-
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.
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.
4 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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).
5MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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).
6 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.
7MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.
8 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.
9MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
10 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
11MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
12 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
13MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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).
14 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
15MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.”
16 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.
17MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
18 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
19MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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 . )
20 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
21MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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-
22 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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 . )
23MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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.)
24 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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 com- parable 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).
25MEXICAN CHIEFDOMS AND MOTHER CULTURE
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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 . )
26 FLANN ERY AND MARCUS
-
8/20/2019 Flannery y Marcus Los Cacicazgos Del Formativo en México
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