Maney Publishing

In the Land of Olmec Archaeology

In the Land of the Olmec by Michael D. Coe; Richard A. Diehl
Review by: Robert J. Sharer
Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 253-267
Published by: Maney Publishing
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529483 .
Accessed: 19/12/2013 20:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In the Land of Olmec Archaeology

RobertJ. Sharer A Review Article

University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael D. Coe and Richard A. Diehl, ln the Landof the Olmec, two vol-
umes plus maps. Volume I, TheArchaeologyof San LorenzoTenochtitlan,
416 pp.; Volume II, ThePeople of the River, 198 pp. The University of
Texas Press, Austin, Texas 1980. $100.00

Therecentpublicationof a comprehensivereportdescribingthe excavations

at San Lorenzo,Tabasco,Mexico, In the Land of the Olmec by MichaelD.
Coe and RichardA. Diehl, providesa significantcontributionto Mesoameri-
can archaeologyand a suitableopportunityto reviewthepresent statusof
Olmecstudies. The developmentof Olmecarchaeologyis a relativelyrecent
phenomenon,with the modernera of researchbeginningwithMatthewStir-
ling's surveysand excavationsat several sites in Mexico's Gulf Coast region
(1938-1946), and continuingwith the Universityof Californiaat Berkeley's
excavationsat the site of La Ventain the mid-1950s.The reportby Coe and
Diehl of the San Lorenzoinvestigations(1966-1968) adds considerablyto
our understandingof the origins and otheraspects of Olmeccivilization.
Thesecontributions,togetherwith several continuinggaps in our knowledge,
are reviewedby a resumeof Olmecchronology,archaeologicalremains,ex-
ternalconnections,and the implicationsof the Olmecfor the evolutionof
. . . . .

Mesoamerlcan clvlllzatlon.

Introduction certain until the pioneering surveys that resulted in the

Most archaeologistsand prehistoriansrecognize the
termOlmec as referringto the earliestknowncivilization
in Mesoamerica,centered in the tropical lowlands of
Mexico's Gulf coast (FIG. 1).1 But this recognitionhas
beenwon only recently,for a few decadesago Mesoam-
erican scholars were hotly debatingthe chronological
placementof the Olmec, and questioningthe archaeo-
logical validityof this prehistoricculture.
The questionswere askedbecauseOlmec culturewas
firstdefinedfrom a distinctiveart style, basedprimarily
on looted artifactsdevoid of context, and sculptured
monumentswithoutclearevidenceof theirchronological
position. The definitionof Olmec civilizationwas un-
1. For a general introduction to Olmec civilization see Ignacio Bernal,
The Olmec World, translated from the Spanish by Doris Heyden and
FernandoHorcasitas (Berkeley 1969), and Michael D. Coe, America's
First Civilization (New York 1968).
discovery of Olmec sites and monuments in the dense
rainforests of Tabasco and Veracruz were followed up
by excavation. Today, after several decades of archae-
ological research under extremely difficult conditions,
these issues seem settled. The chronological question has
been clarified by a series of consistent radiocarbondates.
The archaeological definition of Olmec civilization seems
secure, although many problems remain, at least in part
because of the difficulties common to reconstructing any
prehistoric civilization from material remains alone.
No historical sources exist to supplement or amplify
our knowledge of the Olmec. As with the later city of
Teotihuacan in the Basin of Mexico, or the far earlier
Harappancivilization of the Indus Valley, we are left to
reconstruct the complexities of civilization without re-
course to written documents or records.
Based on current research and hypotheses, the Olmec

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
254 In theLandof OlmecArchaeologylSharer
Figure 1. Map of the Olmec area.
represent the initial appearance of sufficient social com-
plexity to qualify as the first civilization in Mesoamerica.
At its heart, this development was marked by the emer-
gence of a small but powerful hereditary elite class pos-
sessing considerable authority over a numerically larger
agriculturalpeasantry, as well as artisans, craftsmen, and
possibly other specialists such as merchants. Subsistence
was based on the rich bounty of the Gulf coast, gained
by harvesting plentiful aquatic resources, collecting,
hunting, and investing in both extensive (slash-and-burn)
and intensive (river-levee) agriculture.
The highest authorities in Olmec society seem to have
been the rulers of several principal "dispersed cities,"2
or major concentrations of ceremonial, economic, and
political activity. The remains of these centers, such as
San Lorenzo, La Venta, Tres Zapotes, and Laguna de
los Cerros, indicate that they were constructed mostly of
earthen platforms supporting perishable structures. The
power of the rulers seems to have been based on super-
natural sanctions and control of wealth by the redistri-
bution of local economic surpluses, such as foodstuffs
and exotic materials. The latter were imported at con-
siderable effort, and ranged from astounding quantities
of basalt from the adjacent Tuxtla mountains, to smaller
amounts of obsidian and jadeite from highland areas as
far away as southern Guatemala. Many of these exotic
materials were shaped or carved, in a distinctive art style,
into symbols of the exalted status of the ruling elite and
their supernaturalpatrons. Religious and political power
seem to have been fused in Olmec society, producing a
form of theocratic authority. In general, therefore, the
control over human labor to the degree indicated by these
building and trading activities, together with the inferred
2. Bernal, op. cit. (in note 1) 49.
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
theocratic and economic sources of power that directed
society, qualify the Olmec as a theocratic chiefdom3 or,
perhaps more likely, an incipient theocratic state.4
Much of the foregoing remains as hypothesis, for a
great deal more archaeological research is necessary to
test and refine our notions of Olmec civilization. How-
ever, the recent publication of In the Landof the Olmec
by Coe and Diehls is a watershed in Olmec studies, rep-
resenting the most thorough report of archaeological data
from an Olmec site (San Lorenzo) that has to date ap-
peared. Furthermore, the study incorporates an ethno-
graphic survey of the contemporary agriculturalists
dwelling in the San Lorenzo area that furnishes a unique
ecological perspective for the reconstruction of ancient
life and social process in Olmec times. Although, like
any work of this magnitude, the San Lorenzo report has
its weaknesses, most Mesoamerican archaeologists will
find it to be an indispensible addition to their libraries.
The appearanceof Coe and Diehl's unprecedentedreport
is thus an appropriateoccasion to review the currentstatus
of Olmec studies.
The Development of Olmec Archaeology
Portable Olmec objects have attractedthe attention of
collectors for centuries. Small masks or celts of carved
3. William T. Sanders and Barbara J. Price, Mesoamerica. The Ev-
olution of a Civilization (New York 1968) 115-134.
4. Paul Tolstoy "(Review of) Mesoamerica. The Evolution of a Civ-
ilization," AmAnth 71 (1969) 554-558; Philip Drucker, ''On the Na-
ture of Olmec Polity,'' The Olmec and Their Neighbors, Essays in
Memory of Matthew W. Stirling (hereafter OTN), E. P. Benson, ed.
(Washington, D .C . 198 1) 29-47 .
5. Michael D. Coe and Richard A. Diehl, In the Land of the Olmec.

