Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México

8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México

1/37

Formative Mexican Chiefdoms and the Myth of the “Mother Culture”

Kent V. Flannery and Joyce Marcus

M useum of Anthr opology, Un iversity of M ichigan, A nn Arbor, M ichigan 48109-1079

Most scholars agree that the urban states of Classic Mexico developed from Formative

chiefdom s wh ich preceded them. They d isagree over wheth er that d evelopmen t (1) took place

over the whole area from the Basin of Mexico to Chiapas, or (2) emanated entirely from one

unique culture on the Gulf Coast. Recently Diehl and Coe (1996) put forth 11 assertions in

defense of the second scenario, which assumes an Olmec “Mother Culture.” This p aper

disputes th ose assertions. It suggests that a model for rap id evolution, originally p resented by

biologist Sewall Wright, provides a better explanation for the explosive development of For-

mative Mexican society. © 2000 Academ ic Press

INTRODUCTION

On occasion, archae ologists revive idea s

so ana chron istic as to h ave been declared

dead . The m ost recent attemp t cam e when

Richard Diehl and Michael Coe (1996)

parted the icy lips of the Olmec “Mother

Culture” and gave it mouth-to-mouth re-suscitation.1

The notion that the Olmec of the Gulf

Coast were the mother of all Mesoameri-

can civilizations goes back m ore th an ha lf

a century (Covarrubias 1944), to a tim e

when Formative archaeology was in its

infancy. Sch olars of th e 1940s sa w gen era l

s tylis tic s imi lar it ies betw een t he G ulf

Coast and the Mexican highlands; sinceOlmec centers had stone m onum ents and

t he highlands gener ally did not, it w as

as s umed t hat t he G ul f C oas t w as i n t he

forefront an d the h ighlands were begging

to be civilized . Five d ecad es of sub seq ue n t

excavation have shown the situation to be

m ore com plex than that, bu t old ideas d ie

har d.

In “Olmec Archaeology” (hereafter ab-

breviated OA), Diehl an d Coe (1996:11)

pr opos e t hat t here ar e t wo contr ast ing

“schools of thought” on the relationship

b e tw ee n t h e O lm e c a n d t h e r es t o f M e -

soam erica. In the Olmec-centric school the yp lace them selves, Joh n Clark, Beatr iz de la

Fue nte, Pau l Tolstoy, an d the late Alfonso

Caso, Ign acio Bern al, Migu el Covarru bias,

Matthew Stirling, and George Vaillant.

This group, they allege, agrees with them

that the Olmec were different from their

contempor aries in kind r ather t han de-

gree, creating the entire sym bolic system

of 1150–500 b.c.2 an d b ecom in g th e

M other C ult ur e of later M esoamer ican

civilization. In t h e pri mus in ter pares schoolthey p lace William R. Coe, Arthu r Dem ar-

est, John Graham, David Grove, Norman

Ham mond , Flannery and Marcus, Robert

St u ck en r at h , Jr ., a n d t h e la te Sir Er ic

Thompson. They describe this school as

believing that the Olmec were “no more

advanced than any other” Formative cul-

1 Wh ile Dieh l is given as th e co-auth or of th e 1996

re sus cit at ion, h e a nd Coe a re not a lw a ys in full

agreement. For example, Diehl believes (as do we)

that th e Olm ec were a set of chiefdoms; Coe does not(Coe and Diehl 1980b:147). Coe believes that the

Olmec site of San Lorenzo is a gigantic bird effigy;

Diehl (person al comm un ication, 1990) d oes not. W e

thus feel uncomfortable including Diehl in our re-

buttal of what are largely Coe’s views. Our compro-

mise is simply to refer to the Diehl and Coe (1996)

pap er by its title, “Olmec Archaeology.”

2 In th is pap er, lowercase “b.c.” is u sed for un cali-

brated radiocarbon years before the Christian era.

Journ al of Anthr opological Archaeology 19, 1–37 (2000)

doi:10.1006/jaar.1999.0359, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

10278-4165/00 $35.00

Copyright © 2000 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.


2/37

ture and contributed “little if anything to

later [Me soam erican] civilization.”

O u r sch o ol w ou ld b e h a p p y t o c h a l-

lenge the Olmec-centrists to a tug-of-war,

since h alf the m embers of their team are

dead . However, their p ortrayal of our po-sition is n ot a ccu ra te—a fam iliar p rob lem

w hen one i s bei ng us ed as a s t r aw man.

We would not d escribe the O lmec as “no

more advanced” or “contributing little.”

Their contribu tion has sim ply been exag-

gerated by Olmec-centrists, who credit

the Olmec with man y things their neigh-

bors d id earlier or better.

OA presents 11 “traits” which allegedlys how t he O l mecs ’ mat er nal r ol e i n M e-

s oamer ica’s genealogy (D iehl and C oe

1996:23). We find those traits unconvinc-

in g a nd su gge st th at th ere a re b ette r

fr am e wor ks th a n th e M oth e r C u ltu r e

model, which we d o not fin d appropriate

for any world region. On e alternative is amodel for the conditions leading to rapid

evolution, p resented by th e distingu ishedbiologist Sewall Wrigh t (1939). Even be -

fore refuting the 11 traits, however, we

m ust m odify the au thors’ caricature of our

position.

PRIMUS INTER PARES: ACLARIFICATION

An y m o d el for th e O lm e c a n d th e irnei ghbor s mus t be bas ed on our cur r ent

u n d e rsta n d in g of com p le x socie tie s,

which is far greater now than in Vaillant’s

or Covarrubias’s day (And erson 1994;

Carn eiro 1981, 1991; Dr en na n an d Uribe

1987; Earle 1991a, b, 1997; Flannery 1995,

1999; Goldman 1970; Johnson 1987; Kirch

1984; Kirch and Green 1987; Marcus 1989,

1992; Marcus and Flannery 1996; Spencer1993, 1998; H. Wright 1984, 1986).

Amon g th e m ost intere sting societies in

th e e th n ogr ap h ic a n d a rch a eologica l

re cord s ar e ch iefdom s—societies b ase d on

hereditary differences in rank, in which

the chief’s auth ority extend s to satellite

comm un ities. Chiefdom s are n ot a m ono-

lithic category; they come in m an y d iffer-

ent types. Some, l ike those of Panama’s

Azuero Penins ula, w ere s edent ary and

flam boyan t (Loth rop 1937; Linare s 1977;

Helms 1979). Others, like those of Iran’sZa gr os M ou n t ain s , w er e p a st or al a n d

non -flam boyant (Barth 1964; Flan ne ry in

press). W ithin Polynesia alone, Goldm an

(1970) has classified some chiefdom s as

“traditional” (based more on sacred au-

thority), others as “open” (based more on

secular power), and still others as “strati-

fied” (large, with a combination of sacred

authority and secular power). Nowadayst he t er m “par amount ” oft en s ubst it utes

for Goldman’s “stratified.” While rank in

t radit ional chiefdoms us ually t ook t he

form of a continuum from higher to lower

statu s, a few p ara m ou n t chiefdom s—like

th ose in Ha wai’i (Kirch 1984: Fig. 85)—

achieved stratification by cutting lower-

status families out of the genealogy, re-

ducing them to a commoner class.In so m e p a rts o f t h e a n cie n t w or ld ,

chiefdoms per sis ted for cent ur ies. Re-

search in su ch regions has d efined a long-

term process called “chiefly cycling” (H.

Wright 1984; Anderson 1994). In this pro-

cess, paramount chiefdoms rose, peaked,

then collapsed am id a regional landscape

of smaller traditional or open chiefdoms.

It is incr easingly clear t hat par amountchiefdoms formed by t aking over t heir

wea ker n eighb ors (Carn eiro 1981, 1991).

Their collapses resu lted from such factors

as comp etition betwee n chiefly fam ilies or

factions, endem ic raiding, agricultural

failure, or dem ographic imb alance, and

usually took the form of fragmentation

back int o t he s maller uni ts fr om w hich

th ey h ad b ee n cr ea te d. W e vie w th eO lm e c a s on e m o re se t of p ara m ou n t

chiefdoms that rose, peaked, and eventu-

ally collapsed in a land scap e of traditional

and open chiefdoms.

A rare paramount chiefdom might suc-

ceed in subduing and incorporating other

2 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS


3/37

large chiefdom s, creating a polity so great

that it could n o longer b e ad m inistered as

a chiefdom (Spencer 1998). This is how

ind igenous states formed in Madagascar

(Dewar and Wright 1993) and am ong the

Zulu, As hanti, H unza, and H aw ai’ians(Flann ery 1999). It is becoming increas-

ingly clear that the first states in south-

west Iran, Egypt, Peru, Oaxaca, and the

M aya r egion als o formed t his w ay ( H .

Wright 1986; Flannery 1995; Marcus 1992,

1993, 1998a; Marcus and Flannery 1996). It

m akes the stu dy of chiefdom s all the m ore

interesting to discover that, on at least

some occasions, they became the “precur-sors” of states (Carn eiro 1981; H . Wright

1984).

It took more than 1000 years for Mexi-

co’s Formative societies to become com-

plex enough t o s er ve as pr ecur s or s for

states. By the middle of the second mil-

lenn ium b.c., agricultural villages were

spre ad over th e wh ole area from th e Basin

of Mexico to th e Pacific Coast of Ch iapas.Som e, bu t n ot all, of these village societies

had been r eor gani zed i nt o s t at es by t he

beginning of the Ch ristian era.

We kn ow less abou t this tran sitiona l pe -

riod than we should, since some archae-

ologists assume that their sites belong to

chiefdom s without p rodu cing eviden ce of

the requ isite sociopolitical institutions.

Else wh e re w e h a ve su gge ste d th a t a sm any as ten lines of eviden ce m ay be n ec-

essary to confir m a chiefdom (Marcus an d

Flannery 1996:110). At this writing, we are

co n fid e n t t h at t h e Va lle ys o f M e xico ,

Pueb la, Morelos, an d Oaxaca, an d various

parts of Guerrero, Chiapas, and southern

Veracruz-Tabasco had chiefly societies b y

1150 b.c. We are less confid en t ab out a reas

su ch a s th e Teh u acán Valley an d th e Ca ñ -ad a de Cuicatlán, b ut they show evide nce

of modest chiefdoms by 600–450 b.c.

