This is a study of agricultural intensification on the household scale in a Mixtec cacicazgo of Oaxaca, Mexico, during the Postclassic period (A.D. 800–1521). Through archaeological, ethnohistorical, and ethnographic methods this study investigates the roles of the state and the independent farming household in the emergence and operation of intensive agricultural systems, and agricultural terracing. I present data on two Postclassic houses and residential and agricultural terraces excavated at the site of Nicayuju in the municipality of San Juan Teposcolula, Oaxaca. Artifact and architectural data are reported. Ethnographic information is presented and used to create a model for terrace construction that is tested against the terrace excavation data presented in this article. It is argued that Robert Netting’s agrarian smallholder model may characterize the social organization of intensive agricultural production in prehispanic Mixtec society and that intensification may have functioned without direct state direction. The application of the agrarian smallholder model in Prehispanic Mesoamerica is significant in that it suggests that long-lasting and environmentally viable methods of agricultural production may originate and operate at the household and community levels.

Specialized production forms an important component of the socioeconomic organization of ancient complex societies. Excavation provides critical information on the internal organization of production within a particular workshop and permits the recovery of features not preserved on the surface. In large settlements like Teotihuacan where modern occupation covers much of the ancient city, it is not feasible to fully excavate every suspected craft production locale. At Teotihuacan and in other complex societies, the use of surface indications to generate thematic maps permits discussion of the spatial relationships between economic and social units within the settlement. I use the surface collections made by the Teotihuacan Mapping Project and the partial excavation of one apartment compound and ceramic workshop in the Tlajinga district to consider the organization of specialized production in this neighborhood. I rely on the co-occurrence of ceramic production indicators to define likely workshops, using the surface collections from the excavated workshop as a reasonable indicator of production. Considering the evidence for vessel form specialization and dimensional standardization and previous ethnoarchaeological analyses of the excavated materials, Tlajinga district pottery production appears to have been maximally organized at the community level, with individual apartment compounds forming the basic production units.

A recent study of Early Formative Mesoamerican pottery by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) yielded surprising results that prompted two critiques in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The INAA study indicated that the Olmec center of San Lorenzo was a major exporter of carved-incised and white pottery and that little if any pottery made elsewhere was consumed at San Lorenzo. The critiques purport to "overturn" the INAA study and demonstrate a more balanced exchange of pottery among Early Formative centers. However, the critiques rely on a series of mistaken claims and misunderstandings that are addressed here. New petrographic data on a small sample of Early Formative pottery (Stoltman et al. 2005) are potentially useful, but they do not overturn INAA of nearly 1000 pottery samples and hundreds of raw material samples.

The relationship between Andean coca use and dental deposits is explored through the use of scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS). Elemental analyses of samples of large dental deposits from archeologically recovered skeletons from Ecuador dating between 500 B.C. and A.D. 1532 are compared with those of normal calculus deposits of individuals from North America (modern and precontact), of normal tooth structure and of samples of alkali recovered from Ecuadorian artifacts thought to have been employed in coca use. Spectral analysis revealed homogeneity among all dental samples (deposits and structure) and that they are distinct from the elemental pattern revealed in the analysis of the artifact alkalis.

The 2005 articles by Stoltman et al. and Flannery et al. to which Neff et al. (this issue) have responded are not an indictment of instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) but, rather, of the way Blomster et al. (2005) misuse it and of the hyperbolic culture-historical claims they have made from their INAA results. It has long been acknowledged that INAA leads not to sources but to chemical composition groups. Based on composition groups derived from an extremely unsystematic collection of sherds from only seven localities, Blomster et al. claim that the Olmec received no carved gray or kaolin white pottery from other regions; they also claim that neighboring valleys in the Mexican highlands did not exchange such pottery with each other. Not only can one not leap directly from the elements in potsherds to such sweeping culture-historical conclusions, it is also the case that other lines of evidence (including petrographic analysis) have for 40+ years produced empirical evidence to the contrary. In the end, it was their commitment to an unfalsifiable model of Olmec superiority that led Blomster et al. to bypass the logic of archaeological inference.

We are glad that Sharer et al. (this issue) have dropped their original claim that the INAA data demonstrate multidirectional movement of Early Formative pottery. Beyond this, however, they offer nothing that might enhance understanding of Early Formative ceramic circulation or inspire new insights into Early Formative cultural evolution in Mesoamerica. Instead, their response contains fresh distortions, replications of mistakes made in their PNAS articles, and lengthy passages that are irrelevant to the issues raised by Neff et al. (this issue). We correct and recorrect their latest distortions and misunderstandings here. Besides showing why their discussion of ceramic sourcing repeatedly misses the mark, we also correct a number of erroneous assertions about the archaeology of Olmec San Lorenzo. New evidence deepens understanding of Early Formative Mesoamerica but requires that some researchers discard cherished beliefs.