jadeite, bearingthe distinctive "baby face" or jaguar-
like featuresof the Olmec style have been known since
the SpanishConquest(e.g., a life-size jadeitemask, ap-
parentlytakento Italyin the 16thcenturyandnow in the
collection of DumbartonOaks, and a miniaturemask
once belongingto the Royal House of Bavariaand now
in the ResidenzMuseumin Munich6).But althoughob-
jects such as these were prized as works of art, their
sourceand culturalaffiliationremaineda mysteryuntil
this century.The first reportof archaeologicalremains
in the Gulf coast heartlandwas made in the mid-19th
century,when Melgar y Serranopublishedan account
of the discoveryof MonumentA at the site of Tres Za-
potes.7This monumentis a colossal basaltsculpturede-
picting a human head of a kind now recognized as
characteristicof Olmec culture.
Subsequentdecades saw furthercollecting and more
publicationof Olmec-styleartifacts,althoughthe term
Olmecwas not appliedto the emergingcorpusof objects
until the late 1920s.8 A few years before, Blom and
LaFargepublishedtheir pioneering archaeologicalre-
connaissanceof the Gulf coast and adjacentregions.9
This reportincludedan accountof the site of La Venta
anddescribeda series of newly discoveredmonuments.
One of the first attemptsto define the Olmec artstyle
was madeby GeorgeVaillantin 1932.l0Vaillantsaw the
jaguar as a centraltheme in Olmec art, but confused
legitimateOlmec objectswith much lateritems such as
gold artifacts.Partof the confusionmay have been be-
cause of the termOlmec ("Dweller in the Landof Rub-
ber'') itself.l l The originalreferencesto the Olmeccome
from the SpanishConquestperiod, as the name of an
ethnicgroupthen living in the Valley of Pueblaeast of
Vol. I: The Archaeology of San Lorenzo; Vol. II: The People of the
Wiver(Austin 1980).
6. Bernal, op. cit. (in note 1) 29. Summaries of Olmec research may
be found in ibid. 28-32, and Matthew W. Stirling, ''Early History
of the Olmec Problem," Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec
(hereafterDOCO), E. P. Benson, ed. (Washington, D.C. 1968) 1-8.
7. Jose Maria Melgar y Serrano, i'Antiguedades Mexicanas," Socie-
dad Mexicana de Geografway Estadistica Boletzn 1 (1869) 292-297.
8. Hermann Beyer, ''Bibliografica: Tribes and Temples," El Mexico
Antiguo 2 (1927) 305-313; Marshall H. Saville, "Votive Axes from
Ancient Mexico," Museum of the Americun Indian, Indian Notes 6
(1929) 266-299, 335-343.
9. Franz Blom and Oliver LaF;arge,A Record of the Expedition to
Middle America Conducted by the Tulane University of Louisiana in
1925 (New Orleans 1926) .
10. George C. Vaillant, ''A Pre-Columbian Jade,s' Natural History
32 (1932) 512-520, 556-558.
11. Bernal, op. cit. (in note 1) 11.
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 9, 1982 255
Mexico City. Thus the choice of this term to refer to
archaeological remains was a misnomer, unfortunate in
that it caused some confusion between an historically
known highland Mexican society and a far earlier and
unrelated prehistoric lowland civilization.
But for the first four decades of the 20th century the
true age and significance of the ancient Olmec remained
unrecognized. The prevalent opinion was that these little-
known sites along the Gulf coast represented an off-shoot
of Classic Maya civilization, which was better known
and more securely dated from monuments with hiero-
glyphic calendrical dates that correlated to the 1st mil-
lennium A.C.l2 This cultural and chronological linkage
was to prove false, but given the lack of firm archaeo-
logical evidence, it seemed justified by the observation
that Olmec remains were located in a region adjacent and
similar to the environment of the Classic Maya.
The successful challenge to this thesis was founded in
evidence provided by archaeological research. Olmec
archaeology came of age with the work of Matthew Stir-
ling, who began his surveys and excavations in the Gulf
coast region in 1938.l3 These investigations not only
provided the first adequate information about already
known sites, but led to the discovery of San Lorenzo,
the site of the much later investigations reported by Coe
and Diehl. 14
Stirling conducted excavations in 1939 and 1940 at the
site of Tres Zapotes, and in 1941 at Cerro de las Mesas,
a post-Olmec site where he discovered a famous cache
containing Olmec heirloom artifacts. In 1942 and 1943
Stirling excavated at La Venta, and finally, in 1945 and
1946, at San Lorenzo.ls Although when he began his
career in Olmec archaeology Stirling thought he might
be probing part of Maya civilization,l6 his own research
and contacts with the outstanding art historian, Miguel
Covarrubias, soon convinced him otherwise.l7 Covar-
rubias and his fellow Mexican scholar, Alfonso Caso,
held that the Olmec were far older than the Classic Maya,
old enough to be the Mesoamerican culturamadrefrom
12. Stirling,op. cit. (in note 6) 4-6.
13. Ibid. A fascinatingaccountof Stirling'sresearchis providedby
his wife andcolleague:MarionStirlingPugh, ''An IntimateView of
ArchaeologicalExploration," OTN ( 1981) 1-13 .
14. Op. cit. (in note 5).
15. Stirling,op. cit. (in note 6) 4-6.
16. MatthewW. Stirling, "Discovering the New World's Oldest
DatedWorkof Man," The National Geographic Magazine (hereafter
NGM) 76 (1939) 183-218.
17. Michael D. Coe, "Matthew Williams Stirling, 1896-1975,"
AmAnt41 (1976) 67-70.
256 In theLandof OlmecArchaeologylSharer
which all othercivilizationsin this New Worldnuclear
areawere derived.18
At Tres ZapotesStirlingdiscovereda brokenmonu-
ment,StelaC, with a partialcalendricalinscriptioncom-
posed of Mesoamerican bar-and-dot numerals
representingthe date 16.6. 16. 18. Unfortunately,the cru-
cial initial numberwas missing, but based on the pre-
servedcoefficientsMarionStirlingcalculatedthe absent
numberto havebeena 7. l9Thisreconstructed calendrical
date correspondedto 31 B.C., according to the usually
acceptedcorrelationto the Gregoriancalendarused for
Maya inscriptions.This calculationmade Stela C over
300 years older than the earliest Maya date then
accepted.20
The battlelineswere thus drawnin the great Olmec
debate2l between scholarsled by Caso, Covarrubias,
and Stirling,22who held that the Olmec were far older
thanthe ClassicMaya, andthose who deniedthe Olmec
chronologicalprimacy,led by most Mayaexperts.23The
latterincludedJ. EricThompson,whose 1941paperpro-
vided the principalcounter-argument to Stirling's case
for the date of Stela C at Tres Zapotesand the antiquity
of the Olmec.24
The issuewas ultimatelysettledin favorof theprimacy
of the Olmec by radiocarbonage assessmentsand the
articulationof Olmec artifactualsequences with well-
anchoredchronologies elsewhere in Mesoamerica.In
1955 excavationswere renewedat La Venta by an ar-
chaeologicalteam from the Universityof Californiaat
Berkeley.25This project recovered a series of carbon
samplesassociatedwith superimposedconstructionand
18. Miguel Covarrubias, ''Origen y desarrollo del estilo artistico O1-
mec," Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Reuniones de Mesa Re-
donda, Mayas y Olmecas (hereafter SMAMO) (1942) 46-49; idem,
"La Venta: Colossal Heads and Jaguar Gods," DYN 6 (1944) 24-33;
Alfonso Caso, "Definicion y extension de complejo 'Olmeca',"
SMAMO (1942) 43-46.
19. Pugh, op. cit. (in note 13) 6.
20. Stirling, op. cit. (in note 6). The upper portion of Stela C was
discovered many years later, complete with the missing coefficient,
a seven, just as predicted; see Pugh, op. cit. (in note 13) 6.
21. Bernal, op. cit. (in note 1) 31; Coe, op. cit. (in note 17) 69.
22. Caso, op. cit. (in note 18); Covarrubias (1942), op. cit. (in note
18); Stirling, op. cit. (in note 6).
23. See, for instance, Sylvanus G. Morley, The Ancient Maya (Stan-
ford 1946) 40-42.
24. J. Eric Thompson, "Dating of Certain Inscriptions of Non-Maya
Origin," Carnegie Institution of Washington, Theoretical Approaches
to Problems (Cambridge 1941) .
25. Philip Drucker, Robert F. Heizer, and Robert J. Squier, Exca-
vations at La Venta, Tabasco, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
(hereafter BAEBull) 170 (Washington, D. C . 1959) .
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
caches that yielded a consistent set of radiocarbondates,
placing occupation at La Venta in the Middle Preclassic
period of Mesoamerican prehistory (ca. 1100-500
s.c.).26 As a result, La Venta was shown to significantly
pre-date Tres Zapotes Stela C, and the florescence of
Olmec civilization was placed over a thousand years prior
to the Classic Maya. Although some scholars still be-
lieved that the Olmec were not this ancient,27 the issue
was resolved for most. The more recent excavations at
San Lorenzo by the Yale University team led by Michael
Coe have provided an independent set of radiocarbon
dates that indicate an even earlier position for Olmec
florescence. Furthermore, San Lorenzo yielded the first
evidence for the antecedents of Olmec civilization, dating
to the early Preclassic era (ca. 1500-1150 s.c.).28 The
temporal placement of Olmec civilization is now consid-
ered secure, for it is consistent with independently de-
rived chronologies from other Mesoamerican sites, and
articulated by ceramic modes and other diagnostic
artifacts.29
A Contemporary View of the Olmec
In order to assess the present status of Olmec studies,
several topics will be considered, beginning with cultural
chronology, and continuing with a resume of archaeo-
logical remains (sculpture, artifacts, architecture, and
sites), discussion of Olmec expansion beyond the heart-
land, and concluding with the issue of the causes and
consequences of Olmec civilization.
Chronology
While the general outline of Olmec development is
well established30(TABLE1), there remains a somewhat
frustrating lack of detailed artifactual sequences from
Olmec sites. The standby for such sequences in Me-
26. Philip Drucker and Robert F. Hiezer, ''Radiocarbon Dates from
La Venta, Tabasco," Science 126 (1957) 72-73; Rainer Berger, John
A. Graham, and Robert F. Heizer, ''A Reconsideration of the Age
of the La Venta Site,'' Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility (hereafter UCARF) 3 (1967) 1-24.
27. William R. Coe and Robert Stuckenrath, Jr., "Review of La
Venta, Tabasco and Its Relevance to the Olmec Problem," The Kroe-
ber Anthropological Society Papers 31 (1964) 1-43.
28. Michael D. Coe, ''San Lorenzo and Olmec Civilization," DOCO
(1968) 41-78; ''The Archaeological Sequence at San Lorenzo Ten-
ochtitlan, Veracruz, Mexico, " UCARF 8 (1970) 21 -34; Coe and
Diehl, op. cit. (in note 5).
29. Paul Tolstoy, ''Recent Research into the Early Preclassic of the
CentralHighlands," UCARF 11 (1971); GarethW. Lowe, ''The Mixe-
Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early Lowland Maya," The
Origins of Maya Civilization (hereafter OMC), R. E. W. Adams, ed.
(Albuquerque 1977) 197-248.
30. Bernal, op. cit. (in note 1) 106-117.
 .

Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 9, 1982 257

Table 1. Summaryof Olmec chronology and culturaldevelopment(see note 42).

Mesoamericun Site sequences

(ulturalperlods Olmesperiodsandtrends Dates SanLorenzo LaVellta
- 1l00 A.C.
Postclassic - 900 A.C.

Villa Alta
Classic _ 200 A.C. (Hiatus)

Derived sculpturalstyles on Gulf coast

Late Preclassic and elsewhere (Izapanon Pacific coast) - 200 B.C. Remplas
111

Decline of Olmec civilization - 400 B.C. (Hiatus?)

Palagana
II 600 B.C.
IV
Middle Preclassic Expansionof Olmec beyond Gulf coast
(Olmec horizon in Mesoamerica) - (Hiatus) 11& 111
- 800 B.C. Nacaste

San Lorenzo
I _ | 000 B . C.
Initial florescence of Olmec A&B
civilization - '?
early PrecIass1c --------------------------------------- - 1200 B.C. Chicharras
Pre-Olmec
(Antecedentsto Olmec - 1400 B.C. Bajo
civilization) _ Ojochi

soamericais usuallypottery,but the preservationof ce-
ramicsis notoriouslypoor in the Gulf coast lowlands.
Thepotteryfromthe originalLa Ventaexcavations31 was
plaguedby this problem, as well as a lack of relevant
comparativesequences at the time the studies were
done.32The analysis of the ceramicsfrom the later La
Venta excavationshas yet to appear. The recent San
Lorenzoreportbecomes all the more significantas a
result,for it providesthe only detailedpotterysequence
(as well as descriptionsof artifacts)for an Olmec site.33
Problemsof preservationand context(a majorityof the
ceramicmaterialderivefrom secondaryor construction-
fill deposits)have createduncertaintiesaboutthe chron-
31. Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, op. cit. (in note 25).
32. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 131-132.
33. Ibid. 13 l -292.
ological position of the various defined pottery types.34
Unfortunately, the San Lorenzo report does not provide
us much in the way of quantitative data, so that readers
cannot rework the chronological sequence. The seriation
of ceramics from construction-fill contexts have been
used to produce accurate chronological sequences else-
where, 35 and it would be interesting to independently
attemptthe same at San Lorenzo. Coe and Diehl provide
the raw sherd counts from one ''midden-like" deposit
(StratigraphicPit II), together with a histogram that sup-
ports and summarizes a portion of the available San Lor-
enzo sequence.36 But a fuller presentation of the ceramic
34. Ibid. 133.
35. Alfred V. Kidder, ';Archeological Investigations at Kaminaljuyu,
Guatemala," ProcPhilSoc 105 (1961) 559-570.
36. Coe and Diehl, op cit. I (in note 5) fig. 97 and table 4-1.

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 258 ln theLandof OlmecArchaeologylSharer
data seems to be called for, given the paucity of this kind
of information from the Olmec heartland. Regrettably,
the earliest ceramic phase (Ojochi or ca. 1500-1350 B.C.)
defined at San Lorenzo is not representedin Stratigraphic
Pit II (along with the Middle Preclassic Palangana and
Late Preclassic Remplas materials, dated to ca. 600-400
and 300-100 B.C. respectively).37 The primary position
of the Ojochi phase is based on evidence from transported
fills revealed in the excavation of Monument 20, where
Ojochi sherds, mixed with a "few Chicharras pieces"
(dated as ca. 1250-1150 B.C.) were found to underliea
stratumcontaining Bajio and San Lorenzo phase pottery
(dated as ca. 1350-1250 and 1150-900 B.C., respec-
tively).38 Thus, given the secondary context of the Mon-
ument 20 evidence, and accepting the sequence seen in
StratigraphicPit II (Bajio, Chicharras, San Lorenzo), it
does not seem possible to determine the relative chron-
ological position of Ojochi from the presented excavated
materials found at San Lorenzo. Rather, Ojochi is dated
solely by its similarities to pottery from the Ocos phase
defined far away on the Pacific coast of Guatemala.39
This excursion into ceramic detail may give some idea
of the difficulties encountered in deriving a pottery se-
quence at San Lorenzo.
Comparingwhat is at present known about Olmec chro-
nology, it seems generally accepted that the two best
known sites, San Lorenzo and La Venta, were not fully
contemporaneous. The San Lorenzo report40concludes
that this center was occupied by agriculturalvillagers by
1500 B.C., and developed a fully florescent Olmec Period
I culture (marked by monumental construction and the
sculpture of Olmec-style monuments) between 1150 and
900 B.C. After 900 B.C. many of the San Lorenzo mon-
uments appearto have been ritually disposed of (buried),
although occupation continued. The conclusions derived
from La Venta see florescent Olmec occupation between
ca. 1000-500 B.C., without clear indications of a pre-
ceding developmental period as at San Lorenzo.41 Al-
though two colossal heads are known from Tres Zapotes,
the few clues from ceramics and the calendrical position
of Stela C indicate that this site may, at least in part,
post-date Olmec occupation at both San Lorenzo and La
Venta, probably reaching its zenith in the Late Preclassic
37. Ibid. 133.
38. Ibid. 97.
39. "Ojochi is a country cousin version of the far more sophisticated
Ocos phase . . . and must be contemporary with it." Ibid. 137.
40. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. (in note S) I:387, II:139-140.
41. Berger, Graham, and Heizer, op. cit. (in note 26).
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
period.42The chronological placement of Laguna de los
Cerros appearsapproximatelycontemporaneous with San
Lorenzo.43 But it is already apparent that there was a
long period of occvpation and cultural development in
the Gulf coast heartland, during which individual centers
of population and power rose and fell. The hallmarks of
Olmec civilization, especially monumental sculpture and
other "art", also underwent a long and complex devel-
opment.44Based on these factors, and on recognition of
Olmec stylistic manifestations elsewhere in Mesoamer-
ica, a reasonable consensus of Olmec chronology can be
presented (TABLE 1).
Archaeological Remains
The remains of Olmec culture include artifacts (port-
able items), monuments, architecture, and sites. By vir-
tue of their merit, many of the artifacts and monuments
rank as great art. In fact, as mentioned earlier, Olmec
civilization was originally defined by its distinctive art
style,45 and recognition of the Olmec horizon is still
largely based on these characteristics.
The most familiar motif in Olmec art is the infantile
human face with flared lips and down-turned mouth,
rendered full front or in profile. When combined with
feline characteristics, this is referred to as the werejag-
uar, usually further marked by a cleft forehead.46 Other
common motifs are human figures seated in a niche or
cave mouth, often depicted with earth-monsterjaws (as
entranceto the underworld), adults carrying or presenting
infants (often as werejaguars), crocodilian or "dragon"
creatures, and tricephalicrepresentations.47The prevalent
themes are both human (naturalistic) and supernatural
(abstract). Joralemon has classified a series of deity rep-
42. Bernal, op . cit. (in note 1) 106- 117.
43. Frederick J. Bove, "Laguna de los Cerros: An Olmec Central
Place," Journalof New WorldArchaeology2:3 (1978) 1-56.
44. Covarrubias, op. cit. (in note 18); Michael D. Coe, "The Olmec
Style and its Distribution,'' Handbookof MiddleAmericanIndians
(hereafter HMAI),R. Wauchope, ed. 3 (Austin 1965) 739-775.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.; also see Peter T. Furst, "The Olmec Were-Jaguar Motif
in Light of Ethnographic Reality," DOCO(1968) 143-178; ''Jaguar
Baby or Toad Mother: A New Look at an Old Problem in Olmec
Iconography," OTN( 1981) 149- 162.
47. David C. Grove, "Olmec Monuments: Mutilation as a Clue to
Meaning," OTN (1981) 49-68; Peter D. Joralemon, "The Olmec
Dragon: A Study in Pre-Columbian Iconography," Originsof Reli-
giousArt&lconographyinPreclassicMesoamerica,H. B . Nicholson,
ed. (Los Angeles 1976) 27-71; Terry Stocker, Sarah Meltzoff, and
Steve Armsey, "Crocodilians and Olmecs: Further Interpretationsin
Formative Period Iconography," AmAnt 45 (19808 740-758; Jacinto
Quirarte, "Tricephalic Units in Olmec, Izapan-Style, and Maya Art,''
OTN(1981) 289-308.