(Spencer 1993).

Most chiefly centers of 1150–450 b.c.

were in frequent contact with each other,

exchanging goods like obsidian, marine

shell, iron ore m irrors, an d the like (Pires-

Ferr eira 1975). Tlap acoya in the Basin of

Mexico sent Paloma Negative and Cesto

Wh ite pottery to San José Mogote in the

Valley of Oaxaca; Oaxaca sent Leandro

G r ay a n d D elfi n a Fin e G r ay p o tt er y t oTlapacoya and to San Lorenzo, Veracruz

(Marcus 1989:192; Flann ery an d Marcus

1994:259–263, 286). San Jos é M ogot e re -

ce ive d tu r tle sh e ll d r u m s a n d p e ar ly

freshwater mussels from the San Lorenzo

r egion ; it a lso r ece ive d G u am u ch al

Brushed pottery from Chiapas (Flannery

an d Marcus 1994:286). Magn etite from

Oaxaca reached San Pablo in M orelos an dSan Lorenzo in Veracruz (Pires-Ferreira

1975).

Th e re a re t wo r ea so n s w h y su ch e x-

changes of goods should not surp rise u s.

The first is that intersite distances were

not great. Given foot travel estimates of

4.5 km p er h (Morley 1938:234) o r 32 km

p er d ay (H am m on d 1978), even a trip from

the Basin of Mexico to the Chiapas Coastwould take less than a m onth. The second

reason is that chiefly elites are always ea-

ger for p restigious gifts from other chiefly

elites.

THE OLMEC IN WIDER CONTEXT

L e t u s n o w l o o k a t t h e O l m e c i n t h e

context of chiefdom s worldwide. The ap o-gee of this flamboyant society took place

betwee n 1150 a nd 300 b .c. on Mexico’s

Gu lf Coa st (Grove 1997). Wh at w e kn ow of

its demographic history suggests typical

chiefly cycling. San Lorenzo, perh aps the

earliest O lmec cent er , peaked bet ween

1150 and 900 b .c.; it th en su ffered a loss of

population and many of it s s tone monu-

m en ts were d efaced, most likely by a rivalch ie fd o m (C oe a n d D ie h l 1980a , b ;

Cyphers 1997). San Lorenzo’s population

was partially restored between 600 an d

400 b.c., after which it collapsed again and

lay abandoned for centuries rather than

becoming part of a state.

3MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE


4/37

La Venta, a second Olmec center some

90 k m t o t h e n o rt h ea st , r os e t o p r om i-

ne nce betwee n 900 and 600 b.c. (Drucker

et al. 1959; Gon zález Lau ck 1996). It is

probably no accident that La Venta’s rise

coin cide d with San Loren zo’s 900–600 b.c.h ia tu s. W h eth er La Ve nta or a th ir d

chiefly center was responsible for defac-

ing San Lorenzo’s monuments, this cycle

of synchron ized rises an d collapses is typ-

ical of chiefdom s comp eting for labor an d

r esour ces (H . W r ight 1984; Ander s on

1994).

In d e ed , th e O lm e c r ese m b le d m a n y

other chiefdom s worldwide. Som e of theirchiefly centers covered hu nd reds of hect-

ares, like the largest Mississippian centers

of N or th Am e rica . Th e O lm e c b u ilt

e a rth e n m o u n d s lik e s om e P olyn e sia n

chiefdom s. They set u p hu ge stone sculp-

ture s like chiefdom s on Easter Islan d, an d

carved wooden statues and jade sumptu-

ary goods like th e M aori. Wh ile th ey were

not identical to any of those other chief-

doms, the difference was more of degree

than kind.

Many chiefly centers sprawled over ar-

eas larger than that of a typical Bronze

Age city. This results from the fact that

chiefs cann ot control pe ople at a distance,

as states can; many chiefs therefore con-

centrated thousan ds of farm ers, warriors,and craftsmen as close to their residences

as p ossible. Conversely, wh en a ch iefdom

“cycled dow n,” it s loss of population

could be as spectacular as that recorded

from San Loren zo at 900 b.c. by Sym ond s

an d Lun agó m ez (1997:135).

Even at the ir peaks, San Loren zo and La

Venta were smaller than Cahokia, a Mis-

sissippian chiefly center in Illinois. At itsap ogee in A.D. 1250, Cah okia is e stima ted

to have covered 13 km 2 (Miln er 1998:109;

Pauketat 1994). This is six times the cur-

rent estimate for La Venta (González

Lauck 1996:75) and twice the most hyper-

bolic estima te for San Loren zo (Lu na gó-

mez 1995).3 Surveys of the American Bot-

tom , th e a llu via l va lle y su r rou n d in g

Cah okia, suggest th at th e site’s imm ed iate

“sustaining area” may have covered 3000

km 2. By A.D. 1400 it h ad collap sed with ou t

becoming part of a state.Like the Olmec, Cahokia was once con-

ceived of as a “mot her cult ur e.” Fort y

years ago, when we had much less infor-

m a t io n t h an w e d o n o w, t h e Am e r ica n

Bottom was considered “something of a

font from which all Mississipp ian [cul-

ture] arose, even the source of invading

w aves of popul at i on” f or ot her par t s of

the eastern United States (Anderson 1994:144). O ver t he pas t four decades, t hat

m o d e l o f C a h ok ia n m o th e r cu lt u re h a s

been replaced by a multiple-center model.

The Mississipp ian is now see n a s “em erg-

ing” (Smith 1990) sim ultaneously from

loca l W oo dla n d cu ltu r es a ll o ve r th e

Southeast, and “any recourse to popula-

t io n m o ve m e n t is su s p ect ” (An d e r so n

1994:144).Even within the 3000 km 2 American

Bottom , Milner (1990:29) wou ld n ow see

Cahokia as pr imus in ter pares, t he domi -nant polit ical ent it y am ong a num ber of

organizationally similar (if less complex)

semiautonomous chiefdoms which exer-

cised considerable control over their own

t er r it or ies —s omet hi ng anal ogous , in

other words, to Powhatan ’s confed eracy of 200 villages (Roun tree 1989). And erson

(1994:141) po ints t o a sign ifican t d iffere n ce

between Cahokia and most early states:

“the comp lete absen ce [at Cah okia] of ev-

idence for formal, differentiated adminis-

trative structures.”

While it lacked adm inistrative struc-

tures, Cahokia did build earthen mounds.

On e of these, Monks Moun d, stands 30 mhigh and cover s an ar ea 300 212 m

(Anderson 1994:138). It is the largest

3 The largest estimates for San Lorenzo would in-

clude, within the boundaries of that one site, locali-

ties which oth er rep orts consider separate sites in the

settlement hierarchy below San Lorenzo.



5/37

e ar th e n str uctu re in th e N ew W or ld ,

dwarfing even the largest pyramid at La

Venta (Drucker et al. 1959:11).

Som e Polynesian chiefdom s also bu ilt

m oun d group s rivaling La Venta. The Tu’i

Tonga , or h ered itary chief, of Tonga ru ledfrom a fortified ceremonial center called

La pah a on th e islan d of Ton ga ta pu

(McKern 1929; Kirch 1984:228). Stretching

along the shore of a lagoon for 1.5 km,

Lapaha featur ed a s er ies of pl azas and

20–30 earthe n m oun ds, b oth circular an d

rectangular. Historically known chiefs or

their brothers and sisters lie bu ried un der

specific mounds.Several Polynesian chiefdom s, most n o-

tably Easter Island, erected monumental

s tone s tatues analogous t o t he coloss al

heads of San Lorenzo and La Venta (Fig.

1). Based on ethnohistoric records, Bahn

and Flenley (1992) suggest that the huge

statues or moai of Easter Island represen timp ort ant ancest or s. They w ere s et on

slopes above villages to stand guard dur-ing the ceremonies of their descendants,

but were sometimes toppled by victorious

enemies. Easter Island was an open chief-

dom in Goldm an ’s (1970:21) term s, not

n ea rly a s p ow er fu l a s th e p ar am ou n t

chiefdoms of Tonga and Hawai’i. Despite

this, Easter Island carved 900 to 1000 moai (Van Tilburg 1994), roughly 100 times as

many colossal heads as are known fromSan Lorenzo (Diehl and Coe 1996:15).

Many chiefdoms carved jade, another

activity for which the Olmec are known.

Among th e m ost spectacular were the t ikis of jadeite or n eph rite carved by the Maori

(Mea d et a l. 1985), a tr ad itiona l Polyne sian

chiefdom. Some carvers were renowned

t h ro u gh o u t N e w Ze ala n d , a n d t h e b e st

jad es were given n am es an d beca m e h eir -looms for the elite.

Maori chiefs also supported carvers of

w ood e n h ou se p osts a n d sta tu e s (e .g.

Me ad et al. 1985: Pl. 37, 39, 47, 58). Th is

craft is another with which the Olmec are

now credited, based on the discovery of

waterlogged wooden busts in a spring atEl M an at ı́, Ver acr u z (Or tı́z an d Rod rı́gu ez

1989, 1999). As Fig. 2 sh ou ld m ake clear,

how ever , t he bes t M aor i car ver s t ook a

backseat to no one, including the Olmec.

Maori chiefs’ hou ses h ad carved lintels,

t hr es holds , s ide post s, r oof beams , and

sup port p osts. Each hou se was considered

a work of art and given a name. Similar

craftsman ship was lavished even on stor-age h ouses, which might be given n ames

like Te O ha, “The Abund ance.” M aor i

chiefs also com m issioned Mee ting H ouses

for t heir follower s. The r oofs of t hese

Meeting H ouses were sup ported by hu ge

upr ight post s, s omet imes car ved t o r e-

FIG. 1. M any chiefdom s erected stone sculptures

of chiefly ancestors. (a ) Moai 27 from Easter Island

(height 5.45 m). (b ) C olo ss al H e ad 4 fr om Sa n

Lorenzo (height 1.78 m). Redrawn from Van Tilburg

(1994) and de la Fuente (1975).



