Paul, 1988. Irrigation, Community, and the Agrar- Farming Systems Research and Development: Guide-ian Frontier in Cabanaconde (Caylloma, Arequipa), lines for Developing Countries. Westview Press, Boul-Peru. Paper presented at the International Congress of der.Americanists (Amsterdam). Smith, Clifford T. , Will iam M. Denevan, and Patrick

Gomez-Pompa, Arturo, 1990. Letter to the Editor. Hamilton, 1968. Ancient Ridged Fields in the RegionGrassroots Development 14(2):49-52; a lso vol . of Lake Titicaca. The Geographical Journal12(2):50-51. 134:353-367.

1990. Seduction by the Chinampas. The Des- Stahl, Peter, 1996. Holocene Biodiversity: An Archaeo-file Newsletter 4(1):3, 6-7 (USAID Development logical Perspective from the Americas. Annual ReviewStrategies for Fragile Lands Project). of Anthropology 25:105-126.

-----, Hector Luis Morales, Epifanio Jimenez Avilla, Treacy, John, 1989. Agricultural Terraces in the Colcaand Julio Jimenez Avilla, 1982. Experiences in Tra- Valley: Promises and Problems of an Ancient Tech-ditional Hydraulic Agriculture. In Maya Subsistence, nology. In Fragile Lands of Latin America: Strate-edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 327-342, Academic gies for Sustainable Development edi ted by JohnPress, New York. Browder, Westview Press, Boulder.

Harrison, Peter D., and B. L. Turner II (eds.), 1978. Pre- Treacy, John, and William Denevan, 1994. The CreationHispanic Maya Agriculture. University of New Mex- of Cultivated Land through Terracing. In The Archae-ico Press, Albuquerque. ology of Garden and Field. University of Pensylvania

Killion, Thomas W. (ed.), 1992. Gardens of Prehistory: Press, Philadelphia, pp. 91-l 10.The Archaeology of Settlement Agriculture in Greater Turner, B. L. II, and Peter D. Harrison (eds.), 1983. Pul-Mesoamerica. University of Alabama Press, trouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture,Tuscaloosa. and Settlement in Northern Belize. University of Texas

Kolata, Alan L., 1993. The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Press, AustinAndean Civilization. Blackwell, Cambridge. Watson, Patty Jo, Steven Leblanc, and Charles Redman,

Lennon, Thomas J., 1983. Pattern Analysis of Prehis- 1984. Archaeological Explanation: The Scientificpanic Raised Fields of Lake Titicaca, Peru. In Drained Method in Archaeology, Columbia University Press,Fields of the Americas, edited by 5. P. Darch, pp . New York.183-200, Bri t ish Archaeological Reports , Interna- Wilken, Gene C., 1987. Good Farmers: Traditional Agri-tional Series, no. 189, Oxford. cultural Resource Management in Mexico and Cen-

Masson M., Luis, 1986. Rehabilitación de andenes en tral America. University of California Press, Berkeley.la comunidad de San Pedro de Casta, Lima. In