resentations in Olmec art.48There is a sizable corpus of
works on Olmec art, so that the present summary need
not cross into the domain of stylistic analysis.49 Rather,
this paper will treat instead the archaeological signifi-
cance of Olmec remains, including those often considered
as art objects. The familiar problem with such objects
is, of course, that most are plundered from their original
context, and thus have lost their significance for archae-
ological purposes. Therefore, to avoid distortions pro-
duced by looted remains, the following summary will
consider only those remains with secure proveniences.
Sculpture
Stone sculpture is surely the most prominent of Olmec
remains. Sculpture ranges from the truly monumental-
including the carved basalt blocks transported from the
Tuxtla mountains to the Gulf coast sites50 and the bas
reliefs rendered on the living rock faces at Chalcatzingo
in highland Mexico to easily transportablejadeite pen-
dants, masks, and similar artifacts.
Many of the Olmec artifactsand sculptured motifs date
to Period I and II and began traditions that can be traced
throughout the Precolumbian era right up to the Spanish
Conquest over 2000 years later. One of these distinctive
artifacttraditionsthat began in the Olmec era was the use
of highly polished, concave ferric-ore mirrors.51These
items were traded into the Olmec heartland, either as
blanks or finished products, from highland sources.52
They seem to have been importantsymbols of ideological
and political power, worn about the neck of Olmec rulers,
as depicted on many monumental sculptures. This as-
sociation between ferric-ore mirrorsand theocratic power
seems to have continued in importanceduring subsequent
48. Peter D. Joralemon, "A Study of Olmec Iconography," Dum-
barton Oaks Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology (hereafter,
DOSPM) 7 (Washington, D .C . 1971) .
49. Covarrubias (1942), op. cit. (in note 18); Coe op. cit. (in note
44); Beatriz de la Fuente, "Toward a Conception of Monumental
Olmec Art, " OTN (1981) 83-94; George Kubler, The Art and Ar-
chitecture of Ancient America. The Mexican, Maya, and Andean Peo-
ples (Baltimore 1962); Tatiana Proskouriakoff, "Olmec and Maya Art;
Problems of Their Stylistic Relation," DOCO (1968) 119-134; Mat-
thew W. Stirling, "Monumental Sculpture of Southern Veracruz and
Tabasco," AIMAI3 (1965) 716-738; Charles R. Wicke, Olmec: An
Early Art Style of Precolumbian Mexico (Tucson 1971).
50. Howel Williams and Robert F. Heizer, "Sources of Rocks Used
in Olmec Monuments," UCARF 1 (1965) 1-39.
51. Robert F. Heizer and Jonas E. Gullberg, "Concave Mirrors from
the Site of La Venta, Tabasco: Their Occurrence, Mineralogy, Optical
Description, and Function, ' ' OTN ( 1981) 109- 116.
52. Ibid. 110; Jane W. Pires-Ferreira, "Formative Mesoamerican
Exchange Networks with Special Reference to the Valley of Oaxaca,"
MMichMusAnth7 (Ann Arbor 1975).
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 9, 1982 259
Maya civilization, although later mirrorswere often made
in mosaics ratherthan the single pieces typical of Olmec
times .53
Portable items such as these provide direct evidence
of trading activity during the Olmec era, especially when
sources of raw materials can be detected.54 In contrast,
the appearance of monumental Olmec sculpture outside
of the heartlandis often considered prima facie evidence
of short- or long-term Olmec occupation in foreign areas.
In fact, the basis of defining the Gulf coast lowlands as
the heartland of Olmec civilization is that the greatest
concentration of monumental sculpture rendered in O1-
mec style is found there.55 One distinctive Olmec form
of monumental sculpture seems restricted to this heart-
land (colossal heads), while several others are rarely
found outside this region (flat-topped altars and human
figures sculptured in the round). It should be noted at
this point that the catalogue of the San Lorenzo monu-
ments presented by Coe and Diehl56 sets a new standard
in Olmec archaeology, especially because of the excellent
illustrations by Felipe Davalos C.
The best known of Olmec monumental sculptures are
the colossal heads,57 renderings of human heads carved
in the round at a scale far larger than life. Fifteen ex-
amples are known from three Olmec sites: La Venta with
4, San Lorenzo with 9, and Tres Zapotes with 2. The
largest known, San Lorenzo Monument 4, measures 2.85
m. high. Olmec colossal heads have been seen as rep-
resentations of ball-game players or warriors,58but the
53. JohnB. Carlson,"Olmec ConcaveIron-OreMirrors:The Aes-
thetics of a Lithic Technologyand the Lord of the Mirror,"OTN
(1981) 117-147.
54. As in the case of obsidianfrom San Lorenzo, identifiedfrom
severalhighlandsources in Mexico and Guatemala;see RobertH.
Cobean,MichaelD. Coe, EdwardA. Perry,Jr., KarlK. Turekian,
andDinkarP. Kharkar,"ObsidianTradeat SanLorenzoTenochtitlan,
Mexico," Science 174 (1971) 666-671.
55. Olmec monumentshave been classified variously;the 11 types
definedby WilliamC. Clewlow, Jr., "A StylisticandChronological
Studyof OlmecMonumentalSculpture,"UCARF 19 (1974) areused
by Coe and Diehl. The presentationhere follows Grove, op. cit. (in
note 46) Table 1. RecentlyGrahamhas hypothesizedthatthe south
coastof Guatemalawas the genesis areaof Olmecsculpture;see John
A. Graham,"Abaj Takalik:The Olmec style and its antecedentsin
PacificGuatemala,"Ancient Mesoamerica, J. A. Graham,ed. (Palo
Alto, California1981) 163- 176.
56. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 293-374.
57. William C. Clewlow, Jr., Richard A. Cowan, James F.
O'Connell,and Carlos Benemann,"Colossal Heads of the Olmec
Culture," UCARF 4 (1967).
58. RomanPinaChanandLuisCovarrubias,"E1Pueblodel Jaguar,"
Consejo para la Planeacion e lnstalacion del Museo Nacional de
Antropologia (Mexico 1964). Citedin Grove,op. cit. (in note47) 61.
 260 In theLandof OlmecArchaeologylSharer
consensus seems to be that they are portraits of rulers.59
Michael Coe has noted that the headgear on each head
is unique, and this may have served to identify individual
rulers.60David Grove has pointed to one case, where the
symbol of an eagle talon from the headgear of a colossal
head (La Venta number 4) is also found on the headdress
of a figure carved in bas relief on San Lorenzo Monument
14; if both represent the same person, as seems likely,
this would be evidence of dynastic ties between these
two Olmec centers.6'
The term "altar" has been traditionally applied to ba-
salt blocks, usually with overhanging flat tops and sculp-
tured sides. Some 18 of these monuments are known
from the three sites of La Venta (7), San Lorenzo (9,
including 1 from nearby Potrero Nuevo), and Laguna de
los Cerros (2). A common altar motif is a human figure
seated in a niche, often holding an infant in the lap. This
has been interpretedas a representationof a ruler emerg-
ing from the mouth of the underworld (the niche), sym-
bolizing his supernaturalpower and right to rule.62 On
La Venta Altar 4 the niched figure is connected by a cord
to other figures, which may symbolize kinship or descent
relationships.63
The Olmec also carved a variety of figures in the round,
including some 34 human effigies known from three sites:
La Venta (16), San Lorenzo (11), and Laguna de los
Cerros (7). In addition there are four smaller-than-co-
lossal human heads at La Venta and one at San Lorenzo
that appear to be broken from full figures. These figures
are usually seen as portraits of rulers or deities. Animal
figures were also carved in the round. Twelve of these
are known from La Venta, six at San Lorenzo (including
1 each from nearby Tenochtitlan and Potrero Nuevo),
and one from Laguna de los Cerros. The most common
creature represented is feline (5 examples), but others
include monkeys (2), serpents (1), ducks (2), whales (1),
and arthropods(1). In addition, several full-figure mon-
uments depict two figures, as in the famous fragmentary
Potrero Nuevo Monument 3, which purportedly depicts
a jaguar copulating with a human female, a theme Stirling
proposed as representing the Olmec origin myth.64
59. MatthewW. Stirling, "Stone Monumentsof the Rio Chiquito,
Veracruz,Mexico," BAEBull 157 ( 1955) 1-23; Michael D. Coe,
''OlmecandMaya:A Studyin Realtionships,"OMEC (1977) 186.
60. Coe, ibid.
61. Grove, op. cit. (in note 47) 66-67.
62. David C. Grove, "Olmec Altars and Myths," Archaeology 26
(1973) 134-135.
63. Ibid. 134.
64. Stirling,op. cit. (in note59); Clewlow,op. cit. (in note54) 83-85
challengesthis interpretation.
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Finally, we may consider a series of bas relief sculp-
tures, most of which appear to be carved upright stone
shafts (stelae), but a few fragmentarypieces may derive
from other sources. This catagory includes two monu-
ments from San Lorenzo that appear to be among the
earliest Olmec sculptures found. Both (Monuments 41
and 42) are broken columnar stelae adorned with simple
reliefs of human figures.65 Some 24 stelae are known
from the three sites of La Venta (17), San Lorenzo (5),
and Laguna de los Cerros (1). This category is the most
widespread of heartlandsculpturalforms, with numerous
examples known from outside the region, including Chal-
catzingo,66San Miguel Amuco in western Mexico,67 and
Padre Piedra in Chiapas (southem Mexico).68 The scenes
on Olmec stelae are often multi-figured and complex, but
seem usually to include rulers. An imposing example of
the latter appears to be represented on La Venta Stela 2,
wearing an elaborate headdress and holding a scepter.
Stela 3 from the same site depicts a meeting between two
personages, shown in profile. In both cases, the borders
of the bas reliefs contain smaller figures that may rep-
resent attendants, ancestors, or supernaturalbeings.69
Most examples of these sculptures were broken or
mutilated in antiquity, a practice common in later Me-
soamerican eras, as in the defacing of ruler portraits on
Maya stelae of the Classic period. The mutilation of
Olmec monuments has been seen as the result of outside
invasion or internal revolt.70 The available evidence,
however, does not appear to support these suggestions.
Monumentmutilation seems established very early at San
Lorenzo, as indicated by broken fragments recovered
from fill containing Chicharrasphase pottery. These frag-
ments included a piece apparently from a colossal head
that would date earlier than ca. 1150 B.C. by this asso-
ciation.71 The destruction of monuments seems to have
occurred throughout the Olmec period, and continued
with the latest sculptures at Tres Zapotes.72 An analysis
65. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 351-352.
66. DavidC. Grove,"Chalcatzingo,Morelos,Mexico:A Reappraisal
of the OlmecRock Carvings,"AmAnt 33 (1971) 486-491.
67. David C. Grove and Louise I. Paradis,"An Olmec Stela from
San MiguelAmuco, Guerrero,"AmAnt 36 (1971) 95-102.
68. CarlosNavarrete,Archaeological Explorations in the Region of
Frailesca, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological
Foundation (hereafterNWAF) 7 (Orinda1960).
69. Bernal,op. cit. (in note 1) pls. 17 and4, respectively.
70. MatthewW. Stirling, "GreatStone Faces of the MexicanJun-
gle," NGM 78 (1940) 334; MichaelD. Coe, "Solvinga Monumental
Mystery,"Discovery 3 (1967) 25.
71. Coe andDiehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 294.
72. MatthewW. Stirling,"StoneMonumentsof SouthernMexico,"
BAEBull 138 (1943) 11.