6/37

semble warriors; the door posts were also

carved, often depicting legendary ances-tors.

San Lorenzo h as p roduced one feature

which (although enigmatic) hints that the

O lmec may have had compar able publ ic

bu ildings, bu t with roofs supp orted b y ba-

salt colum ns instead of wooden posts. The

evidence consists of a carved basalt col-

um n (now broken in ha lf), its up right base

set in a patch of red clay floor with asso-

cia te d ste p s a n d a ston e -lin e d d r ain

(Cyphers 1997: Fig. 7.15).4

In su m , th e O lm e c fi t com for ta blywith in th e p a ra m ete rs of ch ie fd om s

worldwide. They bu ilt m ound s and plazas

like Tongan chiefdoms, carved jades and

wooden statues like the Maori, erected co-

lossal heads like Easter Island, and con-

centrated thousand s of farm ers, warriors,

and artisans in sprawling settlements as

the chiefs of Cahokia d id. The Olm ec look

im pressive relative to their contemp orar-ies, bu t not in comp arison to later societies

like those centered at Teotihu acán and

M on te Albán .

THE 11 OLMEC-CENTRIC TRAITSPROPOSED IN OA

In spite of the Olmecs’ resemblance to

other chiefdoms, Coe has always imag-ined th em to be a colonizing em pire, “Me-

soam erica’s first true civilization.” Let us

look at the 11 “traits” which he and his

co-author b elieve sup port th e O lm ec-cen-

tric view (Diehl and Coe 1996:11).

Trait 1. San Lorenzo an d La Venta had“multitiered, hierarchical settlement sys-

tems that integrated towns, smaller vil-

lages, tiny hamlets, craft workshops andsp ecial ritu al locales”—system s th at “oc-

curred nowhere else in Mesoamerica until

centuries later.” (Convinced that “special

ritual locales” were unique to the Olmec,

th e a u th or s of O A u se th em a ga in a s

Trait 7.)

Som eone eviden tly hasn ’t been reading

the settlemen t pattern literature. Every

4 The basalt column is called Monument 57. Un-

fortun ately, the patch of red clay floor with steps h as

been nicknamed “El Palacio Rojo,” an easily rem em-

bered but misleading label since we lack a plan of

the b uilding, and what we d o have looks nothing like

a Mesoamerican palace (see Flannery 1998 for exam-

ples).

FIG. 2. Many chiefdom s were noted for elaborate

wood carving. (a ) Maori carved post (height 175 cm).

(b ) Carved bust from El M anat ı́ (height 55 cm).

Drawn from ph otos in Mead et al. (1985) and Ort ı́z

an d Rod rı́gu ez (1989).



7/37

major chiefly center of the period 1150–

450 b.c. whose hinterland has been sys-

t emat ically s ur veyed had villages and

hamlets hierarchically below it. The Basin

of Mexico (Sanders, Parsons, and Santley

1979; N ied er be rge r 1996: Ma p 1), th e Val-ley of Mo re los (H irth 1980, G rove 1987),

the Valley of Oaxaca (Kowalewski et al.

1989; Marcus and Flann ery 1996), the

Chiapas coast (Clark and Blake 1994), and

northern Belize (Hammond 1991) all had

hierarchies of villages and hamlets below

major centers. As for “craft workshops,”

exampl es include t he M atadamas cher t

q u arr ies (Wh alen 1986) a n d Fábr ica SanJosé saltwor ks (Dren n an 1976) in th e Val-

ley of Oaxaca. “Spe cial ritua l locales” are

a lso w id e sp r e ad ; co n sid e r th e p a in t ed

cliffs and caves above the site of Tlapa-

coya in the Basin of Mexico which, ori-

ented east toward the volcanoes Ixtacci-

huatl and Popocatepetl, receive the early

light of sun rise an d “m ay have constituted

a significant component of sacred space”(Niederberger 1996:87). The painted cave

of Oxtotitlán in Gu errero (Grove 1970)

would be a second example.

Trait 2. Although we “cannot yet deci-pher the meanings,” San Lorenzo and La

Vent a “w ere laid out as cosmograms .”

This is sheer speculation, based on Coe’s

belief t hat San Lorenzo w as laid out t o

rese m ble a “gigan tic bird flying east” (Coean d Diehl 1980a:387). This notion is re-

futed by geological studies which show

that, although modified by architectural

t er r acing, t he over all s hape of t he San

Lorenzo plateau is largely the result of

n at u ra l e ro sion (Cyp h er s 1997:102–105).

While true cosmograms have not been

found, many early Mesoamerican cultures

used solar or astral pr inciples in orientingimp ortan t b uildings. As e arly a s 1350 b.c.,

t he occupant s of t he Valley of O axaca

w er e a p p a re n tly a lig n in g t h eir M e n ’s

Houses to the sun’s path during the equi-

n ox. This resulted in an orien tation 8° N of

east, or as it is often given, 8° W of north

(Flan n er y an d M ar cus 1994:31–33; M ar cus

an d Flann ery 1996:87). C om p lex A at La

Venta had a similar orientation (Drucker

et al. 1959), but since the Oaxaca Men’s

Hou ses an teda te Com plex A by 500 years,

o n e ca n h a r d ly cr ed it t h e O lm e c w ithMexico’s fi rst solar or astral alignm en ts.

Trait 3. Alt hough admi tt ing t hat “w elack pr ecis e dat a on t he s ize of O lmec

polities,” the au thors of OA argue that th e

territories controlled by Olmec centers

may have been “significantly larger than

those of their contem poraries.” The truth

is tha t we also lack pre cise d ata on th e size

of their contem poraries’ p olities, m akingthe whole topic speculative.

Trait 4. The Olmec, OA asserts, “had ahighly soph isticated symb ol system ex-

pressed in a coherent art style.” We defer

our discussion of this trait to a later sec-

tion, where we sh ow that San Lorenzo had

only a su bset of the repertoire of symbols

used through out early Mexico.

Trait 5. The O lmec invented m onum en-tal stone carving, which was “a defining

characteristic of every Mesoam erican civ-

iliza tio n .” W e a gr ee t h at m o n u m e n t al

sculpture was a defining characteristic of

the Olmec; the question is, how accurate

an ind icator of sociop olitical com p lexity is

it ? W e have alr eady s how n t hat East er

Island , a m odest chiefdom by Polynesianstandard s, produced 100 times as man y

coloss al heads as ar e known fr om San

Lorenzo.

Trait 6. Predictably, the authors of OAuse the colossal heads for a second trait.

Bo th t h e h e a d s, a n d t h e w oo d en b u st s

found in t he s pr ing at El M anatı́, ar e

t hought by t hem t o be “ por t r ai t s of r ul -

ers.” Again, this is p ure speculation. Liket he s t at ues of E as t er I s l and, t he O l mec

colossal head s m ight rep resent chiefly an-

cestor s. As for th e b u sts of El Man atı́, the y

might be (1) ancestors, like some Maori

woodcarvings, or (2) surrogate sacrificial

victims tossed into a spring.



8/37

Trait 7. This trait, “sp ecial ritua l locales,”has already bee n discussed un der Trait 1.

Trait 8. The ballgame, O A claims, find sits “oldest known evidence” in Olmec de-

posits; San Lorenzo’s Palangana moun d

complex (600–400 b.c.) “is the first known,purposefully constructed ballcourt.” This

ass er tion is contr adict ed by H ill et al.

(1998), wh o claim to h ave foun d a 1400 b.c.

ballcourt at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas.

The game itself is surely older than the

O lm e c; w e e ve n h a ve on e p r ece ra m ic

camp site with a boulder-lined area that

could be for ballgames (Marcus and Flan-

n ery 1996:58–59).The most convincing evidence for an

early Mexican b allgame comes from rub-

ber b alls preserved by waterlogging in th e

sp rin g at El Ma n at ı́ (O rtı́z a n d Rod rı́gu ez

1989, 1999). The discovery of these balls,

however, is an accident of good preserva-

tion. We cannot assum e that sim ilar ball-

games w er e unknow n i n t he hi ghl ands ;

after all, there are very early figurines of ballp layers at El Op eñ o, Mich oa cán (Oliv-

eros 1974).

Trait 9. The au thors of OA u se El Man atı́for a second trait: the first “ritual use of

ru bb er.” It m akes sense tha t the first ritual

u s e o f ru b b e r m ig h t o ccu r o n t h e G u lf

Coast, wh ere ru bb er tree s a re n ative—just

as it ma kes sense tha t the first ritua l use of

obsidian and magnetite might occur in thehighlands, where those raw materials are

n a tive . Th e p o in t is , e ve ry r eg io n h a s

something it did “first.”

Trait 10. But wait; El Man atı́ gets usedfor a third trait. It provides th e O lmec withthe oldest eviden ce for “infan t sacrifice in

water-related rituals.”

The truth is th at by the tim e El Man atı́

was occupied, infant sacrifice had existedin Mexico for thousands of years. Several

infan ts were sacrificed (perh ap s even can-

n iba lized ) in Leve l XIV of Coxcat lán Ca ve

in the Tehu acán Valley, an occupation

dating to 5000 b.c. (MacNeish et al. 1972:

266–270). The fact th at th e occu p an ts of

th e ar id Teh u acán Valley u sed a d ry cave

for such sacrifices, while the occupants of

th e h u m id G u lf C oa st u se d a sp rin g,

hardly seems earth-shaking.

Trait 11. Th e O lm e c h a d “e xt en s ive

t r ade net w or ks . ” W hi l e t hey admi t t hatmost Formative cultures had extensive

ne tworks, the au thors of OA insist that th e

O lm e c “m o ve d a g re at er q u a n t ity a n d

m ore d ifferent kind s of goods” than their

contempor aries (t hey t hen pad t he lis t

w it h “pr obable expor ts ” for w hich w e

have no ph ysical evidence.) The fact is

that we cur ren tly have n o objective, qu an -

t ifi ed m e a su r e o f go od s m o ve d b y a n y

Form ative society, espe cially in th e case of

perishables.

