Maize cobs and cultures: history of Zea mays L

Abstract

John Staller's book might be more accurately titled ‘The history of maize research’, as it provides a thorough description of more than a century of concerted efforts by researchers in multiple disciplines to uncover the origins of domesticated maize and to determine its place in the development of agriculture and in the emergence of complex societies throughout the Americas. The book has just three major chapters. It begins with an extended examination of the ways in which maize has been represented in the ethnohistorical and ethnographic literature of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Staller then provides a detailed description of the complex search to understand the process of maize domestication, which has spanned more than a century of intense work by botanists, geneticists, archeologists and anthropologists. The final chapter focuses on the effects of interdisciplinary approaches and new research methodologies, and the consequent dismantling of many long-held beliefs about maize domestication and development. Although Staller succeeds on many levels in explaining, summarizing and interpreting the history of maize research, the book disappoints primarily because of its presentation. Grammatical and typographical errors appear on almost every page. Sentences lack full stops or capitalized first words; blocks of text are repeated in nearby paragraphs or footnotes. Some sentences are unintelligible because of their construction or incorrect punctuation. Carelessness with references is perhaps the most distressing. References cited in the text are missing from the list of references. On one page alone E. L. Sturtevant's name is spelled three different ways and is incorrectly spelled in the reference list. It looks as though no-one read the manuscript before it was published. For a topic of such importance and a scholar of Staller's stature, this is profoundly disappointing. But for readers who can put these shortcomings aside, the book has much to offer. In the chapter on the ethnohistorical and ethnographic record of maize, Staller develops more fully an argument that has received some attention in the last decade: researchers have over-emphasized the importance of maize as a food staple in pre-Columbian America while failing to recognize its complex and multifaceted roles in cosmology, religion and ceremonial life. Staller writes that Europeans who first encountered maize characterized it as a cereal grain, similar to wheat and barley with which they were familiar. But, as Staller relates, its use in alcoholic beverages, consumed in religious ceremonies, may have been more important than its role as a cereal grain. With a predetermined focus on maize as a cereal grain, maize researchers, across multiple disciplines and time periods, have misunderstood the crop's early use and significance, which may account, in part, for the twisted research path on maize domestication and its role in the development of complex societies in the Americas. Staller writes in the chapter on the history of maize research that scientists initially assumed that the domestication of crop plants and the development of agriculture in the Americas followed a similar trajectory to that in Asia and Europe, where the domestication of wheat and barley are seen as critical steps in the emergence of complex societies. But research on the origins of maize has revealed a much more complicated paradigm. Plant researchers first claimed that maize was domesticated just once, similar to wheat and barley in Asia. By the 1960s several researchers found evidence for maize domestication at multiple sites and times. Complicating the question of where and when maize domestication occurred, scientists put forward conflicting hypotheses regarding its wild progenitor. According to Staller, most researchers today accept a single domestication event, with teosinte as maize's wild relative. He provides a coherent explanation of both the intricacies of maize domestication and the research process itself, which spans more than 100 years, filled with competing hypotheses and significant personal conflict among the scientists involved. Although maize specialists are likely to find many areas of disagreement with Staller's characterizations and conclusions, for non-specialists his explanation is welcome. In the final chapter Staller describes how multidisciplinary research in maize has influenced broader theoretical questions concerning the origins of agriculture and its role in socio-cultural development. He highlights the ways that scholars from multiple disciplines, using a suite of new methodologies, have challenged, expanded and reframed our understanding of the origins of agriculture and the development of complex societies. He describes the scanning electron microscope, AMS radiocarbon dating, infrared spectroscopy, and the use of phytolith and pollen analyses to demonstrate how their use has altered our understanding of maize domestication and larger questions around the development of agriculture. Maize has intrigued and fascinated scholars from a multitude of disciplines for many generations. Staller's book provides some explanation for our persistent intellectual focus on this globally important plant.