of the patterns of monument mutilation at Olmec sites
undertakenby Grove indicates that the portraitsof rulers
received the brunt of destruction.73Depictions of rulers
on altars, stelae, and full-figure portraits are nearly al-
ways broken, decapitated, or defaced, and then buried.
The colossal heads seem to have warrantedspecial treat-
ment less severe mutilation by grooving and conical
pitting,74and then burial ratherthan the more destructive
patternseen on the other monuments. This evidence sug-
gests periodic, ritualized activity. Grove proposes that
these actions either marked the end of particular cal-
endrical cycles, or the termination of individual ruler's
reigns (or changes in dynasties), perhaps to eliminate the
supernaturalpower believed to be embodied within the
monuments prior to the installation of a successor.75 Per-
haps both factors were responsible; individual acts of
destruction to mark the death of each ruler, and periodic
(calendrically determined) rites that saw the accumulated
defaced portraits of former rulers buried, as evidenced
by the alignment of interred monuments found at San
LorenzO.76
Architecture and Sites
Archaeological research in the Olmec heartland has
focused on the conspicuous remains at the core of major
sites: the largest structures and monuments. Our infor-
mation about Olmec architectureremains essentially lim-
ited to these kinds of remains at two sites: La Venta and
San Lorenzo. And knowledge of overall site organization
and settlement was practically nonexistent until the pub-
lication of the San Lorenzo report with its excellent site
maps.77
The form and extent of La Venta remains somewhat
clouded, and there are discrepancies between the 1959
map of the site core78 and a more recent version.79 The
controversy over the form and function of the largest
structureat La Venta, the Complex C Mound (some 30
m. high), illustrates this difficulty. Originally it was
mapped without removing obscuring vegetation, and de-
picted as a rectified rectangular pyramid. Later clearing
revealed it to be a fluted conical construction of earth,
and it was mapped accordingly; it was then suggested
73. Grove, op. cit. (in note 47) 62.
74. Clewlow, op. cit. (in note 55).
75. Grove, op. cit. (in note 47) 63-65.
76. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 298-299.
77. Ibid. Map 2.
78. Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, op. cit. (in note 25) fig 4.
79. Robert F. Heizer, John A. Graham, and Lewis K. Napton, "The
1968 Investigations at La Venta," UCARF 5 (1968) map.
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 9, 1982 261
thatthe Complex C mound never supported a structure,
but represented an effigy volcano.80 Recently, Graham
andJohnson have modified this hypothesis and presented
two other possible reconstructions of its original form.81
A magnetometersurvey has indicated that a concentration
of basalt or similar stone lies near its summit, possibly
a tomb chamber,82 but to date little is known of this
importantconstruction, one of the largest for its time in
all of Mesoamerica, since it remains unexcavated.
The San Lorenzo map reveals the unusual form of this
site, situated on a low plateau apparently modified by
filling and leveling to form a series of six projecting
ridges to the north, west, and south.83The mapped area
is approximately 1.2 km. x 0.8 km. Assuming that this
area represents the extent of the artificial filling and lev-
eling at San Lorenzo, the scale of labor involved must
have been colossal, implying a sophisticated organization
and sizable labor force. Coe has proposed that the form
of San Lorenzo represents a gigantic, albeit unfinished,
effigy of a flying bird,84which while quite possible, only
proves that beauty (or bird effigies) lie in the eye of the
beholder.8s
The San Lorenzo map also reveals the existence of
"house mounds'', or remains of domestic occupation,
for the first time at an Olmec site. But unfortunately,
because only one of these mundane structureswas tested
by excavation, and then only sparsely treated in the San
Lorenzo report, Coe and Diehl's research makes little
contribution to the beginning of Olmec settlement ar-
chaeology.86 When compared to the contributions settle-
ment research has made to lowland Maya archaeology,87
it is surprising that so little has been done towards this
potentially significant aspect of Olmec archaeology.
The findings from the excavation of the one house
mound and the other structures at the site do raise a
80. Ibid.
81. John A. Graham and Mark Johnson, "The Great Mound at La
Venta," UCARF 41 (1979) 1-5.
82. Frank C. Morrison, William C. Clewlow, Jr., and Robert F.
Heizer, "Magnetometer Survey of the La Venta Pyramid, 1969,"
UCARF 8 ( 1970) 1-20.
83. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 25-29 and map 2.
84. Ibid. 28, 387.
85. In another publication, Diehl acknowledges an inability to per-
ceive this effigy form of San Lorenzo: Richard A. Diehl, "Olmec
Architecture: A Comparison of San Lorenzo and La Venta," OTN
(1981) 75.
86. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 20.
87. See, e.g., Wendy Ashmore, ed., Lowland Maya Settlement Pat-
terns (Albuquerque 1981).
262 In theLandof OlmecArchaeologylSharer
questionas to the datingof occupationat San Lorenzo.
The distributionof potteryfromvery late (ca. 900-1100
A.C.) re-occupationthroughoutthe site88indicates the
possibilitythat many of these house moundsmay date
from that period, ratherthan the Olmec era. In fact,
althoughexcavationof the largerstructuresin the central
part of the site revealed evidence of underlyingfloor
constructiondatablefromthe periodof monumentcarv-
ing (San Lorenzoto Nacastetimes, ca. 1150-700 B.C.),
the visible surfaceconstructionswere all datedeitherto
the Palangana(ca. 600-400 B.C.) or Villa Alta (ca.
900-1 100 A.C.) eras.89 The largestpyramidat San Lor-
enzo, MoundC3-1 (S m. high) was constructedduring
Villa Alta times.90
This is not to say that the era of Olmec florescence
(OlmecPeriodI) was devoid of large-scaleconstruction
activityat San Lorenzo.As mentionedpreviously,it ap-
pearsthatthe entiresite platformwas builtby filling and
leveling on a trulymonumentalscale priorto the place-
ment of the colossal heads and other sculpturedmonu-
ments,probablyat the beginningof OlmecPeriodI. But
thereis a somewhatmysteriouslack of structuresfrom
this era at San Lorenzo, a fact Coe and Diehl account
for by proposingthat the buildingsof Olmec PeriodI
weredestroyedby lateractivity.9lTheonly directsupport
forthishypothesiscomesfromone smallearthenplatform
(MoundB2-1) thatexcavationrevealedwas builtduring
the San Lorenzophase (ca. 1150-900 B.C.), locatedin
tte farNW corIlerof the site, whereit presumablyescaped
the postulateddestructionof latertimes.92
Otherthanthe monuments,the most conspicuousfea-
turesfrom Olmec PeriodI at San Lorenzoare a series
of 21 lagunas (reservoirs)andan extensivedrainthatran
for at least 170 m. directlywest from between two of
these lagunas. The drain, built of trough-shapedbasalt
segmentswith flat basalt covers, was apparentlycon-
structedduringthe lastpartof the SanLorenzoor Nacaste
phases.93The lagunas may be derivedfromborrowpits,
andseem to have been lined with clay. Theirpurposeis
unknown,althoughCoe and Diehl suggest eitherutili-
tarian water storage or ritual (purification-bathing)
functions.94
A comparisonof the architectureof San Lorenzoand
88. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 213.
89. Ibid. 54-71.
90. Ibid. 50-54.
91. Ibid. 388.
92. Ibid. 71-78.
93. Ibid. 118-126.
94. Ibid. 30.
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
La Venta made by Diehl9s reveals a surprising disparity
between these best known of Olmec sites. In fact, given
their architecturaldifferences, and apparent distinctions
in their ceramic traditions, the basic criteria for desig-
nating both San Lorenzo and La Venta as Olmec sites
rests on the similarities of their monumental sculpture
and the approximate contemporaneity of their occu-
pation.
While both sites utilized local earthenmaterialfor most
construction, colored sands and clays being favored for
floors and platform surfaces respectively, the monumen-
tal construction of the San Lorenzo site platform has no
known parallel at La Venta. Re-use of midden deposits
for fills appears much more common at San Lorenzo; in
fact, the rarity of occupational debris in construction at
La Venta indicates the lack of substantial local popula-
tions adjacent to the ceremonial precinct. Both sites pos-
sess drains of basalt troughs, but the lagunas of San
Lorenzo may be unique. The general patternof rectilinear
structuralarrangementat La Venta existed at San Lorenzo
by the Palangana phase, but as we have seen there is
little evidence of building platforms during the Olmec
I period at the latter site. A variety of construction ma-
terials were used at La Venta that apparently were not
used at San Lorenzo, including basalt columns and
blocks, limestone slabs, and adobe blocks. The number
and size of building platforms is far greater at La Venta,
culminating in the fluted conical Complex C mound. The
size and number of ceremonial (dedicatory) deposits was
one of the most astounding features discovered in the
excavations at La Venta. These consist of a wealth of
caches containingjadeite and other artifacts, five massive
deposits of cut serpentine blocks found underlying con-
struction in Complex A, and five tombs found along the
N-S axis of the same area. Several small caches were
excavated at San Lorenzo, but no evidence of massive
offerings or tombs was discovered.
From this brief resume, it is obvious that the major
constructional energies at San Lorenzo were invested in
the mammoth site platform itself. At La Venta, the pri-
mary investment of wealth and labor went into massive
offerings, tombs, large building platfox-llls,and at least
one conical pyramid. Both sites must have used their
human resources to transport large amounts of earthen
fill from local sources as well as monolithic basalt blocks
from fartheraway that were carved to commemoratetheir
rulers.
External Connections
Beginningin Olmec PeriodI, and culminatingin Pe-
riod II (the latter generally correspondingto the Me-
95. Diehl, op. cit. (in note 85) 69-81.

