Grove

The Mesoamerican kormatuve and South America
David C. Grove
Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology
University of Illinois
Introduction
is a ricky problem for
discussion at any time. The archaeologist
Diffusion
must wrestle with
which
are
difficult
a
series of
to test, not
questions
the least
of which is the-problem of what data
Constitutes "acceptable evidence of
because of biases
or
diffusion". Secondly,
archaeological data,
gaps in Some
sources ot
Scholarly interpretation of difficult.
In
usually quite
evidence for contactsS
Considering the
S o u t h A m e r i c a and
between
other
Mesoamerica on any time level,
In
neither
problems of approach appear.
diffusion is
Mesoamerica
early
nor
South America do
centers
ceramic
where
major
regions
developed. Although the
correspond
to
civilizations
earliest known
in Mesoamerica
ceramics
archaeological
ao not appear in the lowlands, it is the
of both
tropical lowland regions
America which
Mesoamerica and South
early ceramic
E the first important
nters, However, in both regions there
Sa
later shift
IESOamerica
to
this shift are not great, the shift of
cultural centers between northern and
South American and
northwestern
highland Peru is quite significant.
the highlands. While in
in
the distances involved
Archaeologically
the
Mesoamerican
major
Formative is subdivided into
1600
(c.
time periods: Early Formative
Formative (900 600
900 B.C.), Middle
c. 300
three
-
B.C.), and
Late Formative (600
B.C.). Not every
with
agreement
chronological
subject
Mesoamericanist
is in
this scheme,
and
boundaries
to further
always
are
revision, but I
am
of
my
the majornty
this
with
agree
colleagues
in this paper is
follows
What
chronology.
certain
that
would
a
discussion of the
early
ceramic
phases
those of the
in Mesoamerica, primarily
and the implications of
Early Formative,Mesoamerica in terms of
new data from
Mesoamerican-South American diffusion.
A
in a
number of persons,
over
published
of reportshave
discussed
wide variety
the past few
parallels
in
decades
assemblages of South
archaeological
M e s o a m e r i c a . Rather than
America and
s o u r c e s in this paper,
all of those
citing
280
of the
the south
meaningless
an
and probablya c k n o w l e d g e
arduous
I
task at best,
foresight in
only
can
most
cases.
I plan only
it and
I see
data. It is
to interpret in t e r m s of the
will afford
discuss parallels
paper
that this
view of the
their
as
the data
my hope
Americanists
South
a clearer
them
Formative, allowing
Mesoamerican
evaluate
to better
sequences
cultural
for
and
themselves
interactions
the
in
between
diffusion
possibleM e s o a m e r i c a .
of
terms
and
South America
centurnes
indigenous
Pox
by
vessel
pottery
of
and
forms
which
techniques
not
are
southern
centers
in Mesoamerica occur in
the lowlands, and by this I am referring
Southern Mesoamerica. Based
to
on
available archaeological data,
the
our
discussion of the Formative should begin
in this region.
Geographically,
shaped like
restricted
the
a
isthmian
reasons.
Mesoamerica
large hourglass,
is
the
portion of the hourglass being
Isthmus
of
Tehuantepec.
region is important
It not
for
The
several
only forms a geographiC
boundary between northern and
southern Mesoamerica, but a cultural
boundary between Maya. and
linguistic groups. It is obvious
very shape, all diffusion
between northern and
Mesoamerica
The
demarcation between the tropics and th
rth. It is
more temperate
therefore that the important cultural
esting
developments leading to Mesoamerica
first complex culture, the Oimecs, takes
narily along
must
through the isthmus
ethnohistorical as well
non-Maya
that by its
by land
southern
necessar1ly pass
region. In fact,
evidence indicates that the archaeological
isthmus was a
major artery for pre-Hispanic commerce.
The Isthmus of
Tehuantepec is
as
important for ecological reasons also. To
the
Pacific coastal
region of Guatemala and Chiapas, the
later stages along the Gulf Coast
The earliest ceramic phase thus far
identified on southern Mesoamerica's
Pacific coast is the Barra phase at the site
of Altamira (Green and Lowe 1967).
The dating of this phase is tentative, the
c. 1600 B.C. date being based on the fact
whichthat Barra
stratigraphic
Mesoamerica. As
noted above, the earliest important
ceramic
their rich allu
climates, besuvial
almost a lin of
with
central Mexico,
valleys and temperate
isthmus then is
central Mexico but
to
appear first in
nor
of the isthmus, the mountain chainoth
OCcur
Purron phase equivalents
Acapulco and
earliest
are the
from the Tehuacan valley
are
Mesoamerica and
dated ceramics in
their
dating, as
found in central Mexico,
their
and
discussed later, is tenuous,
influenced a few
evolution is highly
decorative
Mesoamerica. Immediately to the
Stages of this development apparently
the
later
in the
place in the isthmian region. The initialT
Southern Mesoamerica
Although
isthmus, even
Guatemalan highlands, you find trop
phase Ceramics underlie
levels containing Ocos
phase (c. 1500 1100 B.C.) sherds. Barra
phase vessels are primar1ly incurved rim
bowls, with a few sherds which could
possibly classify
below).
as
They are
(see
tecomates
unlike any other
known Mesoamerican
ceramic at this
time level. Lowe (Green and Lowe 1967:
62) suggests the vessel forms, which
often
heavily
imitations
of
fluted,
gourd
decorative techniques
are
are
ceramic
containers. The
present include
the use of red slip, incising, grooving
fluting,
zoned
decoration,
and
cord
marking (1967 97-104). With the
possible exception of the red slip, which
apparenty occurs also on Pox pottery
see below), this marks the earliest
known occurrences of these decorative
techniques in Mesoamerica. Lowe (1967:
56, 98-102) cites the similarities of the
to
decorative attributes
those of Machalilla, and in toa later
those
pubication (Lowe 1971:220)
Hormiga.