We cann ot resist pointing ou t the irony

of th e O A auth ors’ po sition on Trait 11: All

Fo rm a t ive cu lt u re s h a d t ra d e , b u t t h e

O l m e c h a d t h e most t rade. Doesn’t that

make t he O lmec pr imus in ter pares?

TRAITS CONSPICUOUS BY THEIR

ABSENCE

As interesting as the 11 traits given in

OA are the “firsts” the au thors do not list

for the Olmec. These includ e the first use

of l ime plast er , adobe br ick, and s tone

masonry, three materials emblematic of

Classic Mesoamerican civilization. OA

cann ot list these as O lmec inn ovations be -

cause their first use occurred in the Mex-

ican highlands. In the Valley of Oaxaca,

fo r e xa m p le , lim e p la st er w as u s ed in

Me n ’s H ou ses as ear ly as 1350 b.c.; adob es

were u sed in p u blic buildings by 1000 b.c.;

and stone m asonry platforms up to 2.5 min h eight were in u se b y 1000 b.c. (Ma rcus

an d Flan ner y 1996:87, 109–110). By th e tim e

such construction techniques reached Com-

plex A, La Venta (Drucker et al. 1959), they

had been used in the highlands for cen-

turies.



9/37

A DETAILED LOOK AT TRAIT 4

We now look at Trait 4, the “highly so-

p h is tica te d O lm e c s ym b o l s yst em / a r t

style.” OA asserts that this style spread

over a ll of Mesoam erica be twee n 1150 an d

850 b.c., and it s pr incipal component s

w ere “monum ent al, t hr ee-dimens ional

stone sculpture; hollow whiteware figu-r in e s d e p ictin g b a bie s; a n d C alza d as

Carved pottery” (Diehl and Coe 1996:23).

The OA auth ors insist that these elem ents

“are ind igenous in San Lorenzo’s Initial

Olmec period culture an d ap pear as intru-

sive e lemen ts a t San José Mogote in the

Valley of O axaca; Tlatilco, Tlapa coya, an d

Las Bocas in central Mexico; several sites

in Gu errero; and Abaj Takalik, La Blanca,

and t he M azatá n r egion in t he Pacifi c

coastal region of Ch iapas and Gu atem ala”

(ibid.). As we shall see, th e available da ta

do n ot sup port the n otion that carved pot-

tery and hollow bab y dolls are “intru sive”

in the highlands of Mexico.It is now clear that widespread regional

styles existed in Mexico even before the

Olmec rose to prominence. Between 1400

and 1150 b.c., as point ed out by C lar k

(1991: Fig. 8), Mexico was divided into at

least two ceramic style provinces (Fig. 3).

FIG. 3. Map of Formative Mexico, showing style provinces and places mentioned in the text.

Hachured area, highland province. Shaded area, lowland province. The style boundary emerged at

1400–1150 b .c. (Clark 1991: Fig. 8) an d re m ain ed inta ct th rou gh 1150–850 b .c. 1, Tlatilco; 2, Tlap a-

coya; 3, Coapexco; 4, Gualupita and Atlihuayan; 5, Nexpa and San Pablo; 6, Chalcatzingo; 7, Las

Bocas ; 8, Ajalpan an d Co xcatlán Ca ve; 9, Teop an te cuan itlán ; 10, O xtotitlán Ca ve; 11, No chixtlán an d

Etlaton go; 12, Cu icatlán ; 13, San José Mo gote an d Tierra s Lar gas; 14, La Vent a; 15, San Loren zo; 16,

El Man atı́; 17, Las Lim as; 18, Mirad or-Plum ajillo; 19, Ch iapa de Corzo; 20, Paso de la Am ad a.



10/37

The Basin o f Mexico, Mor elos, Pu eb la, the

Tehu acán Valley, the Valleys of Oaxaca

an d N ochixtlán , a n d th e Cu icatlán Ca ñ -

ada all shared red-on-bu ff bowls, bottles,

and jars (Fig. 4). East of Tehu acán andOaxaca, this red-on-buff complex gradu-

ally gave way to one linking southern Ve-

racruz, Tabasco, and Chiapas. This low-

la n d com p le x fe atu r ed tecomates orneckless jars with bichrome slips, fluting,

or crosshatch ing (Fig. 5).

Despite these regional differences, a

f ew pot t er y t ypes w er e pr es ent on bot h

sides of the style boundary. One of these

was a pure white product called “kaolin

w are,” believed on t he basis of p etr o-grap hic an alysis to ha ve been m ad e in two

to three different regions (Fig. 6). Also

foun d on both sides of the bou nd ary were

tecomates decorated with rocker stampingin zones (Fig. 7). Such vessels make the

point that plastic decoration was already

FIG. 4. A complex of red-on-b uff vessels chara cterized the valleys of the h ighland style p rovince

at 1400–1150 b.c. (a ) Jar from Burial 1 of Nexpa. (b ) Jar from Tierras Largas. (c ) Jar from Tlapacoya.(i ,j ) Jar an d b ottle from Ajalpan . (d, e ) Hemispherical bowls from Tierras Largas. (f, g ) Hem ispherical

bowls from Tlapacoya. (h, k ) H emispherical bowls from Ajalpan. (Redrawn from Grove 1974;

Niederberger 1976; Flannery and Marcus 1994; MacNeish et al. 1970.)



11/37

p op u lar at 1400–1150 b.c., in wh at we as-

sume the Olmec-centrists would have to

consider “Grand m other Cultures.”

The So-Called “Early Horizon”

Som et im e ar ou n d 1200–1150 b.c., in th e

wor d s of Tolstoy (1989:275), “cond itions

over much of Mesoamerica evidently fa-

vored dem ographic growth, craft special-

ization, increased interregional exchange,

greater dis parit ies in s ocial r ank, andm ore elaborate ceremonialism.” Certain

communities (often the largest in each re-

gion) seem to d isplay th ese ch aracteristics

more than others. The increased interre-

gional excha nge m en tioned by Tolstoy in-

volved obsidian, m arine shell, iron ores

FIG. 5. Southern Veracruz, Tabasco, and Chiapas were part of a lowland style province at

1400–1150 b.c. (a ) Chilpate Red-on-Cream tecomate, San Lorenzo. (b ) Tepa Red-and-White teco-

mate, coastal Chiapas. (c ) Centavito Red fluted tecomate, San Lorenzo. (d ) Cotá n Red flutedtecomate, coastal Ch iapas. (e ) Tusta Red fluted tecomate, coastal Chiapas. (f ) Achiotal Gray

tecomate with zoned crosshatch, San Lorenzo. (g ) Salta O range tecomate with zoned crosshatch,

coastal Chiapas. (Redrawn from Coe and Diehl 1980a; Blake et al. 1995.)



12/37

and pigments, jade, mica, stingray spines,

t u rtle sh e ll d r u m s , a n d p o tt er y. O fte n

fl amboyant , t he pott er y came in w hit e,

b la ck, gr ay, r ed , r ed -a n d -w h ite , a n d

black-and-white. Its plastic decoration,

while still includ ing rocker stam ping, now

featured delicate fine-line incising, deep

excising or carving, and combinations of

these. Man y of the carved an d incised m o-tifs of 1150 b.c. were so stereotyped and

pan -Mesoamerican that some scholars as-

s ig n t h em t o a n “Ea rly H o rizo n ” (se e

Grove 1989 for discussion).

Olmec-centrists wan t u s to believe th at

this style was created by the Olmec and

im posed on the rest of Mexico. There are

several reasons why that is u nconvincing.

On e rea son is that M exico d id not, in fact,become one un iform style province be-

tween 1150 and 850 b.c. Ceramic assem-

blages from the Basin of Mexico, Puebla,

Mor elos, and Oa xaca—comp on en ts of th e

old re d -on -b u ff p rovin ce—still re sem bled

each other m ore than they did the assem-

blages of the lowland s. Assemb lages from

southern Veracruz, Tabasco, an d Chia-

pas —component s of t he old lowland

p rovince—still fou n d th eir stron gest ties

w ith e ach oth e r. An oth e r r ea son th e

Olmec-centrists’ model will not work is

t hat many of t he cer ami c f eat ur es t hey

attribute to the Olmec appear earlier, are

more abun dant, and /or are better mad e atTlap acoya, Tlatilco, Las Bocas, an d San

José Mogote than at San Lorenzo or La

Venta (Grove 1989).

Alm ost 30 year s ago, Joralem on (1971)

assembled an inventory of 176 allegedly

“Olmec” motifs. While widely cited by

Olmec-centrists (e.g. Coe and Diehl 1980a,

b), this stud y has two flawed assum ptions:

(1) a b elief that every m otif was O lmec n omatter what region it came from, and (2)

the notion that every motif was a deity.

Joralemon cr eat ed a “pant heon” of al -

leged “Olmec gods,” bu t he did so relying

heavily on decorated wares from Tlatilco,

Tlapacoya, Las Bocas, an d other sites in

FIG. 6. Desp ite M exico’s division into style p rovinces at 1400–1150 b.c., som e luxury potte ry

types sh owed up everywh ere. Above, collared tecoma tes in kaolin ware from San José Mogote (a,b )

and San Lorenzo (c ). Below, ka olin b ottles fro m San José M ogote (d ) and San Lorenzo (e ). (Redr awn

from Flannery and Marcus 1994; Coe and Diehl 1980a.)



13/37

t he M exican highlands , r at her t han on

Gulf Coast pottery. As a result, a funny

thing hap pened to the “pantheon” on theway to San Lorenzo: most of i ts “gods”

dr opped out. D is appoint ed O lmec-cen-

trists failed to realize that th is was be cause

the bulk of Joralemon’s moti fs were not Ol mec at all , but h ighland M exican.

A few years later, Pyn e (1976) stu d ied

595 exam ples of de corated pottery from

1150–650 b.c. in th e Valley of Oa xaca.