soamerican Middle Preclassic), the sphere of influence
for the Gulf coast centers ranged far beyond their hin-
terland. The approximateboundaries of this exterIlalnet-
work can be traced from the archaeological distribution
of Olmec works artifacts from the heartland, or local-
ized products that emulated Olmec works, as well as
monumentalrock sculpture and cave paintings that testify
to the presence of Olmec artisans, merchants, or even
administratorsand priests far beyond the Gulf coast.
In its widest extent, defined by the distribution of
tradedOlmec artifacts, this sphere of influence extended
from Central Mexico to Costa Rica in Central America,
some 2500 km. to the SE. It is probablethat Olmec traders
were responsible for at least some of the far-flung dis-
tribution of their masks, celts, and other objects. But it
is also likely that at least some of these items were traded
beyond the limits of Olmec commerce because they were
highly esteemed and retained their value as heirlooms
long after Olmec civilization waned.96
A more limited, but still extensive area within Me-
soamerica can be defined for direct Olmec interaction.
The prime motive for this external involvement seems
to have been economic the Olmec oversaw a wide-
spreadnetwork of tradeto provide the wealth and prestige
goods that helped support the exalted theocratic position
of the Gulf coast rulers.97Accordingly, the source areas
of many of the prized exotic materials demanded by the
ruling elite correspondto regions with evidence of Olmec
interaction. To the west of the heartland lies the central
Mexican highlands, a rich source of obsidian and other
volcanic minerals. To the sw is the Valley of Oaxaca,
where workshops for the manufacture of ferric-ore mir-
rors have been excavated. To the SE lies the fertile Pacific
coastal plain of modern Guatemala, the greatest Pre-
columbian source of cacao, and the route to the Maya
highlands and their jadeite and obsidian, as well as the
corridor to Central America beyond. A series of Middle
Preclassic sites in these areas with evidence of Olmec
ties seem well situated to control access to local products
or protect and maintain the trade routes leading to the
Gulf coast.
The dominant area within the central Mexican high-
lands is the Basin of Mexico, where Mexico City is
presently located. By ca. 1200 B CU the villagers living
at Tlapacoya, set at the SE entrance to the basin on the
most logical route to the Gulf coast, were using pottery
vessels and hollow figurines reminiscent of contemporary
96. Anatole Pohorilenko, "The Olmec Style and Costa Rican Ar-
chaeology, 99 OTN ( 1981 ) 309-327.
97. Lee A. Parsons and Barbara J. Price, "Mesoamerican Trade and
Its Role in the Emergence of Civilization, " UCARF 11 ( 1971)
169-195.
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 9, 1982 263
Olmec artifacts.98Similar pottery comes from the larger
and wealthier site of Tlatilco, situated near the western
exit of the basin, including forms decorated with motifs
emulating those found in the Olmec heartland.99These
connections probably derive from trade contacts, al-
though some scholars have proposed that Olmec colonists
may have resided at both Tlapacoya and Tlatilco to insure
the continuity of economic ties with the Gulf coast
centers. I00
On the plateau south of the Basin of Mexico, two
Olmec-related Early and Middle Preclassic sites occupy
positions that suggest their function was to control routes
through the region. Las Bocas is situated in a defensible
position at the eastern entry to the plateau, while Chal-
catzingo is located to the west, on the route leading to
the Rio Balsas valley and the corridorto westerIl Mexico.
Las Bocas is badly plundered, but its burials seem to
contain Olmec motif vessels.l°l Chalcatzingo is well
known for its outstanding Olmec-style bas reliefs carared
on the volcanic deposits rising above the site. The ar-
chaeological excavations conducted by Grove and his
colleagues102have documented the origins of an Early
Preclas<,icvillage there, followed by expansion of the
settlement during the Middle Preclassic era when the bas
reliefs seem to have been carved. In addition to these
carvings, which probably made Chalcatzingo an impor-
tant focus for pilgrimages from throughout central Mex-
ico, Grove's research discovered several new bas reliefs
and a series of Olmec-style carved stelae, as well as a
flat-topped altar built of a series of slabs. The excavation
of high-status burials in stone-lined crypts revealed an
array of prestige goods, such as jadeite orIlaments, a
greenstone Olmec-style werejaguar figurine, and a fer-
ric-ore mirror. In one case, a crypt (Burial 3) contained
a sculpturedhead broken from a statue, perhaps an effigy
of the buried individual. Together, the archaeological
evidence from Chalcatzingo suggests that it serarednot
only as a ceremonial center, but as a strategic trading
station for highland products such as obsidian, ferric ores,
and possibly kaolin clay, controlled by an elite with
98. PaulTolstoy,andLouiseI. Paradis,"EarlyandMiddlePreclassic
Culturein the Basin of Mexico," Science 167 (1970) 344-351.
99. Ibid.
100. Bernal,op. cit. (in note 1) 136-137; also see David C. Grove,
"The HighlandOlmec Manifestation:A Considerationof WhatIt Is
and Isn't," MesoamericanArchaeology:New Approaches,N. Ham-
mond,ed. (Austin 1974) 109-128, for a contraryinterpretation.
101. MichaelD. Coe, TheJaguar's Children(New York 1965).
102. Grove,op. cit. (in note 47) 55-61; Grove,op. cit. (in note66);
David C. Grove, KennethG. Hirth, David E. Buge, and Ann M.
Cyphers,"Settlementand CulturalDevelopmentat Chalcatzingo,"
Science 192 (1976) 1203- 1210.
264 In theLandof OlmecArchaeologylSharer
strong Olmec ties, if not actually ruled by colonial Olmec
elites. This function has been typified by Hirth as a
"Gateway Community" . 103
The westerIlmost evidence of Olmec presence in Mex-
ico is a carved stela from San Miguel Amuco in the Rio
Balsas drainage of Guerrero.l04Two cave sites, also in
Guerrero (south of Chalcatzingo), furnish spectacular
polychrome paintings in Olmec style. One of these, at
Oxtotitlan,105includes an elaborately adorIledfigure with
an avian (eagle?) mask and costume, seated on a dais
decorated with a jaguar mask nearly identical to Gulf
coast motifs, such as that on La Venta Altar 4.
The archaeological record from the other dominant
focus of highland civilization, the Valley of Oaxaca,
includes ceramic and other artifactual ties to the Gulf
coast Olmec during the Middle Preclassic. But like the
Basin of Mexico, Oaxaca is devoid of direct sculptural
links to Olmec art. It has been reasonably argued that in
Oaxaca socio-cultural complexity developed only slightly
slower than on the Gulf coast. Accordingly, when the
Olmec established trade contacts with the Oaxacan ruling
elites to secure desired goods, such as ferric-ore mirrors,
they could not colonize or control this region. Rather
exchanges were conducted between the Olmec and Oax-
acan elites as equals in a trading relationship. 106
The remaining major region of Olmec contact lay to
the SE, along the rich Pacific coastal plain that stretches
from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec into Central America.
In later times this was the prime area for Mesoamerican
cacao production. Cacao beans were prized both as a
food (and as a mild stimulant), and as a currency, used
by merchants throughout Mesoamerica.l07 Although
highly perishable so that few archaeological traces re-
main, it is probable that Pacific coast cacao was one of
the mainstays of Olmec commerce. 108 One of the Olmec
figures carved on the Las Victorias boulder at Chal-
chuapa, E1 Savador, cradles a rounded and ridged object
that appearsto represent a cacao pod. 109The Pacific plain
103. Kenneth G. Hirth, "Interregional Trade and the Formation of
Prehistoric Gateway Communities,99 AmAnt 43 (1978) 35-45.
104. Grove and Paradis, op. cit. (in note 67).
105. David C. Grove, ''The Olmec Paintings of Oxtotitlan Cave,
Guerrero, Mexico," DOSPM 6 (Washington, D.C. 1970).
106. Kent V. Flannery, "The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A
Model for Interregional Interaction in Formative Times,99 DOCO
(1968) 79-110.
107. Rene Millon, 'iWhen Money Grew on Trees," unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University (New York 1955).
108. Parsons and Price, op. cit. (in note 97).
109. Dana Anderson, "Monuments,9' in The Prehistory of Chal-
chuapa, El Salvador I, R. J. Sharer, ed., University Museum Mono-
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
also provided the naturalroute to CentralAmerica, avoid-
ing the rugged highlands inland, and the easiest access
to the obsidian andjadeite resources found in the souther
Maya highlands.1l0
In coastal Chiapas, at the head of the Pacific plain,
Navarrete's research has brought to light an array of
Olmec rock sculptures at Pijijiapan.111 Furtherdown the
coast, recent excavations by Graham have revealed a
series of Olmec-style monuments at Abaj Takalik, Gua-
temala, in addition to the Olmec rock carving long known
at this site.l12 Farthest to the SE iS Chalchuapa and the
Olmec-style carved boulder at Las Victorias.ll3 That the
Olmec also penetrated the Maya highlands is attested by
the recent discovery of a fragmentaryOlmec-style carved
head at La Lagunita, in central Guatemala.1l4
While few of these Pacific coast Olmec sculptures can
be directly dated, stylistically they seem fully within the
Middle Preclassic Olmec tradition (Period II). At Chal-
chuapa, the pottery of this period includes specific Olmec
modes and motifs.1l5 A mammoth (20 m. high) conical
earthenmound was also constructedat Chalchuapaduring
this era, recalling a similar pyramid (the Complex C
Mound) at La Venta.1l6 It would appear that Olmec in-
teraction had a catalytic effect on the cultural develop-
ment of the Preclassic societies along the Pacific plain,
for the growth of these societies continued at an accel-
erated pace after the waning of Olmec connections in the
region.1l7 In the wake of the Olmec, the Pacific coastal
plain was host to a rich sculptural tradition in the Late
Preclassic, known as the Izapan style, and the earliest
examples of Maya hieroglyphic texts and calendrical
notations.ll8 These appear to represent the direct ances-
graph 36 (Philadelphia 1978) 175.
110. Robert J. Sharer, "The Prehistory of the Southeastern Maya
Periphery," CA 15 (1974) 165- 187.
111. Carlos Navarrete, The Olmec Rock Carvings at Pijijiapan, Chia-
pas, Mexico, and Other Olmec Pieces from Chiapas and Guatemala,
NWAF Papers 35 (Provo 1974) .
112. John A . Graham, ' 'Maya, Olmecs, and Izapans at Abaj Taka-
lik,9' XLII International Congress of Americanists, Actas 8 (1979)
179-188.
113. Anderson, loc. cit. (in note 109).
114. Alain Ichon, Les sculptures de la Lagunita, El Quiche, Guate-
mala (Paris 1977) 34.
115. Robert J. Sharer, "Pottery," in Sharer, ed., op. cit. III (in note
109) 124.
116. Robert J. Sharer, ''Excavations in the E1 Trapiche Group,99in
Sharer, op. cit. I (in note 109) 73-74.
117. Sharer, op . cit. (in note 110) 170- 172.
118. Susanna W. Miles, ' ' Sculpture of the Guatemala-Chiapas High-