Puerto
and
of Barlovento
Barra phase
Although Machalilla parallels n
aecorative attributes are strong, som
rcu
these
attributes including the
use of
281
(possibly specular
slp
ore-Valdivia
Valdivia
A
red)
Ceramics
occur on
from inland
sites
Norton, this
excavated by Norton
volume)
(see
closer
relationsh1p
Barra and
Machalilla than withbetween
most other
South
American
torms,
whole
The
cerami
Barra
phases.
ceramics
unlike those of
Yet,
are
vessel
generally
in
of
phase ceramics
and of later phases as well. Are the
Machalilla, suggesting
selective borrowing or diffusion
and
intermediate source. Although Dr. Evans
has supported a Barra phase to Chorrera
phase diffusion in this symposium,
primacy of the decorative attributes the
in
rim
northwestern South America favors that
of South America as the
source
rather than the recipient of the
question of tecomate
origins and distribution is important to
Barra
the discussion
Lowe identifies as tecomates
and
Lowe 1967: 97, 102,
(Green
104)
actually tecomates, or are they incurved
vessels
bo wls?
South
American
archaeologists would identify them as
the latter in most instances. While a few
might qualify as tecomates to
Mesoamericanists, most are generally
smaller
than
later phases,
utilitarian
tecomates of
and none of the
Barra
examples illustrated have the thickened
comma-shaped
nim
typical of early
South American tecomates The earliest
South American tecomates occur at
Kotosh and are also ound with the
earliest ceramics of the north and
north-central Peruvian coast where in all
instances thev date c. 1800 1600 B.C.
(lzumi and Sono 1963: 154: Lathrap
1966: 268). Interestingly, tecomates are
apparently absent in northwestern South
America, the region with which so many
early Mesoamerican parallels are drawn.
Central
American tecomates, such as
those reported from Monagrillo, Panama,
may also be incurved rim bowls rather
than tecomates (Kennedy n.d.). The lack
of
tecomates
in
northwestern
America together with
between
tecomates
South
the differences
vessels
and Peruvian
Barra
that the
indicate
may well
Barra phase vessel forms are indigenous
an
(arriving at Altamira from
undetermined area) but have adopted
diffused decorative attributes. Lowe
Green and Lowe 1967: 56-57, 62-63)
nolds a similar view. The tecomate form
eaturing
interiorly
thickened
Comma-shaped) rims apparently does
not appear strongly in Mesoamerica until
c.
1100
or
1000 B.C.
Chronology, as well as the total range
of decorative attributes, would suggest a
area
diffusion.
There 1S apparently a cultural
continuum between the Barra phase and
the subsequent Ocos
phase (Green and
Lowe 1967: 56-58, 63). Data from the
Ocos phase
Large
is
much
jars which
tecomates
(Coe
and
more abundant.
are
identified as
Flannery
1967:
25-26), as well as incurved rim bowls and
flaring-wall bowls occur in the sample.
The vessels identified as tecomates have
a band of specular red paint around the
rim. A wide variety of decorative
attributes occurs with Ocos ceramics.
including both dentate and plain rocker
stamping, cord marking, 2one
burnishing, finger nail punctation, and
importantly, iridescent painting (Coe
1961: 48-60). Coe has published on
parallels between Ocos decorative
attributes and those present in the
Chorrera phase of Ecuador (Coe 1960).
Several teatures of Ocos ceramics are
worthy of comment here. First, while
Coe has correlated iridescent painting in
Ocos with Chorrera phase iridiscent
the iridescent results are
painting
accomplished through dilluted specular
red paint, the same paint used in early
red slips on ceramics from Valdivia
(Lathrap: personal communication).
Thus in Ocos, some tecomates have
specular red rims, while others have
iridescent rims (Coe 196l: 50) ofbased
the
apparently on the consistency
(personal
specular red paint. LathraP
communication) also notes that this red
slip provides the basis for red-on-brown
ceramics, and does
not
smudge
on
vessels
282
castern side of
These latter
by smudge-resist.
Ecuador and
both in
vessels
Tlatilco, below).
Mesoamerica (see
and
Meggers, Evans as
Secondly, although
Chorrera
Estrada (1965: fig. 89) place
decorated
occur
Lathrap
post-Machalilla,
communication)
(1967:
97;
that in
feels
personal
east of the
north and
the
to
regions
be a
the
Peninsula there may
Santa Elena
evolution of Valdivia into
direct
Chorrera, while
itself the
direct
arbitrary. A
Valdivia
at
divisions are
phase
Valdivia-Chorrera
evolution
would
of
in the dates
rectify any discrepencies although Coe
Ocos and Chorrera. Also,
(1960) does
discuss zoomorphic
not
eftigy representations
phase
Ocos
on
reptilian or amphibian
1961: fig. 40d,
Creatures depicted (Coe
to zoomorphs on
similar
e, g) are quite
ceramics,
the
ceramics
at
Puerto
Hormiga
(Reichel-Dolmatoff 1965: Lam. IV, V)
and Zambrano (Lathrap: personal
the
region,
iesoamerica's isthmian
Gulf Coast, the earliest
in this
region occur at
phases yet known
the site of San Lorenzo. These phases,
the Ojochi and
contem porancous
Bajío phases, are
with the
Pacific
coast's Ocos phase. Ojochi vessel forme
include Ocos-like tecomates, flat-bottom
flaring wall bowls and some "narrow
bottles"
(Coe 1970: 22).
Decorative techniques parallel those of
Ocos, including red rimmed tecomates.
necked
However, some traits such as iridescent
painting and cord marking are absent in
this Gulf Coast sample. Thus, Coe
(1970: 22) describes the Ojochi phase (c.
1500
1350 B.C.) as a "country cousin"
of Ocos. Bajío phase ceramics, dated as
C. 13501250 B.C. are "strikingly
different" from those of the Ojochi
phase (1970: 24). Zoned punctation and
rocker stamping are added to the list of
decorative attributes, and fluted bottles
of
are present in the sample. Because of
Momil (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1965: fig.