Pyne identified 18 free-standing motifs,the full inven tory of which can b e found

in Figs. 12.5–12.6 of Flan n e ry a n d M ar cu s

(1994). Rather than referring to these as

“gods,” Pyne sim p ly called th em “Motifs

1-18.” She d id p oint ou t th at Motifs 1–6

r e s e m b l e d a b e i n g C o e h a d c a l l e d t h e

“fi r e -s e r p e n t ” o r “s ky -d r a g o n ,” w h ile

M ot ifs 8–14 r es emb led anot her bei ng,

th e “wer e-jagu ar ” (Pyne 1976:273). Be-

c a u s e t h e c e r a m i c s P y n e s t u d i e d c o u l d

b e lin k ed t o h o u se fl oo rs , b u r ia ls, o r

fe a t u r e s (a n a d v a n t a ge Jo r a le m o n d i dn o t h a v e ) , P y n e w a s a b l e t o p o i n t o u t

that Motifs 1–6 an d Motifs 8–14 were

m ut u ally exclus i ve, t hat is , as s ociat ed

w it h di ffer ent hou s eholds or r es iden t ial

wards (Pyne 1976:278).

Even tu ally, b y com b in in g O to-

m a n g u e an e th n o h is to ry w ith a n e ve n

larger sample of ceramics, Marcus (1989)

concl uded t hat mos t of t he mot i f s w er en o t “ g o d s ” a t a l l , b u t r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e

g re a t w or ld - d ivis io n s Ea r th a n d Sk y

(Flan n er y an d Ma rcu s 1994:136–149).

Motifs 1–6 d ep icted Sky in i ts “angry”

f o r m , L i g h t n i n g , a “ s e r p e n t o f fi r e ” i n

the sky (Figs. 8a–c). Motifs 8–14 de -

pi ct ed Ear t h—s omet im es as an Ear t h

m a s k (Fig . 9) b u t o ft e n in it s “a n g r y”

form, Earthquake, complete with a clefth e a d r e p r e s e n t in g a fi s su r e i n t h e e a r t h

(Fig. 8d).

Th e r e as on s u ch m o t ifs w e re w id e -

spread in early Mexico is because Earth

and Sky w er e p ar t s of an ancient cos mo-

l ogi cal di chot omy, not becaus e of any-

thing the Olmec did. Grove (1989) sug-

ges ts t hat m uch of t he s ym bol ic cont ent

e xis te d b e fo re 1150 b .c. a n d is m o r elikely t o r efl ect t he com m on ances t r y of

Formative cultures than the ingenuity of

one cult ur e. By t he t im e t he m ot ifs fi r s t

a p p e ar ed o n ce ra m ics, t h ey w er e a l-

read y stylized a nd ha d regional varian ts.

Fo r e xa m p le , w h ile Ea rt h w as o ft en

sh ow n a s Ea rth q u a ke in th e tr em o r-

pr on e h ighl ands , ot her ar t i sans r efer r ed

t o Ea rt h b y r en d e r in g t h e fo ot o f t h eG r eat C r ocodi le on w hos e b ack t hey be-

lieved they resided (Fig. 10; see Marcus

1989).

In sum, despite references to the period

1150–850 b.c. as an Ear ly H or izon , M exico

was still d ivided into roughly the same

FIG. 7. Some decorative techniques were shared

by the highland and lowland style provinces at 1400–

1150 b.c. Here we see tecomates with zoned rocker

stamping, in Matadamas Orange from Tierras Lar-gas (a ), Tatagapa Red from San Lorenzo (b ), and an

un specified ware from Tlatilco (c ). (Redrawn from

Flann ery and Marcus 1994; Coe and Diehl 1980a;

Porter 1953.)



14/37

stylistic p rovin ces see n at 1400–1150 b .c.(Fig. 3). Ties between the Basin of Mexico,

M orelos, Puebla, and O axaca r emained

stron g, with Sa n José M ogote an d Tlatilco/

Tlapacoya using sim ilar distinctive arti-

facts (Figs. 11, 12) and displaying similar

m otifs on sim ilar vessels (Fig. 13). Ties

between Veracruz/Tabasco and Chiapas

also rem ained close; for e xam ple, a Brain-

e rd -Rob in son m a trix ca lcu la te d b yAgrinier (1989) shows strong similarity in

ceram ic assem b la ges b etween San

Lorenzo (Veracruz) a nd Mirador-Plum a-

jillo (Ch ia p as). Fu rth er artifact sim ila rities

b e tw ee n t h ose t wo sit es in clu d e t h ou -

s an d s o f ir on o re “lu g n u t s” o r m u lt i-

drilled cubes (Fig. 14). These unusual ar-tifacts—p rese n t also at Las Lima s, Vera -

cru z (Agrin ier 1989:21)—are virt u ally ab-

sent to the west of the style boundary.

EVALUATING THE CLAIM OF“INTRUSIVENESS”

Having shown that the major stylistic

p rovin ce s of e arly M exico we re u n -changed by the rise of the Olmec, let us

look at the claim in OA that “monumental

three-dimensional stone sculpture; h ol-

low whiteware figurines depicting babies;

and Calzadas Carved pottery” were “in-

t ru s ive e le m e n ts ” a t h ig h la n d ce n te rs

FIG. 8. Representations of Sky/Lightning (a–c ) and Earth/Earthquake (d–f ) on t he pot t e ry of 1150–850 b.c. (a ) Lightn ing as a “serpen t of fir e,” Tlatilco. (b ) Pyne’s Motif 1 (a stylized version of

Lightning in which the eyebrow flames are sine curves and the serpent’s gums are inverted Us),

San José M ogo te. (c ) Motif 1 set at a 45° angle, as it often was in the highland s. (d ) Angry versions

of Earth with its head cleft by a seismic fissur e, Tlapacoya. (e ) Stylized Earth mask with cleft h ead

framed by “music brackets,” Tierras Largas. (f ) Pyne’s Motif 13, Earth’s cleft head, as it often

appeared on white ware in the highlands (see Fig. 19).



15/37

(Diehl an d Coe 1996:23). H ow does one

evaluat e s uch a claim? To ar gue t hat a

specific area was the center of origin for

a n a rtifa ct ca te gor y, w e b elie ve youshould to b e ab le to show th at it occurred

fi r st in t hat ar ea; that i t w as m ore abun-

dan t in th at area; that it d isplayed greater

va rie ty in t h at a re a; a n d / o r t h at it w as

more skillfully made in that area. Let us

see if these criteria are m et.

M onumental Three-D imensional Stone Sculpture

The Gulf Coast does indeed have m on-

um ental stone sculpture in greatest abu n-

FIG. 10. Alternative ways of depicting Earth on

p otte ry, 1150–850 b.c. (a ) Angry Earth (with cleft

head and anthropomorphized world directions) in-

cised on a Pilli White vessel from Tlapacoya. No

vessel with a motif this complex has been found in

the San Lorenzo phase, which lacked an incisedwhite ware compar able to Pilli Wh ite. (b ) The hide of

a crocodile , a s de pict ed on a hum a n figure from

Atlihuayan. The foot of the crocodile (often mistak-

enly called a “paw-wing” motif) was widely used as

a symbol for Earth (see text). (Redrawn from Nied-

erberger 1987: Fig. 439; Benson and de la Fuen te

1996:187.)

FIG. 9. Fine-line incised versions of Earth on pot-

tery, highland style province (1150–850 b.c.). (a )

Earth mask on Pilli White vessel, Tlapacoya; the

crossed bands in the mouth are Pyne’s Motif 7. (b )

Stylized Earth m ask on Leandr o Gra y vessel, Tierras

Largas. (Redrawn from Niederberger 1976; Flannery

and Marcus 1994.)



16/37

dan ce and variety. San Lorenzo alone has

produced more than 70 stone monu men ts,

includi ng 10 coloss al heads (C ypher s

1997). To be sure, since m an y h ead s we re

found r eused, r ededicated, defaced, r e-

worked, or out of context, we cannot besure how many actually date to the Early

Horizon. Many similar monu men ts from

La Ven ta are thou ght to be Midd le Form a-

tive (850–500 b.c.) in d ate (Dru cker et al.

1959; Ham mond 1988; Graham 1989;

Grove 1997).

The r eal qu est ion is , how oft en does

such sculptu re ap pear as an “intrusive el-

emen t” in the Mexican highlands? Teo-p a n te cu a n it lá n (G u e rr er o) h a s so m e

thre e-dim en siona l mon um en ts (Martı́ne z

Don juán 1985, 1994), bu t m ost of th es e ar e

M i ddl e For mat i ve and mi ght have been

i nfl uenced by t he much near er hi ghl and

site of Cha lcatzingo (Grove 1987). Oa x-

aca’s Early Horizon sculptures, such as

Mon um en ts 1 an d 2 of San José Mogote,

are not Olmec in style (Marcus 1989:165;Flan ne ry an d Ma rcus 1994: Fig. 18.9). In

the Basin of Mexico neither Tlatilco, Co-

ap exco, nor Tlap acoya ha s prod uced ston e

m onu m ents imitating th ose of the O lm ec.

Thus, wh ile conced ing a Gu lf Coast origin

for colossal heads, we find little evidence

for t heir “int r usion” int o t he M exican

highlands.

H oll ow W hi teware Figurin es D epictin g Babies

Hollow white-slipp ed “baby dolls” ap -

pear to h ave been present at every major

M exican site of 1150–500 b.c. Tlatilco, Tla -

pacoya, Gualup ita, Las Bocas, Teopan te-

cuan itlán , San José Mogote , Etlaton go,

San Lorenzo, La Vent a, and Paso de la

Amada have all p r oduced fr agment s or

comp lete specim ens.

For hollow white dolls, we lack detailedst atis tics co m p a ra b le to t h ose fo r t h e

carved pottery discussed below. It is in-

structive, however, to examine examples

for which proveniences are known or al-

leged. Conside r th e catalogues for two re-

cent exhibits of supposedly “Olmec” art:

(1) on e h eld b y the N ationa l Gallery of Art

in Washington, D.C. (Benson and de la

Fue nte 1996) and (2) one he ld by The ArtMu seu m of Princeton Un iversity (1996).