tors to the dynastic monuments that characterize lowland
Maya civilization during the subsequent Classic
period.119
Conclusion
From this all-too-brief summary it is apparent that
Olmec research to date has posed far more questions than
answers. But this is a healthy and stimulating climate for
further research which promises to provide exciting
results.
The two major unresolved questions involve expla-
nations for the origins of Olmec civilization, and the role
of the Olmec in the growth of later Mesoamerican civ-
ilizations. The San Lorenzo report addresses the first of
these problems,120but Coe and Diehl's research was not
designed to cope with the second issue.
Archaeology supports the idea that the heartland of
Olmec cultural development lay in the tropical lowlands
of the Gulf coast, and has chartedits chronological frame-
work. But the ultimate origins of Olmec civilization re-
main unresolved. 121 Are its roots to be found in the same
tropical environment? Early works dealing with the 01-
mec, and their later tropical lowland companions, the
Maya, often assumed that this habitat was far too inhos-
pitable uncomfortable, lacking in good agricultural
land and other resources to have spawned civilization.
Thus both the Olmec and the Maya were often seen as
an enigma, an exception to the ''rule" as to the origins
of civilization. The only explanation lay in postulating
that civilization had to be an import, transplanted into
the lowlands from highland regions, once assumed to
have had a greater potential for supporting the growth
of complex societies. 122Beginning with Covarrubias,the
idea has persisted that Olmec origins lay in the wester
highlands of Guerrero, Mexico.l23 Although recent ar-
chaeological investigations in Guerreroindicate an Early
Preclassic development of village life and a Middle Pre-
lands and Pacific Slopes and Associated Hieroglyphs, " HMAI 2 (1965)
237-277; Coe, op. cit. (in note 44); Jacinto Quirarte, ''Izapan-Style
Art: A Study of its Form and Meaning," DOSPM 10 (Washington,
D.C. 1973); Lee A. Parsons, ''Post-Olmec Stone Sculpture: The O1-
mec-Izapan Transition on the Southern Pacific Coast and Highlands,"
OTN (1981) 257-288.
119. Sylvanus G. Morley and George W. Brainerd;revised by Robert
J. Sharer, The Ancient Maya, 4th ed. (Stanford, in press) Chapter 3.
120. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. II (in note 5) 139-152.
121. Ibid. 139; Graham, op. cit. (in note 55).
122. See, for instance, Betty J. Meggers, ''Environmental Limitation
on the Development of Culture," AmAnth 56 (1954) 801-824.
123. Covarrubias (1942), op. cit. (in note 18) .
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 9, 1982 265
classic era of Olmec interaction124(see above), there is
thus little to support the thesis that Olmec civilization
originated in westerIl Mexico, or anywhere else outside
of the Gulf coast.
In the heartlanditself, the San Lorenzo reportprovides
some suggestive but inconclusive data on this issue. The
San Lorenzo evidence, which is significant in attesting
the earliest occupation yet found at an Olmec site, sug-
gests an in situ development from an initial village-level
foundation that seems to have been part of a general
tradition of settled communities adapted to the lowlands
of southern Mesoamerica.125
The various theories seeking to explain the rise of
civilization (or ''complex society") are well known, and
need not be reviewed here. In the case of the Olmec,
these theories have provided fuel for several specific
developmental scenarios, based on the interrelated con-
ditions of population growth, ecological diversity,
competition, and differential access to scarce resources,
that resulted in the emergence of a ruling elite from an
egalitarian foundation. For example, William Rathje, in
a model originally applied to the lowland Maya but that
he also saw as relevant to the Olmec, proposed that the
catalyst in this process was long distance trade.126 These
exchange networks developed to supply scarce but nec-
essary goods such as salt, obsidian for cutting tools, and
basalt for grinding stones, that were unavailable in the
tropical lowlands of Mesoamerica. In this scheme, the
Olmec elite would have grown out of the group of en-
trepreneurswho organized and controlled trade to supply
these vital commodities.
In the San Lorenzo report, Coe and Diehl adapt this
scenario, adding new variables provided by their ar-
chaeological research, and reinforced by an analogy de-
rived from their enthnographicstudy of the contemporary
San Lorenzo region. 127As the report acknowledges, con-
textual limitations within the archaeological data preclude
quantitativeassessments (size and rates of growth) of the
ancient population at San Lorenzo, especially during the
critical pre-Olmec I period (ca. 1500-1150 B.C.) when
it is assumed that the transition between egalitarian and
non-egalitarian social structureoccurred. But by assum-
124. Louise I . Paradis, ' ' Guerrero, and Olmec ' ' OTN ( 1981)
195-208; John S. Henderson, Atopula, Guerrero, and OlmecHorizons
in Mesoamerica, Yale University Publication in Anthropology 77 (New
Haven 1979).
125. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 137; Lowe, op. cit. (in note
29) 204-218.
126. William L. Rathje, ''The Origin and Development of Classic
Maya Civilization," AmAnt 36 (1971) 275-285.
127. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 139-152.
266 In theLandof OlmecArchaeologylSharer
ing populationgrowthand consequentincreasingcom-
petitionfor resourcesduringthis interval,Coe andDiehl
posit the origins of the San Lorenzoelite from groups
(probablylineages) that gained control over the prime
local resource:the ca. one-fifthof the landscapecorre-
spondingto the fertileriverlevee soils (21%of the land
todaywithinthe 77 sq. km. surroundingthe site). They
note thatSan Lorenzois in an especiallyproductiveset-
ting, possessing more river levee land than furtherup-
stream, and a longer growing season (because of less
flooding) than areas downstream,so that its emerging
ruling elite would have had an advantageover other
groupsin the region. This same fact may have tended
to circumscribethe San Lorenzopopulation,preventing
emigrationand allowing the new elite to intensifytheir
authority.To bolsterthis scenario,Coe and Diehl apply
the resultsof their ethnographicstudy, specificallythe
rise to powerof caciques ("leaders") in the nearbyvil-
lage of Tenochtitlan.Caciques gain power within the
essentiallyegalitariansystemof todayby workingharder
to earn extra money, which they invest in good river
levee land and transportation facilities. In time these in-
vestmentspay off as the caciques acquirewealth, pres-
tige, and politicalpower.
The second and complementaryfactor in Coe and
Diehl's model for the originsof the San LorenzoOlmec
is the adoptionof Rathje'sscheme:elite controlof the
trade networksthat supplied vital importedgoods.128
Finally, they arguethat Olmec ideology reinforcedthe
entireprocess, for the politicalpowerof the rulingelite
was notbasedonly on controlover subsistenceandtrade,
but the supernatural realmas well. Coe and Diehl admit
they do not know how the rulersof San Lorenzocame
to monopolizethe relationshipbetween society and the
supernatural, nor whichcame first:did the possessionof
religious authorityfacilitatethe acquisitionof political
andeconomicpower,or vice versa?l29Buttherearemany
other questionsthat could be asked of this model. For
Coe andDiehl's reconstruction representsa detailedand
plausible hypothesis derived from their San Lorenzo
study, but it is not an explanationof the origins of the
San Lorenzo Olmec. It will take considerablefurther
effortto subjecteachof thecomponentsof thishypothesis
to archaeologicaltesting before we can even begin to
considerthese scenariosas explanations.
The secondissue facing not only Olmec archaeology,
but all of Mesoamericanarchaeology,is the delineation
of the developmentalimpactmadeby Olmeccivilization
on its neighbors.Two schoolsof thoughthavedeveloped
128. Rathje, op. cit. (in note 126).
129. Coe and Diehl, op. cit. I (in note 5) 148-149.
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
on this question. The first of these, referred to as the
"highland school," sees a contemporarygrowth of socio-
political complexity in the Basin of Mexico and the Val-
ley of Oaxaca equivalent to the Olmec. In this view, the
laterdevelopment of urbanstates in Mesoamerica, a high-
land phenomenon, owes little, if anything, to the Olmec,
being a direct descendant of the Preclassic highland tra-
tition.l30 The second view, the "lowland school" sees
the Olmec as the culturamadreof all subsequent cultural
development, not only in the lowlands (such as the Clas-
sic period Maya), but the highlands as well.l3l As often
happens in such debates, it would appear that the truth
may lie somewhere between these positions, and that
lowland-highland interaction, of the kind hypothesized
by Flannery for the Preclassic Valley of Oaxaca, affected
cultural development in both regions.l32
If we assume that the primary purpose of Olmec in-
teraction with other Mesoamerican societies was eco-
nomic, which seems highly probable, the answer to this
problem may lie in considering what the Olmec offered
in return for the exotic goods demanded by their theo-
cratic rulers. Gordon Willey has noted that the funda-
mental contribution made by Olmec civilization was that
it provided the basis for integrating a diverse and rela-
tively isolated series of agricultural societies throughout
Mesoamerica.l33 While the immediate mechanism for
this integration appears to have been economic-the for-
mation of a tightly controlled trade network this same
network also communicated the Olmec ideological sys-
tem throughout Mesoamerica. In simplest terms, there-
fore, in exchange for exotic goods the Olmec provided
knowledge concepts of a universal order and the myths,
deities, and rituals, that explained this order that was
adopted by their trading partners, the newly emerging
elites of highland Mexico and the Pacific coastal plain,
for very practical political purposes. For by adopting the
Olmec cosmology, these neighboring elites could better
integrate and better administer their subjects. In this way
a common underlying cosmological order emerged, and
integratedMesoamerica with an ethos that prevailed until
the Spanish Conquest (vestiges of which survive to the
present day).
The sculptured reliefs of Olmec personages found in
highland Mexico and along the Pacific coastal plain are
the most dramatic evidence of this common symbolic
130. Sanders and Price, op. cit. (in note 3) 132-134.
131. Caso, op. cit. (in note 18); Coe, op. cit. (in note 1); see also
Tolstoy, op. cit. (in note 4).
132. Flannery, op. cit. (in note 106).
133. Gordon R. Willey, "The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the
Pre-Columbian Civilizations" AmAnth 64 (1962) 1-14.
 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 9, 1982 267