13). Finally, long solid tripod vesel
supports, often referred to as "spider leg
supports" occur at Ocos (Coe 1961: fig.
this remains to be proven (see discussion
of Tlatilco, below. The Chicharras
) on neckless jars, in Momil 2 on quite
phase following Ojochi and Bajío,
well
as
communication),
as
those
similar vessels (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1965:
Early Tutishcainyo
(Lathrap: personal communication), and
fig.
14-11),
in
in central Mexico at Tlatilco sites
these latter, Coe (1970: 24-25) suggests
possible connections with Tlatilco, but
appears to me more similar to the San
Lorenzo phase (c. 1150 900 B.C.) than
to its predecessors, and will not be
discussed.
(discussed below). Early Tutishcainyo
dates c. 2000 B.C. (Lathrap 1970: 14),
he d ates for Momil
2
(Reichel-Dolmatoff 1965: 275) of "la
era
Cristiana"
may
conservative, while
vessels
be
far
too
spider leg ripod
may be slightly
Tlatilco
younger than the Ocos phase. Thus on
the attribute level, the Ocos
phase shares
a
number of similarities with
early
at
With the Bajío phase, the developing
cultural impetus which apparently was
triggered on the Pacific coast (Barra and
Ocos phases) gradually shifts to the Gult
Coast riverine habitat. The beginnings of
San Lorenzo as a
planned ceremonial
center are found with the Bajío phase,
for it is at this time that tons of fill dirt
archaeological cultures of northern
the hill at San Lorenz0
CTeating a large and essentially artifica
phase vessels termed by Coe as
is
plateau. By 1150 B.C. this plateau
supported a rapidly growing Olmec
South America. The derivation of
Ocos
tecomates
vessel form
again
is
in
question. This
certainly more similar to
Barra phase vessels than to
any particular
South American vessel forms.
Turning
our
attention
now
to
the
are
added
to
ceremonial
center.
Thus, although
pre-Olmec, the Bajío phase apparently
marks the rise of complex culture. Thnc
later, San Lorenzo phase which Co
dates as c. 1150 B.C. (1970: 20
the highly developed Olmec
establishes
culture in the Gulf Coast.
283
rchaeological work of Coe
1970) at San Lorenzo, and
recent
The
by Heizer at La
et. al. 1968) provide
(1968,
ved
excavations
Heizer
(1968
Venta
us
now
Olmec
with a fuller
picture of
rehistory. This knowledge of
vital
tance if we are to
impor
is of
Olmec and
risons
make
manifestations
avín) in South America. Data
in
Cg,
that we may no long speak
horizon'"
Mesoamerica of an Olmecnow as an
Olmec
must consider
c
o
u
r
s
e
similar
between
archaeological
i n d i c a t e s
hut
"tradition". The
difterences between
recovered at San
archaeologcal materials
as an Olmec
evolving
cultural
artifactual
Lorenzo,
from
those of the
600 B.C.,
1150
C.
center
-
fl0urished
which
900
of La
center
Venta,
certainly
are
B.C., and
c.
1000
distinct. For
indicates
that
(1970: 29)
example, Coe
appear in the
not
does
jade
at San Lorenzo
archaeologcal sequence
when San
B.C.,
900
until after c.
been largely
Lorenzo
itself
has
become
La Venta has
abandoned and
culture
important
dominant. Jade
Venta
addition, La
In
Venta.
trait at La
distinctive incised
is an
ceramics contain
double-line-break
the
motif
on
vessel
rims,a
I
San Lorenzo phase.
trait absent in the
considering
because in
mention this
Gulf
Outside
contacts,
Coast
whether
simply
relationships
to Olmec
Mexico's
central
manifestations
highlands,
in
long stan ding
is vitally
problem, it
or
Olmec-Chavín
important
cases
in these
Lorenzo
is spcaking of San
at
to
whether one
Olmec, or La
the
consider
Venta Olmec. Then too,
term Olmec
for Mesoamerica, the
and recklessly
grossly misused
east
nas
been
applied in the
past,
as
I will
comment
upon later.
urning
now
We must
to
of
the possibilities
San
San Lorenz
that the majority ofthe
pre-San Lorenzo and
CS.believe
dmics in
related to or evolved from
phase ceram ics. There are
Ocos
some ceramic traits and vessel
forms which are present at San Lorenzo
obviously
and
lacking in the archaeological record
at Ocos. Other traits, such as roller seals.
OCcur
in
both
these phases
can
generally
D
regions,
as
well
as
in
Momil (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1965: Lam.
XXIV 1-4) and at Machalilla (Lathrap:
personal communication). The dating ot
roller seals in the isthmian region ot
Mesoamerica is problematical, although
highland
they appear c. 1200 B.C. in with
San
central Mexico in association
Olmec style ceramics (see
Lorenzo
below). Lathrap (1970: 101) has already
suggested
ceramic
that
roller
seals
undoubtedly replicate wooden examples
be
which though earlier, would not
record.
preserved in the archaeological
at
the Middle Formative phases
coasts sites
as well as at Pacific
tecomates
in highland Chiapas,
and those
Comma-shaped
rims
become
with
of th1s
During
La Venta
arrival
Peru. However, with
northern
I
of the traits listed above,
suggesting the
dominant,
from
trait
the exception
ese in the Early
currently see little
ceramics(as
Formative
Gulf Coast
which could not
from Pacific
have been derived initially
South
sites. This includes apparent
currently published)
coast
American influences
Olmec
the sophisticated
which
the Gulf Coast,
of
stone carvings
both the San
portions of
apparenty span
most
Venta phases,
If
we turn- to
La
and
Lorenzo
American
South
stylistic parallelsas with
that ot Cerro
Sechin,
The
to be meaningful.
are too vague
the
with
lie
similarities
closest
and
Chavin,
and
of Olmec
iconography
discussed in this
stone
art, such
this relationship
volume
in both
outh American influences
culture
Olmec
Orenzo and La Venta
influences,
these
and the nature of
begin with the evidences ln
ne
considered as
Lathrap
between
cultural
contact,
but
because
share
probably
torest
tropical
the
weight of
that this
Dr.
not
are
common
well
Donald
by my colleague
believe that the parallels
of Olmec and
the iconography
direct
the result of
Chavin
cultures
is
data leads
ancestry
a
these
close
two
or
The
ancestry.
conclude
m e to
far south
probably lies
284
of
of Mesoamerica. If the hypothesis
perhaps
common ancestry is valid, it can
which has
a
point
aid in understanding
puzzled
Mesoamerican
many students of
clouded the thinking
of Olmec origins. The
prehistory, and has
on the topic
question has long been, why did
Mesoamerica's
first
(civilization)
complex
culture
have its heartland,
or
lowlands of
develop, in
Mesoamerica's Gulf Coast rather than
the "ecologically more suitable"
the
tropical
highlands? While the ecological
potential of the Gulf Coast has been long
under-rated, at least a partial answer to
the choice of a tropical habitat may be
because
the initial
onigins
of the cultural
impetus leading to Mesoamerica's first
complex culture were also from the
tested, although some data now available
suggests a hypothesis to
explain
Pacific coast- Gulf Coast shift.
The the
to this hypothesis is
long distance tra
The data is derived from published trace
rade.
element analyses of obsidian artifacte
from Gulf Coast Olmec sites
al, in press, Stross et. al. 1968,(Cobean et
and
Heizer 1968, Hester et.al. 1971),Jack
which
can be used t0
determine obs1dan
sources exploited in the
Formative.
Unfortunately no analysis of
Pacific
coast obsidians has been
published,
and
that constitutes a
major
infer the sources of carly
exploitation, and thus presents
to
tropical forest.
hypothesis
testable.
In this same vein, several major
cultural events occur in rather rapid
two
succession during the Early Formative in
southern Mesoamerica. Within the period
of about four hundred years we find the
introduction of ceramics into the Pacific
coastal region, settled village life, and on
the Gulf Coast the rise of complex
culture. Although the initial cultural
impetus appearson the Pacific coast, it
later shifts to Gulf Coast sites. Different
ecological conditions may partially
account for this shift. The riverine Gulf
Coast habitat could possibly be capable
of supporting greater population
densities, but this still remains to be
proven, and could not explain the shift
in cultural impetus entirely on its own.
However, the shift is important, because
the momentum toward civlization seems
begin initially on the Pacific coast,
where the earliest ceramics appear
simlar to early Ecuadorian ceramics. If
the Barra phase parallels to Ecuadorian
ceramics derive from rather than diffuse
to
northern South America, then
perhaps some of the initial stimulus
toward complex culture may, at least in
small part, be due to diffusion from the
south.
to
The above
problem
remans
to be
weakness for
the
hypothesis. However the geographical
location of Pacific coast sites
which
According
1s
to trace
allows
us
obsidian
us
with a
archaeologically
element analyses,
regions supplied obsidian
phase San Lorenzo, the
to
Ojochi
east-central
highlands of Mexico (Guadalupe
Victoria, Pico de Orizaba), and
Guatemala (El Chayal) (Cobean highland
et.al.in
press). Due to the proximity of Ocos and
Altamira to El Chayal, I would
hypothesize that the majority of their
obsidian
came from that source. I would
also hypothesize that any obsidian from
highland central Mexican sources was
probably passed on to Pacific coast
villages by Gulf Coast middlemen during
the Early Formative. The subsistence
base of inhabitants of
highland
Guatemala during the Early Formative is
unknown at this time but may not have
been maize. On the other hand we know
that maize agriculture is quite early in
highland east-central Mexico (c. 5000
B.C.).
This data suggests a trade pattern
1
which
only Gulf Coast sites into
brought
with maize
Contact
Paific
highland
agriculturalists.
coast
inhabitants
Guatemalan
sites
exploiing
in some
manner, were in contact with culture
groups with a non-maize subs1stenc
Although the Ojochi phase ; a "country
cOusin to Ocos, it may have receivea
maize agriculture
prior to its more
Sophisticated Pacific coast cousin. This
285
advantage, whether
singly, as part have
of aa
dual maize-manioc economy, may
of
the
ulf Coast to
owed
the cultural
achievements ofsõon
the surpass
Pacific
or
Coast
Finally, I would
like to comment
upon the implications
of
caca0
in
southern Mesoamerica. Cacao was an
important status and trade item
toter
Mesoamerican culture periods,during
yet
been equaly
have
may
in the
Early Formative. Thatimportant
cacao was
ceramic
"plates"
which
as
interpreted
manioc
comales forcould
( Canby
Il1-V). griddles
Since tortilla
uncommon
in
Mesoamerica until the
period,
these
manioc
"plates" may be for
preparation.
Eo Archaic
Dating of the
is
rocker-stamped necklessuncertain,
but
jars,
probably
contemporaneous
with the Pacific
coast's Ocos
Classic
phase, occur in levels
Eo-Archaic and
above
Proto-Archaic
1949: 276).
For an
discussion
however
Northerm Mesoamerica
carvings
style. Caca0
apparently not
Mesoamerican domesticate, but has aa
tropical forest hearth
are
in the La Venta Olmec
is
to the
south. The similar1ties of further
Barra and Ocos
ceramics to South American
ceramics,
the possibility of manioc
the Barra phase, and the agriculture in
relationship of
cacao
to
these
raises
implications
testing.
which need
interesting
archaeological
No
discussion of Mesoamerican
American parallels would be
complete without some consideration of
the role of
Honduras, although
South
archaeologically
the
region
is still
poorly known. The valleys of the Ulua
and
Motagua
rivers
offer accessible
Corridors for land travel between the
Caribbean coast of Honduras, highland
Guatemala, and Mesoamerica's Pacific
coast. It is along these river courses, at
Sites
such
as Playa de los
Muertos, that
early ceramics show parallels to both
Mesoamerica and South America.
Although
we
have
not
really
touched
upon the idea of a root crop subsistence
base for the Barra and Ocos phases
on
the Pacific
coast, this possibility 1S
Strengthened
by data from Honduras.
While
nothing
resembling
gnddies has been found
at these
Coast sites, Canby's "Eo-Archaic"Pacific
levels
t h e Honduran
highlands contain
manioc
or
1949:
comales plates
are
important Olmec trade commodity is
suggested by the presence of Olmec
bas relief carvings in
the cacao growing
areas of Pacitic c0astal
far south as El Salvador.Mesoamerica, as
These
an
well be
tortillas
(Canby
deposits
excellent
Honduras during thepossible role of
Formative, the
reader is
of the
directed
Lowe 1967: 61-62).to Lowe (Green and
In
considering
faced
northern Mesoamerica
the
perplex1ng
question of whether Mesoamerica's
earliest dated
which occur in
this northern ceramics,
are relevant to the
region,
growth of Mesoamerican civilization.
Pox pottery, from a
coastal site near
Acapulco, has been dated by Brush
(1965) at c. 2400 B.C. The
fragmentary
nature of the ceramics
recovered makes a
determination of vessel forms
although Brush feels that difficult,
we
are
with
incurving neckless pots" and "sharply
"vessels
with high straight necks" were
present
(1965 194). The only decorative
attribute is red slip applied to vessel
exteriors, a trait tirst occurring in
pre-Valdivia A levels in Ecuador. The
of whether the "neckless
pots"
question
described
are similar
and Ocos remains
those of Barra
be answered.
Additional radiocarbon samples
are
needed to clarify the
chronological
position of Pox pottery.
to
to
The earliest pottery in highland
central Mexico occurs in the Purron
phase of the Tehuacan valley. The
Purron phase dates c. 2300 1500 B.C.
(MacNeish 1970: 21). Brush feels that
Purron phase sherds are "conspicuously
similar
to
the
Pox
Pottery
from
Guerrero" (Brush 1965: 195). MacNeish
286
concurs.
(1970:
22-25)
in
of Pox pottery
pock-marked interior
The diagnostic
the
G u e r r e r o is
surface.
questions
of
reliability
such
that
when noting
Plain sherds
diagnostic
Purron
Coarse and
a
Purron
which
attribute,
this pock-marked
charts (1970:
both have
distribution
extend on the
the Tehuacan
throughout
table 12, 13)
into the
stratigraphic sequence
In terior
Post-classic period.
to be an
seems
pock-marking
insignificant
thus
attribute
it
for
is
cultural
difficult to
comparisons. In fact
for the Purron
make any comparisons
sherds constitute the
phase for only 127
levels
from Purron phase
sample
of
(1970: 21). Chronological placement
ceramic
explained
which cannot
diffusing to Tehuacan
One
trait
the
the Tehuacan
sequen
be
presently
from elsewhere as
in
America
these 127 sherds within the 800 year
is likewise difficult. It
span of this phase
is obvious that they probably do not
span the entire phase.
in
Mesoamerica.
The site of Tlatilco in the
Valley of Mexico has longwester
been
recognized as
period
an
important Formaative
whose
site
ceramics Show
Similarities to those ot Mesoamerica
Gulf Coast as well as South America
From my own research I know that the
archaeological situation at Tlatilco needie
clarification on a number of points in
order to better understand the nature
and sources of influences at Tlatilco.
Archaeologically
the
site is
a
large
Formative period cemetery which todav
has been covered and nearly destroyed
by a series of modern brickyards.
Although professional
excavations
Tlatilco
t
archaeological
have
been
conducted for thirty years with excellent
MacNeish (1970: 22, 24) infers that
tecomates are present in PurTron phase
ceramics; which is clearly not the case at
all. A glance at the rim profiles and
distribution charts (1970: fig. 8, 9, Table
results, the labors of brickyard workers
have channeled an even greater quantity
into the antiquities market. This latter
material is therefore without
archaeological provenience, but has been
12, 13) shows that bowls with slightly
studied by professionals often, thus
incurved rims rather than tecomates are
present in the Purron phase sample. True
tecomates are absent from the Purron
phase and do not occur at Tehuacan
until the Ajalpan phase (1970: 26-40). If
serving to confuse an already complex
MacNeish and Brush are correct
concerning Purron and Guerrero Pox
pottery similarities, tecomates are
probably absent in Pox Pottery too. I
prefer to await further work in Guerrero
before making this judgement. The
incurved rim
flaring wall flat(hemispherical)
bottomed bowls in the
Purron phase
probably represent vessel
forms
bowls and
situation. Because Tlatilco is a cemetery,
ceramics from Tlatilco are in the nature
of burial or ritual vessels rather than
utilitarian pottery.
These vessels
are
thus
often quite elaborate and distinctive.
While attempts have been made in the
past
to chronologically corelate the
Tlatilco
burials and ceramics with
stratified cultural
nearbDy
deposits (Piña Chan
1958: Tolstoy and Guenette 1965,
Tolstoy and
Paradis
1970),
these
attempts have met with little success
The lack until recently of good
radiocarbon dates for Tlatilco burials has
indigenous Mesoamerica. In
attempting comparisons between
Ajalpan phase (c. 1500 B.C. 850
made Tlatilco's chronological placement
B.C.) even
ceramics and in
more tenuous.
Gulf Coast, Iparticular those of the
an
stratigraphic break infindthe Early apparent
Tlatilco as a site is not unique. Smaller
sequence (1970: 26-41), withAjalpan
ut
otherwise virtually identical sites
few
ceramics represented
(cemetery
areas yielding identical Du
which relate to San
Lorenzo Olmec
offerings)
occur
in the Valley of Mexic
manifestations.
I
that there is
nothing similar to believe
Castern
Puebla,
Morelos,
and in north
South
to
Guerrero. The full
extent
of
rhe
287
distribution
to
be
of sites of this
determined type remains
by
archaeological
research has Concentrated
the
Formative period in Morelos andonI have
heen fortunate to locate both
cemetery
and
future
eftorts. Since
1966 my
areas
occupation zones yielding
Tlatilco materials.
had recent
SuCcess in correlating have
the
zone strat1graphy with burialsoccupation
and
associated offerings. A soon totheir
be
completed seriation ot burial offering
groups from Tlatilco itself, by Dr. Pau
Tolstoy, seems
my
data.
in
Both
general agreement with
forms of data
basis for the following
are
interpretation.
the
Because ceramics typical of the
Coast Olmec style have been Gulf
associated with burials at Tlatilco, found
it has
been common to
Tlatilco as an
identify
Olmec site, and to consider similarities
between any ceramics at Tlatilco and
those of other
regions to indicate
therefore relationships between those
regions and Olmec culture in general
(e.g., Porter 1953; Wicke 1971: 1955).
That incorrect
assumption has clouded
our understanding of
diffusion patterns. Tlatilco inter-regonal
is apparently
a
multi-component site, with burials
spanning at least four hundred years, and
including
influences from several
cultures. In a previous
Separate
publication (Grove 1970) I indicated
that in Morelos, some Tlatilco burial
offerings (a complex of ceramic vessel
forms and decorative techniques which |
have
called
the
"Río
Cuautla"
"Tlatilco-style")
apparently
burials
or
post-date
with Olmec vessels. The same is
is
true of burials. Only
about 10% of the
containburials recorded at Tlatilco itself
definitively Olmec vessels.
total
of
This
the
is
an
oversimplification
situation at Tlatilco.
it is easy
to realize that
the
of Tlatilco's
However,
dating
certainly
actual
various
components
proper
ot
the
understanding
complex
cultural situation there.
WNe
must also exercise
in
comparing
Tlatilco's ceramics caution
with those of
other
regions, for we will be comparing
burial
ceramics with those from
occupation
Zones or of unknown
association.
iS essential
to a
In
discussing
southern Mesoamerica, I
of an Olmec "tradition"
on the
Gulf Coast This same phenomenon
applies to the Olmec manifestation at
spoke
Tlatilco sites. Recent radiocarbon dates
from
cemetery
areas
and
occupation
Tlatilco sites in Morelos
suggest
that these sites
c. 1300 B.C. and
begin
continue until C. 900 B.C.
the majority of the Olmec Therefore,
ceramics at
these sites must relate to San
Lorenzo
Olmec. Regardless of their
relationship
to San Lorenzo
Olmec, the non-Olmec
zones at
components apparently
pre-date the
appearance of La Venta Olmec (c. 900-
600 B.C.) influences in Mexico's central
highlands. The distinctive carinated
bowls
with incised double-line-break
rims of the -Middle Formative
La
Venta Olmec phase, appear at the
end of the Tlatilco sequences, bothvery
at
Tlatilco and in Morelos. It is possible
that some few Olmec burials at Tlatilco
-
(those
with
carinated
bowls, jade
Oimec and non-Olmec vessels occur at
figurines, etc.) may relate to La Venta
Olmec. However, in the central highlands
most Tlatilco sites. In occupation zones
situation changes, and Tlatilco sites are
O
in many cases abandoned.
true at Tlatilco. Basically then both
this time period in. Morelos, and I
during the Middle Formative the cultural
suspect also in the Valley of Mexico, this
mec manifestation is not sharply felt.
Tne
majority of the occupation zone
amics are quite unlike those of the
Gulf Coast. The
common vessel form in
ny sample is the flat-bottom flaring-wall
As mentioned earlier, Coe has
suggested there may be significant
parallels between Tlatilco bottle forms
and those of the Bajío phase at San
Lorenzo. By c. 1300 B.C. incised bottles
ow. Tecomares are essentially absent.
ypical Olmec sherds are rare. The same
bottles derive from the Gulf Coast, or
occur at Tlatilco sites, but whether these
288
parallels
M e s o a m e r i c a
from some
other
below),
(see
central
region of
indigenous
are
or
highlands,
remains
future
the
to
be
to
Bottles
research.
some
found
decorative
phase, including
The
in Coe's Bajío
(zoned? ).
punctationcorrelating the
and
incising, problem
biggest
in
ceramics
lies
Gulf Coast
highland and
(highland
similarities
ceramic
with
but
not in
lowland Olmec)
Olmec to
as
Certain features such
chronologies.
at
"Olmec" diagnostic
an
roller
seals,
with
zoned
Tlatilco sites associated
3f.g), may
rocker stamped pottery (fig.
which he
date
to
Coe's
does
Bajío phase,
those
Olmec (Coe
not feel is signif+cantly
this could imply
1970: 23-26). Although
the Gulf
that roller seals diffused to
Coast
Coast from the highlands, Gulf
the
in
influenced
Olmec appears little central highland
Early Formative by
Mexico.
addition
In
described
to
above,
articular
the vessels
certain other
forms .of. tenuous
placement show
mics and
ich mustthis
be
"Tlatilco-style" complex
considered.
share
determined
in Morelos
earliest levels
those
with
from my
attributes
by
between Tlatilco's
South America (in
of Machalilla), it
those of
briefly
vessel
chronological
S outh
Similarities
to
American ceramics. Tripod vessels
with
occur and ar
supports
spider-leg
in
long
manycases nearly. 1dentical to those
illustrated for Momil (Reichel-Dolmatoff
1956:
fig.1l12,
14).
Vessels
representing a bottle stacked atop a jar
are
occasionally
found.
"Stacked"
vessels are also known from Valdivia
(Meggers, Evans and Estrada 1965: fig
35 1b). Finally, our surface collections
from the Early Formative site of San
Pablo, Morelos, includes a "bedded"
figurine (fig
3h), a type common both
to Ecuador (e.g., Lehmann 1951) and to
West Mexico. Because it is a surface find
Diagnostically Olmec ceramics occur
fairly early in my stratigraphic sample at
Morelos Tlatilco sites. Somewhat laterin
the sequence but possibly
its dating is uncertain. It is stylistically
unlike most Formative period Morelos
figurines, although its various attributes
suggest it may be Early Formative.
contemporaneous with Olmec vessels, we
find
lightly
fluted
and grooved Red-on-
Brown bottles and the typical "Ridged
neck base, so common at Tlatilco.
Finally,
late in the sequence (c. 1050
B.C. ?
the "Tlatilco-style" ceramic
How similar are the ceramics of the
variousTlatilco
Components
to
archaeological ceramics from South
America? For the Olmec segments of
Tlatilco ceramics, the similarities are no
complex apparently occurs. These latter
more nor less than those of the Gulf
vessels
The
Coast. While several aspects of Tlatilco's
are
quite distinctive
decorative
(fig. 2, 3a-e).
technique of
"Tlatilco-style" ceramics continues in
the
Red-on-Brown tradition,
the red in
many cases being specular. HoweverT,
incising and other decorative techniques
are not common on these vessels.
Resist
painting,
and
in
partücular, smudge resist,
is used on
"Tlatilco-style"
vessel forms are also ratherceramics. The
unique and
include what I have
described as belted
bottles, composite
botellones, tubular spouted(carinated)
and composite
bottles. Also botellones,
part of this ceramic
present as
are
complex
spout
stirrup
plu_ a
unusualvessels,
of
variety
forms. f onewide
is
to
discuss
non-Olmec components appear similar to
ceramics from northwest South America,
others do not. For
example the
primary
vessel forms illustrated for Machalilla
(Meggers, Evans and Estrada 1965
117-144) are carinated bowls. Yet, at
Tlatilco, and in fact throughout
Mesoamerica during the Early
Formative,
uncommon,
carinated
and
virtually non-existent.
vessels
are
carinated bowls
Carinated bowls
appear with the Middle Formative, and a
rew examples are found at the end of the
Tlatilco sequence. During the Early
Formative at Tlatilco, Some deep
carinated jars with
in-sloping upper walls
289
often
sociation with Olmec
ceramics. Additionally, carinated bottles
as part of the "Tlatilco-style"
occur,
in
appear
plex. Thus, any
specific
relationships
between Tlatilco ceran
of
those
nd
chalilla, for example, are
to
difficult
ascertain. The
closest
narallels between Machalilla and Tlatilco
ie with the stirrup spout bottle
forms,
which at both sites represent the earliest
systems
such as
Río Balsas
ceramic
known occurences of stirrup
vessels 1n their respective areas. spout
The
reader should note that the stirrup spout
bottle
Tlatilco is part
at
of
the
non-Olmec "Tlatilco-style" ceramic
complex, and thus stirrup spout vessels
may
not
be considered in defining
Olmec-Chavin relationships (Grove
1970: 71-72). A significant attribute
shared by Machalilla and ""Tlatilco-style"
vessels 1s smudge resist
painting
associated with red (often specular
red)
paint
A
probable
source
for
area
Red-on-Brown "Tlatilco-style" vessels
has been unanswerable until
recently.
Because most scholars had assumed that
all Tlatilco vessels were Olmec, little
attention was paid to the Red-on-Brown
bottles although their resemblences to
West
Mexican
ceramics were
noted.
However, because the dating of West
Mexican cultrural sequences implied that
little in West Mexico was earlier than
Classic
period,
"Tlatilco-style"
the
similarities
with
pottery were ignored.
However, if we are to search for
diffusion routes between Mesoamerica
and
South
America,
Mesoamerica's
the Rio
Atoyac and the
Although published data on
Mexico sheds little
West
light on that region'
archaeological
or South
relationships with Tlatilcos
America,
unpublished recent
ex cavations do illuminate
Isabel Kelly
showed parallels.
ceramics fromrecently
the
her excavations me
of the
Capacha complex in
ceramics
Tlatilco-syle"surprisingly
are
Colima
These
similar
to
the
complex from centrai
Mexico and include
belted ollas, stirrup
spout bottle, and Red-on-Brown
decoration.
The "Tlatilco-style"
complex shows a closer relationship to
Capacha complex ceramics than with
any other archaeological ceramics I have
yet seen. The majority of the
radiocarbon sampies from the
Capacha
complex are as yet un analyzed but onë
date of c. 1400 B.C.
(Kelly: persona
communication) indicates that ceramics
similar to "Tlatilco-style" ceramics are
several hundred years earlier in West
Mexico than in central Mexico
Excavations by Arturo Olivaros at El
Openo Michoacán, uncovered an
unlooted shaft tomb which yielded
ceramics
complex
quite
similar
materials
to
the
Capacha
well as the
'Tlatilco-style" complex. These El
Opeño ceramics include Red-on-Brown
ceramics decorated also with smudge
resist. In viewing these ceramics
Suggested
that
as
they
Eariy
were
Formative
an d
Probably
contemporaneous with or earlier than the
Pacific coast offers a logical starting
place. Although Caribbean curents offer
Tlatilco-style"
better
(Olivaros: personal communication) of e
sea
access
to
southern
Mesoamerica, obvicus Mesoamerican
Ecuadorian
the
diffusion during
Postclassic is in evidence along precisely
the Pacific coast region. The evidence,
e
So-called
Tshaped copper "axes
in Fcuador, Oaxaca, and West
Me XICO. Access to Oaxaca and West
Occur
eIco was proba bly by sca, along the
Pacitie coast,
probably
wth
oltowrng
diffusion
the
major
Mexico.
A
ceramics
recent
of
central
radiocarbon
date
1500 B.C. contirms this estimate This
indicates that shaft tombs, which occur
in both northwest South America and in
West Mexico, are at least one thousand
years earlier in
West Mexico than
previously suspected. The implications
of the Capacha and El Opeño ceramics
are
many.
They suggest that the
inland
Mesoamerican origins of "Tlatilco-style"
river
ceramics lie in West Mexico. Thus, two
290
for West Mex
ican
parallels. Whether this
Ecuadorian
the presence of ceramic
explains
probably responsible
of
sets
in
present
one
Formative,
the Early
from
influences
Mexico during
central
are
second
Coast, and
influences,
from the Gulf
which set of
Mexico. To
a
levels in my
1300 B.C.
the
either,
if
is a matter
West
belong
excavations
Morelos
study.
for further
of
at
bottle gourds
Tlatilco IS
in
West
anot)
question.
Mexico
Concusioms
It has been a common practice, for
Early
the
and
South
Nevertheless,
in central
American parallelsFormative appear to
during
skewomorphs
Mexico
from South
coastal diffusion
represent a
second
Mexico, and a
America to West Mexico into central
diffusion from West
of
Mexico.
southward. However, much of the recent
.
In
looking over the
numerous
illustrations
bottle
non-Olmec
of the
forms
Piña Chan 2958:
present at Tlatilco (e.g.,
fig. 33-46), one is struck by theinvariety
those
of forms present, particularly
assoCiated
vessels
the
with
complex, which II
Mexico.
suggest is derived from West
How distinctive these vessel forms
actually were did not become apparent
"Tlatilco-style
to me until my attention was caught by
a photo from Huaca Prieta (Bird 1948:
fig. 10) which showed excavated bottle
gourd net floats. These net floats were
identical in form to the tubular spouted
botellones found at Tlatilco sites. In
checking through accessible publications
on
bottle
apparent
gourds,
that
it became
the
majority
quickly
of
the
"Tlatilco-style" ceramics are simply
elaborated ceramic replicas
(skewomorphs) of the multitude of
forms found in bottle
gourds. Illustrated
Polynesian bottle gourds (Dodge 1943:
Plate I IV) duplicate
exactly many
Tlailco bottle forms.
bottle
Polynesian
gourds are decorated both by staining
and pyroengraving (1943: 59, 64). My
Don
colleague
to me
that
Lathrap
Early
and decorations
duplicates
in
no
has
pointed
out
South American vessels
probably ceramic
pyroengraved
gourds. am
way
of
are
I
suggesting Polynesian
contacts, but merely
emphasizing bottle
gourd forms as an inspiration
via
West
Mexico
for "Tlatilco-style" bottle
forms. There is no
denying that bottle
gourds were important
for
sea-faring
groups, and that such
groups are
many reasons,
-
to
think of Mesoameri
South American parallels
diffusion
trom
as
the result
Mesoa merica
archaeological data indicates that the
traits which appear significant all appear
earlier in South America, at least during
Thus, if diffusion is
responsible, the data today indicates that
the
Formative.
it must in most cases pass from South
America to Mesoamerica during the
Early Formative. At least some of this
diffusion must have been by sea.
If this diffusion does originate in
northern South America, more precise
pinpointing of areas is difficult. No
South American sites fulfill all of the
requirements as
sources. Because of
borrowing it is doubtful if any
ever will. The earliest influences
entering
southern Mesoamerica in the Early
selective
Formative seem to be derived from a
tropical forest source somewhere in
northen Soath America. I would
hesitate to be more specific at this time.
The implications of an
early south to
north diffusion
are
important.
If
root
Crops and ceramic influences from South
America are present in southern
Mesoamerica c. 1600 B.C., what role did
they play in stimulating the cultura
growth of that region? Ultimately, of
what significance were they then to the
cultural growth leading to Olmec
culture?
The role of manioc as a
sible
subsistence
crop during the Barra phasc
at
Altamira, and all along the Pacific
coast during the Ocos phase is
for another reason.likewiSe
important
Wn
maize
and
the
tortilla
were
majo
291
bs1stence items at
conquest, the tortilla
Formative E arly
the time of
the
may only be a Late
Classic period
tortilla masa
different preparation
from
innovation Altho
requires
flour. the
prepared in much
manioc
the
ctual tortilla itself
the same manner
There is little if
manioc cak
Is
as
difference between manioc griddles any
and
the comales for tortillas I have already
discussed the possibility of early griddles
n
Honduras. There is no question that
manioc griddies appear earlier than
comales in their respective culture areas.
The question therefore 1s, is the
Mesoamerican tortilla a maize substitute
for the idea of manioc cakes?P
I
am
again raising questions for which
answers are not eas1ly obtainable. This is
because as one begins analyzing the data
and implications of diffusion, numerous
possibilities
are
suggested.
The data
today is heavily in favor of a northward
diffusion of at least selected traits during
the Early Formative,
a
tlow apparentdy wasalthough
twoway
soon
We are
established
just now becoming aware
of the
complex nature of Early Formative
cultural patterns in Mesoamerica. As
northwest South America
becomes
better known, the
diffusion
may become more obscure parallels
before
I
clarifying.
personally
the
which
data
work
in both
look forward to
future archaeologica
regions will yield.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to my colleague Donald
Lathrap for his valuable comments
regarding early South American
ceramics
Although research
Commitments prohibited my attending
the actual
symposium, I thank the
SympoSium organizers tor their
invitation and for including my paper in
this volume. Any faults contained withun
this papers are my responsibility
Bibliograpby
and Kinkar P. Kharkar
Bird, Junius
1948
Preceramic cultures in
Chicama and Viru. In A4
Reappraisal
of
Archaeology,
for
at
Honduras.
Excavati0ns
Spanish
Dissertation,
1960
Ph.
D.
Harvard
Robert H., Michael D. Coe,
Turekian,
Edward A. Perry, Jr., Karl K.
Archaeological linkages with
North and South America at
La Victoria, Guatemala.
American Antbropologist,
Vol. 62, pp. 363-393.
1961
La Victoria, an early site on
the
Pacific
coast
of
Papers of tbe
Peabody Museu m of
Guatemala.
Yarumela,
University.
Cobean,
Coe, Michael D.
pp. 21-28.
Brush, Charles F
1965 Pox pottery earliest identified
Mexican ceramic. Scence,
Vol. 149, pp. 194-195.
Canby, Joel S.
Obsidian trade at San Lorenzoo
Tenochtitlán, Mexico. In press
in Science.
C.
American
Archaeology No 4.
1949
Press
Peruvian
Wendell
Bennett ed., Memoir of the
Society
In
1968
Arcbaeology and Etbnology,
Vol. LIlI.
San
Lorenzo
and Olmec
civilization.
In
Dumbarton
Oaks C onference on tbe
Olmec, Elizabeth Benson ed.,
pp. 41-71. Dumbarton Oaks