The Na tiona l Ga llery catalog illustrates

seven hollow white dolls of young indi-

vidu als. All are masterpieces; none are

from the Gulf Coast. Two are from Tla-

tilco, two are from Tlapacoya, one is from

FIG. 11. Diagn ostic of the high land style pr ovince at 1150–850 b.c. were wh ite-slipp ed sp oute d

trays, used to m ix an d p ou r p igmen ts. From L to R, these exam ples com e from Tlatilco (Porter 1953),

Gu alup ita (Vaillan t an d Vaillan t 1934), an d Tierr as Largas (Flann ery an d Mar cus 1994). Diam eter of

a, 15.5 cm. Such trays were not a significant part of the Gulf Coast inventory; Coe and Diehl (1980a)

apparen tly did n ot find a single one at San Lorenzo. We wond er wh y Olmec-centrists continu e to

feature spou ted trays from th e highland s in their exhibits of “Olmec art” (Art Museu m of Princeton

University 1996:325). Such indiscriminate application of the term “Olmec” waters down whatever

regional and cultural significance it m ight have had, redu cing it to a synonym for “pretty.”



17/37

Las Bocas, one is from Atlihuayan (More-

los), and the last is “said to be” from Xo-

chipa la (Gu err ero). Pages 130–139 of the

Princeton catalogue illustrate nine m orewhich look relatively auth entic.5 The al-

leged proveniences are: three from Las

Bocas; two from Gu errero; one each from

Tlapacoya, “Morelos,” and “the central

highland s of Mexico;” and one listed sim -

ply as “Mexico,” although it was once at-

tributed to Las Bocas (Coe 1965: Fig. 184).The dolls illustrated in both catalogues

exceed in craftsmansh ip any hollow figu -

rine found by Coe and Diehl (1980a:261–

279) at San Lorenzo or by Drucker et al.

(1959) at La Venta. This reinforces what

we learned 35 years ago with Coe’s (1965)

publication of The Jaguar’s Children: if youw ant mas ter pieces in t he hollow w hit e

bab y doll genr e, turn to the Mexican h igh-lands. Such baby dolls were neither de-

mons tr ably earlier , n or mor e abundant ,

nor more varied, nor more skillfully made

on the Gu lf Coast; ind eed, one could m ake

a case that their epicenter was Mexico’s

central highland s.

Coe is aware o f th is fact, an d h as tried to

dismiss it by argu ing that wh ile fragm en ts

of hollow wh ite d olls occur in “househ old

deb ris” at San Lorenzo, they were treated

as “prized burial furniture” at highland

sites like Las Bocas or Gualupita (Coe

1989:77). Th e arch aeological d ata d o no t

support this contrast. The restored baby

doll shown in Fig. 15 was p ieced together

from fragments in “occupational refuse”

at Tlap acoya (Tolstoy an d Parad is 1970:

347). Pieces of hollow white dolls occur

regu larly in h ouses an d m idde ns at Valley

of Oaxaca sites, even ham lets as small as

Tierras Largas (Marcus 1998b: Figs. 10.25,

11.14, 11.44, 12.7, 12.15, 12.22, 14.15, 14.34,

15.2). And at Etlaton go in th e N ochixtlán

Valley, a broken hollow doll was swept

5 It is disturbing to see how many of the objects in

the Princeton exhibit resulted from looting. Page af-

ter page of the catalogue attributes pieces to private

collections. Don’t look for the names of any Mexican

archaeologists in th e table of contents; they wou ldn’t

have been caught dead participating in this display

of their stolen patrimony. It is p erhap s forgivable

when a peasant farmer plows up an important piece

in his field and sells it to feed his family. It is unfor-

givable wh en a p rofessional archaeologist or art his-

torian, who knows better, validates looting by au-

thenticating and glamorizing such pieces.

FIG. 12. Also diagnostic of the highland province

at 1150–850 b.c. were en igmatic gr ou nd -ston e yugui-

tos or “tiny yokes.” Some scholars b elieve th ey werepart of the paraphernalia for a ballgame. (a ) From

San José Mogote (Flanner y and Marcus 1994:Fig.

13.9). (b ) From Tlatilco (Porter 1953:Pl. 13H). Width of

(b ), 15.5 cm.



18/37

into a trash-filled pit with th e rem ains of a

dead dog (Blomster 1998).

Pottery wi th Pan- M esoameri can Carved Motifs

Finally, let us examine the claim in OA

that Calzadas Carved p ottery was an “in-

trusive elem ent” at sites like Tlapacoya

and San José Mogote. Since key strati-

grap hic un its from Tlap acoya, San José

Mogote, and San Lorenzo have been p ub -

lished in detail, we can comp are all three

sites to see if the evidence supports this

claim. We will look at several aspects of

the pottery with pan-Mesoamerican mo-

tifs—its abu n da n ce in term s of sh erd s p er

cubic m eter; the p ercentage of the ceram ic

assemblage it makes up; i ts diversity in

s ur face color and vess el s hape; and t he

va rie ty of p a n -M esoa m er ica n m o tifs

present in each region.

The Basin of M exico

We begin at Tlapacoya in the Basin of

Mexico (Niederberger 1976, 1987). Nieder-

FIG. 13. Between 1150 an d 850 b.c. potter y as-

s e m bl a ge s of t he hi ghl a nd s t yl e provi nc e s ha re d

s im i la r c om bi na t ions of ve s se l s ha p e a nd m ot if.

H e re w e s e e da rk bot t l e s w i t h c ros s ha t c he d s un-

bu rst m otifs from Tlatilco (a ) an d Sa n José M ogo te

(b ). (Redr awn from Porte r 1953:Pl. 6I; Flan ne ry an d

Ma rcu s 1994:99). H eigh t of (a ) 16.2 cm.

FIG. 14. Just as highland Mexican sites of 1150–

850 b.c. shar ed groun d-ston e yuguitos, m any lowland

s it es s ha re d m ul tidrille d iron ore cube s or “lug

nuts.” These examples, averaging 3.1 cm thick, come

from Mirador-Plumajillo (a–c ) and San Lorenzo (d–f ).

(Drawn from photographs in Agrinier 1989:25; Coe

and Diehl 1980a:242.)



19/37

berger’s un it “Zohap ilco-Tlapacoya IV”

was a stratigraph ic tren ch one m eter wide,

dug by natural stratigraphy. The relevant

phases are Nevada (Levels 13, 12), 1350–

1250 b.c.; Ayotla (Levels 11, 10, 9), 1250–1000 b .c.; a n d Ma n an tial (Levels 8, 7, 6),

1000–800 b.c. Profile dr awings suggest

that 39 m of the tre nch were op en ed to the

de pth of Level 9, while n o m ore th an 30 m

were open ed to Level 13 or below (Nied-

erberger 1976: Pl. 3, 4).

The t rench it self w as qui te long, and

few of the levels ra n for its full len gth . For

examp le, Level 9 ran for 20 m an d was 60cm t h ick , so a p p r oxim a t ely 12 cu b ic

meters were removed (1 20 0.6 m).

Rough ly 12 m 3 of Level 8 were excavated;

t he volum e r emoved fr om Level 7 w as

only 4.4 m 3 (1 11 0.4 m). We have

chosen to highlight Levels 9 –7 at Tlap a-

coya because they have the highest fre-

qu ency of pan -Mesoamerican m otifs. The

vol umes of ear t h r emoved can be com-

pa red with those at San José M ogote an d

San Loren zo (see below).

Now let us look at Fig. 16, the graph of sh e rd fr eq u e n cie s in N ie d er be rge r’s

tren ch, and Table 1, the sherd coun ts of all

Tla p a co ya p o tt er y t yp e s b e ar in g p a n -

Mesoamerican motifs. Note, first of all,

t hat 6 p ott er y t ypes at Tlapacoya bear

pan-Mesoamerican motifs. Such motifs

occur on local dark gray wares (Tortuga

Polishe d an d Volcán Polish ed ); gray w are

possibly imp orted from Oaxaca (AtoyacFine G r ay); w hit e- rimm ed black w are

(Valle White-rim Black); white-slipp ed

ware (Pilli White); and resist white ware

(Paloma Negative).

Next, note how comm on man y of these

types were . Tortuga Polishe d was the sec-

o n d m o st a b u n d a n t w ar e o f t h e Ayo tla

ph ase, outnu m bered on ly by the sherds of

utilitarian jars (Chalco Smoothed). Tor-tuga Polished was 20% of the sherds in

Levels 13-6; the re we re 7728 she rd s of it in

Level 8 alone . Volcán Polishe d , a related

ware constituting less than 5% of the pot-

tery, reache d a p eak of 787 she rd s in Level

9. The se two gray wa res b ore m an y differ-

ent motifs, from carved versions of Pyne’s

Motifs 1, 2, and 7 to fine-line incised or

ha chur ed versions of her Motifs 12 an d 15(Niederberger 1976: Pl. 35, 37).

Third, note that Tortuga Polished and

Volcán Polishe d wer e local typ es; the y d id

not appear suddenly at 1150 b.c., as if in-

tr od u ce d fr om e lse wh e re . Both w er e

p r ese n t th r ou gh ou t th e N e va d a p h a se

(1350–1250 b.c.), with Tortu ga Polishe d

representing more than 20% of the classi-

fied sherds at that time. Valle White-rimBlack—another type already present at

Tlap aco ya by 1350 b.c.—wa s a lso u se d for

pan -Mesoamerican m otifs (Niederberger

1976: Pl. 45).

What adds to the variety of Tlapacoya

p o tt er y is t h e fa ct t h at w h it e- slip p e d

FIG. 15. Pilli W hite hollow d oll from Tlapacoya.

This doll was found in pieces in household refuse; ithas since b een restored as shown. H eight, 41.5 cm.

(Drawn from a photo in Benson and de la Fuente

1996:185.)



20/37

F I G .

1 6 .

F r e q u

e n c i e s o f c l a s s i fi e d s h e r d s i n

L e v e l s 1 3 – 6 a t Z o h a p i l c o - T l a p a c o y a I V ,

B a s i n o f M e x i c o .

P o t t e r y t y p e s b e a r i n g p a n - M

e s o a m e r i c a n

m o t i f s a r e p r i n t e

d i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s .

( B a s e d o n

N i e d e r b e r g e r 1 9 7 6 : P l . 3 2 . )



21/37

wares were also used for pa n-Mesoameri-

can motifs. Pilli Wh ite appeared in nu -

mer ous bowl forms , s ome car ved w it h

Pyne’s M otif 1 and other s s how ing her

M ot ifs 10 a n d 15 in fi n e -lin e h a ch u r e

(Niederberger 1976: Pl. 42). Paloma Nega-

tive, a related ware of the Ayotla phase,

was used for one of the m ost elegant ver-sions of Earth ever found, a vessel eclips-

in g a n y fo u n d b y C o e a n d D ie h l a t Sa n

Lorenzo (Fig. 17).

Finally we com e to Atoyac Fin e G ray, an

imp orted ware d ecorated with Pyne’s Mo-

tifs 1, 2, and 7 (Niederberger 1976: Pl. 46).

Some vessels of this type (under the ear-

lier name “Tlapacoya Gray”) have been

stud ied b y geologists Howel William s an dW ayne Lamber t, w ho consider t hem t o

ha ve b een m ad e in Oaxaca (Weaver 1967:

30; Lambert 1972; Niederberger 1987:564;

Flan n er y an d M ar cu s 1994:259–262). W e

suspect that m any of these vessels belong

to a O axaca type called Delfina Fine Gr ay.

However, other Atoyac Fine Gray vessels

illustrate d by Nied erb erge r (1976: Pl. 46)

were probab ly m ade locally.To sum m arize: carved and incised p an-

Mesoamerican motifs were neither rare

nor “intrusive” at Tlapacoya. The dark

gr ay w ar es on w hi ch t hey occur r ed had

been am ong the m ost comm on local types

at 1350 b.c., and the motifs themselves

were comm on by 1250 b .c. In Level 8,

whose volum e wa s 12 m 3, there were 7728

sherds of Tortuga Polished; in Level 7,

am oun ting to on ly 4.4 m 3, there were 2569

sh e rd s of th a t typ e. M ore ove r, p an -

TABLE 1

Zohapilco-Tlapacoya IV. Total Sherd Counts of the 6 Pottery Types Bearing Pan-Mesoamerican Motifs,

Levels 13-6, Phases Nevada Through Manantial. (Source: Niederberger 1976: 164.)

Type

N evad a Ayotla Man an tial

13 12 10–11 9 8 7 6

Tortu ga Polish ed 442 176 2954 4318 7728 2569 286

Volcán Polish ed 44 13 531 787 394 39 5

Pilli Wh ite 7 5 217 461 424 39 2

Palom a N egative — 1 38 58 16 12 3

Valle Wh ite-rim Black 31 19 220 600 522 28 1

Atoyac Fin e Gray 1 4 73 340 142 14 1

All classified sh erd s 1954 971 15637 20418 30914 11828 2278

FIG. 17. Four a ngry versions of Ea rth/ Earth-

qu ake–one for each of the four great Mesoam erican

world directions–circle this bowl from Tlapacoya.

The type, Paloma Negative, combines (1) white slip

and (2) resist wh ite over pale b rown. Locally ma de atTlapacoya, Paloma Negative was traded as far as

Oaxaca. H ighland vessels like this should not be

called “Olmec.” Coe and Diehl (1980a) report no

sherds of this ware from San Lorenzo and illustrate

no vessel approaching it in sophistication. (Drawn

from a photograph in Benson and de la Fuente 1996:

202.)



22/37

Mesoamerican motifs (sometimes bril-

liantly executed) also occurred on Tlapa-

coya ’s w hite -r im m e d b la ck, wh ite -

slipp ed, an d resist white wares.

San José M ogote

The Valley of Oaxaca lies 330 km from

Tlapacoya, but only 210 km fr om San

Lor en zo. If th e O lm e c w er e tr u ly th e

source of inspiration alleged in OA, Oa-

xaca’s Early Formative ceramics should

resemble San Lorenzo’s more than Tlapa-

coya’s. In fact, the reverse is true (Flan-

nery and Marcus 1994).The relevant periods in Oaxaca are the

Tierr as Largas p h ase (1400–1150 b.c.) an d

San José p h ase (1150–850 b.c.). Fig. 18

shows the cha nging frequ en cies of pottery

types du ring the course of these p eriods,

including the crucial Tierras Largas/San

José tran sition . All p roven iences use d in

Fig. 18 come from San José Mogote an d

Tierr as Largas, two sites excavated by n at-ural stratigraphic units. Complete sherd

coun ts can b e foun d in Flann ery and Mar-

cus (1994).

Fou r p ottery typ es of th e San José p h ase

were u sed as th e m ed iu m for p an -

M esoa m er ica n m o tifs. O n e , Le an d r o

Gray, resem bles Tlap acoya’s Tortuga Pol-

ished an d Volcán Polishe d . Anoth er, San

José Black-and -Wh ite, resem bles Tlap a-coya’s Valle White-rim Black. Still an-

other, Atoyac Yellow-white, resemb les

Tlapacoya’s Pilli White. Finally we come

to D elfi n a Fin e G ra y, a n e xp or t w ar e

wh ich—as we saw ab ove—wa s tr ad ed to

(and imitated by) Tlapacoya.

Leand ro Gray was one of the m ost com-

m on pottery types of the San José p ha se,

us ually exceeded in fr equency only byutilitarian cooking jars (Fidencio Coarse).

Leand ro G ray grew out of Tierras Largas

Burnished Plain, the most common utili-

tarian ware of the Tierras Largas phase.

Th e ch a n ge s p r od u cin g Le an d r o G r ay,

which em erged d ur ing the Tierras Largas/

San José p h ase tran sition , sim p ly req uired

bu rnishing the ware twice instead of once,

t hen fi r i ng i t i n a r educi ng at mos pher e

(Flan n er y an d M ar cu s 1994:157–165). Le-

andro Gray went on to constitute 23% of

all sh erd s in m idd le San José time s, a pe r-cent age compar able t o t hat of T or tuga

Polished in Tlapacoya’s early Man antial

phase.

Table 2 gives th e actual counts of Lean -

dro Gray, Delfina Fine Gray, San José

Black-and-White, and Atoyac Yellow–

white sherds from an excavation in Area A

of San José M ogote (Flann ery a n d Ma rcus

1994: Figs. 14.1, 14.4). We have chosen tofeatu re this excavation becau se it covered

12 m 2, virtually the same area as an im-

portant excavation at San Lorenzo which

we will discuss below. The stratigraphic

levels consist of a midden (Zone D) and

the remains of four superimposed house-

h old u n its (Units C 4–C1). The d etails can

be found in Flannery and Marcus (1994:

Table 14.1).The Zone D midden was roughly 40 cm

th ick. Th e volu m e excavated was 4.8–5.0

m 3, slightly greater than that of Level 7 at

Tlapacoya. The nu mb er of Leandro Gray

sh er d s from Zon e D (2332) is sim ilar t o th e

number of Tortuga Polished sherds from

Tlap acoya’s Level 7 (2569). O n th e oth er

h a n d , t h e n u m b e r o f D e l fi n a F i n e G r a y

sherds from Zone D (106) is greater thant he number of A t oyac Fi ne G r ay s her ds

from Tlapacoya’s Level 7 (14). This is rea-

sonable, since petrographic evidence sug-

gests that such gray ware is native to O a-

xaca.

Househ old Units C4-C1 each prod uced

fewer sherds than Zone D, since the vol-

ume of earth removed from each was on

t he or der of 2. 4 m3

. Nevertheless, eachhousehold produced 674 to 1667 sherds of

Le a n d ro G r ay, a n d 16 t o 43 sh e r d s o f

D elfi n a Fin e G r ay. Su ch q u a n tit ie s o f

sherds are consistent with what might be

expected from volumes of earth half that

of Tlapacoya’s Level 7. Like Tortuga Pol-



23/37

F I G .

1 8 .

F r e q u

e n c i e s o f c l a s s i fi e d s h e r d s f r o m

e i g h t p r o v e n i e n c e s a t S a n

J o s e ´ M o g o t e ( S J M ) a n d T i e r r a s L a r g a s ( T L ) , V a l l e y o f O a

x a c a .

P o t t e r y

t y p e s b e a r i n g p a

n - M e s o a m e r i c a n m o t i f s a r e p

r i n t e d i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s .

H . 1 6 ,

H o u s e 1 6 ; H . C

3 ,

H o u s e h o l d U

n i t C 3 ; C / D 2 ,

A r e a C ,

L e v e l D 2 ; C / E ,

A r e a

C ,

L e v e l E ; L T L - 3 ,

H o u s e L T L - 3 ; C / F ,

A r e a C ,

L e v e l F ; C / G ,

A r e a C ,

L e v e l G ; C / G 2 ,

A r e a C ,

L e v e l G 2 . ( R

a w d a t a f r o m

F l a n n e r y a n d M a r c u s 1 9 9 4 . )



24/37

i s hed, L eandr o G r ay w as pr oduced i n a

wide variety of vessel shapes: cylinders,

outleaned- wall bowls , t ecomates, bol-stered-rim bowls, spouted trays, vertical-

necked jars, and m any others. The variety

of pan- M esoamerican mot ifs w as als o

great, includi ng both car ved exampl es

(Pyne ’s Motifs 1–7) an d fin e-lin e incised

exam p les (Pyn e’s M otifs 8 –11 an d 15–18).

Atoyac Yellow–wh ite, a war e alm ost as

pop ular as Lean dr o Gray, was also used as

a medium for pan-Mesoamerican motifs

(Marcus 1989). Like Leandro Gray, it first

app eared du ring the Tierras Largas/San

José p h ase tr an sition an d gr ew ou t of Tier -

ras Largas Burnished Plain. (In this case,

the new ware was created simply by giv-

ing Tierr as Larga s Bu rn ished Plain a wh ite

slip.) In con tra st t o Lea n d ro Gr ay—wh ich

was most often used for depictions of Sky/ Ligh tn ing—Atoyac Yellow–wh ite was m ost

often used for depictions of Earth/Earth-

q u ak e (Pyne’s M otifs 8 –10, 12, a n d 14).

T he V al l ey of O axaca w as one of t he

earliest regions to feature the “double-

line-break,” an incised motif in which par-

allel l ines t ur n up or dow n at int ervals

(Flann ery an d Ma rcus 1994: Figs. 12.19–

12.22). Yellow- wh ite s h er d s of th e Sa n Joséph ase suggest that the double-line break

originated as a simp lified version of Earth,

with its cleft head and associated “music

brackets” (Fig. 19). This is significant for

TABLE 2

San José Mogote, Area A. Total Sherd Counts of the 4 Pottery Types Bearing Pan-Mesoamerican Motifs.

The Stratigraphic Units (All Belonging to the San José Phase) are the Zone D Midden (D) and Household

Units C4 Through C1. (Source: Flannery and Marcus 1994: Table 14.1.)

Typ e D C4 C3 C2 C1

All Lean d ro Gray sh erd s 2332 1160 1667 949 674

Decorated Lean d ro sh erd s 298 149 151 74 46

Excised Lean d ro sh erd s 282 141 132 57 38

All Delfin a Fin e G ray sh erd s 106 43 43 27 16

Decorated Delfin a sh erd s 16 5 4 5 5

Excised Delfin a sh erd s 9 5 4 5 5

All San José Black-an d -Wh ite sh erd s 150 36 51 19 14

Decorated B/ W sh erd s 2 1 2 — —

Excised B/ W sh erd s 2 1 2 — —

All Atoyac Yellow-wh ite sh erd s 1904 762 1073 670 676

Decorated Atoyac sh erd s 117 51 81 51 46Excised Atoyac sh erd s 38 14 2 1 1

Dou ble-lin e-break rim s 9 3 23 24 27

All classified sh erd s 11356 4546 6876 3893 3361

FIG. 19. As early as 1150 b.c., abstract versions of

Earth/Earthquake were incised on white-slipped

pottery in the highland style province. This sherd of Atoyac Yellow–white from the Valley of Oaxaca

shows the cranial fissure (Pyne’s Motif 13) and “mu -

sic brackets” often associated with depictions of

Earth (see Fig. 8). No comparable white ware with

incised Earth/Earthquake motifs has been found in

1150–850 b.c. levels at San Loren zo. (Drawn from a

photograph in Flannery and Marcus 1994:147.)



25/37

thre e reason s. First, it re inforces the asso-

ciation of white ware with Earth/Earth-

quake motifs. Second, i t emphasizes the

t ie s b e tw ee n O a xa ca a n d t h e Ba sin o f

Mexico, where similar motifs occur on

Pilli White (compare Niederberger 1987:Figs. 475–476 with Flann ery an d Ma rcus

1994: Fig. 19.1). Third, it suggests that the

dou ble-line brea k varian t of the Earth m o-

tif originated in the Mexican highlands

arou nd 1150 b.c. N ot until three hundred years later, in the Nacaste phase, did a comparable incised white ware show up at San Lorenzo (Coe and Diehl 1980a:194).

Fin ally we com e to Sa n José Black-a n d -Wh ite, Oaxaca’s version of Tlapacoya’s

Valle White-rim Black. Such ware was not

presen t in Oaxaca un til 1150 b .c.; once

p r e se n t, h o we ve r, it w as ca rve d w it h

Pyne ’s Motifs 7 an d 11.

San Lorenzo

W e t ur n now t o San L or enzo, t he al -leged wellspring of pan-Mesoamerican

m otifs. In their re port on the Yale p roject,

Coe an d Diehl (1980a: Tab les 4-1 to 4-4)

pu blish the sherd coun ts from four strati-

graph ic e xcavations at San Lorenzo. We

assume that these were their best strati-

graph ic u nits, since they chose to p ub lish

them in detail.

Our first surprise is that Coe and Diehldefin e only one pottery type—Calzadas

Car ved —wh ich be ars p an -Mesoa m erican

motifs. Their white-rimm ed black ware

does n ot bear such m otifs, and even m ore

significantly, the San Lorenzo phase has no incised white ware analogous to Atoyac Yel- low–whi te or Pil li W hi te. This fact h as b eencon fi rm e d b y An n C yp h e rs (p e rson a l

com m un ication, 1996) following her re-cent excavations at San Loren zo. Ow ing to

this lack of incised white wares, the San

Lorenzo phase has surprisingly few pan-

M esoamer ican mot ifs featur ing Ear th/

Earthquake.

C alzadas C arved appear s abr upt ly at

the start of the San Lorenzo phase (Coe

and Diehl 1980a: Fig. 97), rather than hav-

ing a long pr evious his tory like Tlapa-

coya’s Tortuga Polished. Equally surpris-

ing is the fact that Calzadas Carved seem s

to be relatively rare, not exceeding 4% of the classified sherds. Having been shown

C yp h ers’ n e w colle ction s fr om Sa n

Lorenzo, we have no doubt that she will

one d ay be able to divide Calzadas Carved

into (1) a softer a nd da rker gra y ware like

Lean dr o Gra y/Tortuga Polished , and (2) a

harder and lighter gray ware like Delfina

Fine Gray/ Atoyac Fine Gray. At this writ-

ing, however, we are l imited to Coe andDiehl’s type s. Let u s th ere fore look at th eir

four pu blished stratigraph ic u nits.

SL-PNW-St. II, a major stratigraphic

un it for which Coe an d Diehl presen t both

a frequen cy graph and a sherd count, be-

gan as a 12 m 2 excavation (Coe and Diehl

1980a: Fig. 51, Fig. 97, Tab le 4-1). In its

lower levels the excavated area was twice

reduced, but i ts upper levels are compa-rable in volum e to th e 12 m 2 excavation in

Area A a t San José Mogote . Levels O -K1

are attribu ted to the “pre-Olmec” Bajı́o

an d Ch icha rras p h ases (1300–1150 b.c.);

K2 is m ixed ; an d Levels J–F ar e assigned

to th e San Loren zo p ha se, 1150–850 b.c.

(Fig. 20, Table 3).

Calzadas Carved, regarded by Coe and

Diehl (1980a:159) as “100 percent Olmec,”occurred in Levels K2-F. What stands out

is th e sm all nu m be r of she rd s—on ly 29 in

all of SL-PNW -St. II. Leve l K2, wh ose vol-

um e was somewhere between 3 and 6 m 3

(3 2 0.5–1.0 m ), p rod u ced 1617 clas si-

fiable sh erds, of which only 19 were Cal-

zadas Carved . Level F, whose volum e wa s

rou gh ly 6 –9 m 3 (4 3 0.5–0.75 m), pro-

du ced 133 classifiable sherds, of whichonly 5 were Calzadas Carved. Nor do the

s ur pris es end t here: the t ot al n um ber of

Calzadas Carved sherds produced by the

Yale project’s four published stratigraphic

cuts was only 38 (Coe and Diehl 1980a:

Tables 4-1 to 4-4).



26/37

F I G .

2 0 .

F r e q u

e n c i e s o f c l a s s i fi e d s h e r d s i n

L e v e l s O – D o f S t r a t i g r a p h i c U n i t S L - P N W - S t . I I a t S a n

L o r e n z o ,

V e r a c r u z .

T h e l o n e

p o t t e r y t y p e

b e a r i n g p a n - M e s o a m e r i c a n m o t i f s i s p r i n t e d i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s .

( B a s e d o n C

o e a n d D i e h l 1 9 8 0 a : F i g .

9 7 . )



27/37

We kn ow, of course, how Coe a nd Diehl

will rationalize these low counts; they will

argue th at poor p reservation of sherd su r-faces at San Lorenzo made it impossible to

iden tify th ose she rds of Calzadas Carved

vessels that did not bear the actual excis-

ing (Coe and Diehl 1980a:131). We re-

spond to this apologia by giving the countsof excised Lean dro Gray sh erd s from Area

A of San José M ogote in Tab le 2. Th e Zon e

D m id d e n a lo ne , w ith a volu m e of n o

m ore th an 5 m3

, prod uced 282 exciseds h e r d s o f L e a n d r o G r a y a n d 9 m o r e o f

Delfina Fine Gray. H ousehold Unit C4,

with a volume of only 2.4 m 3, produced

141 excised sherd s of Lean dr o Gr ay an d 5

mor e of D elfi na Fine G r ay. Even if w e

count only those gray sherds b earing ac-

tual excising, Area A produced 678.

To be sure, since Cyphers has opened

up larger areas of San Lorenzo, her sam-ple of Calzadas Carved is now larger than

C oe a n d D ie h l’s. N o a m ou n t of e ar th

m o ve d , h o we ve r, w ill m a k e u p fo r t h e

aforement ioned lack of w hit e-s lipped

w ar e com p a ra ble to Pilli W h ite a nd

Atoyac Yellow–wh ite. At Tlap acoya an d

San José Mogote, such white wares bea r

fully half the pan -Mesoamerican m otifs;

t ake aw ay t he w hi t e w ar e and one l os esmos t of t he depict ions of Ear th/ E ar th-

qu ake. Area A of San José Mogote had

m ore than 300 white-slipp ed sherds with

varian ts of pan -Mesoam erican m otifs; San

Lorenzo ph ase levels in SL-PNW-St. II

had none.

White-rim m ed black ware began at San

Lorenzo in the Chicharras phase (1200

b.c.). But Perdida Black-and -White, therelevant San Lorenzo type, was neither

carved nor incised (Coe and Diehl 1980a:

Fig. 156). It most closely resembles Coate-

pec W hit e- rimm ed Black fr om t he Te-

hu acán an d Oaxaca Valleys (MacNeish,

Pete rson , an d Flan n ery 1970:108; Flan n er y

an d Ma rcus 1994:274), an d m ay in fact be

the same ware. Coatepec White-rimmed

Black, while extremely well-made, wasnot car ved. This lack of car ved w hit e-

r im m e d b la ck w ar e co n tr ib u te s t o t h e

smaller repertoire of pan-Mesoamerican

motifs at Sa

Documents

Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México