heritage.First adoptedand later adaptedin varyingde-

grees in local andregionalstyles to providethe focus of
ceremonial,economic,andpoliticallife, the Olmectheo-
cratic order transformedmuch of the rest of Meso-
america,ultimatelycontributingto the rise of states as
diverseas those of Teotihuacan,Oaxaca,and the Maya
lowlands.

Acknowledgments
I wish to thankProfessorsWendy A. Ashmore,Mi-
chael D. Coe, RichardA. Diehl, and David C. Grove
for their commentsand suggestionsthat aided the re-
finementof this paper.The author,however, takes full
responsibilityfor its content.

Theauthorfirst encounteredevidenceof Olmec

expansionbeyondthe Gulf coast lowlandsduring
excavationsin MiddlePreclassic contextsat
Chalchuapa,El Salvador(1966-1970), a research
programhe directedfor the UniversityMuseum,
Universityof Pennsylvania.Since then he has directed
the VerapazProject in the highlandsof Guatemala
(1971-1973), and the QuiriguaProject in the lowlands
of the MotaguaValleyin NE Guatemala(1974-1979),
for the UniversityMuseumwherehe is currently
AssociateCuratorof the AmericanSectionand
AssociateProfessorin the AnthropologyDepartmentof
the Universityof Pennsylvania.

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:12:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions