USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An unexplored realm in the heartland of the Southern Gulf Olmec


Material Information

An unexplored realm in the heartland of the Southern Gulf Olmec investigations at El Marquesillo, Veracruz, Mexico
Physical Description:
Doering, Travis F
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Mesoamerican archaeology
Formative period
Preclassic period
Remote sensing
Non-destructive survey techniques
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Anthropology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


ABSTRACT: This dissertation examines El Marquesillo, a settlement in an archaeologically unexplored region of the Southern Gulf Lowlands of Veracruz, Mexico. Evidence suggests the site has been consistently occupied from the Early Formative period (c. 1500 BC) to the present. Thus, this investigation presents an opportunity to re-examine the sociopolitical continuum encompassing the Olmec cultural phenomenon (c. 1150-300 BC), the emergence of which has been used repeatedly as an example of incipient social complexity. Theorists have portrayed the development of sociopolitical complexity as a mosaic process in which environmental, social, political, economic, ideological, and demographic variables act independently or in combination to bring about change. In order to examine these variables, a suite of traditional and progressive archaeological techniques -- remote sensing, geophysical survey, GIS, mapping, anthropogenic soil survey --^ were employed to prospect, document, and analyze the natural and built environments along with the material record documented at El Marquesillo. I argue that the resulting data do not fit many of the traditional models that have been offered to explain the development of Olmec sociopolitical complexity.The term "traditional Olmec paradigm" is used to describe a collective array of conjectural concepts that have been proposed by theorists to explain how Formative people of the Southern Gulf Lowlands constructed and experienced their reality. Findings from El Marquesillo and other recent Heartland investigations suggest that much of this traditional Olmec paradigm may not be accurate. The Gulf Olmec were not a homogeneous and uniform entity across space and time. At El Marquesillo, idiosyncratic behaviors of the ancients relating to ancestor veneration and their connection to the landscape and worldview have been identified.^ These noted variations in social expression and the lack of adherence to the traditional Olmec paradigm suggest that some hypotheses regarding the Formative people of the Southern Gulf Lowlands be re-visited and possibly revised in the light of new evidence.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Travis F. Doering.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 451 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001934607
oclc - 225055589
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001889
usfldc handle - e14.1889
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


An Unexplored Realm in the Heartland of the Southern Gulf Olmec: Investigations at El Ma rquesillo, Veracruz, Mexico by Travis F. Doering A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Robert H. Tykot, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: E. Christian Wells, Ph.D. Charles B. Connor, Ph.D. Karla L. Davis-Salazar, Ph.D. Mary E. D. Pohl, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 30, 2007 Keywords: Mesoamerican archaeology, Fo rmative period, Preclassic period, remote sensing, non-destructive survey techniques Copyright 2007, Travis F. Doering


To Seora Cruz Reich Pitalua and all the people of El Marquesillo, past and present.


Note to Reader The original of this document contains colo r that is necessary for understanding the data. The original dissertation is on file with the USF library in Tampa, Florida.


i Table of Contents List of Tables viii List of Figures ix Abstract xv Preface xvii Chapter 1. Archaeology, Social Theory, and the Southern Gulf Olmec 1 Introduction 1 Background 9 Opening Investigations into the Olmec Paradigm 14 The Gulf Coast Olmec in Anthropological Social Theory 19 Generalized Development of Social Complexity 21 Subsistence Systems and Complex Society 24 Cross-Cultural Comparisons 27 Migration and Diffusion 28 Concluding Remarks 30 Chapter 2. The Formative Period in the Southern Gulf Lowlands 32 Introduction 32 Models of Political and Economic Organization 34 Central Place Model 36 Capital Zone Model 37


ii Confederacy Model 39 Feudalistic Model 40 Limitations and Cautions in the Use of Locational Models 41 San Lorenzo Tenochtitln 42 La Venta 49 Laguna de los Cerros 57 Las Limas, La Oaxaquea, and Ojo de Agua 60 Observations on Formative Period Southern Gulf Lowland Sites 62 Chapter 3. El Marquesillo, Juan Rodrguez Clara, Veracruz, Mexico 65 Introduction 65 The Physical Geography of El Mar quesillo 67 The Ceramic Chronology of El Marquesillo 77 The Formative Period (c. 1500 100 BC) 77 The Classic Period (c. AD 100-1000) 78 The Postclassic Period (c. AD 1000-1523) 83 Spanish Contact and Colonial Period s (c. 1524-1821) 87 Independence, the Porfiriato and Mexican Revolution (1822-1920) 93 The Contemporary Period (c. 1921-2006) 94 The Archaeology of El Marquesillo 98 El Marquesillo Archaeological Resc ue Project 2002 100 El Marquesillo Archaeological Project 2002-2003 104 Regional Summary 105 Olmec Thrones in the Southern Gulf Lowlands 107


iii Chapter 4. El Marquesillo Archaeological Proj ect: Prospection Surveys 113 Introduction 113 Survey and Prospection Techniques 115 Determination of the Survey Area 117 Surface Mapping and Terrain Mode ling 119 Global Positioning System (GPS) Mapping 121 Electronic Total Station Mapping 124 Architectural and Natural Features 128 The Northern Area 128 The Olmec Throne Architectural Complex 132 Depressions and Water Features 136 Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 139 GIS Visualization of the Landscape 140 Geophysical Magnetometer Survey 144 Magnetic Properties of Basalt 145 Magnetic Data Collection, Conditions, a nd Field Methods 147 Magnetic Data Analysis 150 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 154 Anthropogenic Soil Survey 156 Sampling, Methods, and Collection 159 Soil Survey Field Methods 159 Laboratory Procedures 162 Analytical Methods 163


iv Elemental Analysis of the Soils from Plaza I 167 Elemental Analysis of the Soils from Plaza II 168 Summary of the Soil Analyses 169 Chapter 5. Artifact and Feature Anal ysis 172 Introduction 172 River Cut Stratigraphic Wall Profiles 172 Rationale and Methods 172 The Profile Segments 176 River Cut Profile 1A 178 River Cut Profile 1B 180 River Cut Profile 2A 182 River Cut Profile 6B 184 River Cut Profile 7A 186 The Ceramics of El Marquesillo 188 Analytical Methods 190 Chronologically Diagnostic Ceramics 190 The Pre-San Lorenzo Olmec Period (c. 1500-1150 BC) 191 The San Lorenzo Olmec Period (c. 1150-900 BC) 193 The Middle Formative Period (c. 900-400 BC) 194 The Late Formative Period (c. 400-100 BC) 194 The Protoclassic Period (c. 100 BCAD 200) 196 The Early Classic Period (c. AD 200-550) 196 The Late Classic Period (c. AD 550-1000) 197


v Postclassic Period (c. AD 10001500) 197 Colonial and European Ceramics (c. AD 1500-1940) 197 Ceramic Collection Areas 201 Ceramics from the Surface Collection 202 Ceramics from the River Cut Bank 205 Ceramics from the Olmec Throne Area Excavations 208 Ceramics from the Test Unit Excavations 210 Ritual Offerings 216 Offering I 217 Offering II 222 Offering III 223 Offering IV 227 Offering V 228 Obsidian and Lithic Analyses 231 The Obsidian of El Marquesillo 231 Lithic Analysis 234 Monumental Basalt Olmec Throne 238 Physical Attributes 238 Sculptural Elements 240 Depositional Detail 244 Chapter 6. Observations and Interpretations 246 Introduction 246 Contextual Background 247


vi The Initial Occupation of El Marquesi llo (c. 1500-1150 BC) 249 Continued Occupation and Expansion at El Marquesillo 252 Residential Zone 254 The Olmec Throne Complex 259 Monumental Basalt Olmec Throne 261 The Basal Platform 268 Water Features 269 Structure 77 275 Mound Structures 78, 79, 82, and 110 276 Plazas I and II 276 Residential and Ceramic Production Zones 279 North Group Monumental Architecture and Causeway 281 Site Planning and Concepts of Directionality 286 Alignment A 289 Alignment B 291 Alignment C 292 Alignment D 293 Alignment E 294 Directional Alignment Summary 294 Cultural and Occupational Continuity at El Marquesillo 295 Colonial Period 299 Summary of Interpretations 301 Chapter 7. El Marquesillo: Conclusions and Future Study 306


vii The Occupational Sequence at El Ma rquesillo 308 Landscapes, Ancestors, and the Memory of Place 311 Theoretical Background 311 Archaeological Expressions at El Marquesillo 319 The Spatial Organization of El Marquesillo 324 Models of Settlement Patterns 325 Explanation of Spatial Organization at El Marquesillo 329 Expanding the Boundaries and a Look to the Future 335 Concluding Remarks 341 References Cited 344 Appendices 400 Appendix 1a. Ceramic Analysis: Types and Temporal Assignment A 401 Appendix 1b. Ceramic Analysis: Types and Temporal Assignment B. 403 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts 404 Appendix 3a. Obsidian from Test Unit Excavations 435 Appendix 3b. Obsidian from Throne Excavations. 436 Appendix 3c. Obsidian from Offerings I and II 438 Appendix 4a. Lithics from Surface Collection. 439 Appendix 4b. Lithics from River Cut Collection. 441 Appendix 4c. Unprovenienced Lithics. 442 Appendix 5a. Soil Survey I Element Data Table 443 Appendix 5b. Soil Survey II Element Data Table 447 About the Author End Page


viii List of Tables Table 5.1. Ceramic Collections cond ucted at El Ma rquesillo 201 Table 5.2. Ceramic artifacts recovered from test unit excavations 21 1 Table 5.3. Element levels determined by NAA at MU RR and source attributions 232 Table 5.4. El Marquesillo obsidian by source and production type 23 2 Table 5.5. El Marquesillo obsidian by source and deposition location 23 3


ix List of Figures Figure 1.1. El Marquesillos monume ntal Olmec throne 2 Figure 1.2. Map illustrating the theorized limits of the Olmec Heartland 16 Figure 2.1. Map of the greater San Lorenzo area 42 Figure 2.2. Map of central La Venta architec tural complexes 54 Figure 2.3. Monolithic Sculptures from c. 970 to 800 cal BC 56 Figure 2.4. The Las Limas Figure 61 Figure 3.1. El Marquesillo throne with personage seated in niche 66 Figure 3.2. Illustration of the cut bank at El Marquesillo 68 Figure 3.3. Aerial photograph of El Mar quesillo in 1991 70 Figure 3.4. Aerial photograph of El Ma rquesillo in 1994 71 Figure 3.5. Aerial photograph of El Ma rquesillo 2000 71 Figure 3.6. Aerial photo of El Mar quesillo in 1991 72 Figure 3.7. Stratigraphic river cut bank 74 Figure 3.8. Aerial photograph i llustrating areas impacted by river channel 74 Figure 3.9. Illustration of the San Juan River and its primary tributaries 76 Figure 3.10. Map illustrating the Vill a Alta Phase Complex at El Marquesillo 80 Figure 3.11. Map of the Southern Gulf Seoros at th e time of Spanish Conquest 85 Figure 3.12. Alcaldias Mayores of the Southern Gulf Lowlands 88 Figure 3.13. Olmec throne exposed at top of elev ated portion of the river cut 100


x Figure 3.14. Plan view of the Olmec throne excavati on units 101 Figure 3.15. View to the east of Olme c throne excavation units 102 Figure 3.16. View to the west of throne be ing raised on ramp 102 Figure 3.17. Photograph of El Seor del Marquesillo on the day of its recovery 103 Figure 3.18. Illustration of San Lorenzo Monument 14 109 Figure 3.19. Illustration of Potrer o Nuevo Monument 2 110 Figure 4.1. Map illustrating surveyed fields of the El Marquesillo Ejido 118 Figure 4.2. Sketch maps of a portion of El Ma rquesillo in 1994 and in 1998 120 Figure 4.3. Map of El Marquesillo created by Campos a nd Marn Ins 121 Figure 4.4. Map of El Marquesillo generated from GPS data 123 Figure 4.5. Vector map showing total station control points 125 Figure 4.6. Maps generated from total station data 126 Figure 4.7. Two oblique views of El Mar quesillo 127 Figure 4.8. Topographic map of El Marquesillo 129 Figure 4.9. View of Structure 86 looking eas t 129 Figure 4.10. View to the west of slumping embankm ent 130 Figure 4.11. View to the east of low platform and Structures 84, 85, and 107 131 Figure 4.12. Digital Terrain Model of Olm ec Throne Complex 132 Figure 4.13. Outlines of Throne Complex structures 133 Figure 4.14. View looking northwest along top of the west wall of Structure 77 134 Figure 4.15. Elevated view of Field 8 from the north 135 Figure 4.16. Olmec Throne Complex 136 Figure 4.17. Topographic map of El Mar quesillo 137


xi Figure 4.18. View looking north across the poza 138 Figure 4.19. Northwest view of spring located at th e exterior base of Structure 77 139 Figure 4.20. Illustration of settlement site s from c. 1500-900BC 142 Figure 4.21. Illustration of settlement site s from c. 900-400 BC 143 Figure 4.22. Illustration of settlement si tes from c. 300 BC-AD 150 143 Figure 4.23. Topographical base map with ma gnetic data overlaid 151 Figure 4.24. Magnetic base map of the Olmec Throne Complex 152 Figure 4.25. Topographic contour map illustrating the five alignments 155 Figure 4.26. Illustration of soil specimen grid in Plaza I 160 Figure 4.27. Illustration of soil specimen grid in Plaza II 160 Figure 4.28a. Box plot summaries of elementa l data from Plaza I 164 Figure 4.28b. Box plot summaries of elemental data from Plaza II 165 Figure 4.29. Kriged image maps of soil chemical elements in Plaza I 167 Figure 4.30. Kriged image maps of soil chemical elements in Plaza II 170 Figure 4.31a. Potassium distribution in Plazas I and II 171 Figure 4.31b. Manganese distribution in Plazas I and II 171 Figure 4.31c. Phosphorus distribution in Plaza s I and II 171 Figure 5.1. View of river cut bank exte nding south across the site. 173 Figure 5.2. Example of exposed stratigraphy co ntaining ceramic deposits 173 Figure 5.3. Collapsed section of embankment 174 Figure 5.4. View to the west of cut bank in Field 7 175 Figure 5.5. View to the west dur ing the profiling of segment 1A 175 Figure 5.6. Views of profiling river cut bank segments 176


xii Figure 5.7. Site map illustrating locations of river cut bank profiles 177 Figure 5.8. River cut profile 1A 179 Figure 5.9. River cut profile 1B 181 Figure 5.10. River cut profile 2A 183 Figure 5.11. River cut profile 6B 185 Figure 5.12. River cut profile 7A 186 Figure 5.13. Examples of Early Formative, Ojoc hi phase tecomate rims 191 Figure 5.14. Examples of Early Formative, Bajo phase tecomate rims 192 Figure 5.15. Examples of Early Formative, Chic harras phase tecomate sherds 192 Figure 5.16. Examples of Early Formative, San Lorenzo phase, Limn Incised 193 Figure 5.17. Examples of Early Formative, San Lore nzo phase, Calzadas Carved 193 Figure 5.18. Example of late Early Formative ware 194 Figure 5.19. Examples of Middle Formative, double line break variants 195 Figure 5.20. Examples of Late Formative, Rempls phase variants 195 Figure 5.21. Map of El Marquesillo Colonial ware deposit location 198 Figure 5.22. Examples of English annular ware c. AD 1785-1840 199 Figure 5.23. Examples of English blue, black, and red transfer-printed wares 200 Figure 5.24. Examples of Loza Fina Blanca 200 Figure 5.25. Examples of the Puebla Majoli ca Tradition wares 200 Figure 5.26. Distribution of ceramic artifacts recovered dur ing surface collection 203 Figure 5.27. Quantities of chronologically di agnostic ceramics 204 Figure 5.28. View to the west of river cut bank and San Juan River 206 Figure 5.29. Diagram of Olmec throne excavation units 209


xiii Figure 5.30. Map illustrating th e location of the test un it excavations 211 Figure 5.31. View north from the top of Field 1 215 Figure 5.32. Locations of five offerings recovered at El Marquesillo 217 Figure 5.33. Plan view of Olmec throne and Offerings I and II 218 Figure 5.34. Offering I and Offering II 219 Figure 5.35. Hypothesized depiction of O ffering I and the Olmec Throne 220 Figure 5.36. Two reconstructed plates with double-line break designs 221 Figure 5.37. Three reconstructed Formative period vessels from Offering I 221 Figure 5.38. Offering II is the dark crescent-shaped feature on the rear wall 222 Figure 5.39. Front and profile view s of the spouted vessel from Offering III 223 Figure 5.40. Ceramic flute figurin e from Offering III 224 Figure 5.41. Two oblique views of the compos ite silhouette bowl 224 Figure 5.42. Interior of spout revealing appare nt imprint of a textile 226 Figure 5.43. Two views of Offering IV, a lip-to-lip vessel deposit 227 Figure 5.44. Partially reconstructed upper bow l from Offering IV 227 Figure 5.45. Two of three similar sma ll bowls 229 Figure 5.46. Vessel 4 from Offering V 229 Figure 5.47. Vessel 5 from Offering V 230 Figure 5.48. Basalt fragment ground to poi nt along lateral edge 235 Figure 5.49. Basalt fragments ground to point along lateral edge 236 Figure 5.50. Examples of stones thought to be used as polishers 237 Figure 5.51. El Marquesillo throne dimens ions, front 239 Figure 5.52. El Marquesillo throne dimensions, back 239


xiv Figure 5.53. El Marquesillo throne right profile dimensions 240 Figure 5.54. View of the Olmec throne 241 Figure 5.55. View of the side of San Lo renzo Monument 14 241 Figure 5.56. Close-up of the figure seated w ithin niche 243 Figure 5.57. Close up of niche figure profile 243 Figure 5.58. Illustration of magnetic north and throne deposition 245 Figure 6.1 Contour map illustrating location of Structure 111 257 Figure 6.2 View to the north of the hypothesi zed lowering of Olmec throne 262 Figure 6.3. San Lorenzo Monument 52 264 Figure 6.4. Basal platform of the Olmec Throne Co mplex 270 Figure 6.5. Topographic base map of Fiel ds 7 and 8 271 Figure 6.6. Linear system of basalt drains unearthed at San Lorenzo 273 Figure 6.7. Topographical base map with ma gnetic data overlaid 282 Figure 6.8. The Primary Deposit Zone is identifie d by the black dashed line 284 Figure 6.9. Directional alignments r ecognized at El Marquesillo 288 Figure 6.10. Terrain view of El Marquesillo and proposed alignments 292 Figure 6.11. Map illustrating riverine relationships 300


xv An Unexplored Realm in the Heartland of the Southern Gulf Olmec: Investigations at El Mar quesillo, Veracruz, Mexico Travis F. Doering ABSTRACT This dissertation examines El Marquesillo, a settlement in an archaeologically unexplored region of the Southern Gulf Lo wlands of Veracruz, Mexico. Evidence suggests the site has been c onsistently occupied from the Early Formative period (c. 1500 BC) to the present. Thus, this investigati on presents an opportunity to re-examine the sociopolitical continuum encompassing the Olmec cultural phenomenon (c. 1150-300 BC), the emergence of which has been used rep eatedly as an example of incipient social complexity. Theorists have portrayed the developm ent of sociopolitical complexity as a mosaic process in which environmental, so cial, political, economic, ideological, and demographic variables act independently or in combination to bring about change. In order to examine these variables, a suite of traditional and progressive archaeological techniques remote sensing, geophysical survey, GIS, mapping, anthropogenic soil survey were employed to prospect, document, and analyze the natural and built environments along with the material record do cumented at El Marque sillo. I argue that


xvi the resulting data do not fit many of the trad itional models that have been offered to explain the development of Ol mec sociopolitical complexity. The term traditional Olmec paradigm is used to describe a collective array of conjectural concepts that have been propos ed by theorists to explain how Formative people of the Southern Gulf Lowlands constr ucted and experienced their reality. Findings from El Marquesillo and other recent Heartland investigations suggest that much of this traditional Olmec paradigm may not be accurate. The Gulf Olmec were not a homogeneous and uniform entity across space and time. At El Marquesillo, idiosyncratic behaviors of the ancients relating to ances tor veneration and their connection to the landscape and worldview have been identified. These noted vari ations in social expression and the lack of adhe rence to the traditi onal Olmec paradigm suggest that some hypotheses regarding the Formative people of th e Southern Gulf Lowlands be re-visited and possibly revised in the light of new evidence.


xvii Preface The journey to this particul ar point in my life has not been through the more traditional corridors of academia. After concluding a successful career in the business world in 1995, I turned my attention to mo re personally agreeable matters. The study of ancient and contemporary Mesoamerican people s has increasingly occupied my time and influenced my activities over the past 30 years. During this time, my level of interest and inquiry continually intensifie d, as did my personal enjoyment. The opportunity to visit, research, and appreciate Mesoamerica and its people is the result of the encouragement, cooperation, and patience of my family, friends, and innumer able individuals who helped me along the way. I thank them all. After a decade and a half of travel and examination of all things Maya, I journeyed into the Land of the Olmec. Little did I know then that this incidental visit in 1991 would so profoundly impact my life, and th at a series of improbable events would lead to my eventual return to university a nd ultimately to this di ssertation. In Veracruz, Mexico, I had a chance encounter with Mara del Carmen Rodrguez. Her generosity and cooperation led to my friendship and collabora tion with Ponciano Ortz Ceballos. During my work with them, I had the good fortune to meet Mara de Lourdes Hernndez. It is through Lourdes assistance, enthusiasm, and competence that the El Marquesillo Project became a reality. Muchsimas gracias.


xviii Furtherance of my academic career was due to the support and encouragement of many people. Foremost among them was the la te George Llano, who was responsible for my return to academia. George showed me, by example, that the joy of curiosity and the accumulation of knowledge have no limits, spat ial or temporal. In 1999, I was fortunate to be invited to begin my graduate studies by Kathrine Josserand and Nicholas Hopkins at the Florida State University (FSU), and it was here that Rochelle Marrinan taught me to be a field archaeologist. Mary E. D. Pohl provided me the lab experience through the opportunity to study and analyze materials from San Andrs, a support site to the Olmec center of La Venta. I thank her for her continued assistance th roughout my graduate school tenure. I also received invaluable gui dance and support from John E. Clark of the New World Archaeological Founda tion at Brigham Young Univers ity. I am very grateful for his friendship and generosity, which cont inue to assist in e xpanding my opportunities in Mesoamerican studies. At FSU, I also had the great opportunity to study with and learn from fellow graduate students; Jeffrey Du Vernay, Christina Halperin, Christopher Morehart, Allison Perrett, and Chelsea Black more. My study of the ancient peoples of Mesoamerica was extended to the Soconusco Coast of Chiapas, Mexico through the invitation of Robert Rosenswig to participat e in his investigation of Cuauhtmoc, an Early Formative site on the eastern margins of the Mazatn region. My decision to pursue a doctorate at the University of South Florida has proved to be an auspicious one. Due to the efforts of Robert H. Tykot and E. Christian Wells, I have been guided through the intricacies of research and scholarship, and I thank both for their support and patience. The assistance a nd encouragement given to me by Karla L. Davis-Salazar has improved my examinati on techniques and expanded my research


xix horizons. Charles B. Connor helped me to better understand and explore the relationships between geology and archaeology, and he ge nerously provided the technologies necessary for the remote sensing portions of this investigation. In the field, the archaeological survey proj ect was facilitated by the assistance of the people of El Marquesill o. I would specifically like to thank Mario and Christina Capetillo and their family, along with Le opoldo Joachin, Eduardo Mulaga, and Martin Mollina Prez for their efforts on my behalf. As well, the work and contributions made by Luz Bentez, Edder Len Herndez, and Alfredo Delgado Caldern were invaluable. I am also grateful for the au thorization provided by Ing. Joaqun Garca-Barcena Gonzlez, Presidente del Consejo de Arqueologa del Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia (INAH) in Mexico City and the cooperation of Ing. Daniel Goeritz Rodrguez, Director del Centro INAH Veracruz a nd his staff. Discussions with David Grove, Richard Diehl, Michael Coe, Thomas Killion, and Christophe r Pool improved my understanding of the Formative period in Mesoamerica and e nhanced my research perspectives. I wish to thank Lori Collins who provided the balance, support, and input to help me achieve the successful completion of this dissertation. Laura C onner contributed the technical expertise that allowed me to conduct the geophysic al surveys in the field and to process the data. I also want to thank James Hawken, Claire Novotny, Ethan Goddard, Christopher Branas, Steven Hernandez, Al an Peche, Anthony Aveni, and Lawrence Poulsen for their help and expertise during the various surveys and analyses. Finally, I would like to express my indebtedness to John Yellen and the National Science Foundation for his assistance and their fina ncial support via dissertation improvement grant BCS0424526.


1 Chapter 1. Archaeology, Social Theory, and the Southern Gulf Olmec What might the presence of a rule rs throne at El Marquesillo mean? Was this apparently small site an unknown major Olmec center that will force us to rewrite the political history of Olmec culture? (Diehl 2004:191) Introduction In January, 2002, the attention of the archaeological world was drawn to El Marquesillo when an on-line edition of El Liberal del Sur a southern Veracruz news service, published photographs of a recently r ecovered monumental stone sculpture. The monolith was identified as an Olmec table-t op throne (Figure 1.1). Why was this find so remarkable? What is the significance of this artifact to Formative period researchers? In Mesoamerica, monolithic stone thrones are regarded as material symbols of elite lineage status and rulership; they are literally seats of power (Clark 1997; Coe 1968; de la Fuente 1996; Gillespie 1999; Grove 1973, 1999; Taube 2004). The recovery of an Olmec-style stone altar at El Marquesillo is significant because examples comparable in size, form, and iconographic depiction have be en recovered only at San Lorenzo and La Venta, the two primary central places of the Gulf Coast Olmec (Grove 1999). Substantially smaller and iconographically diffe rent versions have been found at Tres Zapotes and Laguna de los Cerros (Gillespie 2000a; Stirling 1965). Sti ll other derivative types were recovered at Loma del Zapote and Estero Rabn; sites considered secondary support centers within the San Lorenzo polity (Cyphers 2004).


Figure 1.1. El Marquesillos monumental Olmec throne. Major discoveries relating to the Forma tive period Southern Gulf Lowlands are rare; therefore, recovery of a monument al Olmec-related ar tifact can generate substantial new information to the limited cor pus of data. This particular artifact, along with knowledge of its depositiona l context, could provide insi ght into a little known and unexplored region of the Southern Gulf Lowl ands. This throne has also created new questions that require a re-eva luation of aspects of the conve ntional wisdom regarding the extent and degree of the Olmec phenomenon and its related sociopolitical complexity. This project began with que stions that were slightly less lofty than those asked by Diehl in the introductory quote. As the investigation progresse d, the initial inquiries that related to the details of the throne and its pr esence at El Marquesillo broadened to include consideration of settlement patterns, coeval development of nearby sites, residential and ceremonial activities, and iconographic and symbolic expression. As the examination continued other issues arose. The evidence fr om El Marquesillo, along with other recent 2


3 research being conducted along the Southern Gulf Coast (e.g. Arnold 2003, 2005; Borstein 2001; Cyphers 2003; Killion and Urcid 2001; Pool 2005, 2006; Pope et al. 2001; VanDerwarker 2006), demonstrate that the pe rception and models of the Olmec, as used by social theorists and as they are portrayed to the general public, need to be revisited and possibly revised. Upman (1990a:98) maintains that social and political complexity is a mosaic process in which variables (i.e., environmen tal, social, political, economic, ideological, and demographic) may act independently or in differential collaboration to affect change. In this dissertation, I use dive rse lines of eviden ce from El Marquesillo (e.g., spatial analysis, remote sensing, anthropogenic soil survey, ethnohistoric and ethnological accounts, geomorphology, landscape archaeology, a nd artifact analysis) to examine those variables. I argue that these data do not fit many of the prototypical models that have been put forth to explain the Olmec soci opolitical phenomenon that occurred in the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands. The investigation of El Marquesillo was designed to examine the site from various perspectives and multiple scales of an alysis. It was through this type of approach that the analyses of the na tural and built environments, al ong with the material record, suggested that a different soci al trajectory was followed by the people of El Marquesillo from what has been postulated for other contemporary regional settlements. There are distinctive physical expressi ons that relate to ancestor veneration, occupational and cultural continuity, interaction of the anci ent people with their landscape, and the manifestation of their worldview. Equivalent displays of continuity and social practice were either not present or re main unidentified at other Sout hern Gulf Lowlands sites.


4 In this dissertation, I use the term Olmec paradigm as a descriptor for a set of theoretical assumptions, concepts, values, and pr actices that have been used to constitute how the Formative people of the Southern Gu lf Lowlands viewed and experienced their reality. Components of this paradigm are discus sed in detail later in this chapter. The latest findings from El Mar quesillo and other Heartland se ttlements suggest that the traditionally proposed sociopolitical paradigm was not homogeneous and uniform across the region but instead, appears to have been a malleable template that could be selectively employed by local elite leaders to meet the demands of th eir constituency. The significance of these findings is due to the fact that the Olmec have been used repeatedly as a theoretical exemplar for in cipient and emergent social complexity and culture progress. Thus, apparent non-conformity to the hypothesized social patterns and behavioral archetypes requires th at a number of these theories be re-evaluated in the light of new evidence. A review of the impedi ments involved in attempting to simply determine a definition of the term Olmec pr ovides a point of depa rture from which to begin an assessment of the Olmec social paradigm. The term Olmec is an archaeological convention that has been variously employed as a descriptor for an art styl e (de la Fuente 2000; Pohorilenko 1996), a Formative period (c. 1500300 BC) ethnic group (Diehl 2004; Stark 2000), a set of religious iconographic symbol s (Feder 2007), a temporal phase (Arnold 2003b; Taube 2004), a suite of cultural practices (Pye and Clark 2000), a Postclassic period (c. AD 1200-1500) native society (Coe 1965; Scholes and Warren 1965), and a geographic culture area (Coe 1989; Lowe 1989). Thus, it is not surprising to find that misunderstanding, confusion, and debates over the term have continued unabated since


5 its introduction to Mesoamerican archaeology more than a century ago (Beyer 1927; Paso y Troncoso 1939; Saville 1929). This situation has led Pye and Clark (2000:12) to assert that, [t]he problem, and the reason for some su bstantive, continuing c ontroversies, is that the term Olmec serves too many masters and is thus inherently ambiguous. In a broad sense, this dissertation represents a critical examination of the use of the term Olmec as it has been applied to the ancient Formative period inhabitants of the Southern Gulf Lowlands of Veracruz and Tabasco, Mexico. The ambiguity, as I see it, in the use of the term Gulf Coast Olmec is analogous to another situation in social theory that resulted in similar problems. A comparable dilemma arose with the introduction and e volution of the terms band, tribe, and chiefdom. Developed primarily through th e work of Sahlins and Service (1968, 1960, 1962) along with Fried (1967), these terms b ecame the consensus typology for a social evolutionary model not only among cultural an thropologists, but archaeologists as well (Drennan 1987; Hayden 1995b). Haas (1998:15) poi nts out the problems, the models of Service and Fried [became] a handy tool to pigeonhole prehistoric cultures into meaningful anthropological ca tegories. The ease with which this classification could be assumed and exploited led to its misuse and abus e. Attribution of an evolutionary stage or type of political organization, such as egalita rian band or ranked chiefdom, to a society was routinely taken to imply that the entire spectrum of elements associated with the definition was present, even if supporting evidence was not encountered (Spencer 1987; Yoffee 2005). Moreover, on a con ceptual basis, the standard terminology of band, tribe, and chiefdom does not permit qualitative dis tinctions to be made between levels of organizational structure and political power th at may be inherent in different social


6 groups. This simplified ranking of social organi zations into a standa rdized evolutionary continuum has proven to be an attractive alte rnative to the diligence required to analyze multiple perspectives of each social group independently (Carneiro 1981:37; 1998:22, 37; Scarre and Fagan 2002). The term Gulf Coast Olmec suffers from these same taxonomic problems. An entire cultural system is too complex and inclus ive to be used as a uni t of analysis; it is inadequate to explain the inhe rent complexity and nuances of the system. The term has come to represent a relatively fixed paradigm, a set of assumptions, concepts, and practices thought to form the worldview for the community that shared them. Outside a small cadre of investigators, the overarching notion regarding this model is that it is static and monolithic, representing a single generic archaeological culture. Social theorists have constructed numerous hypotheses concerning the development of Olmec social complexity, subsistence systems, political economies, and ideological beliefs. The cultural implications assumed by these theories have been imposed on the territorial inhabitants of a Heartland region that extended along the Southern Gulf Lowlands. This critique of the Gulf Coast Olmec paradigm is not intended to suggest that we throw the baby out with the bathwater, but rather, that we be aware of the variability as well as the similarity among occupants of the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands and to observe them from broader and varying perspectives. It cannot be assumed that everyone living in the region participat ed in this system, and it should be recognized that the de gree of participation, or non-participation, probably varied from site to site and across time. Furthermore, it cannot be presumed that the meaning and interpretation of the sy mbols and iconography was uniform for all


7 participants. It is especially critical to realize that the e xpressed ideology and materiality experienced significant geographic and tem poral transformations as well (see Clark 2005). Primary data for this evaluation have been produced from the archaeological investigation of El Marquesillo, a previously undocumented Formative period site on the middle San Juan River in Southern Veracruz. The site was examined through a series of integrated archaeological survey, prospection, documentation, and analytical techniques. Additionally, ethnohistoric records and ethnographic accounts were used along with data from previous and ongoing investigations of the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands to observe El Marque sillo from different perspec tives and varying scales of analysis. The results suggest certain sociopol itical and settlement similarities to other contemporary regional sites. At the same time however, the evidence implies significant site-specific traits and cultural adaptations that set El Marquesillo apart. These individual characteristics illustrate that the Olmec para digm should be recognized as an amalgam of dynamic heterogeneous parts. In the following section of this chapter, I provide background on some of the difficulties and misunderstandings that have pl agued studies of the Formative Southern Gulf Lowlands from its inception. Then, I br iefly review anthropological theory as it pertains to the Olmec and how it has been us ed to build and support theoretical ideas of social development. In Chapter 2, I exam ine individual Olmec-related sites along the Southern Gulf Lowlands during the Formative period and what evidence has been recovered that served as foundations for social theories. I also present a series of models


8 of political and social organization that relate to Formative period Southern Gulf Lowland centers. A major obstacle in the studies of the Sout hern Gulf Lowlands has been a fixation on individual sites and limited regional, settlement pattern anal yses that do not consider the broader contexts (Diehl 1989, 1998, 2000b) The fortuitous discovery of El Marquesillo has provided a unique opportunity to implement a more inclusive approach to southern Gulf Formative studies. The site, situated on an elevated bank of the San Juan River, is located in an archaeologically unexplored region of southern Veracruz. Preliminary data suggest that the site ha s been occupied for the past 3,500 years. A dynamic landscape approach has been implemen ted in the current i nvestigation in an attempt to observe the site a nd its ancient inhabitants through the material manifestation of their relationships with their neighbors and environment. Chapter 3 begins with an examination of the sites history, as it is presently known, commencing during the preOlmec phase of the Early Formative period a nd continuing to include todays residents. The accidental discovery in 2002 of a monumental basalt Olmec throne and its significance are explained. A review of th e thrones rescue and the associated investigation is also included. Chapter 4 includes my description of the prospection and remote sensing techniques used during El Marquesillos arch aeological survey project. The methods that were employed and the rationalization for thei r inclusion is followed by a description of how the surveys were conducted in the fiel d and a presentation of the acquired data. Chapter 5 is a continuation of the data coll ection description, but focuses on the artifact record and its analysis. In Chapter 6, I pr esent a synthesis of these data and possible


9 interpretations. Finally, I compare and contrast El Marquesillo, according to the recovered evidence, to the Olmec paradi gm. Suggestions are made for future investigations that could produce evidence to support or refute the developed hypotheses and expand the corpus of data rela ting to the Southern Gulf Olmec. Background Numerous attributes of the Formative period Gulf Olmec have been utilized by theorists to develop and support a broad range of hypotheses regarding social patterns and comprehensive social structures. Olmec economic and subsistence systems, ritual and symbolic representations, sociopolitical or ganization, labor-intensive work projects, warfare, migration, and diffusion are among the concepts that have been incorporated into contemporary social theory. Many theorists have made definitive assertions about Olmec origins, their rise to social complex ity, and the homogeneity of their culture. This portrayal of the Olmec and the significance pl aced on their role in the development of social theory suggests a complete, well-doc umented, broad-based archaeological record that has been tested and s upported through repeated investigations. Is this assumption valid? What evidence have these hypothetical models been based upon? Do they present an accurate picture of the ancient inhab itants of the Southern Gulf Lowlands? In contrast to the assuredness expresse d by many social theorists (e.g., Harris 1979; Cioffi-Revilla 1996; or Bingham 1999) Mesoamerican scholars studying the Formative period are not as confident. For example, Clark (2001:340) states that the Southern Gulf Coast region has the dual dis tinction of being widely acknowledged as the central hearth of early Me soamerican civilization and, ir onically, as being virtually


10 unknown archaeologically. Diehl (2004:7) pref aced his recent publication on the Olmec by stating that they are one of antiquities most myst erious, fascinating, poorly understood, and controversial civi lizations. Ones initial tho ught may be that this line was simply hyperbole intended to entice the audience through an au ra of the exotic unknown. In truth, however, even the most ardent Mesoamerican Formative period scholar would have difficulty arguing agains t either Clarks or Diehls assertions. Since the initial archaeological investigation in the Southe rn Gulf Lowlands in the mid-1800s, uncertainties, misjudgments, and controversies have hindered study and interpretation and continue to impede subs tantive progress within the discipline. This situation is due to a variety of factors. First, archaeological investigation into the ancient Gulf Olmec has produced limited data relating to emergent complexity and other social issues. Historically, comprehensive investigations of the Formative Southern Gulf Lowlands have been nominal, and the dearth of information has been consistently noted (Coe 1989:68-70; Diehl 1989, 1998, 2000b; Gr ove 1997:72-73; Sharer 1989:3-4; Soustelle 1984:7; Stark and Arnold 1997). Secon d, the preponderance of information that has been produced has emanated only from th e sites of San Lorenzo in Veracruz and La Venta in Tabasco, Mexico; seldom has the fu ll scope of the region been considered. The foundations of the social theories have been built almost exclusively on these two sites. Third, and possibly the most detrimental to the investigative progress, is that many earlier explanations for sociopolitical development were based on conjecture, inference, and supposition. Owing to the lack of primary data, many investigations of the Southern Gulf Lowlands have arrived at conclusions through implication or indirect methods of interpretation such as carrying capacities, technological modification, and


11 analogy (Diehl 1989:25; VanDerwarker 2006:33). Because direct or supporting lines of evidence have not been forthcoming, or in some cases even considered, the implied conclusions have, over time, become widely accepted as valid. Others then use these questionable assumptions to build models a nd hypotheses, creating a scenario that can best be described as a house of cards. In ot her words, if empirical evidence is recovered that refutes the original underlying supposition, then all theoretical inferences based on that proposition must be called into question. These statements are not meant to imply that this process is intentional. For example, inadvertent and unrecognized misinterpretations can be promulgated in introductory text books and remain uncorrected in updated editions (e.g., Feder 2007:428-437). More to the point researchers need to r ecognize the limitations of indirect evidence, question the validity of inferred conclusions based on tentative assumptions, and examine the situation from mul tiple scales of analysis and from varying perspectives in order to arrive at the most accurate conclusions possible. On a more positive note, recent investigative work in some areas is producing direct evidence that demonstrates the overly simplistic nature of long-standing sociopolitical, economic, and demographic models of the Olmec (e.g., Kruger 1996; Ortz and Rodrguez 2000; Pohl et al. 2002; Pope et al. 2001 ; Rodrguez and Ortz 1997; Rust and Sharer 1988; Symonds and Lunagmez 1997; VanDerwarker 2006). These new findings are challenging the traditional paradi gm and require that the models be reevaluated. Current works are revealing the complexity and heterogeneity within the region itself and are demonstrating the imprac ticality of attempting to consolidate the


12 Southern Gulf Lowland inhabitants into a single mindset, obligatory sociopolitical regimen, or set of standard ized economic activities. Adding to this growing corpus of Forma tive data is the investigation of El Marquesillo. The inadvertent re discovery of this site and it s subsequent examination have provided an uncommon opportunity to asse ss and evaluate current models and hypotheses regarding Early, Middle, and Late Formative period societies along the Southern Gulf. From its inception, a primary objective of the Marquesillo Archaeological Survey Project was to produce data that could be analyzed and evaluated against a variety of models (e.g., geographical, se ttlement pattern, and sociopo litical). These data allowed the spatial manifestations that illustrated the relationship between humans and their environment to be considere d. The application of analytic al concepts relating to the regional dynamics of the lands cape (i.e., historical or la ndscape ecology, environmental history, boundaries, biological and cultural diversity: Crumley 1994; Crumley and Marquardt 1987, 1990) can provide a more holisti c view of the site and its constituent parts (i.e., artifacts, features, chemic al and instrumental anomalies). The application of these principles to the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands significantly assists in the study of the Olmec paradigm. The landscape, as the material manifestation of the relations betw een humans and their environment, requires us to consider the concept of scale. Cr umley and Marquardt (1994:9, 1990:73-74, 1987:7) point out that human societies conceived and negotiated reality at specific temporal and spatial levels. They recommend that the re searcher select an effective scale to be employed at the moment of analysis that will produce the best comprehension of the detected patterns. They add that the scale of human action, as a fact or in environmental


13 change, fluctuates according to time, space, and culture. The authors articulate the significance of differences in temporal and sp atial gradations by expl aining that regions may be homogeneous at one scale and heterogeneous at another. Contextual settings ranging from trash middens, activity areas, households, communities, regions, and even continents become desirable comparative units. Not only is the study of episodes of human habitation essential, but examinat ion of the localitie s and periods of nonoccupation are equally significant. The plasticity inherent in this type of approach allows investigators to vary the scale of analysis at different time s during their in vestigation in order to produce the most effective recovery of data and identification of patterns. The concept of heterarchy is of centr al importance to landscape analysis. Heterarchies are defined as complex systems in which elements have the potential of being variously unranked or ranked relative to other elements, depending on systemic requirements (Crumley 1979:144, 1994:12-13; Marquardt and Crumley 1987:11). In other words, the researcher should not automatically assign levels of analysis into a nested hierarchal system. Hierarchies cons titute a method in which elements of the landscape can be ranked. Heterarchies provide another method of examining structural organization when diachronic and spatial per ceptions of change in human and natural elements are to be observed. A further consideration in a landscape approach is an understanding of the regions geomorphology. The varied geological landscapes of the northern Isthmus of Tehuantepec that encompasses the Gulf lowl ands are complex entities that can provide additional information about th e physical activities of the hum an inhabitants. Knapp and Ashmore (1999:10-12) divide landscapes into th ree types: the first is the constructed


14 landscape, which is identif iable as being altered by humans; the second is the conceptualized landscape, which includes natural features that may have been intentionally modified and hol d a form of cultural value (e .g., religious or artistic) by members of the society; and the third landscap e category is described as ideational, or one that illustrates sociopo litical or economic activity or organization on a cognitive level. At El Marquesillo, all three types appear to be represented. Through a comprehensive, dynamic, regional landscape appr oach many of the difficulties that have been encountered in the study of the Olmec paradigm can be alleviated. The following section examines some of these obstacles why they occurred, and how they became enmeshed in the investigation of the Fo rmative period Southern Gulf Lowlands. Opening Investigations into the Olmec Paradigm Many of the assumptions and resultant misi nterpretations of the Formative period data have a long tradition that began almost 150 years ago. In the early 20 th century, stylistic similarities were noted in vari ous art media across Mesoamerica that were correlated with the Southern Gulf Lowland artistic suite (Covarrubias 1957; Guzmn 1934; Vaillant 1930, 1935). These attributions to the Gulf Coast led to a variety of hypotheses that were built solely on inferen ce and presumption. Along the Southern Gulf Coast, a disjointed interp retation of the Formative period was emerging through uneven and unstructured searches fo r monumental sculpture (Blo m and LaFarge 1926; Stirling 1939, 1943, 1955, 1965). The perceived similarities in style and symbolism led to the initial simplistic view of the Olmec as a static monolithic entity that occupied a specific geographical region for a particular length of time. This notion has created deeply


15 embedded misconceptions about these ancient people that are contradictory to present archaeological evidence, which does not support the assumptions of an unchanging society. In 1892, Francisco del Paso y Troncoso employed the phrase Olmec type as a descriptor for a number of ceramic figuri nes that had been found in Guerrero and Morelos, Mexico (Pina-Chan 1989:25). Believi ng these artifacts stylistically resembled the artwork being discovered along the Southern Gulf Coast, he named the style after an indigenous community that live d along the coast at the time of Spanish contact. Olmec was a well-intentioned designation but, in actuality, a misnomer created by subjective interpretation, incomplete data, and unsubsta ntiated assumptions. The usage of the term initiated geographic and chronol ogical confusion that created persistent problems (see Diehl 1989; Grove 1989). The term Olmec, as used by Paso y Troncoso, referred to the Aztecs Nahuatl term Olmeca-Huixtotin The initial difficulties arose becau se the Nahuatl name denoted a Late Postclassic group of people who inhabi ted a limited portion of the Southern Gulf Coast (c. AD 1400-1500). This group had neither a connection with the Formative people who occupied the Southern Gulf Lowlands more than 2,000 years earlier (Diehl 2004:14; Scholes and Warren 1965), nor to the societies of Morelo s and Guerrero where the artifacts were recovered. Thus, temporal a nd spatial discord was immediately embedded in the term itself. The use of the term Olmec Hear tland while providing a convenient geographical reference, as in the title of this disserta tion, worsened the interpretive situation. The concept of a h eartland implies a core and peri phery, internal and external


precincts, and a specific perimeter (Barth 2000; Stark 1998). The term necessitates consideration of the comple xities inherent in the impos ition of boundaries. Where are these boundaries and, if they exist, what was their material and sy mbolic significance? How did their meanings change over space and time as well as from differing sociopolitical perspectives (Anders on and O'Dowd 1999; Parkinson 2005)? Unfortunately, these questions are not generally addressed because the Olmec Heartland is presented as a fixed, uninte rrupted region encompa ssing a rigid, highly structured culture (Figure 1.2). Figure 1.2. Map illustrating the theorized limits of the Olmec Heartland (after Diehl 2004:12). 16


17 The Heartland has been delineated by the regions geomorphology (Coe 1965:681; Coe and Diehl 1980a:11). This passi ve portrayal is difficult to defend, however, because the situation in the S outhern Gulf Lowland region during the Formative period mirrors that described by Py e and Clark (2000:9) for Mesoamerica. It was a flexible anthropologica l entity whose definition for any given time period depends on certain cultural practices considered [Olmec] and the contiguous territory occupied by the peoples following these practic es. The movement of inhabitants across the landscape, environmental changes, a nd evidence of significant material and ideological transformations over time actually show the region to be dynamic and fluid (see Clark 2005). Beyond the semantic and concordant i ssues, the generally accepted spatial demarcation itself is dubious (e.g., Coe et al. 1986:91, 94-95; Diehl 2004:12; Stuart 1993:94-95) (see Figure 1.1). The arbitrarily defi ned Heartland is generally considered to be delimited by the Southern Gulf Coast in the north, the Papaloap an River and Bay of Alvarado in the west, the Grijalva River in th e east, and the uplands of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the south (Coe 1989:69; Diehl 2004; Lowe 1989). The documented occupation areas of the historical Olmeca-Huixtotin, however, lay only to the west of this region, along the Pa paloapan River; in the Tuxtla Mountains; and along the northern fringe of the coast, extending approximately 30 km inland (Berdan and Anawalt 1992; Scholes and Warren 1965; Shahagn 1970-1982 ). Spanish contact period accounts and Aztec tribut e lists do not describe the in terior of the Heartland, only points along its periphery. Moreover, recen t investigations demonstrate that the Formative inhabitants of the Tuxtla Mountains were not fully participating in the Olmec


18 phenomenon (Arnold 2000; Santley 1992; VanDer warker 2006). If this is the case, the Tuxtlas would not be part of the Heartland. This situation leaves the La Venta area as the only major Formative period site that may have been occupied within the OlmecaHuixtotin lands. Finally, an estimated 80 percent of the area defined as the Olmec Heartland has not been survey ed and remains terra incognita; therefore, its classification as Olmec is speculation. The earliest interpretation of the Southe rn Gulf Lowland archaeological record contained a subjective, unsubstantiated opi nion that was delivered with presumptuous certitude. In 1862, at the Hacienda de Hueyap an in Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Jos Mara Melgar y Serrano observed the first Olmec colossal head. Massive stone heads and thrones sculpted from imported basalt have become the hallmark of the Olmec presence on the Southern Gulf Lowlands. When Melgar y Serrano published his findings, he unequivocally attributed the sculpture to Ethiopians and cited it as proof of the prehispanic presence of Africans in the New World (Serrano 1869) Under scientific scrutiny, this case of erroneous assumption remains completely unproven and devoid of evidence (see Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2000; Ha slip-Viera et al. 1997) Nevertheless, this unsubstantiated hypothesis has been, and contin ues to be, used by numerous individuals to promote political agendas (Chavero 1883; Jefferies 1953; Van Sertima 1976; Winters 1984). Thus, the initial use of the term Olmec and the first description of monumental sculpture that has become synonymous w ith the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands were based on supposition. Both of these introductory events created misinterpretations and inaccuracies that res earchers continually need to overcome more


19 than a century after their occurrence. The following sections will demonstrate that the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and misuse of the data were not limited to 19 th century observations. The Gulf Coast Olmec in Anth ropological Social Theory The recognition, identificati on, and interpretation of pa tterns of sociocultural integration among human societies has long been a primary goal of anthropology (e.g., Fried 1967; Morgan 1963; Service 1962, 1975; Spencer 2004; Tylor 1976). A significant alteration in the sequence of human social arrangement was the emergence of complex societies. The manifestation of these ranked relationships is remarkable because, for more than three million years, hu mans apparently lived in au tonomous, relatively egalitarian bands. It is only within the last 7,500 to 10,000 years that these small, primarily nomadic populations aggregate into larger, more sedent ary villages that disp layed greater social, economic, and political complexity (Carneiro 1981:37-39; Earle 1997). Carneiro (1970:733, 1981:38) argues that th e appearance of ranking or he reditary inequality was a major qualitative change in human history and that all modifications in social organization that followed (e.g., stratification, states, and empires) were merely quantitative. Only a handful of pristine civilizations throughout the world are considered to have developed the consequential change to greater social complexity without previous archetypes upon which to model their social structure (Diehl 2004:11-12; Smith 2003:1719; Trigger 2003). These cultures include the Egyptians and Su merians in the Near East, the Indus civilization in India and Pakistan, the Shang culture in China, the Chavn or


20 possibly the recently recognized Caral culture of Peru (Solis et al. 2001), and the Gulf Coast Olmec in Mesoamerica. The Early Form ative inhabitants of San Lorenzo (c. 1500900 BC) were the only one of these antecedent so cieties to emerge in a forested, tropical, lowland environment. The sui generis deve lopment of social complexity among the inhabitants of the Southern Gulf Lowlands is believed to constitute an example for the study of social theory both as a model and tool for evaluation. The uniqueness of their appearance and environmental circumscription, plus the legacy of their cultural traits adopted by subsequent Mesoamerican socie ties make investigation of their social maturation critical to theorists (see Joyce 2004a; Kirchoff 1943). Social theorists have constructed the Ol mec paradigm in a number of ways. Some have merged the Southern Gulf Lowland inhabitants into a monolithic entity and used aggregated assumptions to support their m odels. Others have imposed Eurocentric templates of emergent Old World cultures upon them. Still others have exploited specific traits or characteristics to establish their hypotheses, but neglected to include either all the applicable data available or have not cons idered extenuating circumstances that could undermine their claims. The following examples provide a sense of how the Olmec paradigm has been incorporated into cross-cultural social theory and its significant impact upon the discipline. All the entries center upon the emergence or development of social complexity, and I have grouped them according to comparative or corroborative usage. Most of the theoretic al hypotheses have been based on limited interpretations of the archaeological record, and are valid based on those specific interpretations. As noted earlier, however, many of those judgments have been derived from assumption and


21 inference as opposed to evidence. To demonstrat e the instability of so me social theory as it relates to the Olmec paradigm, the revi ew begins with an examination of the hypotheses of social complexity that are ba sed on the institution of agriculture. Generalized Development of Social Complexity Trigger (1989:400) points out that evidence from San Lorenzo contradicts the commonly held assumption that the emergence of social complexity occurred only in dry, arid regions and required substantial i rrigation programs. Earle (1987:286-287, 295, 298; Johnson and Earle 2000:265) views the Olmec as a complex chiefdom and the Mesoamerican civilization upon which later regi onal developments were based. He refers to numerous lines of evidence to support both statements: examples include the settlement patterns of independent centers containing planned mounded complexes, monumental art, and elite residences that imply central cont rol. He believes that evidence of economic administration can be seen in the organization of labor and craft specialization, long distance tr ade, and the elite owners hip of fertile productive agricultural lands. The scale a nd duration of labor-intensive projects demonstrate a longterm continuity of central organization associ ated with chiefdom level complexity. Earle (1991b) also recognizes that the emphasis on religious or sacred power held by the central authority may characterize the Olmec as a theocratic state. Bingham (1999:159) claims that advancem ents in weapon technology (i.e., bow and arrow or atlatl) were re sponsible to a significant degr ee in the development of sedentary communities and emergence of social complexity. He asserts that the appearance of this technology in the archaeologica l record of the San Lorenzo Olmec


22 demonstrates weaponrys linkage to social development. He also admits empirical evidence for these weapons in the Formative period is lacking but the idea should be reinvestigated. In his conti nuing investigation of, and espousal for, the interaction between warfare and political authority (pleogenic theory), Cioffi-Revilla (1996:13) finds support in the Gulf Coast Olmec. He declar es that San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes constituted a Protobellic Area a pristine region where war occurred by spontaneous (undiffused) invention. It was in these types of complex polities that CioffiRevilla believes war initially arose and led directly to social complexity. There is no direct evidence to support th ese theories, however. Coe and Diehl (1980:392) state that San Lorenzo Olmec warfare can only be inferred, and the scant evidence can be explained by other, equa lly valid interpretations. Ehrichs (1949) critique of the four fi elds of Anthropology presents possibly the earliest example of the Olmec described as the basis for the development of the Mesoamerican cultural tradition. His position was based on reports by Stirling (1943) of an isolated cultural complex (Ehrich 1949:346) Peebles and Kus ( 1977:429) repeatedly use comparisons with the Gulf Coast Olm ec to provide analogies for levels of sociopolitical organization and control within cultural syst ems. In his examination of human evolution, Wright (1999:115) uses the Ol mec, among numerous other cultures, to demonstrate the long-term trends of social complexity. Kohl (1978:470) alludes to the massive offerings of serpentine recovered at La Venta as a way to support social and religious systems, but states that the investig ations do not reveal how these actions satisfy the needs apparent in th is long-distance acquisition.


23 Sanders and Webster (1988:544) argue in support of Foxs (1977) regal-ritual model that necessitates small populations in and around politi cal-religious centers. Associated centers were c onstrained by transportation a nd communication systems, a factor that made San Lorenzo, La Venta, a nd Tres Zapotes special places. The authors contend that these centers functioned primar ily as ideological cores that emphasized symbolic ritual and ceremony that were, in actuality, a pretense for underlying political manipulation. They add that significant centers emerged in areas of abundant resources, which provided an exceptional potential fo r elite-controlled subsistence production. A further implication was that agriculture in the region led to greater social complexity through surplus production. The assumption of small populations limited to ritual and ceremony has been challenged by recent surveys that demonstrate intensive occupations at San Lorenzo (Borstein 2001; Symonds et al. 2002) and La Ve nta (Pohl 2001; Rust 1992; Rust and Sharer 1988) and the discove ry of craft workshops and production areas at each of these sites (Cyphers 1996b, 1997b; Rojas-Chavez 1990; Rust 1988). The presence of centralized authority a nd social complexity at population centers along the Southern Gulf Lowlands during the Formative period is suggested by the organization of major labor efforts, long distance resource ac quisition, settlement patterns, and symbol systems. A primary que stion regarding this centralization is how was it achieved? In addition to those prev iously mentioned, nume rous scholars have attributed the emergence and expansion of this power to military might and warfare (Borstein 2001; Coe and Diehl 1980a; Hassig 1992; Reilly and Garber 2003; Sheets 2003).


24 Cowgill (1993:754) summarizes the primary difficulties associated with the discussion of warfare in Mesoamerica. He argues that there is an uncritical acceptance of problematic and contradictory so urces, and that there is a tendency to not consider the diversity within these societies. These lines of reasoning are particular ly true in the case of the Gulf Olmec, and Coe and Diehl ( 1980:392) admit that warfare can only be inferred. I find the evidence expressed in thes e arguments for warfare tenuous. Much of the inference of war is derived from what are interpreted as depictions of symbolic warfare sculpted on stone monuments (B orstein 2001; Reilly and Garber 2003), although other tenable alternatives are possibl e. To me, it is unusual that a school of artisans as talented as those of the Gulf Coast Olmec, known for their ability to produce lifelike and expressive illus trations, did not compose a corpus of clear, unambiguous depictions of warfare. This lack of imagery is especially puzzling if warfare or military dominance was indeed the reason for the em ergence or expansion of their authority. Subsistence Systems and Complex Society Numerous variations of so cial theory have devel oped from an agricultural perspective. For example, in his survey of the science of culture, Harris (1979) used the Olmec to associate maize agriculture with the foundation upon which chiefdoms were founded and how its continued development le d to more complex levels of social organization. Moseley and Willey (1973:466), in their reevaluation of Aspero, Peru, and its agricultural transition, offer the San Lo renzo Olmec as an example of development from sedentary non-agricultural society to one of emergent agriculture in Mesoamerica.


25 Park (1992:90) presents the Olmec as an example of a major civilization that owes its success to intensive recession agri culture and water manage ment techniques. He emphasizes that many societies that practiced recession agriculture in alluvial riverine environments went on to become advanced civi lizations in part due to their ability to overcome risk (chaos) and the institution of common property. His hypothesis holds that the highest agriculturally producing lands rema ined in the possession of the upper levels of the social hierarchy. In a similar argument, Spencer and Redmond (1992:151-154) equate the high-yield recessiontype agricultural practices of the inhabitants of the western Venezuelan llanos region to simila r situations and succe sses among the Gulf Coast Olmec. They also suggest that the sociopolitical development of chiefdom level societies in the Late Glavn period (AD 500-600) mirrored the political economy model of the Olmec. The surplus created by the excep tional crop yields was a major factor in the increase in population levels the appearance of a threetiered settlement hierarchy, construction of mounded arch itecture, and differentiati on of social status. Prices (1977) cross-cultural discussion concerns how shifts in the mode of production led to alterations in the mode of social organization. She identifies the Gulf Coast Olmec as a pristine society (see Fried 1967) that defined the linear evolution of complex society. She contends that San Lore nzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes were clearly peaks in local stratification networ ks that had regular interaction with each other and belonged to a culturally and te mporally unified society (Price 1977:212). Strange (1982) examines how religious control is diminished as technological control over social and environmental system s advance, and posits that, when these socioeconomic systems break down, the culture collapses. To illustrate his point, he


26 states that the Olmec attracted large populations to major centers. This rapid influx of people overloaded the existing agri cultural system causing it to fail, which led directly to economic and cultural collapse. These theories are reasonable and well presented, but what is the basis for their postulation? Prior to 2006, there was no direct evidence for maize agriculture being the foundation for the emergence of San Lorenzos so cial complexity. In fact, there was little actual subsistence data that could be an alyzed (VanDerwarker 2006:2). Assumptions relating agricultural pr oduction to tribute-based models of political economy among the San Lorenzo Olmec were derived from ecologi cal studies, settlement pattern analysis, estimated carrying capacities, modifications in ground stone technologies, and comparisons to contemporary farming rou tines in the area (Borstein 2001,2005; Coe 1981; Coe and Diehl 1980a,b; Cyphers 1996b; Drucker 1960). The underlying premise that maize agriculture was the catalyst that led to the rise of an elite class is based on the quantity of ground stone manos and metates r ecovered during excavations, the presence of botanical remains, and the fact that modern farmers in the region grow a lot of maize (Coe 1981; Coe and Diehl 1980a,b; Cyphers 1997b). Recently, VanDerwarker (2006) demonstrated possible misinterpretations of the archaeological record and the implausibility of attempting to apply the Direct Historical Approach back 3,500 years into prehistory. Her arguments are based on analyses of various lines of evidence and subsistence data. The combination of these data from recent surveys and analyses (Borstein 2001; Rust 1992; Rust and Leyden 1994) conclude that the critical domestication/ productive threshold for maize at San Lorenzo occurred around 1,000 BC, meaning that maize probabl y did not become the mainstay of the


27 lowland subsistence economy until after the Olmec rose to power (VanDerwarker 2006:37, 65 ). If the interpretations of these new data are correct, then much of the social theory relating agriculture to sociopolitical development will need to be re-evaluated and in many cases, revised. Cross-Cultural Comparisons The Gulf Olmec are cited by Oates (1993:414) in support of a social emulation model that she proposes for Late Uruk Mesopotamian societies (c. 3500 cal BC). She agrees with Flannerys (1968) inference that lowland Olmec influence was strongest among other developed societies in Mesoamer ica, ones that would appreciate their advancements in complexity and its materi alization. Kirch (1991:159) cites the laborintensive symbols (i.e., monumental sculpture and arch itecture) of the Gulf Olmec are analogous to those of the Lapita culture. He believes that the creation and implementation of these types of symbols was used to br oaden cultural integration over significant geographic areas. In his multi-cultural examination of societal development, Sanderson (1995:6566, 127) describes the large ceremonial center s at San Lorenzo and La Venta as places that witnessed the emergence of social comple xity that would eventually lead to state formation. He cites the colossal carved stone he ads as depictions of individual chiefs and alludes to the Olmec as the originators fr om which the subsequent Maya civilization arose. Younkers (1997) examination of the Moab society, in present-day Jordan, and their sociopolitical structure during the Bron ze and Iron Ages, leads him to draw parallels to the Olmec region. He cites hieroglyphic writing, monumental ar chitecture, planned


28 ceremonial centers, and intensive agricultural systems as determinants of the level of social complexity in pre-state societies. In his cross-cultural assessment of monumentality and its application to complexity in Hawaii, Kolb (1994) draws on the massive sculpture and mound complexes of the Olmec. His objective is to demonstrate the religi ous aspects of power and control within a comple x society. He states that these examples show rapid centralization and social cohe sion, and are symbols of new sociopolitical and ideological order. Drennan (1991:264-267) uses the Olmec at San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes to illustrate chiefdom trajectorie s in Mesoamerica, and Central and South America. He alludes to their demographi c and social change labor organization, subsistence methods, long-distance acquisiti on and exchange. He goes on to add the possibility that the significant distances between regional centers along the Gulf Coast were designed so as not to impinge on the la nds of others. Examina tion of the chronology of the ascendancy of these sites does not appear to support the latter supposition (Coe and Diehl 1980a; Coe and Koontz 2002; Diehl 2004; Gonzlez-Lauck 1996a,b; Pool 2000). Migration and Diffusion Ford (1966) used the archaeological record to link the cultures of South, Central, and North America into a contiguous culture ar ea that shared artistic and ideological characteristics. The evidence produced by th e work at La Venta (Drucker 1952a, 1960; Drucker et al. 1959) was a prim ary factor in his comparativ e study. In his discussion of migration of ancient socie ties across the landscape, Adam s (1978:491) submits that the


29 Maya are lineal descendents of the Olmec. He sees a shifti ng of population sites from the Gulf Coast to the lowlands of the Guatemalan Petn. Meggers (1975, 1976) mainta ins that the Olmec are the earliest Mesoamerica civilization whose art, ic onography, and technology were the foundation for all other Mesoamerican cultures. She s uggests that their sudden appe arance as a fully developed complex society, and the rapid dispersion of a dvanced traits across Mesoamerica, suggest diffusion from elsewhere in the world. Meggers makes her case based on stylistic similarities of the more ancient Shang Culture of China, and posits that they are the true founders of the Olmec. Schneider (1977) adds what he considers to be further support for claims of ancient transpacific contact be tween the Chinese Shang and the Gulf Coast Olmec at around 1200 BC. He contends that th e diffusion of culture by the Chinese was directly responsible for the developmen t of complex society in the New World, specifically along the Southern Gulf Coast. Sc hneider asserts that the underlying theory to explain diffusion is actually more important than any facts that may be present. Mundkur (1976:437-439), in his atte mpt to link the art-styles a nd ideologies of Asia to the cultures of the New World, identifies the Southern Gulf Lowlands as the Heartland of the Formative period Olmec and portrays them as recipients of Asian characteristics. Referring to the San Lorenzo-La Venta Ol mec as an example of an occupational shift brought about by climatic causal ag ents, Gunn and Adams (1981:94) suggest an unbroken cultural continuity between the two sites. They also identify climatic changes that would have been factors in the de velopment of cultural complexity. Gunn and Adams note the end of the San Lorenzo dominance occurred at the same time as a cold period. Spatial considerations would seem to question how climate factors would affect


30 one site and not the other sin ce they are at basically the same elevation and less than 100 km of each other. Many of the hypotheses presented are draw n from, or supported by, cross-cultural analogies. Does the empirical evidence suppor t these comparisons? Ha ve the spatial and temporal distinctions been adequately c onsidered? Some archaeological evidence does exist to support portions of th ese claims, but significant dispar ities are not considered and the Olmec are incorrectly portrayed as monolithic. Concluding Remarks Variations of theories presented by Lenski (1966, 1970) Harris (1979), and Wallerstein (1974), among others, have been applied to many of the discussions and assessments of the Olmec by an thropologists and sociologists. It is also evident that a number of these judgments refer to a unilineal evolutionary model for the development of complex society (Fried 1967; Sahlins and Service 1960; Service 1962). These simplified classifications support Haas (2001) comments regarding how superficial or indiscreet application of these models, w ithout attention to detail, can facilitate the opportunity for error. New evidence from the field demonstrat es the incompleteness and unevenness of extant data. The Olmec paradigm varied significantly both spatially and temporally, so much so that it may be difficult to consider the Olmec a culture except under the broadest of definitions. The first usage of the term O lmec and the initial description of Southern Gulf Lowland monumental sculpture were derived from subjective, unsupported assumptions. Remarkably, the faulty conclu sions reached by these early reports have


31 continued to inhibit scie ntific inquiry for more than a century. Several of the social theory models and hypotheses presented contain insigh tful and accurate contentions, but others contain concepts based on incomplete data or unsupported assumptions. Although portions of the hypotheses may be supportable, often the insensitivity to chronological and spatial order and attendant processes invalidate their pr emise. What is known about this archaeological entity, a nd how do we know it? How are the new data being collected and what do they tell us? These questions are addressed in the following chapters.


32 Chapter 2. The Formative Period in the Southern Gulf Lowlands Introduction At the 2006 Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, a gathering of the Mesoamerican Formative period researchers took place in the symposium, The Olmec and Their Early Formative Neighbors (SAA 2006:55-56). Most participants acknowledged that accura te chronology was a significant problem in Formative period studies. Clarks (2006) assessment that w ithout good chronology, we have nothing would seem obvious but, out side of a relatively small group of investigators, the distinction between chr onological segments of the Formative period have been merged, blurred, or disregarded. This lack of chr onology building and the inattention given to its dynamic nature underlies many common misconceptions, as discussed in the previous chap ter. It has resulted in the interpretation of the Formative inhabitants of the Southern Gulf Lowlands as what Diehl (2004:14) laments is a single generic culture. Theorists have furthered this equivocal assumption by attempting to standardize the social complexity and political orga nization perceived in the Olmec phenomenon. Much of social evolution theory strives to achieve a universal and sequential development of social organization (e.g., Fried 1961, 1967; Morgan 1963; Sahlins and Service 1960; Service 1962, 1975; Stew ard 1955; White 1959). Smith (2003:33)


33 describes this attempted conformance as a prospect on human history that visualizes an overall shape to human social development, a progress toward increasing complexity that can be explained in reference to a set of rational determinants. Any certainty contained in the Olmec paradi gm is severely limited by the fact that only a small fraction of the Southern Gulf Lowlands has been investigated, evenly superficially, and data that ha ve been recovered remain una vailable due to a paucity of publication (Diehl 2004; VanDer warker 2006:35). Even though significant work has been conducted at San Lorenzo and La Venta ove r the past 60 years, there remains an unevenness or discontinuity in their investigations (B enson 1996; Diehl 1989). During the high points of their ancient developmen t, these communities were socially and politically anomalous and not re presentative of other center s and the more frequent and typical secondary and tertiary settlements that fill the majority of the regions that have been examined (Borstein 2001; Symonds 2000; Symonds and Lunagmez 1997). Tres Zapotes is only now beginning to be i nvestigated on a level from which valid comparisons can be made to other Early Fo rmative period sites. Its Early Formative component has recently been uncovered but rema ins yet to be fully analyzed (Pool 2006). Other sites, such as Laguna de los Cerros a nd Las Limas have been frequently cited as major Olmec centers (Coe and Koontz 2002; Diehl 2004:57; Soustelle 1984:61). When evaluating the basis for the Olmec pa radigm, two primary issues arise. The first involves the question as to whether or not the proposed cl aims are sufficiently supported by the evidence recovered from the sporadic and limited investigations. The second asks if the spatially patterned arra ngements of Formativ e period architectural complexes and the material traces left on th e land surface by the inhabitants indicate a


34 standardized political centra lization or shared ethnic iden tity. One way to assess these issues is to consider models of site settl ement organization. Various forms of centralized models have been postulated for Mesoameri can centers based on architectural patterns, features, and the spatial distribution of material remains. After a brief examination of these models, I review the sites of San Lore nzo Tenochtitln, La Venta, Laguna de los Cerros, Las Limas, La Oaxaguea, and Ojo de Agua in light of these models. In the concluding section of the chapter I discu ss the data previously recovered from the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands and how they have been interpreted. Models of Political and Economic Organization The models considered here are illustra tive of various types of settlement organization that have been proposed for the Southern Gulf Lowlands and the interrelationships between their political and economic processes. Settlement centers are identified by common traits and practices that include a variety of integrative institutions and activities [that] are centra lized and which both serves and is served by a hinterland from which it is differentiated in size and population density (Pool 2003:90). Although the function and effect of cen tralized organization are rec ognized (Blanton 1978; Sanders and Webster 1988; Stark 1999), the specific natu re of the processes and the reasons for variation in size, scope, and arrangement are not fully understood. Recent surveys, however, are beginning to illustrate the substa ntial organizational and spatial variations among these centers in the Southern Gulf Lowlands (Borstein 2001; Cyphers 1997a; Killion and Urcid 2001; Santley et al. 1987; Stark 1991, 1999; Symonds and Lunagmez 1997).


35 The models used for evaluation of the ev idence here include: a nucleated central place (Symonds 2000; Gonzlez-Lauck 1997), a cap ital zone (Stark 1999), a confederacy of elite lineages (Pool 2003:96), and a feudalis tic alliance between a vassal site and a regional sovereignty (Taschek and Ball 2003). The underlying premise of these locational models is the interpretation of economic practices relative to the spatial di stribution of sites (Christaller 1966; Lsch 1954; Mayhew 1997). In other words, these models attempt to define the socioeconomic rules that dete rmine the size, number, and distribution of sites within a settlement pattern. These concep tualized systems are then used to evaluate patterns in the placement of internal com ponents of a site including activity areas, architecture, and features. From this eval uation, the political structure and economic system is inferred. Although the initial central place theory was established by Christaller (1966 [1933], 1972) in the 20 th century to examine a market-b ased capitalistic system in Southern Germany, there are sufficient parallels to Mesoamerican political economies to permit it to be employed as tool in their evaluation (Inomata and Aoyama 1996). This and other models can assist us to better understand why and how urban settlements evolved and how they were spatially related to one another along the Southern Gulf Lowlands. Marquardt and Crumley (1987) describe the sp atial limits and patterned arrangements of an archaeological site as landscape signatures, the material traces left on the land surface by the distinct development of human groups. They state that use and non-use of space are material representations of the cultural prin ciples that include towns, villages, camps, transport features, shrines, caches, and burials. Through analysis of these combined data,


36 models of the sociopolitical and economic structure opera ting along the Southern Gulf Lowlands in the Formative period are examined. The early models were built on the Central Place Theory that was developed in 1933 by German economic geographer Walter Ch ristaller (1966). Thre e basic concepts were included in Christallers hierarchal theo ry of economic activity: 1) centrality, the benefit of a having a centralized locality; 2) threshold, the point at which additional providers (sites) can be successfully admitted and maintained within the system; and 3) range, the acceptable distances ove r which products or services can be obtained or traded. The subsequent models are variants devised to explain the diversity of spatial patterns and artifact distri butions found at Meso american centers. These variations of the central place theory are primarily based on transportati on factors (time, effort, and capacity) and administration (degree of centraliz ation, nucleation, and market size). Central Place Model Mayhew (1997) defines a central place as a settlement or nodal point that serves the surrounding area with goods and services. In theory, the location of collection and redistribution centers can be determined or pr edicted based on leastcost transportation models that link producers to the centers and the centers to the final consumer. Central places may be primary or secondary centers that perform administrative and management control functions that can include res ource acquisition and allocation, production, storage, and redistribution. These centers may also be sites for ritual ceremonies and religious functions (Smith 1979). Central place theory has been used extensively in Mesoamerican research and a


37 number of archaeological co rrelates have been iden tified (Flannery 1972; Hammond 1974; Marcus 1973, 1976). Major criteria used for identification of a central place include: 1) Relative site size; central places are larger than secondary and support sites; 2) Population density greater than in outlying sites; 3) Public architecture (e.g., platform mounds, open plazas, temple mounds) for administrative functions and localities for ritual activities; 4) Storage facilities required to hold goods for redistribution; 5) Craft specialization includes the pr oduction of prestige goods in workshops that are controlled by elites and are evidenced by presence of exotic raw materials (e.g., obsidian, jade basalt), and production tools; 6) Length of occupation usually grea ter in central places, since they may represent the hearths of origin. Capital Zone Model This model was formally introduced by St ark (1999) to explain the architectural arrangement and spatial depositi on of artifacts recovered at the site of Cerro de las Mesas in the Mixtequilla region of south-centra l Veracruz (Stark 1991, 1999; Stark and Heller 1991; Stark et al. 1998). A cap ital zone is an extensive area with dispersed formal groups that, together, constituted an administrative and service core (Stark 1999:201). Although the model is oriented toward th e Classic period (c. AD 300-900), the author states that Mesoamerican political and cu ltural developmentbuilt upon antecedents in the Late and Terminal Preclassic pe riods (c. 600 BC-AD 300) (Stark 1999:197).


38 Therefore, precursors to the Capital Zone Model may be present and identifiable in Formative period sites. To address the problem of the indefinite temporality of structures and complexes, Stark (1999:197) developed two contrastive models as a tool to guide interpretation of Mixtequilla settlements: 1) a disconnected model, in which formal complexes are largely sequential or independent; and 2) a connected model, in which there is greater temporal overlap among complexes in a core zone that forms a superordinate capital, with more distant secondary and tertiary settlements. From these mo dels, five criteria were elaborated to evaluate the evidence: 1) Dating, major complexes are sequentia l but new constructions do not necessarily indicate th e termination of older ones; 2) Spacing, the proximity of large and small architectural complexes suggest a united association; 3) Non-Domination, no individual formal complex is dominant within the site. 4) Non-Discreteness, location of major is olated structures su ggest an integration of complexes indicat ing an internal linkage; 5) Layouts, smaller outlying groups app ear to be nascent off-shoots of larger established major complexes; 6) Craft production, widely distributed across central complexes as well as in residential zones.


39 Confederacy Model Pool (2000:150;2003a:92) believes that the mound complexes at Tres Zapotes may have served as seats of authority. If these plaza groups functione d concurrently, the political system may have been organized more as a confederacy, with several elite lineages sharing and negotiating ruling au thority (Pool 2003:96). This model is primarily concerned with the processes of nucleation, the geospatial configuration of population and activity areas; a nd centralization, which refers to the concentration of political power and authority among individuals or factions By analytically decoupling these interacting processes we can achieve gr eater precision in our characterization of ancient urbanism and greater insight into th e processes responsible for its variability (Pool 2003:91). Similar in some respects to the Capital Zone Model (see Wells 2004b), this version differs notably in the consid eration of site size and spatial clustering. Identifying criteria include: 1) Residential settlement, arranged in a concentric pattern extending outward from a central core; 2) Formal architecture, temples, concentr ated at several locations, composed of conical mounds (temples) and long mounds (elite residences) surrounding plazas; 3) Spacing, central plaza group surrounded by intensive occupational zone (180 ha) with additional plaza groups ar ound the periphery of this habitation area; 4) Craft production, frequent small-scal e domestically centered ceramic and lithic production with li ttle elite control.


40 Feudalistic Model Although this model has not been specified as a Formative period representation, I feel its criteria could be representative of Southern Gulf Lowland organizational structure and should be considered. Accordi ng to Taschek and Bell (2003), Nohoch Ek, a Classic period site in the upper Belize Valle y, constitutes an archetypal example of the "minor center" type within a hierarchically st ructured settlement sy stem. Its role within the social landscape mirrors the appearance and function very much like a medieval European agricultural manor. Nohoch Ek was sociopolitically autonomous but, the authors believe, that its inha bitants recognized or owed allegiance, fealty, tribute, or some other form of subordinate association to the royal court based at nearby BuenavistaCahal Pech (Taschek and Ball 2003:388). This association entailed kinship obligations as socioeconomic, political, civic, or coerced debt-the functioning corporate social unit occupying the Late Classic Belize Valley hil ltop looked and worked very much like a medieval manor (Taschek and Ball 2003: 385). Determining criteria includes: 1) Artifact types, only domestic objects w ith no ceremonial or ritual association; 2) Spatial layout, clearly determined by the topography rather than by any cosmological or ideological considerations of directionality; 3) Residents, self-sufficient rural corporate group consisting of multiple nuclear units of a single extended family, lineage, or house; 4) Locality, contiguous integration with intensive agricultura l system suggesting ownership, supervision, and utilization; 5) Architecture, signific ant elite residence but no ceremonial or public constructions and not on a monumental scale.


41 Limitations and Cautions in the Use of Locational Models The effective application of the Central Place Theory was designed to operate in what can be considered a Utopian conditi on, and Christaller ( 1966 [1933]) acknowledged that it was developed in an id ealistic situation. His conceptualized hexagons were placed on an isotropic plane that contained constant universalities in tran sport, distance, and effort, and the market demands were equivale nt. There was no appare nt consideration of geophysical obstacles or human agency. Smith (2004) warns against both mechanical absolutism and organic absolutism in the analysis of space. He states that proponents of the mechanical ontological approach infer that space (landscape) has little e ffect on the socio-historical process, that spatial analysis is only a search for the fundamental geometry that structures the world (Smith 2004:36-53). He also cautions against a strictly organic approach, which attempts to determine the organizational processes of spatial relationships based entirely on the infl uence of the environment. Although both categorical positions have provided insight in to spatial patterning and socio-historical change, they do not take into account the impact of the human agent, society, and ideology. In other words, spatial patterns are produced within and between acting sociopolitical bodies, not in correspondence to an evolutionary narrative (Smith 2004:75). This note of caution is echoed by Silverman (2002) who states that, the principle of settlement pattern hierarchy cannot mechanistically [be applied] to ancient societies because ancient people constructed social space under premises not necessarily amenable to western rational organization.


Locational, political economic models must be employed with care, and the researcher should be cognizant of numerous variables when evaluations are made. Crumley and Marquardt (1990:73-74) point ou t that human societies conceived and negotiated reality at specific temporal a nd spatial levels. They recommend that the researcher select an effective scale to be employed at the momen t of analysis that will produce the best comprehension of the detected patterns (Crumley 1994:9; Marquardt and Crumley 1987:7). Finally, the dynamic cultural, environmental, and geophysical landscapes must be thoroughly considered. San Lorenzo Tenochtitln Matthew Stirling (1955) firs t reported on the site of San Lorenzo Tenochtitln, where he uncovered 20 monumental stone sc ulptures in 1945 and 1946 (Figure 2.1). San Figure 2.1. Map of the greater San Lore nzo area (Symonds et al. 2002:71) 42


43 Lorenzo is considered the earliest and larges t Formative period regional center in the Gulf Coast lowlands and demonstrates evid ence for a significant level of social complexity (Coe and Diehl 1980a; Cyphers 1996b, 1997b). From around 1300 to 900 BC, the site appears to have been preeminent in the Southern Gulf Lowlands sociopolitical, economic, and artistic realms. B ecause of its apparent leadership position in these spheres, this tempor al period is referred to as the San Lorenzo Olmec Horizon. This primacy does not necessarily imply military dominance, political authority, or economic control outside of the middle Coatzacoalcos Rive r Basin, however. San Lorenzo Tenochtitln is actually a complex of three sites. San Lorenzo contains the primary Olmec occupational zo ne located atop a 45 m high natural plateau that was significantly modified by human effort. The artificia lly leveled, elevated ridge extends approximately 1.2 km in a north-sou th direction and cont ains elite-related activity areas and compounds (Coe a nd Diehl 1980a; Cyphers 1996b). The second component of the site is Tenochtitln, anot her large Olmec occupational zone situated on the Ro Chiquito, and the third section is Po trero Nuevo on the ancien t of course of the Coatzacoalcos River. Coe initiated the Ro Chiquito Project to expand Stirlings earlier investigations. The excavations conducted by Coe and Diehl (1980) between 1966 and 1968 produced a well-developed chronology of occupation and th e first detailed topographic map of a major Olmec center. Their conclusions, based on multiple lines of evidence recovered by the project, suggested to them that the San Lorenzo Olmec had developed a complex society that achieved, minimally, a chiefdom-l evel organization, and conceivably reached statehood. In 1968, Coe began a series of subsurface investigations th at utilized a cesium


44 magnetometer to search for buried magnetic anomalies. The success of this technique proved exceptional and the In stituto Nacional de Antropol oga e Historia (INAH), under the direction of Ignacio Bern al, extended the investigati on to San Lorenzo in 1969 and 1970. Ultimately, 16 new basalt monumental sculpt ures were detected and recorded using this technique (Breiner and Coe 1972; Brggeman and Hers 1970; Coe and Diehl 1980a:126-129). In 1990, Ann Cyphers (1997b; Symonds et al. 2002) resumed investigations as director of the San Lo renzo Tenochtitlan Archaeological Project. A primary contribution of this ongoing project ha s been to illustrate the extent of the supporting network of towns, villages, and farm steads that were required to maintain the capital zone of San Lorenzo. During the late Early Formative period (c. 1250-1000 BC), the tripartite segments of San Lorenzo Tenochtitln were part of an island encircled by the Coatzacoalcos and Chiquito Rivers, and dozens of supporting se ttlements surrounded the central core. The settlement pattern survey conducted by Symonds et al. (2002) has determined that the nuclear community around San Lorenzo during this time covered 690 ha and included a seven-level site hierarchy, based primarily on the sizes of the sites. Architectural elements present on the elite uppe r platform of San Lorenzo that have been identified as Early Formative period constructions are lim ited to low platforms or building foundations and causeways (Cyphers 1997b, 2001:647; Symo nds et al. 2002:109-117). Low mounded architectural remains (Symonds 2000: Type 5 an d 6 sites) have been found away from the plateau on elevated terrain at primary and s econdary fluvial junctures. The elevation of the mounds may simply be for protection against annual inundations (Symonds 2000).


45 Several lines of evidence suggest a highl y stratified society that was organized around the exploitation of exotic resources. Analysis of the settlement survey indicates that an elite ceremonial core was located on the highest portion of the plateau and contained the most prestigious residences (S ymonds 2000:56). Spaces were also allotted for ceremonial or ritual disp lays including the exhibition of monumental sculptures. Special activity areas for the production of elite crafts were also present on the summit in the form of ilmenite cube concentrations a nd stone sculpture work shops (see Clark 1997; Cyphers 1996b). Middle-range dwellings c ontain evidence of obsidian tool and greenstone ornament production. The presence of numerous types of exo tic materials and products indicate an extensive exchange network in which San Lorenzos inhabitant s participated. The leadership at San Lorenzo is thought to ha ve controlled access to local and exotic resources. Three primary obsidian sources (G uadalupe Victoria in Puebla, Otumba in Central Mexico, and El Chayal in Guatemal a) have been identified at San Lorenzo (Cobean et al. 1971, 1991). Magnetite mirrors from Oaxaca, basalt from the Tuxtla Mountains, ilmenite from Chiapas, and num erous types of metamorphic rock were imported through this trade network. The interpretations of so ciopolitical complexity are derived from the spatial deposition of materials and the implicit need fo r centralized organization in order to carry out the acquisition, transport, and carvi ng of monumental basalt sculptures. At San Lorenzo, economic expansion through the im port and export of goods was associated with the establishment of a complex political system and increased so cial stratification. Emergent elites demonstrated their authorit y and legitimized their right to authority,


46 power, and wealth through differential access to exotic elite items and raw materials (Grove and Gillespie 1992:191). They created and maintained social distance through the construction of ceremonial centers and monumental art and architecture. The monumental sculpture (i.e., colossal heads, th rones, and individualized representations) promoted the power of individual leaders. Its assemblage into highly observable tableaus reinforced this power and made it visible to the comm unity (Clark 2005:214; Cyphers 2004). It may also be possible to identify the stat us of an associated site or center within the San Lorenzo socioeconomic system by the type and size of its stone sculpture. Bornstein (2001) and Cyphers (2004) suggest that outlying centers may have been acknowledged as part of the San Lorenzo pol itical-economic system through the presence of sculpted stone monuments. For example, specific types of monuments, which are comparable in size, style, and iconography, ar e found at sites that may have acted as control points for the regional ingre ss and egress of goods and materials. The subsistence system at San Lorenzo has been identified as based on maize agriculture. Coe and Diehl (1980a:16) conclude that maize agriculture was the primary food source due to the appearance of nume rous manos and metates. Cyphers (1997b) reached a similar conclusion based on the presence of phytoliths and pollen residues. Both studies assume that contemporary ma ize farming was equivalent to Formative period practices (Coe and Diehl 1980a:16; Cyphers 1997b). These assumptions have led social theorists to hypothesi ze that the increase in political comple xity was directly caused by a shift to year-round agriculture, wh ich led to agricultura l surpluses and, in


47 turn, gave budding Olmec leader s control over vital resource s and thus a power base on which to build authority and extract tribute. Although evidence suggests that some level of maize cultivation was practiced, it does not demonstrate that it was the primary food source, nor does it necessarily demonstrate that the Formative period Olmec were an agricultural society. Hayden (1992, 1995 #4434) suggests that, in some cases, competitive feasting may give rise to agriculturally produced foods. I nnovative, aspiring Olmec elite s, for example, may have served novel, exotic domesticates, such as mai ze, to their communities, rivals, or factions to gain status and prestige. Thus, burgeoning social inequality woul d have been marked by the small-scale cultivation of domesticates that would not become important staples in the diet until much later (VanDerwar ker 2006:199). This hypothesis is supported by Early Formative period evidence from the Soconusco Coast as well (Rosenswig 2006). One way to assess diet is through isotopi c bone and tooth analysis (see Mays 2000; Tykot 2004,2006; Tykot et al. 1996). At the site of San Andrs, La Venta, a lower first premolar was recovered during archaeo logical excavations of a Middle Formative period Olmec horizon (c. 900-400 BC) (Pohl 2001; Pope and Pohl 1998; Pope et al. 2000). A stable carbon isotope analysis of the tooth enamel was conducted at the University of South Floridas Archae ological Science Laboratory (Specimen Identification Number USF 4307, San Andrs FS901-98). The results suggest that only about half of this individual's diet was coming from non-C3 plants and animals. This result cannot be interpreted as meaning maize, a non C3 plant, accounted for half the diet. It was not possible to distinguish whether it wa s C4 plants or seafood or a combination of the two that accounted for the results. San Andrs was located directly on the banks of


48 the Bar River, which provided a direct conne ction, via the river syst em, to the Gulf of Mexico approximately 12 to 15 km away. Therefore, it is suggested that some portion of the individuals diet included seafood. T hus, although the consum ption of maize may have accounted for a maximum of 50 percent of the diet, a significantly lower percentage is probably more realistic. These considerations require that caution be used in claiming the inhabitants of the Southern Gulf Lowlands, even by the Middle Formative period, were fully dependent on maize agriculture. Further implementation of this method has demonstrated that, in Formative period Mesoamerica, the presence of crop cultivation does not necessarily indicate it is the primary method of subsistence (Blake et al. 1992; Clark 1991; Clark and Blake 1994; Rosenswig 2006). These investigations, based on direct testable data, support the hypothesis that the San Lorenzo Olmec deve loped social complexity prior to the institution of maize-based agriculture as a primary dietary component. Additionally, Killion (2006) has argued that house garden s and nominal horticultural measures do not mean the society was agriculturally dependent On a broader basis, the initiation of sedentism and tribal life does not seem to be associated with development of domesticated plants or obvious changes in agricultural technique s (Clark and Cheetham 2002:311). Yet, without direct evidence for ma ize consumption as a dietary staple, a number of social theorists have implied it was Olmec agriculture that led to their rise to complexity (see Chapter 1). The densest settlement occupation in the history of the lower Coatzacoalcos Basin occurred during the San Lorenzo Horizon (c. 1150-900 BC) of the Early Formative period (Symonds 2000:64). During the pre-Olmec phase (c. 1500-1150), there was a


49 rapid growth of settlements and their associated populations that litera lly set the stage for the emergence of the San Lorenzo Horizon Olmec. During this temporal period, San Lorenzo appears to be a prototypical example of a central place model. The demographics, monumental sculpture, el ite controlled craft production, among other sociopolitical and spatial aspect s support this identification. By the Middle Formative period (c 900-400 BC), signifi cant social and demographic transformations had occurred, however. Symonds (2000:66; Symonds et al. 2002:figures 4.4, 4.7) notes a 43 percent drop in the number of sites and more than a 90 percent decline in population in the region contiguous to San Lorenzo, and a coeval change in the site types and diminished or ganizational complexity. San Lorenzo rapidly declined in regional prominence and population as secondary sites moved away from the center (Coe and Koontz 2002:72; Cyphers 1996b, 1997b). During the Late Formative period (c. 400 BC-AD 100) the region was abandoned; only a handful of small sites remained in the area (Symonds 2000:68-69). The reasons for the abandonment of the area remain unresolved. Revolt, invasion, or natura l hazards have been cited as possibilities (Borstein 2001; Coe and Diehl 1980a; Cyphers 19 94). Changes in the an cient channels of the Coatzacoalcos River have also been attributed to the sites decline (Prez and Cyphers 1997), and Symonds et al. (2002) c onclude the lands surrounding San Lorenzo may have exceeded their carrying capacity. La Venta Based on early radiocarbon dating (Dru cker et al. 1957) and chronological ceramic crossties from nearby San Andrs (von Nagy et al. 2001), we know that La


50 Venta reached and maintained its sociopol itical preeminence between approximately 900 and 400 BC. With its initial rise corres ponding to the decline of San Lorenzo, the concurrence of dates have le d social theorists and others to claim that following the decline of San Lorenzo, its power passed to La Venta (Coe and Koontz 2002:73; Weaver 1993:65). Due to the restricted investigation of La Venta since the 1960s, more is known about its hinterlands than the ceremonial ce nter itself relative to secure chronology and construction sequences. It is, therefore, impo ssible at this time to ascertain when La Venta actually began its emergence as a majo r participant in Formative period Southern Gulf Lowland sociopolitical activities and wh at relationship, if any, existed with San Lorenzo. The initial report about the site of La Venta in western Tabasco, Mexico, was made following a survey of the region in 1925 by Blom and La Farge (1926). Their account included photographs of a number of monumental sculptures and diagram of the site that illustrated a large pyramidal structur e. In the early 1940s, Stirling was assisted by Drucker in his explorations of La Venta. Drucker later resumed investigations and, in 1952, published a book on the ceramics and ar twork recovered at La Venta. The following year he published the results of a regional survey conducted near La Venta with Contreras (Drucker and Contreras 1953). Drucker continued his work at La Venta in 1955, with Heizer and Squier (Drucker and Heizer 1956; Drucker et al. 1957, 1959) in a project that illustrated the scope and scale of dedicatory offerings and caches pres ent at the site in addition to numerous examples of monumental scul pture. Heizer and Drucker re visited La Venta in 1967 and 1968 for further excavations and verified occupation dates through radiocarbon dating


51 techniques (Berger et al. 1967; Heizer 1968; Heizer, Drucker et al. 1968; Heizer, Graham et al. 1968). In 1984, INAH initiated a new proj ect at La Venta under the direction of Rebecca Gonzlez-Lauck and, in 1988, the La Venta Archaeological Project was established to protect and i nvestigate the site. Her efforts resulted in substantive investigations within the prim ary civic-ceremonial center and outside the core zone. The civic-ceremonial center of La Venta is situated atop a natural salt dome that rises well above the surrounding floodplain. In the adjacent lowland zone, over 100 precolumbian settlement areas have been locate d within a 20 km radius of the sites core; 58 of these have been determined to ha ve existed during La Ventas ascendancy (Gonzlez-Lauck 1996b:80). In 1986 and 1987, William Rust conducted a series of surveys and excavations in and around La Venta (Rust 1988, 1992; Rust and Leyden 1994; Rust and Sharer 1988). Test units around the perimeter of the La Venta ceremonial district uncovered permanent Middle Formativ e period settlement feat ures that included urn burials, ceramic offerings, house floors, st orage pits, and a serpentine and greenstone workshop (Rust 1988:103, 1992:125). Using aerial photography of the region, Ru st plotted the course of an ancient riverbed associated with the Ro Bar that had flowed around the northeast sector of La Venta. Surveys and test excavations located ni ne settlement areas, fi ve of which had sites demonstrating extended Middle Formative occ upations that ranged from 2-12 km away from the main center of La Venta. This evidence indicated a substantial Middle Formative occupation of the ceremonial center and showed conclusively that La Venta was not an empty center, as had been claimed by Drucker, but had evolved into a permanent, domestic settlement (Rust 1992:125; Rust and Sharer 1988:102).


52 Both the emergence and decline of La Venta as a major Middle Formative period center are associated with changes in the surrounding ri ver systems. Between 1000 and 900 cal BC, elevated river levees and sandy poi nt bars were created by the fluvial action. Population densities reached their peak between 800 and 600 BC, a period when La Venta was surrounded by closely spaced ri verside hamlets (von Nagy et al. 2001:3). Around 500 BC, the intrusion of the Grijalva Rive r system affected th e course of the Ro Bar and affected the development of the Mezcalapa Delta (Jimnez-Salas 1990). These natural events coincided with the significant decline in occupation at the riverine sites and, by 400 BC, the La Venta center and other sites in the adjacent river systems were essentially abandoned (GonzlezLauck 1996b:75; von Nagy 1999:13). More intensive investigation of the de nse riverine settlement surrounding La Venta indicated that a hierarchal support sy stem was in place. Among secondary sites, differences in architectural remains, imported objects, ceramic assemblages, and subsistence items have been recorded, sugges ting a clear differentiati on of status in the sociopolitical hierarchy (Pope et al. 2001; Raab et al. 1995; Rust and Sharer 1988; Stokes 1999; von Nagy et al. 2001). Complexes A and C in the archaeological zone of La Venta are the primary source for information pertaini ng to Middle Formative period life on the Southern Gulf Coast (Gonzlez-Lauck 2001:799) (Figure 2.2). The Olmec occupation of La Venta is believed to have ranged from around 1200 to 400 BC (Gonzlez-Lauck 1996b:73), when the site core reached an areal extent of 5 km. A number of charac teristics differentiated La Venta from other Olmec sites. Architectur ally, La Venta was unique. The site was laid out on a cardinal axis (8 west of magnetic north) and contained multiple elevations that


53 appear to characterize it as a ceremonial center a sacred landscape arranged in accordance with acknowledged tenets of Mesoamerican sacred space (Adams 1997; Freidel et al. 1993:132-137; Gonzlez -Lauck 1996a, 1997; Heyden and Gendrop 1980:15; Reilly 1999,2002; Stuart 1993). According to these interpretations, the underworld is represented by massive buried offe rings of stone, adobe blocks, clays, and sand constructed as giant mosaics and o fferings; while pyramids, temples, and monumental sculptures delin eated the heavenly cosmos. The scale of labor-intensive projects conducted during the Olmec occupation at La Venta dwarfed any previous undertakings in Mesoamerica. For example, the stone to produce the 159 monumental scul ptures recovered in greate r San Lorenzo amounted to 150 m with an approximate weight of 525 metric tons (see Cyphers 2004:12). The acquisition of these materials occurred numerous times over mo re than a century. At La Venta, the underlying foundation of the southw est platform in Complex A was apparently produced in a single construction episode and co nsisted of 387 m of cut serpentine stone, weighing an estimated 1,000 tons (Drucker et al. 1959:97). This formation was only a portion of what the excavators referred to as Massive Offering 1. There are two additional Massive Offerings in the same court complex (Drucker et al. 1959:128-133). Much has been made of the similarities of colossal heads and thrones present at San Lorenzo and La Venta, but the apparent soci al perceptions and concepts embodied within these pieces change dramatically. Recentl y, Clark (2005) has identified significant differences in the art and its presentation at both sites. La Venta leaders depicted themselves as divine-kings, and jade and greenstone, which was pr actically non-existent at San Lorenzo, was the stone of choice at La Venta. Monumental sculpture was moved


Figure 2.2. Map of central La Ve nta architectural complexes (after Gonzlez-Lauck 1996:74) and repositioned around San Lorenzo (Cyphers 1997a), while at La Venta carved stelae were permanently implanted in the ground. De tails carved into the sculptures were intended for intimate viewing and the comm unication of ideologies (Clark 2005:214). The ideas of permanence and kingly au thority were carved and painted on boulders, stone slabs, caves, and cliffs (C lark 2005:214-215). A dis tinctive series of monumental stone carvings were positione d along primary communication routes across Mesoamerica during an interval in the Middle Formative period (c. 900 to 700 BC) (Clark and Pye 2000:227). They contain comp arable subject matter, art style, and 54


55 iconographic detail, and appear to have been rendered according to the artistic canons developed by artisans at the La Vent a ceremonial center (Gonzlez-Lauck 2001:800). The stylistic and iconographic similarities are seen in the portrayal of clothing, headdresses, body positions, and ador nments (Clark and Pye 2000:228). Sculptural examples of this temporally limited and shared art-style are found at Chalcatzingo, Morelos (Grove 1984-68); Amuco, Guerrero (Grove and Paradis 1971); along the Soconusco Coast at Pijijiapan, Tzutzu culi, and Abaj Takali k; at the sites of Xoc, in central Chiapas; Loltn, in northern Yucatan; and the most distant image was found at Chalchuapa, El Salvador (see: Clark and Pye 2000:226-230; Sharer 1978) (Figure 2.3). Paintings found in Juxtlahu aca and Oxtotitlan, Guerrero may be an extension of these ca rvings (Grove 1970). These sculptural examples appear to be evidence of exchange and interaction between the people of La Venta and those in distant di spersed locations, and may be indicative of some level of Gulf Coast influence w ithin the territory (Grove 2001:557). The appearance of the stylistically and thematica lly similar monumental carved stone images may have been a public symbol of participation in the Mesoamerican exchange and acquisition system. Taube (2000, 2004) and Reilly (1991, 1995, 2005) consider various, primary iconographic elements in each of thes e sculptures as being related to maize. By the Middle Formative period (c. 900 to 400 BC), corresponding isotopic and botanical evidence indicates that maize was a lesser part of the human diet along the Gulf Coast lowlands (Pohl et al. 1996; Pope et al. 2001). In the nearby Tuxtla Mountains, maize is not seen as a major portion of the diet until the Terminal Formative period (c. 100 BC to AD 200) (VanDerwarker 2006:190). With the wealth of alternative


Figure 2.3. Monolithic Sculptures from c. 970 to 800 cal BC (Clark and Pye 2000:228; Drucker et al. 1959:217) terrestrial and aquatic subsistence resources naturally av ailable along the Southern Gulf Lowlands, concerted agricultural production may not have been required or desired (see Blake 2006; Coe 1981; Coe and Diehl 1980a). Thes e data suggest that the inhabitants of San Lorenzo (c. 1300-900 BC) and later La Venta (c. 900-400 BC) may not have been fully agricultural societies. Thus, it is possible that the significance of maize among 56


57 Formative period Southern Gulf Lowland polities may have been more symbolic or ritual in nature than subsistence oriented (Bla ke 2006; Blake et al. 1992; Smalley and Blake 2003). The scale of La Ventas monumental cons tructions and labor-intensive projects, craft production, subsistence methods, and long-distance exchange networks demonstrate a centralization of power and authority. Th e spatial and hierarchal arrangement of residences, specialized craf t production areas, subsistence areas, civic-ceremonial architecture corresponds well with the central place model. The temporal duration and geographic scope of the site sociopolitical interaction further s upport this premise. Nevertheless, further investig ation of the residential areas and activity areas in and around the site core is require d to develop a more nuanced view of the sociopolitical organization and how it changed over time. Laguna de los Cerros Laguna de los Cerros has long been a source of considerable and unwarranted confusion (Diehl 2004:47). The Formative period occupation of the site may be the most widely misunderstood event in the investigatio n of the Southern Gulf Olmec. In many ways, the situation regarding this site can be viewed as a microcosm of the difficulties encountered in many phases of Formative peri od Southern Gulf Lowland studies. Limited investigations have led to unwarranted assumptions that form many generally held interpretations.


58 The site has been variously described as a principal Olmec site (Pohl 1999:21; Weaver 1993:53), an Olmec capital (Adams 1997), a primary Olmec center (Drennan 1991:267; Gillespie 2000a:95), and a site co mparable to San Lorenzo and La Venta (Soustelle 1984). Other interpretations concl ude that Laguna de los Cerros dominated the settlement hierarchy (Santley et al. 1997:203), was one of the most powerful settlements in the realm of the Olmec (Feder 2007:432), and was a great Olmec twin capital along with San Lorenzo (Coe and Diehl 1980a:293, 39 4). All of these conc lusions, as to the significance of Laguna de los Ce rros during the late Early Fo rmative period, are based on the presence of numerous Olmec-style sculpt ures and extensive architectural remains. The site is located a few kilometers s outh of the present-day town of Corral Nuevo in southern Veracruz (see Figure 1.1). Fo r all of its notoriet y, the site has been subject to only two brief on-site archaeologi cal investigations spaced more than 60 years apart (Cyphers 2003; Medelln-Zenl 1960) and a number of tangential studies of surface collections and artifact re-analyses (Borst ein 2001; Bove 1978; Gillespie 2000a; Grieder 1968). More than 40 stone monumental sculptur es have been recovered in or near Laguna de los Cerros. As has been the case in many interpretations of Southern Gulf Lowlands sites, it is these carvings that dr aw the greatest attenti on of scholars and the public. At Laguna de los Cerros, the presence of these sculptures and the more than 90 mounds that cover the site have been interpreted as evidence for a large Formative period population (Diehl 2004:47) and have directly led to its assign ed status as a major center as pointed out above.


59 Medelln-Zenl (1960) found la rge quantities of late Classic ceramics across the site, including underneath the Olmec-styl e stone sculptures, and for this reason temporarily assigned the site and its cont ents to AD 600 to 900 (Diehl 2004:47). The ceramic materials recovered by Medelln-Zenl was re-analyzed by Bove (1978) who convincingly demonstrated that there wa s also evidence for an Early Formative occupation. As a result of this analysis, he directly associated the Early Formative ceramics with the construction of the architectural remains in which they were recovered. The implication was that the buildings we re of Formative period origin and the significant number of carved Olmec monuments indicated the site was a primary Olmec center. In 1997 and 1998, Cyphers (2003:7) conducted dozens of excavati ons at the site, some adjacent to the locations of Medell n-Zenls 1960 tests. She found that the Formative period material had been used as construction fill for the Late Classic structures. The stratigraphy in the excavations plus burials and their contents indicated that the older Formative material was de posited over newer Late Classic deposits (Cyphers 2003:6-8). Borstein (2001:168) also conducted surveys of the site in 1997 and 1998, and concluded that during the San Lorenz o Horizon, the period of the sculptural corpus at the site, Laguna de los Ce rros was a small administrative site. Various lines of indirect evidence suggest the site was established by inhabitants of San Lorenzo as a subsidiary or support si te. For example, the absence of Pre-Olmec ceramics (i.e., Chicarras phase material) at Laguna de los Cerros (Coe and Diehl 1980a:150; Medelln-Zenl 1960) and the abrupt appearance of diagnostic San Lorenzo pottery (Borstein 2001; Bove 1978; Cyphers 2003:7) suggest that the initia l occupation of


60 the site was tied to San Lorenzo. Additionally, the precipitous decline of population in and around the area temporally mirrors the demise of San Lorenzo (Borstein 2001), a situation that further suggests a client-patr on relationship. Collectively, these data suggest Laguna de los Cerros may have been a central place but secondary or supportive of another larger or controlling site. Cyphers (2003:6-8) states that she found no support for any Formative period constructions. On the other hand, the Late Classic Villa Alta phase construction complex presents an entirely different picture of th e sociopolitical organization at the site. The stone sculptures attributed to the Formativ e period had, evidently, been moved by later inhabitants and their method and place of deposition did not appear to follow Formative period protocols for such items. Additionall y, whereas San Lorenzo and La Venta are located immediately adjacent to major alluvial river systems, Laguna de los Cerros is positioned on a broad plain between two small streams, Zanja Prieta and Zanja Grande. The closest stream is approximately 1 km fr om the site, and both drain south-southwest to the San Juan River floodplain. These enviro nmental conditions are not what would be expected for a large, highly populated cen ter. Unquestionably, more thorough and directed investigations are required to elucid ate a more accurate depiction of the site and its environs. Las Limas, La Oaxaquea, and Ojo de Agua The sites of Las Limas, La Oaxaquea, and Ojo de Agua are located upstream from San Lorenzo along bends in the Coat zacoalcos River. Early Formative period pottery has been recovered from all three site s, a basalt monument was recovered at Ojo


de Agua, and the famous, iconographically rich greenstone figure was found at Las Limas (Figure 2.4). Mounds constructed at the la tter site were assumed to be the result of Formative period activities (Diehl 2004:57-58). Th e ascription of significant architectural construction to the Formative period along w ith the Las Limas figure has led to the assumption that this was a major center, ly ing along the southernmost boundary of the presumed Olmec Heartland (see Figure 1.1). The only investigation of Las Lima s was conducted by Gomez Rueda (1989, 1996), and the majority of his work dealt with surface collection and mapping. Although the San Lorenzo Horizon ceramics indicate an Early Formative period occupation, the sites size and significance cannot be established. Further, as at Laguna de los Cerros, the Figure 2.4. The Las Limas Figure (Clark 1993) 61


62 Formative period material appears to be construction fill for Late Classic constructions (personal communication, Poncia no Ortiz, Carmen Rodrguez, and Lourdes Hernndez, 2005). Thus, the significance of the site may again be exaggerated by unsupported claims. Little is known about La Oaxaquea a nd Ojo de Agua. Cobean (1996) conducted preliminary investigations of the former, where he encountered large quantities of Early Formative period ceramics. He also detected an unusual 10-m-deep by 15-m-wide ditch of unknown significance. No sculptures were recovered there, but at nearby Ojo de Agua a basalt monument was uncovered along w ith Formative period pottery. Although locational data assist with settlement patte rn analysis, the paucity of corroborative evidence does not allow confident statements to be made in regard to site organization, significance or the exte nt of cultural temporal associations. Observations on Formative Period Southern Gulf Lowland Sites The types of brief, preliminary investig ations discussed in this chapter for the latter four sites are the norm along much of the Southern Gulf Lowlands. These cursorytype investigations provide clues of what might be present but, unfortunately, do not supply the level of direct evidence required to reach conclusions regarding the degree of participation of these sites in the Formative period interaction spheres. The meagerness of satisfactory data from the region has been r ecognized and, although recent investigations have generated a broader database, significant types of basic information regarding these ancient people and their lifeways are l acking (see Diehl 2000b). There are multiple factors that have created this condition. For example, essent ial and fundamental questions


63 regarding subsistence, settlement, political organization, and ideology have either not been specifically addressed or adequately examined. An exception to this condition and a clear demonstration of the significance of this type of inve stigation is illustrated by the recent work of VanDerwarker (2006) on Formative period Southern Gulf Coast subsistence systems. The lack of data is not an indictment of the researchers, but an acknowledgement of the limitations of inquiry caused by rest ricted funding, the limits imposed on field projects, and the lack of an overall investigative design that would contribute to a more focused approach and fuller understanding of the Olmec phenomenon. Stark (1997:10) has noted another difficulty that is shared by numerous researchers in that many studies remain archival manuscripts and licenciatura theses, to which access is difficult for the profession. In some cases field reports have not been made available to researchers as well. Nevertheless, for those outside the sphe re of Formative period Mesoamerican studies, these limitations have not prevented a diversity of models and inferences to be developed about the Gulf Coast Olmec. There has been much written about the Southern Gulf Lowland inhabitants and the breadth of their application to a variety of social theories has been discussed in Chapter 1. The majority of these models and hypotheses have been formulated from relatively limited direct information deri ved from the site of San Lorenzo, with occasional reference to La Venta. Therefore, the definition and usage of the Gulf Coast Olmec in cross-cultural soci al theory is based, almost exclusively, on two sites that are temporally and differe ntially distributed across the landscape.


64 The transitions that occurred during the Formative period were neither universal nor uniform; they occurred sporadically, in diverse places, and for numerous and varied reasons (Clark and Blake 1994:17). The durat ion of culturally a ssociated activities exceeded 1600 years (c. 1800-200 BC). Almost invariably, these diverse events are consolidated into a static so ciopolitical era based on perc eived similarities that are derived from a superficial re view of the data. These assumptions have established a conventional wisdom that suggests that unchanging sociopoliti cal, ideological, and economic systems occurred across space and time As more data are collected, some of these assumptions of equivale nce and uniformity have been shown to be inaccurate and misleading.


65 Chapter 3. El Marquesillo, Juan Rodrguez Clara, Veracruz, Mexico Introduction Prior to 2002, the archaeological sign ificance of El Marquesillo in the Municipality of Juan Rodrguez Clara was re stricted to a 32 m high precolumbian earthen mound known by locals as Cerro de Moctezuma (Hill of Montezuma). The earliest cartographic representation of the site appeared in an obscure nineteenth century map of unknown provenience. It depicted the monumental constructi on on the west bank of the middle San Juan River (Hernndez 2003:3). The structure is also mentioned briefly in Aguirre-Beltrns Pobladores del Papaloapan (1992). In early 2002, El Marquesillo was brought to the attention of the contemporary archaeological community when photographs of a carved Olmec tabletop throne (Figure 3.1) were published in El Liberal del Sur an Internet news outlet. This account was made after the monumental basalt throne had been fortuitously discovered by residents of the modern village in late 2001, and documented by Lourdes Herndez, an archaeologist with Centro INAH Veracruz, in January 2002. Evidence produced during the thrones ar chaeological recovery revealed it was ritually buried sometime dur ing the Middle to Late Form ative period (900 to 300 BC). Ancillary investigations suggested that the surrounding site was occupied on a consistent basis for the past 3,500 years, beginning in the pre-Olmec period (c. 1500 BC).


Figure 3.1. El Marquesillo throne wi th personage seated in niche Archaeological evidence to suggest significan t contact by precolumbian imperialists (e.g., Teotihuacanos, Toltecs, or Aztecs) is lack ing. It also appears that early Spanish colonizers along with contemporary rese archers also overlooked this region. Preliminary evidence suggests 3,500 year s of occupation began in the Early Formative period (c. 1500 BC) and extends to the present day. To understand this extended period of cultural con tinuity, it is beneficial to compile as comprehensive an assemblage of data regarding the site as possible. To accomplish this objective, this chapter examines the ethnohist oric, archaeological, and ge ophysical record of El Marquesillo. The initial section of the chapter describes the physiography of the surrounding landscape and the dynamic natural processes that cont inue to impact the site. The following section is a chronological a ssessment of the sites occupation based on regional ceramic cross-ties to well-documented collections that begins with the Early Formative period (c. 1500-900 BC) and con tinues through the Classic periods (c. AD 66


67 300-900). Historical documentation of the Late Postclassic, Spanish Contact, Colonial period occupations is also pr ovided, and it incorporates et hnohistorical descriptions assembled from Aztec tribute lists and Sp anish chronicles. Information on local and regional events is then presented for the peri ods of Mexican Independence, the Porfiriato, and the Revolution. The subsequent sect ion describes the development of the contemporary ejido of El Marquesillo during the twen tieth century. The final section of the chapter is a detailed account of the incidents that led to the 2001 discovery of the monumental Olmec throne. The 2002 rescue operation and ensuing 2003 investigation are discussed along with a brief overview of the significance of Olmec thrones. The Physical Geography of El Marquesillo For 3,500 years the San Juan River has rema ined a constant, dependable resource for natural and anthropogenic exploitation to meet the physical needs of the human occupants of El Marquesillo. Its waters natu rally drew terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, provided the nourishment for vibrant and varied botanical growth, and afforded transport and communication. The unique physical ge ography of the location has acted as a protector and provider for all it s living occupants. It is possi ble that to the precolumbian inhabitants of El Marquesillo the river and its surrounding landscape were a unifying factor, providing safety and s ecurity. To external Classic a nd Postclassic period cultures, however, the lands and natural barriers that encircled El Marquesillo permitted the region to remain distant and secluded. This asserti on is based on the fact that stylistic and political influences from Teotihuacn, Tula, El Tajn, and Tenochtitln are seen at the outer fringes of the area, but not within th is region (Arnold 20 03a; Daneels 1997; Diehl


2000a; Stark 1991). This apparent insulation from outside intrus ion will be demonstrated throughout the remainder of the chapter. At El Marquesillo, the San Juan River is the interface betw een two ecological communities, rolling uplands and low alluvial plains (see Castri 1992). The interface contains a greater than usual range of speci es, a situation attractiv e to hunters (see Coe and Diehl 1980, Appendices 1 and 2:157-187 fo r a comprehensive listing of regional flora and fauna). The west bank of the river, where the site is located, is an elevated prominence of a Miocene Epoch geologic f eature that rises 8-12 m above the river (Figure 3.2). The east bank of th e river is a low-lying alluvial plain, marked by levees and oxbow lakes. Annual alluvial flooding of the lower east bank creates excellent opportunities for agricultural pr oduction that results in hi gh yields, and the inundations overflow the banks and levees transforming th e extensive lowlying pl ains into veritable lakes that, in the past, teemed with aquatic resources (Coe 1981; Coe and Diehl 1980b). Figure 3.2. Illustration of the cut bank at El Marquesillo. The s ite is situated atop the bank and is well above the flood stage river levels. 68


69 The features of the San Juan are charact eristic of a meandering river system: a sinuous channel, a wide floodpl ain containing abandoned channel segments, point bars or areas of deposition on the convex or inte rior bank, and eroded banks on the opposing concave side. At El Marquesillo, the site is on the outside edge of the meander, it is on this outside arc of the curve where the water moves fastest. The speed of the water along this bank erodes the channel wa ll, creating a cut bank. Figure 3.2 illustrates the site of El Marquesillo atop this cut bank. Figure 3.3 illustrates these features of a meandering river floodplain. This aerial image of the topography at El Marquesill o show the scars left by the meandering movement of the river course. Observati on of the ancient channels suggests the maximum distance the river migrated from its present course was less than a kilometer; a distance that should not have caused any significant difficu lties for occupants of El Marquesillo. This suggestion is supported by the fact that Fo rmative period occupational areas and Late Classic architectural complexes are basically side by si de; a situation that would not be expected to occur if the river course had changed significantly. Sequent aerial photographs of the same ar ea show the changes in the river channel and its effects on the archaeological site of El Marquesillo. Examination of aerial and satellite imagery of the river at this locati on indicates that since the early 1970s the river channel has remained constant and fo llowed the 1991 course shown in Figure 3.3. Accounts by long-term residents of El Marque sillo suggest this flow of the San Juan River has remained unchanged since the late 1940s. The flow of the river is south to north or bottom to top in the photos.


Figure 3.3. Aerial photo of El Marquesillo in 1991. River flow is from bottom to top of the photo, site is outlined in red (INEGI 1991). In 1994, major changes in the rivers cour se began to occur. Figure 3.4 shows the initial change of the channe l in 1994. Flooding caused the channel to flow over the low banks and onto the plain at the narrow neck of the southern (lower) meander, effectively eliminating the loop from the rivers flow, and creating a new channel. Figure 3.5 illustrates the same phenomena occurring to th e northern meander that residents report occurred in 1998. Today, these bypassed loops ha ve become isolated bodies of standing water called oxbow lakes. The ce ssation of the river channel into the southern loop or meander followed higher than normal flooding in 1994, and the closi ng of the northern loop occurred after monumental flooding in 1998. Both these abnormal inundations 70


Figure 3.4. Aerial photograph of El Marquesillo in 1994. Southern (lower) meander has been cut and e liminated from the rivers flow (INEGI 1994). Figure 3.5. Aerial photogra ph of El Marquesillo 2000. Northern meander has been cut through and eliminated from the rivers flow (INEGI 2000). 71


occurred in conjunction with El Nio even ts (Duffy and Bryant 1999). Figures 3.3 to 3.6 illustrate the changing course of the San Juan that directly impacted the site. Figure 3.6 shows the river in 1991, prior to changes in the course. The channel directly impacted El Marquesillo at three se parate locations. This directional flow had been virtually unchanged since at least the early 1970s. In the photograph, letter A indicates the area of the site where both pre-Olmec and Olmec period ceramic evidence was recovered and is considered to represen t the earliest extant occupational zone. Letter B denotes where the flow impacted the si te where the Olmec throne was eventually exposed. The location illustrate d by letter C is where the Cl assic period Villa Alta phase architectural complex was breached by the collapse of the cut bank. Figure 3.6. Aerial photo of El Marquesillo in 1991. A indicat es the region of the site containing pre-Olmec and Olmec ceramics, B denotes location of the Olmec throne, and C is where the Classic period archit ectural complex is being impacted (INEGI 1991). 72


73 At each of these three points of contact, the river current encounters the elevated bank upon which El Marquesillo is situated. The flow of the river destroys the elevated landform by undercutting the banks at their base. The undercut deepens until the weight of the ground above can no longer be supported and a portion of the wall collapses; an effect analogous to the calving of glaciers (Figure 3.7). This phenomenon occurs during flood stage or when the river channel changes. After the El Nio enhanced floods of 1994, the southern meander at El Marquesillo was cut off and th e new channel intensified th e destruction along the portion of the west bank that contained the Classic period Villa Alta phase architectural complex (Figure 3.8). The intensive flooding in 1998 cau sed the neck of the northern meander to be breached, which resulted in the loss of thous ands of square meters of land surface at El Marquesillo. The loss included numerous homes of contemporary inhabitants (see Figure 3.7) and extensive archaeological constructions. The San Juan River is more than a cultural and ecological border, however. Contemporary researchers have used the rive r as a topographically convenient line at or near which to halt their regional archaeol ogical surveys (Borstein 2001,2005; Killion and Urcid 2001). The river has also been employe d as an arbitrary dividing line between cultural and linguistic groups (AguirreBeltrn 1992; Delgado-Caldern 1997b,2000). This artificial boundary line has prevented a more complete consideration and understanding of the demographic and soci opolitical development in the region. El Marquesillo is on the other si de of the river, and its exis tence has not been anticipated. Locational models and associat ed hypotheses that were asse mbled prior to its discovery will need to be reconsidered.


Figure 3.7. Stratigraphic river cut bank. Arro w indicates undercut line that led to the collapse of the upper wall. Note portions of a contemporary concrete house foundation remain atop cut bank (upper circle). Remainder of the slab has fallen to the bottom of the bank (lower circle). Figure 3.8. Aerial photograph illustrati ng areas impacted by river channel. D indicates the Classic period constructions being impacted and E illustrates the location in the contemporary eji do of El Marquesillo, which included numerous precolumbian constructions as well (INEGI 2000). 74


75 El Marquesillos geographic location on the San Juan River provided strategic socioeconomic advantages. For people living in riverine environments, such as those in the Tonala, Coatzacoalcos, Papaloapan, a nd San Juan River basins, it has been established through archaeologi cal and ethnohistoric data th at water transport was the most effective and efficient mode of conveyance (Berdan and Anawalt 1997:113; Coe and Diehl 1980b:54-59; Doering 2002:97; Navarrete 1978; Rust and Sharer 1988; Scholes and Warren 1965:779). Gr ove (1968:182) contends th at Formative period trade nodes were located on constricted passes along ro utes that were positioned to monitor the flow of goods. A cursory examination of the river network around El Marquesillo demonstrates that its position was a natural hub or focal point for multiple routes that connected a variety of locali ties, both nearby and distant. Figure 3.9 illustrates that the tributaries of the San Juan create a broad network linking numerous regional ecological regions. One of the two primary tributaries of the San Juan is the Ro La Lana whose headwate rs begin at Cerro Mira dor, Oaxaca (1536 m asl). La Lanas principal tributary is the Colo rado River, which exte nds to the slopes of Nudo de Zempoaltpetl, Oaxaca (3412 m asl), both of these sources are deep in the Sierra de Juarez in Oaxaca. The second principal tribut ary to the San Juan is the Trinidad River, which is fed by the Chisme and Puxmetacn rivers. These waters drain the northern slope of Cerro Casa de Piedra (2348 m asl), which is less than 15 km north of the Tehuantepec River. The Tehuantepec flows out of the easte rn end of the Valley of Oaxaca and empties into the Pacific Ocean at Salina Cruz. To the northeast of El Marquesillo, Arr oyo Zanja Grande and Arroyo Zanja Prieta flowed past either side of Laguna de lo s Cerros. These paleochannels resulted from


Figure 3.9. Illustration of the San Juan River and its primary tributaries drainage off the southern slopes of the Santa Marta portion of the eastern Tuxtla Mountain Range. These rivers merged and en tered the San Juan le ss than a kilometer upstream and on the opposite side from El Marquesillo. The riverine network described lies upstr eam from El Marquesillo. On the route downstream, the Hueyapan, Zapoapan, and other rivers enter from the Tuxtla region well to the north. To reach the Gulf of Mexico, the San Juan flows through 30 km of perennial swampland before it joins the Papaloapan Ri ver at Tlacotalpan. Th ese waters continue into the Laguna Alvarado and out to the Gulf. The San Juan River System and the unique topographical features at El Marquesillo afforded the residents with a variety of sociopolitical and economic advantages. The following section will describe how inhabitants exploited the resources 76


77 of the location for more than 3,500 years. Through archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic evidence the reasons for the con tinuity of human occupation at the site become apparent. The Ceramic Chronology of El Marquesillo The Formative Period (c. 1500-100 BC) Ceramics recovered at the site indicate th at a portion of the la nd that composes the contemporary ejido of El Marquesillo was inhabited after 1500 BC. Ojochi (1500-1350 BC), Bajo (1350-1250 BC), and Ch icharras (1250-1150 BC) phase ceramics (Coe and Diehl 1980a), most in the form of tecomates, were recovered from a single, limited area of the upper embankment of the San Juan Rive r. The quantity and location of these pieces suggest a small occupational area, but consider ation must be given to the fact that the river action that exposed this area may have washed away evidence of a more substantial presence. The ceramic chronologies employed are derived from the work of Coe and Diehl (1980:131-222), and Ortz ( 1975; Ortz and Santley 1989). Numerous examples of Calzadas Carv ed and Limn Carved-Incised ceramics, diagnostic of the San Lorenzo pha se (1150-900 BC), among various other contemporaneous types (Coe and Diehl 1980a), suggest a slightly larger occupation towards the end of the Early Formativ e period (c. 1200-900 BC). Middle Formative period ceramics (900-400 BC) that correlate with the Nacaste and Palangana phases at San Lorenzo are notably more prevalent and widespread. Numerous types of black and white bichrome vessel forms are present as are variants of the double-line motif,

PAGE 100

78 transitioning from continuous to broken-lin e segments on the vessel rims. The greatest quantity of Preclassic ceramics is attributab le to the Late Formative period (c. 400-100 BC). These diagnostic types include multiple va rieties of differentially fired bichromes and polished blackwares. Stratigraphic analysis, conducted during my investigation, of the exposed cut bank suggests that low platform construction occurred during the transition from the Early to the Middle Formative period. The sp atial distribution of these constructions extended to the north of the Olmec throne location approximately 500 m. The Classic Period (c. AD 100-900) The subsequent proto-Classic and Early Classic periods (c. 100 BC-AD 500) are represented by a continuation in the evolution of the styles, forms, and decorations that developed during the Formative period. Variat ions of the double-line break continue to be prominent, but there is a notable differe nce in the pastes and firing techniques. It appears the local ceramic producers were consistently improving and mastering technologies that allowed them to produce fi ner wares. Similar conclusions have been reached by other investigators (Daneels 1988; Feinman et al. 1989; Killion and Urcid 2001; Pool and Britt 2000; Rice 1977; Stark and Arnold 1997:25; Stark and Curet 1994). At El Marquesillo, the evidence implies that cultural continuity extended into the Late Classic period, which is characterized by V illa Alta phase architecture and ceramics. Villa Alta related materials also appear to be produced consistently into the Postclassic era along the same evolutionary lines. Th ere is no archaeolo gical indication of interruption in the oc cupation of the site.

PAGE 101

79 The extensive Villa Alta architectural co mplex at El Marquesillo (see Figure 3.10) is associated with the Late Classic and possibl y the early Postclassic period. This type of compound has also been referred to as a l ong-plaza building complex (Killion and Urcid 2001:11) and, because of its consistent archite ctural arrangement, is easily recognizable on the landscape. There are significant variat ions in the scale and complexity of these compounds from site to site, and Killion a nd Urcid (2001:11-12) ha ve developed a threetiered site hierarchy from a comp arative analysis of the data. At El Marquesillo, the 32 m high earthen pyramid known as Cerro de Montezuma anchors the north end of a 165 m long plaza (see Figure 3.10). This grand plaza is bordered on the east and west by two parallel range-type buildings rising from 3-8 m in height. A smaller, ovoid-shaped mound comple tes the restricted en closure on the south. This plaza complex is located approximatel y 250 m south of the Olmec throne location. The central complex and its associated structures are in excess of 50 with a number of pyramidal bases supporting four or more superstructures. The true extent of this portion of the site will also never be know n due to the elimination of structures by the rivers erosive action. All of the constructions believed to be associated with this Late Classic complex lie to the sout h and west of the primary pl aza group, and all are oriented on a roughly north-to-south axis. A second, smaller and less complex Villa Alta architectural grouping is located approximately 1400 m northwest of the primary Late Classic complex. A limited, informal survey of the region produced evid ence of at least si x more Villa Alta complexes within 4 km to the south of El Ma rquesillo. There are more as one travels in any direction away from the site, but none riva l the principal complex in size and quantity

PAGE 102

Figure 3.10. Map illustrating th e Villa Alta Phase Complex at El Marquesillo (after Campos and Marn in Hernndez and Barrera 2002) 80

PAGE 103

81 of constructions. This formal architectural pattern is documented in central Veracruz (Daneels 1997), the lower Pa paloapan drainage (Stark 1999), and throughout the Southern Gulf Coast lowlands (Blom and LaFarge 1926; Ceja-Tenorio 1997; Coe and Diehl 1980a; Killion and Urcid 2001). Although th ese types of complexes are a Classic period phenomenon, there is deba te concerning whether the ancestral roots of this complex design extend back into the Middle Formative period. Examination of the 400 m long river cut that intruded into th e eastern border of the Late Classic period architectural complex does not reveal evidence of any previous occupations under the Villa Alta comple x. Materials recovered from the surface collection in and around the complex also do not suggest any prior occupation of this particular space. Conversely, there is no eviden ce that any Classic or Postclassic period residences at Marquesillo were constructed where the original Early and Middle Formative settlement was established. The area of the Early and Middle Formative period settlement is located to the north of the Late Classic Villa Alta comple x and neither intrudes upon the other. Carmen Rodrguez (personal communi cation, 2006), a Centro INAH Veracruz archaeologist, commented that she encountered the same di rectional relationship between Formative and Villa Alta phase constructions at other s ites in the Coatzacoalcos drainage including El Macayal and La Merced. In the Hueyap an region, however, Thomas Killion (2006, personal communication) ha s not found this type of spatial relationship. Further investigation of this spatial relati onship at other sites may prove beneficial because evidence recovered at El Marquesillo suggests that the later inhabitants were aware of the Formative settlement location. A series of Late Cl assic or Postclassic

PAGE 104

82 offerings were intrusively deposited into the basal level of a Formative platform. To date, three discrete offering events have been de tected and are detailed in Chapter 5. The content, manner, and depositional placement of the ceramics suggest that the individuals making the offerings possessed knowledge of th e specific location and construction of the Formative period structures. The later inha bitants did not build or live on these two Formative period structures; the only evidence of the subsequent inhabitants is these apparently intentionally deposited items. Consideration of the 1500 to 2000 years that elapsed between the construction event and the depositional activity ma y indicate that the makers of the offerings were demonstrating deference for this ancestral place. If this interpretation is correct, it also suggests occupational c ontinuity and social memory. The development of ceramic styles and t echnologies at El Marquesillo occurred over significant time periods and shared fo rm, decoration, and technologies with groups, Olmec and pre-Olmec, located in the Coatzaco alcos drainage to the east. There are not any apparent intrusions of dominating or invasive influe nces from western external sources, however. Styles, forms, decorati on, or iconography from Teotihuacn, El Tajn, Tula, or Tenochtitln have not been detected at El Marquesillo. These influences appear at sites to the west and nort h, including Cerro de las Mesas and in the Tuxtla Mountain region (Diehl 2000a:172-173). Possible reas ons for this anomalous situation are presented in the following section. The extent and complexity of the Villa Alta architectural construction at El Marquesillo qualifies it for placement within the upper echelon of regional site hierarchy (Killion and Urcid 2001). During the Late Classic and early Postclassic periods, El Marquesillo was a major center with associa tions spanning much of the San Juan Basin.

PAGE 105

83 To achieve and maintain this elevated positi on within the sociopolitical hierarchy would have required significant populations and th e requisite organization for monumental construction, extensive subsiste nce, and productive exchange. The Postclassic Period (c. AD 900-1523) Throughout the Postclassic period, El Marquesi llo and its environs appear to have been insulated from western aggression. Ther e is no definitive evidence to suggest that Toltec or Aztec authority was ever imposed in the territory. Nevertheless, there does appear to have been an incident of an Az tec incursion near the region in the fifteenth century AD. According to Mexica account s (Aguirre-Beltrn 1989:46; Berdan and Anawalt 1997:113), following the conquest of the upper Papaloapan River Basin in 1457, emperor and military leader Motecuhzoma Ilhuicamina (Montezuma I) sent troops to the Basins lowlands. One military gr oup made its way upstream along the Ro Michapan (the Spanish designated San Juan River) but no claim of imperial conquest was made. Three decades later, th e exploits of Emperor Ahuitzotl (AD 1487-1502) expanded the territory of the Aztec realm and reasserted control over previous ly occupied areas. This increased acquisition app ears to have been driven by th e need for an expansion of income through trade and tribute to compensate for the dwindling economic resources of the empire (Berdan and Anawalt 1992). The emperor focused on the borderland regions, beyond areas incorporated by his predecessors, and possibly pushed near to the lower San Juan Basin, but records indicate this activity occurred well west of El Marquesillo (Aguirre-Beltrn 1989).

PAGE 106

84 A system of seoros, lordships or noble estates, predated even Aztec imperial dominions along the Southern Gulf lowlands (Delgado-Caldern 2000; Scholes and Warren 1965:779) (Figure 4.11). This well-established organization of feudal-type provinces was part of a hierarchal political and economic structure that was adhered to by the Aztec imperialists an d adopted later by the Spanish conquistadors. These sociopolitical divisions contained major centers ( cabeceras ), and subsidiary towns ( sujetos ) that supported the centers. The Aztec conquest of the Papaloapan Ba sin resulted in the establishment of a tribute collection center and military garrison in Tochtepec (Tuxtepec), near the presentday border of Oaxaca and Veracruz. Chronicles refer to the region as the Province of Tochtepec and describe a major tributary town of Tlacotlalpan located on the lower Papaloapan near the Gulf of Mexico (Berdan and Anawalt 1992; Delgado-Caldern 1997b) (Figure 3.11). This province was the sout hernmost tribute-paying region along the Gulf Coast and may have included the eastern section of the Tuxtla Mountains (Berdan and Anawalt 1997:112-114; Sc holes and Warren 1965:777). The emphasis on the Papaloapan Basin and the Tuxtla Mountain region appears to extend deep into the regions hist ory. Diehl (2000a:173) speaks of the convergence of natural communication routes in these areas by Earl y Classic traders from Teotihuacn that, exhibit evidence of sustained Teotihuacn contacts. From the Early Classic to the Postclassic periods, the overland routes c onverged along the Papaloapan at Tuxtepec. From this point, they separated; one going s outh to Oaxaca and the P acific side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the other followi ng the Papaloapan River north toward the Gulf and then east to the Tuxtla Mountain region. The Aztec Pocheteca or long-distance

PAGE 107

Figure 3.11. Map of the Southern Gulf Seoros at the time of the Spanish Conquest (after Delgado-Caldern 2000:29) traders, are known to have followed thes e same routes (Berdan and Anawalt 1992; Bittman and Sullivan 1978; Coe and Koontz 2002; Scholes and Roys 1948). Additionally, documents indicate that, during the Po stclassic period, the region from the Coatzacoalcos drainage to Laguna de Trmi nos was considered by the Aztecs to be enemy territory (Bittman and Sullivan 1978; Scholes and Roys 1948). This situation would indicate areas not incl uded in the imperial domain, and seemingly insulated from exterior influence. The Coatzacoalco seoro was the larg est province in the region and was independent from Aztec imperial rule at the time of the Spanish Entrada (Berdan 1996; Delgado-Caldern 2000:28; Thomas 1993:555-557) (Figure 3.11). The Solcuahutla 85

PAGE 108

86 seoro, which included El Ma rquesillo, was adjacent and subordinate to the autonomous Coatzacoalco (Delgado-Caldern 2000:28). So lcuahutla was inhabited by Mixe and Popoluca speakers. Popoluca is a Nahuatl term meaning forei gners or those that do not speak the Aztec language. The Popoluca tongue of southern Veracruz is associated with Mixe-Zoquean languages, which is possibly a descendent idiom of the Olmec and continues to be spoken in the vicinity of El Marquesillo (Campbell and Kaufman 1976; Foster 1940, 1942; Justeson and Kauf man 2003; Scholes and Warren 1965). Distinctive ceramic sculptural traditio ns similar to those from El Zapotal, Remojadas, and others from Central Veracruz did not make their way into the regions east of the Tesechoacn River. Stone yokes, h achas, and other stone sculpture that were associated with the rubber ballgame during the Epi-Classic florescence of El Tajn in northern Veracruz are not apparent in the region (see Bradley 2001; Filloy-Nadal 2001; Ortz and Rodrguez 2000). Conversely, Drucker (1947:7) argues that during the Formative period the lower reaches of the San Juan River were a hopele ssly uninhabitable morass of swamps [that] prohibited a westward extension of Olmec cultu re. He adds that, w hile some commerce may have been carried on through the tortuous network of channels that crisscross this no-mans land, intimate contactseems to have been made impossible by this geographic barrier. The conclu sion is that only limited soci opolitical interaction would have penetrated through this border region in either direction. Together, these various lines of eviden ce suggest that the region encircling El Marquesillo was politically and economica lly insulated from western imperialist incursions. The Papaloapan drainage is consiste ntly referred to as the eastern terminus of

PAGE 109

87 Teotihuacn and Aztec trade routes, which eith er turn north or south along the rivers course. The Tesechoacan region, immediately ea st of Tuxtepec, is identified as the eastern boundary of the documented Aztec tribute region (Berdan 1996). The seclusion of the region may have b een reinforced by natural geographical features. Sanders (1971) disc usses large tracts of swampy savannahs and perpetually waterlogged areas that prevented contiguous occupations. An extensive 30 to 40 km marshland begins at the confluence of the Tesechoacan and Playa Vicente Rivers and extends eastward. This marshland area, which may have acted as a natural barrier to overland travel, expanded during the annual inundations; its east ern limits are west of El Marquesillo (see Grove 1996:15; INEGI 2003). The sociopolitical geography and topographical features may have combined to insulate El Marquesillo from western influence, while facilitating interaction with polities to the east. Spanish Contact and Col onial Periods (c. 1524-1821) Early Spanish chroniclers referred to the Sotovento veracruzano as a vast region encompassing the low-lying floodplains of pr esent-day southern Ve racruz and western Tabasco (Delgado-Caldern 2000) (Figure 3.12). This area was circumscribed geographically by the Papaloapan River to the west, the Tonal River to the east, the Gulf to the north, and the Sierra Madre Mountai ns of Oaxaca and Chiapas to the south. Following the Conquest, the initial Coloni al political and ec onomic organization mimicked that of the Aztec Empire. Territorial divisions within the Spanish colonial Sotovento corresponded with the recognized indigenous seoros that were encountered during appropriation of lands (see Figure 3.12). Corts was aware that the region around

PAGE 110

Figure 3.12. Alcaldias Mayores of the Southern Gulf Lowlands. In the 16 th to 18 th Centuries this re gion was referred to as the Sotovento veracruzano by the Spanish (after Delgado-Caldern 2000:31). the heavily populated Coatzacoalcos lower dr ainage was beyond the tribute boundary of the Aztec Empire and, in 1522, dispatched Gonzalo (Gustavo) de Sandoval on an expedition to rectify that situation (Thomas 1993:549-556, 2000). Sandoval founded the Villa de Espiritu Santo on the right bank of the Rio Coatzacoalcos three leagues upstream from the Gulf (Scholes and Warre n 1965:777). There, he distributed land and natives to his Spanish counterparts, bu t the imposition was not accomplished without significant conflict with the in digenous inhabitants. These were some of the first encomiendas granted in New Spain, but the Spanish quickly realized the wealth of the 88

PAGE 111

89 land was not in the form of gold and silver and later abandoned th e region. Therefore, there is little information regarding the na tive society or related details (Scholes and Warren 1965:778). What was accomplished by this entrada was the introduction of European diseases that ra pidly decimated the population. In other parts of the Sotovento, the secula r Spanish administrators ensured that the continuation of the Aztec tri bute system would provide a si gnificant source of colonial revenues (Drucker 1970:ix). Colonial tax assessments from 1554 demonstrate that the region was an agricultural breadbasket. A diversity of native products including cacao, maize, beans, cotton, turkey, turtles, and hone y were harvested in substantial quantities. The success of exotic crops is evident in th e fact that sizeable quantities were being produced within a few decades of their intr oduction. Oranges, plantains, rice, cabbage, onions, watermelons, sugarcane, grapes, and mangoes became common foodstuffs by 1580 (Coe and Diehl 1980b:14). Cattle, pigs, chic kens also proliferated in the region. The hierarchal authority of these territori es or provinces within the precolumbian seoro political and economi c system was maintained by the Spanish colonizers. To accomplish this objective, the Spanish practice of erecting governmental and commercial centers on the site of major indigenous principalities (e.g., Me xico City; Merida, Izamal, and Valladolid, Yucatan) (Clend innen 1989:31-40) was continued in this region, albeit on a smaller scale. Major Spanish mayoral capita ls were established to act as provincial headquarters supplanting the indigenous centers that had controlled the same areas. More remote regions, like that around El Marquesillo, were slower to be organized into dependencies or tributaries of the Spanish regional centers.

PAGE 112

90 During the later po rtions of the 16 th century, an administ rative reorganization affected the jurisdicti onal boundaries of the Sotovento in southern Veracruz and western Tabasco. The Postclassic seoros were merged into a series of larger territories called Alcaldas Mayores (Figure 3.12) The lands surrounding El Marquesillo were incorporated into the Alcalda Mayor de Coatzacoalco-Acayucan (Scholes and Warren 1965:776). The governing seat of the province was located in the town of Acayucan, 34 km east-southeast of Marquesillo. Greater c ontrol and development of the rural areas were accomplished through a hierarchal hacienda system that was established at locations the Spanish believed would protect and prom ote their agenda. The placement of these subsidiary political and economic nodes appears to correspond to portions of Late Classic and Postclassic exchange networks in the region (see Killion and Urcid 2001; Urcid and Killion 2003). The hacienda system served to create economic opportunities for the European settlers, but it also initiated a chain of ev ents that altered the human and ecological landscape. The consequences of these changes co ntinue to be felt within the region to this day. The demographic landscape witnessed the decimation of the indigenous population and the introduction of slaves imported from Africa and the Caribbean (Carroll 2001). The exceptionally high mortality among i ndigenous peoples was a result of introduced diseases, epidemics, and the effects of forced labor. Excessive tribute demands, seizure of communal lands, and physical abuses forced the survivors to flee into the Tuxtla Mountains to escape the Span iards (Cook and Borah 1980). Colonial accounts report that in the region of Coatzacoalco between AD 1521 to 1580 the number of tribute payers dropped from about 50,000 to around 3,000. In the provincial center of

PAGE 113

91 Huaspaltepec (Playa Vicente), between AD 1522 and 1600, 80,000 households were reduced to 12 families living as refugees in the neighboring village of Mixtn (Paso y Troncoso 1939; Tren 1992). The dramatic reduction of indigenous popul ations meant that the Spanish would have to look elsewhere for a supplementa ry workforce if they were to benefit economically from their conquest. Recent evid ence indicates that Africans, either as slaves or indentured workers, were brought to Mexico early in the 16 th century (Seely 2006). During the Colonial era there were mo re people of African -Caribbean descent than Europeans in Mexico (Aguirre-Beltrn 198 1). Following the encounter, the earliest presence of Afro-Caribes is attributed to Hernn Corts and his heirs who used forced labor in the Tuxtla area as they initiated sugar producti on in the region. The imported laborers eventually infiltrated and settled in the region of the Middle San Juan River. Indigenous people were eager to befriend them due to their e xperience and abilities with European technologies (Delgado-Caldern 1995). The ecology of the region was also si gnificantly impacted by the implementation of the hacienda system. Following the military conquest of Mexico, the introduction of exotic cultivars and Old World grazing animal s initiated the biological conquest of New Spain (Melville 1994). European expansion was facilitated thr ough changes to the environment created by overgrazing, soil degr adation, and vegetation replacement. These changes to the Mexican ecosystems directly affected social transformations through a process of land acquisition and indigenous depopul ation that assisted in shaping colonial institutions.

PAGE 114

92 Modifications to social and ecological sy stems occurred in the Sotavento as a result of the large-scale production of suga r cane and extensive liv estock breeding. In 1780, more than 200,000 head of cattle and 25,000 horses were distributed among 20 primary haciendas and smaller community ranches (Delgado-Caldern 2000:32). Land clearing for sugar cane fields and grazing lands continued to e xpand since the middle 1500s and, by the end of the Colonial peri od, had permanently altered the human and ecological landscape. The name El Marquesillo first appear s on registry lists in 1793, and these Colonial period records indicat e that by this time, two prominent haciendas, Nopalapa and Solcuauhtla, were established along th e Middle San Juan-Michapan River (AguirreBeltrn 1992) (see Figure 3.12). Hacienda Nopalapa is 15 km northwest of present-day El Marquesillo, and Hacienda Solc uauhtla is believed to have been approximately 15 km to the southeast. Further co rroboration that this is indeed the El Marquesillo in question is the inclusion of El Zapote, Cerro del Indio, a nd Lomas de Hujuapan in the same records. The former are two nearby communities, while the latter is immediat ely adjacent to El Marquesillo. All of these places are associated with Hacienda Nopalapa. Expansive cattle ranching and horse breed ing took place in the area. This activity required the displacement of an already diminished indigenous population and the importation of enslaved people from the Cari bbean and Africa. Census archives from 1793 indicate 53 vaqueros negros, mulatos y pardos libres (cowboys who were black, of mixed ancestry, and freed slaves) lived in the Nopalapa and El Marquesillo area (Aguirre-Beltrn 1981; Delgado-Caldern 1995). The family names of these individuals,

PAGE 115

93 as listed in these records, include Romn, Molina, Romero, Domnguez, and Joachn. Today, families living in El Marquesillo share these same surnames. Independence, the Porfiriato and Mexican Revolution (AD 1822-1920) Although Mexico achieved independence from Spain in the early 1820s, the country was not a united entity, and continue d political factionalis m disrupted the nation (Bueno 2004). This internal conflict allowed co lonial economic processes to continue and expand relatively unchanged. It was not until the Porfiriato, which began in the middle of the 19 th century that significant changes began to affect the So tavento (Garner 2001). The environment along the southern Gulf Coast was further expl oited to help finance Mexicos growing economic debt (see Paz-Snchez 2000). Commercial-scale mono-cropping was instituted, cotton and tobacco production escalated, and the cultivation of tradit ional crops including corn and beans was intensified. The hacienda system continued to f acilitate economic expansion and the subjugation of the people. Any land that had no t been subject to clearing for grazing and agriculture was decimated thr ough intentional deforestation. Ports along the coast were expanded to handle the increase in exports of the lands natural resources. In 1873 alone, 15,810 tons of mahogany, cedar, and other hardw oods were shipped out of the Port of Coatzacoalcos, most going to England and a lesser amount to the United States (Blzquez 1986). Sugar cane production in the region e xpanded as the forests were cleared. Economically oriented international in tervention throughout the 1800s, primarily by the United States and France (Coe and Dieh l 1980b), led to a seri es of proposals to

PAGE 116

94 construct a canal across the Isthmus of Te huantepec to link the Gulf of Mexico, and thereby the Atlantic, with the Pacific. All these designs naturally centered completely on the Coatzacoalcos River Basin, the most dire ct route between the oceans and the one of least resistance. Ultimately, Po rfirio Daz inaugurated the Ferrocarril Interocenico de Tehuantepec in 1907. By the end of the 19 th century, the alterations to the landscape caused by the eradication of forests, forced mono-cr opping, and extended grazing areas forced the human inhabitants to adapt to the changing environmental pressures. These changes further altered the regional ecologies and, in turn, negatively impacted the flora and fauna. Exploration and processing of petr oleum, another natural resource of the Sotavento, was about to alter the region. Besides a further degradation of the environmental landscape, the petroleum indus try would have major social, political, and economic consequences for land use, tenure sy stems, and social organization (Grayson 1980; Santiago 2006). The Contemporary Period (c. 1921-2006) An ejido or communally farmed plot, is a uniquely Mexican method of redistributing large landholdings to farmers too to own for the land (DeWalt and Rees 1994). Under this process, members of the community could petition the government to seize private properties that exceeded specifi c limits. If the petition was reviewed and accepted, the government would expropriate th e land and create an ejido. The Mexican government retained title but gr anted the community members ( ejidatarios ) the right to farm the land, either collectively or th rough individualized parcels, or both. The

PAGE 117

95 community members had to work the land regular ly to maintain the right to use it and could not sell or mortgage the land, but coul d pass usufruct rights on to their heirs. Commentary by lifelong residents of El Marquesillo suggest that occupation by extended families existed during the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, but that the occupants had no legal claim to the land. In 1936, less than tw o decades after the Mexican Revolution, President Lzaro Crden as del Ro began an agrarian reform program that re-invigorated th e system of ejidos. This redistribution of land to campesinos or subsistence farmers, was an effort to diminish the domination of the still active and extensive hacienda syst em that originated in the 16 th century (Fallaw 2001). Crdenas transferred 18 million ha from the haciendas to ejidos, increasing the cultivatable land in possession of ejidos from 13 percent in 1930 to 47 percent in 1940. Juan E. Franyuti was the ow ner of the Hacienda Nopala pa-El Blanco in the early 20 th century. According to the Documentos Bsicos que Amparan la Propiedad Social y Poseson de la Tierra issued by President Lopez Portillo (1939), Franyutis estate included more than 13,000 ha (32,124 ac). On January 16, 1939, an official request was made to the Republic of Mexico on behalf of the 237 inhabitants of El Marquesillo, consisting of 59 families and individuals, to expropriate 980 ha (2422 ac) of this estate for the establishment of an ejido. This request was granted on May 6, 1939. Under the edict, 60 eight-ha parcels were distributed; one to each family or individual, and one additional parcel assigned to be used fo r community structures and schools. The remaining 500 hectares consisting of surroundi ng fields and hills were assigned for collective use by the inhabita nts (Lopez-Portillo 1939:66-67).

PAGE 118

96 Since at least the late 1800s, the ancestor s of El Marquesillo s ejido families had also farmed the low alluvial levees and pl ains that lay on the opposite bank of the San Juan River, an area that became known as El Remolino. The lands of El Marquesillo were elevated meters above the river, and even at flood stage they were available for dependable rainfed agriculture. Alluvial fa rming on the low levees and plains on the opposite side of the river were attractive fo r convenient and subs tantial agricultural production, but they were susceptible to destruct ion by the unpredictabili ty of the severity and timing of the inundations. Nevertheless, even with the thre at of damage, the exceptional productivity of these low-lying lands induced some families to construct permanent residences there. El Remolino was an ill-fated rancheria on the San Juans eastern floodplain, immediately downstream from El Marquesillo. Located on a river levee, the residents consistently and successfully cultivated the ri ch, sediment enhanced soils on the rivers floodplains for decades prior to the 1940s. In 1944, the Papaloapan River Basin and its tributary systems were severely impacted by an historically unprecedented inundation. This monumental deluge caused the resi dents of El Remolino to flee their settlement. Their homes, fields, and livestock were destroyed. Most sought refuge on the elevated lands of El Marquesillo. Above average annual floods had forced Remolinos residents to leave their homes on prior occasions but they had always been able to return once the water receded; this time was different For the most part, the survivors of the great flood settled permanently at El Marquesillo, and they and their families remain there today.

PAGE 119

97 The 1944 flood was a momentous event in th e lives of the people and in the establishment of contemporary El Marquesill o. A survey of extant headstones at El Marquesillo cemetery demonstrates the trauma suffered during this ordeal as evidenced by an unusually high number of elderly and j uvenile members of the families from El Remolino who died at this time. Memories of the catastrophic ep isode persist today among the survivors who use the ev ent as a chronological marker. Agricultural production was the prim ary attraction for the contemporary inhabitants. Corn production and dairy farm ing are utilized for both consumption and commerce. Residents, not only of El Marque sillo but, also of ne ighboring ejidos along the San Juan, prefer the annua lly inundated lowlands for the growing of crops. They consistently note a significant increase in production for less effort over upland cultivation. They attempt to time their plan tings to avoid the annua l flooding and balance the chances of crop loss with upland plantings as well. To accomplish this system the residents live and plant on the higher, west side of the Sa n Juan and cultivate the low alluvial east side in all but the flood season. The effects of the Great Flood of 1944 app ear to be receding from the social memory of the younger generation at El Mar quesillo. To reduce the time and expense of travel from their permanent residences to thei r planted fields in the alluvial lowlands on the opposite side of the river, they are buildi ng structures that are capable of providing shelter for short durations. Residents also move some of their cattle to graze on the naturally occurring, verdant gras ses of the eastern lowland plain and river islets. The dangers of flooding still exist, however. Even with planning and care, crops are destroyed by flood waters and, in 2005 several head of cattle were lost when the river rose

PAGE 120

98 unexpectedly. The suddenness of th e rising water level left th em stranded, and they were washed away before they could be retrieved. The Archaeology of El Marquesillo Cerro de Montezuma is a 32 m high pyramid-shaped, precolumbian earthen mound that is a well-known landscape feature to area occupants. Ac cording to Aguirre Beltrn (1992:46), following th e Mexica conquest of the upper Papaloapan River Basin in 1457, Emperor and military leader Mot ecuhzoma Ilhuicamina (Montezuma I) sent troops to the Basins lowlands. One group entered the Ro Michapan the Nahua name for the San Juan River prior to the Spanish de signation, and made their way upstream. It may well be that this incursio n of Montezumas troops affected the naming of the mound, which was probably more than 500 years old when the Aztec army passed by. The next official mention of Cerro de Montezuma in an archaeological context did not occur until 1998. According to INAH archaeologist Lino Espinoza Garca (1994, 1998, 2001), the late Seora Cruz Reich Pitalua of El Marquesillo visited him 1994, while he was conducting the Proyecto Rescate Arqueolgico Autopista La TinajaAcayucan. This cultural resource management type project was intended to identify and protect archaeological sites that could be impacted by the construction of a major interstate highway being built approximately 4 km from El Marquesillo. At that time, Seora Reich informed Espinoza that a numbe r of precolumbian artifacts had been found in the area and were being sold by local residents. She also told him that she had appealed for assistance in protecting the site to then President Ernesto Zedillo, because a number

PAGE 121

99 of ancient structures, including Cerro de Montezuma, were being impacted by changes in the course of the San Juan River (Espinoza-Garca 1998:1). Espinoza visited the site la ter in 1994 and sketched a partial map indicating the location of some of the more obvious architectural structures. In 1998, he revisited the site and submitted a brief unsolicited report to the Director of Centro INAH Veracruz that described possible detrimental effects of the San Juan River on El Marquesillo, Cerro de Montezuma, and other unidentified nearby site s (Espinoza-Garca 1998). In this account, Espinoza included a second sketch map made during his 1998 visit. This map reveals that, since his 1994 visit, thousands of square meters of the elevated site, including a five mound architectural complex, had been lost to the rivers erosive action. Ironically, the years of Espinozas visits to the site, 1994 and 1998, are the years of the El Nio enhanced floods that caused significant change s in the course of the San Juan River. At the conclusion of his 1998 report, Espinoza states he believes a survey to evaluate the endangered sites along the river is needed. A major event occurred in October, 2 001, when El Marquesillo resident Seor Angel Barrientos observed what he thought was a stone metate eroding out of the upper portion of a 9 m high cut on the western bank of the San Juan River. The stone was located in the ejido land parcel of Apolinar Capetillo. Furt her investigation by residents revealed a substantially larger piece of car ved stone. When it was realized that the piece was actually an artifact of significant archaeological in terest, municipal and INAH authorities were notified. The ar tifact turned out to be a monumental Olmec carved stone throne.

PAGE 122

The representative INAH sent to the site was Espinoza Garca, who confirmed the piece was indeed an Olmec carved basalt monument in his report to the Centro INAH Veracruz director on December 18, 2001 (Espin oza-Garca 2001). In the first week of January, 2002, after analysis of the report a nd discussions with the INAH Consejo in Mexico City, Director Goeritz notified Cent ro INAH Veracruz archaeologist Mara de Lourdes Hernndez Jimnez that she was to conduct the project to rescue the Olmec sculpture. El Marquesillo Archaeological Rescue Project 2002 Hernndez entered the field less than a w eek later with a team of archaeologists and a time limit of one week to complete the project. The objective was to remove the sculpture from it precarious perch at the edge of an 8 m high embankment above the San Juan River and move it to a secure location (see Figure 3.13). At the same time, she was Figure 3.13. Olmec throne exposed at top of elev ated portion of the river cut. Spoil heap on lower slope was caused by excavation by El Marquesillo reside nts (photograph by Hernndez, 2002). 100

PAGE 123

to recover as much information as possible regarding the artifact and its deposition. Prior to the arrival of INAH archaeologists, the lo cal inhabitants had clea red the soil along with a significant quantity of archaeological materi al away from the piece, depositing the fill down the elevated slope. A grid of 30 contiguous 1.5 m x 1.5 m excavation units su rrounding the Olmec Throne was laid out and excavations be gan. Figure 3.14 illustrates the location and identification of the units relative to the th rone. The placement of the units served a dual purpose. First, they allowed a controlled excava tion of the area adjacent to the throne that provided significant information regardi ng the archaeological context (Figure 3.15). Second, the removal of earth permitted the cr eation of an inclined ramp upon which the throne was moved to se cure ground (Figure 3.16). The rescue of the Olmec throne was successful. The monolithic piece, estimated to weigh in excess of 12 tons, was raised to higher firmer ground and turned upright with the assistance of community members. On January 19, 2002, for the first time in about 2,500 years the personage depicted on the front of the throne was visible to the residents of El Marquesillo (Figure 3.17). Eventually, it was placed in a concre te gazebo specially Figure 3.14. Plan view of the Ol mec throne excavation units. Throne position is marked by dashed line. 101

PAGE 124

Figure 3.15. View to the east of Olmec thr one excavation units. The red square indicates the thrones location (photograph by Rodrguez, 2002). Figure 3.16. View to the west of throne being raised on ramp (photograph by Rodrguez, 2002) 102

PAGE 125

Figure 3.17. Photograph of El Se or del Marquesillo on the day of recovery (photograph by Hernndez, 2002) constructed by the residents for the display of the monumental sculptur e in the center of the ejido. A preliminary topographic map of the area was made while the excavations were in progress (see Hernndez and Barrera 2002: Levantamiento Planimtrico) (Figure 3.10). A pedestrian reconnaissance of the mappe d area, including the exposed river cut, was conducted; a series of architectural complexes (conjuntos ) were recorded; and aspects of the site and project were docu mented with photographs. The largest set of buildings at El Marquesillo is the Cerro de Moctezuma Complex, a major Villa Alta-type construction that covers 71.43 ha. This Late Classic to Postclassic compound is oriented on a north-south axis with most associated c onstruction lying to the south and southwest of the main plaza. Ballcourts, plazas, pozos, and a variety of architectural designs of structures and superstructures, all in keeping with the Villa Alta tradition, are present (Killion and Urcid 2001). 103

PAGE 126

104 The Northwest Complex covers approxi mately 2.8 ha and lies roughly 100 m west of the ejidos residen tial zone. The architectural pattern follows the well known Villa Alta phase construction complexes, and is a diminutive version of the main plaza group in the Cerro de Moctezuma Complex. The Northwest Complex differs from that of Cerro de Moctezuma, however, in that it is oriented roughly northwest-to-southeast. The North Complex and Northeast Complex are amal gamations of structures of indeterminate chronology. Ceramic evidence spans the Midd le Formative to the Classic periods. The Throne Complex is so named due to its spatial relationship with the Olmec monumental throne. Preliminary investigati on suggests that the complexs construction occurred during the Formative period and may have been the result of more than one construction event. Since the initial survey, remains of other structures and complexes have been recorded. El Marquesillo Archaeological Project 2002-2003 Further exploration of the site was conducted by Hernndez in November, 2002, and emphasis was placed on the investigation of the Formative period component of the site. She directed the excavation of seven 1.5 m x 1.5 m test units in the area of the Northeast Complex, which produced an excess of 35,000 ceramic artifacts. The determination for the location of these un its was based on analysis of the cut bank material. Units 1, 2, and 3 were placed re lative to where extensive ceramic deposits appeared in the exposed river cut. Unit 4 was placed near the base of Structure 84, a 6 m earthen mound, and Unit 5 was located near the center of the Co mplexs plaza. Units 6 and 7 were situated to determine the exte nt of the ceramic deposition. A systematic

PAGE 127

105 collection along the cut bank was also conducted, and the excavation of Offering II at the location of the Olmec throne was completed. Further pedestrian reconnaissance of the site was also performed. In November and early December, 2003, Hernndez conducted a 5,500 m surface survey of the site. A 2,500 m grid was then la id out across the precolumbian portions of the site; time and funding constrictions prevente d the inclusion of a greater survey area. The grid was composed of contiguous 50 m x 50 m increments. A surface collection was then conducted across the grid with all cultural material be ing retrieved and identified according to the grid location in which it was recovered. Following conversations between Hernnd ez and I, from May to December, 2003, a proposal for a joint project to further investigate El Marquesillo s Formative past was instigated. Based on data recovered by the Hernndez investigations, the Marquesillo Archaeological Survey Project was designed. Regional Summary Contemporary archaeological investigator s have literally ignored the area along the Middle San Juan River, but this deficiency is not surp rising given the history of the region over the past millennium. Early Spanis h accounts of the Southern Gulf Coast Lowlands and its colonization continually re fer to the Papaloapan Basin, the Tuxtla Mountain region, and the Coatzacoalcos and Tonala Drainages, but the San Juan region is rarely mentioned. Historic and ethnohistoric evidence has been presented that suggest El Marquesillo was, for the most part, insulated from external influences other than those emanating from the east. During the pr e-Olmec period (c. 1500-1150 BC) and San

PAGE 128

106 Lorenzo Olmec period (c. 1150-900 BC), social, political, and economic interaction appears to occur primarily with the inhab itants in the Coatzacoalcos River Basin. The Middle and Late Formative periods are not as clear, but the demise of San Lorenzo does not appear to have had any lasting impact on the development at El Marquesillo. It is unknown if the rise of La Venta had any consequence for the inhabitants of the Middle San Juan region but, as La Venta declin ed around 400 BC, Marquesillo entered what appears to be its Formative pe riod sociopolitical florescence. During the early Classic pe riod, El Marquesillo appears to have been an autonomous settlement. By the Late Classic, oc cupants of the site we re participating in the pan-regional sociopolitical structure referred to as the Villa Alta Cultural Complex (Killion 2006; Killion and Ur cid 2001; Lunagmez-Reyes 2004). The presence of the imperial powers of Central Mexico during th e middle and late Postclassic (i.e., Toltecs and Aztecs) has not been identified at El Ma rquesillo. This apparent lack of external incursions may be an effect of the na tural protection afforded along the western geographic periphery or the exertion of sociopol itical power instituted by the earlier Villa Alta Complex, or both. The lands to the west of the middle and upper reaches of the San Juan River have not been investigated archaeologically. Regiona l surveys have been limited to the areas peripheral to the region, to the west, east, a nd north (Santley 1992; Santley et al. 1997; Santley and Lunagmez 1991; Stark 1991; Stark and Curet 1994; Symonds 2000; Symonds et al. 2002; Symonds and Lunagmez 1997). There were surveys that looked outside of the Tuxtlas and Coatzacoalcos regi on but they stopped short of the San Juan River (Killion and Urcid 2001). The closest regional survey used the San Juan River as

PAGE 129

107 its termination line (Borstein 2001, 2005). Thus, this region has remained an archaeological terra incognita. Because the investigative focus has been largely concentr ated on the border regions to the north and east of the San Juan River, the accidental discovery of a carved basalt Olmec throne at El Marquesillo was unanticipated, to say the least (see Morales 2002). Diehl (2004:191) considers the conseque nces that this find may have on Olmec studies. To fully understand the implications of this monumental sculpture, a discussion of Olmec thrones is in order. Olmec Thrones in the Southern Gulf Lowlands The settlement patterns, craft producti on, stone sculptures, and subsistence systems at San Lorenzo during its primacy in the late Early Formative period (c. 1300900 BC) demonstrate a recurring orientation toward the overt demonstration of social standing (Cyphers 1993; Stark 1993). Based on the documented archaeological evidence it appears that within the San Lorenzo polity size mattered. For example, the San Lorenzo Plateau was clearly a major central place, and at an estimated 690 hectares was by far the largest Early Formative period site in Mesoamerica (Cyphers 2001; Symonds 2000). A recent compellation of 159 pieces of monumental stone sculpture from the environs of San Lorenzo (Cyphers 2004) illust rates that quantity and size were important factors in delineating a locality s level within the so ciopolitical hierarchy. No other site comes close to San Lorenzos 129 pieces. Loma del Zapote is a distant second with 15 pieces, and Estero Rabn has eight recovered pieces. The dominance in size, variety of type, and quantity of each is cl ear (see Cyphers 2004:Figure 9).

PAGE 130

108 Of all of the monolithic Olmec-style sc ulptural forms, thrones are among the largest and most symbolically laden pieces known, and they are unique to the Southern Gulf Lowlands. Originally, Stirling (1943) ha d described these monuments as altars but insightful work by Grove (1973) demonstrated the pieces were more likely thrones of leaders; a seat of power. Gr ove (1999:267) further categor ized these sculptures as tabletop thrones and sub-divided them into Type A, which de picts a solitary individual, and Type B, where the primary figure is holdi ng a baby. The La Venta thrones (altars), include three Type A (La Venta Altars 3, 4, and 6) are two Type B (La Venta Altars 2 and 5). At San Lorenzo there is one Type A throne (Monument 14) and one Type B (Monument 20), but other modified carved stones indicate a number of other table top altars were subsequently reworked, di vided, and recarved (Grove 1999:277). The monument from El Marquesillo is a Type A tabletop throne in Groves classification system, and shows no evidence of recarving or reworking for the purposes of reuse. The variety in size, shape, and iconogra phic content of Olmec thrones provides comparative factors for deducing the ranking of the throne and, in turn, the site in San Lorenzos realm in which it was recovered. F our thrones have been recovered at San Lorenzo, including Monument 14 that meas ures 1.83 m high x 3.48 m long x 1.52 m deep (Figure 3.18). Monument 20 is another thro ne measuring 1.67 m high x 2.25 m long x 1.5 m deep. It is possible that this piece in its original form would have rivaled Monument 14 in size, but later modifications have subs tantially reduced its proportions. Monument 60 (see: Brggeman and Hers 1970) and Monum ent 18 are fragments of thrones whose original dimensions cannot be accurately assessed.

PAGE 131

Figure 3.18. Illustration of Sa n Lorenzo Monument 14. An Olmec tabletop throne with personage seated in niche (Diehl 2004:39) Monuments 53 and 17 from San Lorenzo are Olmec colossal heads that were recarved from thrones. On Monument 53, the remnants of a niche figure are clearly visible behind the heads right ear (Porter 1989). As a throne, the piece would have measured 1.85 m high x 2.7 m wide x 1.35 m deep. Monument 17 contains the same evidence of a niche figure, in this case just in front of the heads right ear and would have measured 1.26 m high x 1.67 m long x 1.67 m deep. Assuming the niche figure was centered on the throne, as in all other known examples, the ac tual throne length would have been longer by almost a third. The reduction was probably performed during the recarving of the piece. Only two other thrones, or throne se gments, are known outside of San Lorenzo proper; Monument LZ-2 (Cyphers 2004: 234-238), also known as Potrero Nuevo Monument 2, was originally said to come from Loma del Zapote (Coe and Diehl 109

PAGE 132

1980a:366-368) (Figure 3.19). It differs from the other known thrones not only in size, but in style, form, and iconographic content. This piece is 94 cm high x 1.29 m long x 64 cm deep, literally half the size of the San Lorenzo thrones. There is no central niche personage, instead two dwarf-like figures support the upper tabletop portion of the throne. Monument ER-8 from Estero Rabn (Cyphers 2004:273) is ex trapolated to be almost identical in size to the LZ-2 throne. Only the upper, tabletop portion remains, but its dimensions (1.3 m long, 75 cm deep, and 25 cm high) mirror the eq uivalent portion on the LZ-2 monument. As well, the style, form and carved symbols are the same as those on the Loma del Zapote throne. Cyphers (2004 :273) contends that Loma del Zapote and Estero Rabn were both seconda ry support centers that contro lled areas of important river junctures, and the size and content of the thr ones are indicative of their status within the sociopolitical hierarchy of the region. The iconographic and symbolic content of these thrones is noteworthy. According to Gillespie (1994), the throne itself is a re presentation of the eart h. The tabletop variety include a niche, which is interpreted as a cav e opening into the earth where an individual Figure 3.19. Illustration of Potrero Nuevo Monument 2 (Diehl 2004:35). 110

PAGE 133

111 is seated transitionally between the spiritual underworld and the natural world (Reilly 1991, 1995, 1999; Taube 2004). This location pla ces the individual in a seat of supernatural power. Grove (1973:135) asserts that these stone carvings are, in fact, thrones of Olmec chiefs that confirm the ow ners divine right to rulership. Gillespie (1994:224) adds that these altars were marker s of ancestral sacredne ss, material symbols of high-status, kin-based corporate groups whose wealth and rank were associated with the ritual maintenance of ties to suprahuman ancestors. The presence of this type of altar at El Marquesillo is suggestive of a highly complex society, elevated settlement status, and participation in the Gulf Coast Olmec hierarchal politico-religious system. The depos itional position of the altar and associated offerings appear to indicate that the inhabitants of the site participated in ritual practices similar to those depicted at San Lorenzo a nd La Venta (Coe and Di ehl 1980; Drucker et al. 1957). The Marquesillo altar, its ritua listic deposition, and the accompanying offerings are indicative of Gulf Coast Formative period ideological and political concerns (Drucker 1952a; Grove 1999). The discovery of this artifact at El Marquesillo was unexpected, but perhaps it should not be surprising when th e sites geographic lo cation on the landscape is considered. Due to El Marquesillos physical position, it could provide strategic socioeconomic advantages as a nexus fo r exchange and communication throughout the region. The significance of the throne at El Marquesillo as well as the evidence recovered in conjunction with its rescue operation dem onstrates that the inhabitants of this undocumented site played a role in the Form ative period development of the Southern Gulf Lowlands. To better understand El Marquesillos sociopolitical position and

PAGE 134

112 development within the Gulf Coast lowl ands of the Formative period, a further coordinated investigation was necessary. Toward this end, a research project consisting of multiple prospection and documentation su rveys was devised. The results from the discovery and investigation of the site of El Marquesillo are providing a clarifying piece to the still nebulous mosaic that is the Olmec phenomenon, and are discussed in the following three chapters.

PAGE 135

113 Chapter 4. El Marquesillo Archaeological Project: Prospection Surveys Introduction Preliminary formulation of the Marq uesillo Archaeological Survey Project occurred in the summer of 2003, following my discussions with Lourdes Hernndez, an archaeologist with the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia (INAH) in Veracruz. Hernndez was director of the salvage projec t that recovered the Olmec throne at El Marquesillo in 2002 and continued the investigation of the site in 2003. The new project would build upon Hernndez initial work that is described in the previous chapter and expand the scope of the investigation. The goal was to determine occupational sequences, identify spatial patterns, a nd assess any evidence for sociopo litical development at the site during the Formative period (c. 1500-100 BC) The resulting datasets could be used to address the type and extent of El Mar quesillos involvement in the Olmec paradigm. They would also offer the ability to eval uate El Marquesillo against models of sociopolitical complexity, organization, and centralization. Furthermore, the various types of data would permit the assessments to be conducted at various scales of analysis and from differing perspectives. Finally, it was anticipated that the results would allow the formation of research questions that would guide future efforts. A factor that impacted this investigation was a decision by Mexican authorities not to allow any further excavations at th e present time. Thus, the challenge was to formulate a research design that would accomp lish the objectives of the project without

PAGE 136

114 the advantage of a significant investigative t ool. The research program consisted of an integrated series of nondestructive survey, prospe ction, collection, and mapping techniques that detected and recorded the landscape signatures, si te constituents, and subsurface deposits (see McManamon 1984). The sections that follow describe the prospection techniques and methods employed in the project and the rationale for their inclusion. A primary objective of the Marquesillo Archaeological Survey Project has been to expand the research perspectiv e of the project beyond the site level. The purpose was to more fully embrace a broader collection of th eoretical and methodological devices that consider the temporal and spatial manifestat ions of the relationship between humans and their environment in order to better actions a nd behaviors. Therefore, an approach that considers the entire lands cape; regional ecology, geom orphology, environmental history, as well as the biological and cultural diversity, was im plemented. Cyphers (1996:63) accurately asserted that [a] n understanding of the environment is a key to understanding the Olmec way of life. From subsistence adap tations to settlement patterns, the Olmec were meticulous observers of the natural landsca pe, a talent that fost ered their survival and progress. Therefore, if we are to more fully understand the people of the region, it is in our best interest to attempt to appreciate the entire landscape. In this case, the center of the landscape was the Southern Gulf Lowlands, the Olmec Heartland, on which the Formativ e period people lived and produced the archaeological record. But in addition, there was also a broader landscape that impacted their ways of life; one that extended acr oss much of Mesoamerica and introduced technologies, resources, and ideas (Clark 1997; Diehl 2004; Evans 2003; Flannery 1968;

PAGE 137

115 Grove 1997; Tolstoy 1989). Landscapes can be viewed from the perspective of the human presence on the land along with accomp anying memories and meanings (Ingold 1993), or associated wholly with the physic al topography (Ucko and Layton 1999), or it can be viewed as a combination of social organization, cosmologica l order, and ideology blended into the natu ral environment and reflective of the culturally constructed settlement (Ashmore 2004; Barrett 1 999; Joyce and Hendon 2000; Smith 2003). Intertwined in this perspective is the archaeology of place. Through consideration of features on the present landscape that also existed in the past, it may be possible to better understand the ancients relationship to the land ar ound them (see Ashmore and Knapp 1999b; Basso 1996). Finally, the landsc ape evolves over time, through natural and anthropic activities. Thus, by it very nature, it is dynamic a nd should be recognized as a continual series of transformative events across the landscape (Van de Noort 2004; Waters and Kuehn 1996). Survey and Prospection Techniques The recovery of data in contemporar y landscape archaeology makes use of a range of methods and techniques including ground-based surface and sub-surface surveys, satellite and aerial imagery, t opographic modeling, stratigraphic excavations, assessments of the geomorphology, macro and mi crobotanical studies, and other types of prospection techniques. New tec hniques were integrated with more traditional methods to expand the capabilities and improve the pr oficiency of researchers to observe and envisage the landscape. Remote sensing t echniques, Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in combination with material

PAGE 138

116 science techniques have produced changes in surv ey methods and are transforming modeling approaches (e.g., A llen et al. 1991; Barcelo and Pallares 1996; Conyers et al. 2002; Kvamme 1999, 2001, 2003; Poe 1997). The investigation of El Ma rquesillo was an opportunity to examine a previously undocumented civic-ceremonial center whose role within the social and economic landscape of the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands was unknown. It was also an opportunity to apply a variety of integrat ed survey and prospection techniques to document the landscape signatures and consti tuents of the site and its surroundings. Although the primary focus was site specific, informal surveys were made within a 10 km radius that revealed nume rous smaller sites that extended chronologically from the Formative to Classic periods based on surf ace artifacts and architectural remains. At El Marquesillo, the topography of the si te was mapped using an electronic total station and Global Positioning System (GPS) Subsurface prospection was accomplished through magnetometry and soil surveys. Noninvasive, non-destructive methods were employed as a way to search for the ma terial traces left on the land by human development. Recording the presence and natu re of these surface and subsurface deposits generated an initial diachronic picture of settlement pattern organization, allowed recognition of activity loci, and permitted an assessment of th e degree to which the sites residents were involved in regional socioec onomic exchange networks and political-ritual ideology.

PAGE 139

117 Determination of the Survey Area The area included in the surveys focused on the presumed Formative period segment of the site. These spatial limits were determined by analysis of data recovered during the earlier investigations by Hern ndez (see Chapter 4, El Marquesillo Archaeological Project 2002). Extensive pedestrian surveys and surface artifact collections in the fields and along exposed rive r cut bank provided an idea of the spatial layout and limits of the site. The pedestrian surface inspections were conducted by archaeologists and a team of experienced field assistants. Spaced at 5 m intervals, teams inspected the surface of recently tilled fields to determine the extent and distribution of cultural material. The cut bank surveys were conducted from two perspectives. The first was from along the upper edge of the cut to ob serve in situ deposits and artifacts located in the upper 2 m; and the second was from the ba se of the cut to rec over any artifacts that might have fallen down the embankment. These methods produced reasonable estimates as to the limits of precolumbian habita tion. Diagnostic ceramic materials provided differentiation between Early, Middle, and Late Formative period and later occupations. The contemporary landscape is divided by family-owned parcelas or fields that are used for agriculture or cattle grazing, and are demarcated by barbed wire fences (Figure 4.1). The existing division of these fi elds was used to divide the survey area into smaller segments that were arbitrarily numbered one through ei ght. This numerical designation was used throughout the project to identify spat ial locations of artifacts, features, and survey segments.

PAGE 140

Figure 4.1. Map illustrating su rveyed fields of the El Marquesillo Ejido. Numbers denote those used throughout the project, and the blue line indicates edge of river cut bank. Estimated survey area is 550,000 m. The Formative occupation area was estimated by analyzing evidence produced during the 2002 Olmec throne retrieval and associated test excavations (Hernndez 2003; Hernndez and Barrera 2002), reconnaissanc e surveys in May 2003, and a full coverage pedestrian survey and surface collection comp leted in November 2003. A synthesis of the information garnered from the preliminary analysis of the recovered ceramic artifacts, data from field surveys of the river cut bank, and assessm ents of the landscape and architectural features led to the determination of the Fo rmative period survey area. 118

PAGE 141

119 Surface Mapping and Terrain Modeling The overall objectives for GPS and total station mapping of the topography and terrain modeling at El Marquesillo were to: 1) provide horizontal and vertical control for the site; 2) locate and bound surface features ; and 3) collect data with attribute information for merging in a Geographic Inform ation System (GIS). In other words, the collected accurate spatial data could be visualized in a variety of formats. One method is terrain modeling, or the analysis of ground-su rface relief and patte rn through numerical techniques (Moore et al. 1991; Price 1998). GIS technology enables terrain-modeling results to be combined with other spatial and attribute datasets, such as tabular and descriptive information, which can be linked in the GIS to real-world locational data (Pike 1995). Using the plot by the X, Y coor dinate feature in the ESRI ArcMap 8.0 and higher software, survey data from the S outhern Gulf Lowlands can be collected, processed, and presented in one integrated form at for all surveys. Site locations can be shown using the reported UTM or Latitude/Longitude coordinates that have been processed and brought into the same coordinate system. The combination of spatial data collected from multiple surveys can assist with understanding settlement pattern development and changes across the landscape. Note that on several maps the specific locational coordinates are not shown. This information has been intentionally omitted due to the sensitivity of the site and the potentia l for misuse of these data. Readers who desire further information regarding this matter ma y contact the author through the Department of Anthropology at the Univ ersity of South Florida. The goals of the site-specific mapping porti on of El Marquesillos project were to: (1) understand the prehistoric si te layout with respect to th e landscape; (2) integrate the

PAGE 142

site surveys spatial data with locational data obtained from ot her regional and site surveys; and (3) enhance comprehension of the site by understanding the site formation processes and changes in th e landscape through time. The various mapping techniques employed at El Marquesillo permit the site to be examined from multiple perspectives. The earliest contemporary map depicting the site was made by Espi noza-Garca (1998) (see Figure 4.2). These sketch maps, whic h were included in his 1998 report on the condition of the site (see Chapter 3, The Archaeology of El Marquesillo), were essentially hand-drawn maps that are not to scale and are not completely accurate. These sketches do, however, illustrate a 0.15 km ar chitectural complex that was destroyed by a change in the flow of the San Juan River between 1994 and 1998. They provide an indication of the extent of the land loss during this period caused by the natural movement of the river. Figure 4.2. Sketch maps of a portion of El Marquesillo in 1994 and in 1998. The broken line in the 1998 map marks a 0.15 km architectural complex lost during a collapse of the embankment over a four-year peri od (after Espinoza-Garca 1998). 120

PAGE 143

Global Positioning System (GPS) Mapping During the 2002 Olmec throne rescue and recovery project, a topographic map of the site was assembled by Campos and Mar n (see Hernndez and Barrera 2002:Figure 6) (Figure 4.3). This drawing was based on coordinates produced from a handheld land navigation GPS; the map proved to be a valuable tool in planni ng the 2004 field season. The handheld equipment is effective for na vigational purposes but does not afford the precision or accuracy for most mapping a pplications (Garmin 2005). The horizontal accuracy ranged from approximately 10 to 30 m, with no fixed vert ical or elevational data used. Figure 4.3. Map of El Marquesi llo created by Campos and Marn Ins (Hernndez and Barrera 2002:Figure 6). 121

PAGE 144

122 Campos and Marn identified structures and features on their map and assigned them numbers 1 through 107. The numbering sequ ence is for identification purposes only and has no association with th e features spatial or tempor al position. This system was used and supplemented in this report. The identification of additional structures documented during the current project begins with number 108. A Leica GS20 GPS data collection unit was used during the 2004 field season and, in 2005, a Trimble Pro XR GPS unit wa s employed; both are mapping-grade GPS equipment. Mapping-grade GPS provides submeter accuracy and allows the collection of data not only as points but also as lines and polygons (Trimble 2005). Data collected by these systems can be integrated into Geographic Information Systems that permit correlation of aerial photo imagery, and geo -referencing of site locations (Magellan 2005). In 2004, GPS coordinates were acquired at all survey locations. The edge of the river cut bank, fence lines, field boundaries, and apparent architect ural features were delineated and recorded, as were the spatial locations of the Olmec throne and the soil survey test areas. The GPS was used thr oughout the magnetometer survey (Figure 4.4), and the location data layers were merged with the magnetic data to produce a spatially accurate map (see Magnetometer Surv ey section in this chapter). During the 2005 field season, mapping grade GPS was again used to locate the control points for the tota l station topographic mapping segment described in the following section. The GPS unit used during th is portion of the project was a Trimble Pathfinder Pro XR mapping grade receiver that provides real-time, su bmeter accuracy for regional and site-level surveys. The rover capab ility is ideal for large scale projects and

PAGE 145

Figure 4.4. Map of El Marquesill o generated from GPS data. Data were collected simultaneously with the magnetometer survey and depicting walk lines of the survey coverage. Coordinates withheld by author. complements other survey methods employe d. The TSC1 datalogger utilized a manual 3D position mode and collected a minimum of 60 points at each acquired location. Trimble planning software was used to determine the most advantageous satellite position information and appropriate duration an d optimal times of data collection. This feature was important because satellite geom etry and coverage was poor during certain times of the day when GPS activities were planned, and modificati on to the schedule was made to allow for collection during peak sate llite coverage times. Real time corrected GPS location data are not always available for the site survey area, so differential 123

PAGE 146

124 correction of collected data was conducte d during the post-processing procedure as a method of removing human-made and natural e rrors that affect GPS measurements. This differential correction post-pro cessing of the data allowed fo r a more accurate rendering of location data collected, with corrections made using base correction data found through Pathfinder Office 2.9 software for the project area vicinity. I used a Garmin eTrex Venture hand-held navigational GPS unit during my 2003 field reconnaissance survey to collect locati on data of specific site features. Comparison of these points with corrected mapping grad e GPS data showed horizontal coordinate errors ranging from 10 m to 40 m error that can be exponentially increased with each point acquired. This comparison illustrates the need to: (1) define the locational accuracy required or desired; (2) fu lly understand existing field c onditions (e.g., canopy vegetation and other types of signal interfer ence or distortion); (3) consid er the actual av ailability of enhancement techniques (e.g., Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS]), ground stations, etc.); and (4) recognize the limitations of the techniques employed. Electronic Total Station Mapping Total stations are highly accurate, distan ce-measuring electronic theodolites that are capable of diverse mapping and positionmeasuring tasks (Rick 1996), and work efficiently on variable scales of landscape survey. They are effective on a small local scale, for example in the locating of ex cavation units and reco rding archaeological features and artifact locations Total stations are used in conjunction with GPS to gain horizontal (GPS) and vertical (T S) control for the site. On la rger scales, total stations

PAGE 147

have the potential to record points across an entire region with all points recorded to within 2 cm accuracy (Rick 1996). In 2005, a Trimble 5503 Direct Reflex (DR) Standard Laser Total Station was employed to provide sub-meter vertical locati on of the topography of El Marquesillo. The data were combined with the GPS horizontal lo cations to fix the site spatially and relate coordinates collected to real-w orld positions. Figure 4.5 illust rates the total station set-up locations used in the survey. Each of these se t-ups, or control point s, is identified by the designation MQCP (El Marquesillo control point) and its corresponding number. Each green line extends from the control point on which it was taken to the data point acquired during the collection. Figure 4.5. Vector map showing total station control and data acquisiti on points, coordinates withheld by author. 125

PAGE 148

The total station was used to collect X, Y, and Z coordinate points, which were imported using Trimble Geomatic Office. Terra model Software was used to process those data to produce a variety of map types. Figure 4.6 illustrates two examples; on the right is a point coverage map overlain on the contours, and on the left is a standard topographical map with elevation interval lines. Once the contour da ta are processed, topographic Digital Terrain Models can be developed using Terramodel 3D Visualizer software. Figure 4.7 displays images captured from obli que perspectives in a three dimensional interactive model of El Marquesillo. Data were also exported into an ArcView shapefile format for use in the ArcGIS software platform to combine the site-level spatial data with other regional survey data. Figure 4.6. Maps generated from total stat ion data. On the left is a standard topographic contour-line map, and on th e right is a point coverage map. Coordinates withheld by author. 126

PAGE 149

The topographic images and terrain m odeling produced by the technologies employed during the project at El Marquesillo permit a visualiz ation of the site that has not been previously attainable. In the field, it is difficult to perceive subtle variations along the surface due to distance and ground cover. A benefit of the total station mapping data was the ability to enhance elevations across the site to visualize better surface features and contours. Examples of the variability in visualizat ion are illustrated in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.7. Two oblique views created from a 3-dimensional digital terrain model of El Marquesi llo. Coordinates withheld by author. 127

PAGE 150

128 The Throne complex is represented in bl ue at the bottom of the upper image and to the right in the lower one. In these imag es the elevation and vol ume of this complex can be discerned. In the field, however, it is difficult to fully comprehend and appreciate the nature and extent of this feature due to it sheer size the lands natu ral topography, and the vegetative cover. Architectural and Natural Features The Surface Mapping and Terrain Modeling procedures produced details and unique perspectives of various natural and arch itectural features at El Marquesillo. Figure 4.8 is a different digital terrain model (DTM) that illustrates these features in a plan view. The range of color enhances visualization of the elevations and prominent architectural structures can be identified. The lowest surfac e areas are depicted in red and transition to a blue, which represents the hi ghest elevations. These height s and depths are relative to the average surface level determined through th e collected data point s and are illustrated in the color scale. In this case, the low point is 8.99 m below the average surface level and the highest point is 8.08 m above. The Northern Area In the survey of El Marquesillo, the bo ttomland is adjacent to Structure 86 in Field 1, a sloping area that represents the natural land contour that has been relatively unaffected by actions of the San Juan River. The placement and form of Structure 86 is notable. Figure 4.9 demonstrates that the south side of the mound is level with the plaza. The north side, however, follows the natural downward slope of the land continuing to a

PAGE 151

Figure 4.8. Digital Terrain Model of El Marquesillo with significant structures identified, coordinates withheld by author Figure 4.9. View of Structure 86 looking east. Note south side of mound is at the plaza level, but north side follows the sloping surface contour. 129

PAGE 152

lower elevation. Thus, the mound literally st raddles the changing surface contour. This extant topography may be repres entative of the landform as it existed along the northern edge of Field 1 during the Formative period, prio r to the erosion of la nd due to changes in the course of the San Juan River. Approximately 100 m southwest of Structure 86 is a 7 m high pyramidal mound, Structure 84. This mound is being destroyed not only by the undercutting caused by seasonal flooding but also by rainfall runoff and cattle grazing, which have damaged the structure and further weakened the structural integrity of the embankment. Figure 4.10 is a view of the embankment directly below Structure 84 from river level that demonstrates the continued slumping of the ri ver cut profile. The last vest iges of Structures 85 and 107 lie to either side of Stru cture 84 and may be completely removed by erosion in the coming years. These three structures stand atop a broad, low platform that can be seen in Figure 4.11, with Structure 85 on the extreme left Structure 84 prominent near the center, and Structure 107 barely visibl e near the tree on the right. Figure 4.10. View to the west of slumping embankment 130 containing porti ons of Structure 84

PAGE 153

Figure 4.11. View to the east of low plat form supporting Structures 84, 85, and 107 The North Group, identified in Figure 4.8, is a complex of five or six earthen structures, some partially de stroyed when portions were mi ned for construction and road fill. The location of contemporary residences prevented complete mapping coverage, but ceramics in the structures construction fill were portions of tecomates from the Formative period. Two parallel long mounds approximately 3 m to 4 m high and 3 m apart, correspond to the plan of an earl y Mesoamerican ballcourt (Taladoire 2001). Structure 109 was not depicted on the 2002 site map by Campos and Marn. The 4 to 5 m high structure is det ached from other structures. The building is a rectangular, truncated pyramidal platform with rounded corners and roughly a 15 x 15 m level summit area. The most notable feature of the structure is a ramp on the east side that begins at the top of the platform and gradually descends ove r a distance of close to 100 m. To the eastsoutheast, at a distance of 200-250 m, is Stru cture 83. This is a solitary 1.5 m high mound that is approximately 7 m in diameter. Within 10 to 20 m north and east of this mound are three or four low, 0.2 m to 0.3 m high gra dual rises that may have been building foundations. 131

PAGE 154

The Olmec Throne Ar chitectural Complex This architectural complex is composed of a series of earthen structures that are spatially associated with the depositional location of the monumental Olmec Throne (Figures 4.12 and 4.13). The primary struct ure is a long platform that extends approximately 300 m from the edge of the ri ver cut bank to the west-northwest. Figure 4.12 is a Digital Terrain Model of the Throne Complex that demonstrates the immensity and form of the foundational platform structure. Almost certainly, the eastern portions of this structure have been lost to the river. This foundational platform is 170 m wide and supports six circular earthen mounds, the distin ctive U-shaped Structure 77, and Plazas I and II. In profile from the north, the Thr one Complex Platform creates a wedge-shape with the upper surface leve l and the base sloping downward following the natural contours of the land as it extends away from the river cut. Thus, the eastern end of the platform, nearest the river cut, is raised above the natural ground level only 0.5-1 m. Figure 4.12. Digital Terrain Model of Olmec Throne Complex and Structure 111. Coordinates withheld by author. 132

PAGE 155

The western third of the platform has been artif icially raised to a height of up to 6 m. The south side of the platform takes advantage of the natural rise of the land; thus, minimizing the fill and labor required to level that portion of the structure. A substantial architectural structure that sits atop this platform is Structure 77, a U-shaped mounded building that bounds th e western limits of the complex. For descriptive purposes, this stru cture is designated 77a, b, c, and d (see Figure 4.13). The north (77a and 77b) and south (77d) arms of the structur e define the northern and southern limits and 77c the west boundary of the Throne Complex. Each of these constructions has elevations th at rise 2 to 5 m from the en closed court floor. The opposite or exterior portion of Structure 77 range from 1 to 6 m above the surrounding ground elevation. Figure 4.14 is a view from the sout hwest corner of the structure looking north along the top of the west mound and offers an example of the natu re of the earthworks that compose the structure. The line of tr ees at the upper right of the photo obscures the north wall of this structure. Figure 4.13. Outlines of Throne Comple x structures superimposed over topographic map. Coordi nates withheld by author. 133

PAGE 156

Figure 4.14. View looking north west along top of the west wall of Structure 77 Along the north arm of the structure, between 77a and 77b, is an opening that provides access to the main plaza. There is a broad ramp-like feature extending north from the plaza. Atop structures 77a and 77b, which flank the top of the access way into the plaza, there may have been structures built of pe rishable materials. This possibility is based on slightly higher elev ations to the left and right of the entryway that are reminiscent of raised platforms, which served as foundations for structures. These raised portions are visible in Figure 4.15, a Triangul ated Irregular Network (TIN) surface map, which presents a north to south view of the Throne Group and the entry ramp and opening in the north wall of Structure 77. This map also demonstrates some of the processing steps used in deve loping a three-dimensional mode l of the site by depicting the TIN mesh and color coding used in cr eating the surface contours and elevations. 134

PAGE 157

Figure 4.15. Elevated view of Field 8 from the north. Plaza II lies in the center between Structures 78 and 79. Structure 78 is a 7 m high earthen mound th at anchors the center of Structure 77 and acts as the western limit of Plaza II. The top of this structure is the highest point within the survey area. To the east of 78, across Plaza II is Structure 79, a 4 m high earthen, platform-like mound with a broad flat to p surface. The west side of this structure forms the eastern border of Plaza II, and the opposite side forms the western border of the smaller Plaza I. On the northeast corner of Structure 79 is an unusual construction feature. A small platform-like projecti on extends approximately halfway up the platforms incline (see Figure 4.13). Structur e 110 is a low, 1.5 m high, elongated mound immediately west of Structure 78, and Stru cture 82 is a 2 m high, low conical earthen mound close to the present-day river cut bank. Figure 4.16 illustrates that an axis is form ed by the center lines of Structures 110, 78, 79, and 82. This alignment lies at 72 ea st-northeast and esta blishes the medial longitudinal axis of the entire Throne Co mplex Platform and Structure 77. Running parallel to the axis is Structure 111, whic h is immediately adjacent to the Throne Complex Platform. Figures 4.12 and 4.16 demonstr ate the size and el evation of this 135

PAGE 158

Figure 4.16. Olmec Throne Complex. Longitudinal medial axis is illustrated by dashed line. Coordinates w ithheld by author. platform-like structure relative to the Throne Complex. The full extent of this structure will never be known due to the loss of land by the rivers erosive actions. Nearby there are low areas that may have served as borrow pits for these elevated structures. Depressions and Water Features Along with the elevated constructions are a series of depressions, and Figure 4.17 points out four of these areas at El Marque sillo. Depressions B and C may be natural low areas that were subjected to human modifi cation, possibly for fill or water retention. Depression D is a shallow, rectangular-shaped feature with a relatively level bottom. Its form and position relative to Structure 84 is reminiscent of a sunken courtyard or plaza. Depression A may have been used as a borrow pit for the fill used to elevate and level the north side of Structure 77. In Villa Alta phase complexes, which are to the south and 136

PAGE 159

Figure 4.17. Topographic map of El Marquesillo. Prominent Depressions are id entified. Coordinates withheld by author. northwest of the Formative period areas, ther e are a number of shallow depressions that were coated with clay. These basin-like form ations are situated adjacent to probable residence complexes and continue to retain rain and water today. Tucked into the interior northwest corner of Structure 77 is a shallow, almost perfectly round, pond-like feat ure approximately 30 m in diameter and 1.5 m deep (Figure 4.18). The owner of the property and other long-time residents of El Marquesillo claim that the pool or poza has always been there and no one remembers it ever being dry. In the late 1970s the landowner attempted to expand the size of this feature, which he uses to water his cattle. This effort ended after two hours when the operator of a front-end 137

PAGE 160

loader had managed to scrape only a fe w centimeters from the northeast portion and refused to continue due to fears the indur ated lining would damage his machine. Due to the heavy undergrowth and thicket of trees along a por tion of the west segment of Structure 77s north wall near the poza (77a), neither total station nor GPS data could be collected without disturbing the area. This unmapped area was the only one encountered during the survey. Due to the lack of spatial data, the pozo appears to be connected to Depression A (Fi gure 4.17). In actua lity, there is a ten meter wide mound separating the two and the poza is completely contained within Structure 77, as the photo in Figure 4.18 illustrates. A second natural water feature lies adjacent to the west end of the Throne Complexs basal platform. The westward extens ion of the Throne Group medial axis line, illustrated in Figure 4.16, passes neatly over the center of this natural seep spring (Figure 4.19). The exuberant growth of the vegetation attests to the abundanc e and persistence of surface and near-surface water. Figure 4.18. View looking north across the poza. Trees and undergrowth in the upper left conceal portions of the north side of Structure 77 prevented data collection in that area. 138

PAGE 161

Figure 4.19. Northwest view of spring located at the exterior base of Structure 77 Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Scientific and technological advancements in the field of archaeology over the past fifty years have occurred with incr easing frequency and great er methodological and theoretical impact (Hyder 1996), including remote sensing and GIS applications. In its broadest sense, remote sensing may be define d as the acquisition of information about an object without being in physical contact w ith it (Elachi 1987). Thus, remote sensing techniques in archaeology are non-destructive methods that can be employed to rapidly and accurately survey, detect, predict, recor d, and quantify natural and artificial features above and below the land surface. Benefits of these non-invasive techniques are that the archaeologist can obtain visual and computer generated images of land surfaces and subsurfaces that are site or region specific. This information can be used to address issues of human settlement, subsistence, environmen tal interaction, and climate change (e.g., Conyers et al. 2002; Kvamme 2001, 2003) (Mad ry 1987). Analysis of these types of 139

PAGE 162

140 information assists the archaeologist in de termining what is on and under the Earths surface prior to the implementation of any dest ructive techniques. This ability can direct and prioritize areas for survey and investig ation and, in some cases, may even eliminate the need for excavation (Piro et al. 2000; Tyson 1994). GIS are collections of computerized technologies used to capture, manage, display, and analyze various forms of spatia l and geographically referenced information. GIS is a powerful tool that allows the archaeologist to organize and analyze spatial information by linking maps to databases th at contain data about the Earths surface (Harris 2002). Archaeological applications of GIS can examine relationships of the constructed environment with natural envi ronmental characteristics such as soils, geologic, topographic, hydrol ogic, or other biotic condi tions (Kvamme 1996; Wheatley and Gillings 2002). Data sources for GIS in clude analog maps, orthophotos, tabular data, remotely sensed digital data, and numerous other pre-existing and newly produced types of datasets. GIS Visualization of the Landscape In this survey project, I used a variety of analyses and observations to assist me in determining the chronological sequence and the spatial a nd organizational development of the site. To better understa nd conditions at El Ma rquesillo, I wanted to know if I could detect patterns that were occurring at neighboring contem poraneous sites. Were those sites experiencing and reacting to the same e bb and flow of life as El Marquesillo, and did factors change over time? Toward this objective, I employed a Geographic

PAGE 163

141 Information Systems (GIS) approach that allowe d for large study areas of variable scales and datasets to be analyzed in a dynamic spatial manner (see Whitley 2000;2001). I collected information from previous arch aeological settlement surveys that had been conducted in the region, and merged them with available environmental data. The recorded locational and temporal data were produced from surveys that had been conducted by Borstein (2001), Kruger (1996) and Symonds (2000;1997). Because the data were collected by different researchers the level of c onsistency and standardization between the surveys may not be uniform. None theless, the observations are satisfactory to provide a broad overview of intern al and regional settlement patterns. These data were integrated into a GIS format by plotting X and Y coordinates and bringing all the datasets into a consistent projection that enable d depiction of site locations relative to availabl e satellite imagery. Site chronology data from the surveys were assigned to Early Formative (c 1500-900 BC), Middle Form ative (c. 900-400 BC), and Late Formative (c. 300 BC-AD 150) designa tions. Sites sizes and types ranged from small artifact scatters to primary centers. The in tention of this initial effort was simply to see if patterns within the surveyed settleme nt areas could be detected and observed across time. Figures 4.20, 4.21, and 4.22 show the results of these analyses. Through the visualization of these datasets, it appears that a substantial decline in population occurred following the Early Formative period and continued through the Late Formative period. Although the survey reports that produced these data held that populations and settlements declined during this time, the vi sualization of the data immediately provoked

PAGE 164

questions of causation and scope. At the sa me time, they led me to examine the phenomenon from perspectives I ha d not previously considered. These images raised issues that are we ll beyond the scope of this investigation, but I could not help asking if the posited hypot heses of warfare, invasion, or the collapse of a social network adequately explain this process? What other causes could contribute to this drastic demographic change? How large an area did it affect? Regarding the investigation of El Marquesillo, by being aw are of these dynamic factors I became more sensitive to the evidence that might c oncern occupational continuity and other demographic issues. Figure 4.20. Illustration of documented settlement sites from c. 1500-900BC 142

PAGE 165

Figure 4.21. Illustration of documented settlement sites from c. 900-400 BC Figure 4.22. Illustration of documented se ttlement sites from c. 300 BC-AD 150 143

PAGE 166

144 Geophysical Magnetometer Survey At El Marquesillo, the recovery of a monumental basalt throne led to the reasonable assumption that more stone sculptur e may be present at the site and could be detected by a magnetic survey. At contempor aneous Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands sites such as Loma de Zapote, Tenochtitln, Estero Rabn, El Remolino, Tres Zapotes, and Laguna de los Cerros, numerous monumental basalt sculptures have been found (Cyphers 2004; Lowe 1989). San Lorenzo a nd La Venta are sites where table-top thrones of a size and iconogra phic content comparable to El Marquesillos throne have been recovered. Magnetometer survey is one of the most productive methods of archaeological subsurface prospecting. The technique is used to measure minute va riations, computed in nanoTeslas (nT), in the Earths ma gnetic field across an area. I ts primary objective is to identify the location of changes in the Ea rths magnetic field (Breiner 1999; Reynolds 1997). These variations are caused by contrasts b etween the magnetic properties of an archaeological object or feature and the magnetic properties of the surrounding soil (Breiner and Coe 1972). Igneous rock such as basalt or andesite, dense deposits of fired ceramics, or burned material such as hearth s or kilns, are detect able through magnetic survey (Breiner 1999; Weymouth 1986). The geophysical conditions present at El Marquesillo are conducive to ma gnetic prospection techniques and are detailed in the following section of this chapter.

PAGE 167

145 Magnetic Properties of Basalt The magnetic properties of basalt are essent ial to the success of this survey. The sources of the basalt used in monumental sc ulpture in the Southern Gulf Lowlands are located in the Tuxtla Volcanic Ridge (Coe and Diehl 1980a; Heizer et al. 1965; Williams and Heizer 1965). These basalts are extruded, mafic igneous rock emitted as magmatic material at the earth's surface during volcanic eruptions in the form of lava rich in ferromagnesian minerals. As the molten mate rial solidified, its iron-containing minerals aligned with the Earths magnetic field. More precisely, as the volcanic rock cooled past the Curie Point, a transition temperature that marks a change in the magnetic properties of the rock, it begins to produce an indu ced magnetic field (Dunlop and zdemir 1997). Below the Curie Point, the blocking temper ature is reached, a stage at which the ferromagnetic grains within the material are no lo nger free to move. It is at this point that the magnetic properties of the rock become stable and produce a permanent directional orientation, a property known as thermore manent magnetization (TRM) (Butler 1992; Dunlop and zdemir 1997). It is the alignment of the stones direc tional polarity that provides its magnetic coherence, and the level of amplitude demonstrated on the magnetic anomaly maps are produced by TRM. This formation process results in two primary magnetic attributes of basalt, magnetic susceptibility and remanant magne tization (Dobrin and Savit 1988; Dunlop and zdemir 1997; Tarling and Hrouda 1993). The m easure of magnetic strength of a mineral or rock is called magnetic susceptibility, which is a function of two factors: 1) the amount of iron, and to a lesser extent ni ckel or cobalt, present in the rock and particularly carried in magnetite, hematite, and related minerals; and 2) the measure of alignment occurring

PAGE 168

146 between like poles of adjacen t individual atoms, which crea te a magnetic dipole effect. The dipole effect is significant because it results in both positive and negative perturbations in the magnetic anomaly map asso ciated with a single block of basalt. The magnetic anomaly observed on a map due to magnetic susceptibility changes as a function of the strength and orientation of the Earths magnetic field. In contrast, TRM is acquired at the time the rock cools from lava. The magnetic anomaly due to TRM is independent of the strength and orientation of the Earths magnetic field. In basalt rocks, TRM creates larger magnetic anomalies th an those associated with magnetic susceptibility. Thus, for practical purposes the magnetic anomalies mapped at El Marquesillo are a result of TRM. The TRM of basalt is many orders of ma gnitude greater than that measured for sediments (Connor and Sanders 1994:7/7), even in sedimentary deposits containing a sizeable volcaniclastic component (Tarling 1983) Individual blocks of basalt cooled from a lava flow have a consistently large TR M. Therefore, large blocks of basalt have a large magnetic contrast with the surr ounding sediment and will produce large and coherent anomalies on maps. Structures created from many basalt blocks, such as walls or pavements, have more complex anomalies because each block adds its individual magnetic signal to the map anomaly. For example, if the blocks are laid down in orientations other than the orientation they were excavated from in the quarry, their magnetic signal will change. Features such as fire pits also carry TRM, but these anomalies have lower amplitude.

PAGE 169

147 Magnetic Data Collection, Conditions, and Field Methods A magnetometer survey is a passive, non-invasive, geophysical remote sensing technique employed to measure the physical and chemical properties of near-surface deposits (Clay 2001; Kvamme 2001, 2003). The most effective range of this equipment is the uppermost 1 to 3 m of the surf ace, which is the maximum depth in situ cultural material has been noted or recovered at El Marquesillo. Kvamme (2003:441) states that, it is almost as if nature de signed archaeological sites to be made visible by the magnetic variations they exhibit. The geophysical conditions along the Southe rn Gulf Lowlands are conducive for the implementation of magnetic geophysical su rveys, and previous surveys have provided outstanding results at othe r regional Olmec sites (Breiner and Coe 1972; Morrison, Benavente et al. 1970; Morrison, Clewlow et al. 1970; Welch 2001). At these sites, magnetic prospecting of stone sculpture and architecture was positive due to the high contrast between the volcanic rock and the sedimentary fill. The favorable soil composition, postulated intrusive magnetic el ements, exposed open terrain, plus the techniques rapidity and eff ectiveness all suggested that a magnetometer survey should be an integral part of the projects design. Successful magnetometer prospection is due primarily to the contrasts between the magnetic properties of natu ral or intrusive material and the surrounding soils. The sedimentary soils that compose the region around El Marquesillo are neutral in their magnetic content. The Pliocene basalts used in the production of Formative period monumental sculpture, constr uctions, and features retain a high level of remanant magnetization. Williams and Heizer (1965) descri be the basalt used in the monuments of

PAGE 170

148 La Venta as olivine with scattered magnetite grains. Conversely, the sedimentary soils and clays of El Marquesillo contain much less magnetic material and do not carry TRM. In addition, the depth of cultural features at the site likely la y within 2 m of the surface. This ideal combination of factors generate s contrasts that make magnetic anomalies exceptionally amenable to detection at El Ma rquesillo, and allows for a rapid, efficient, and effective survey. A Geometrics G858 cesium-vapor magnetome ter was used to survey the site. A grid interval system was desi gned that attempted to maximize the detection potential for the type and size of a cultural feature or artifact that could be expected. A minimum target size of 0.5 m and an estimated depth of 0.5-3 m were deemed to be appropriate. These decisions were based upon the minimal size of most basalt sculptures recovered in the Southern Gulf Lowlands, a nd the depth of cultural material and features present along the exposed stratigraphic river cut. To detect objects of this size and depth, a survey interval of 2 m was used. It is recognized th at smaller anomalies may not be resolved at this scale, and a smaller interval would im prove detection of smaller sized anomalies. A mapping grade Leica GPS accompanie d the magnetometer throughout the survey. The sub-meter accuracy of this e quipment allowed precise tracking and location of all collected magnetic data. The chronomet er mechanisms in the magnetometer and the GPS unit were synchronized at the start of each survey segment. This procedure allowed the two data sets to be merged seamlessly during post-processing in order to generate a spatially accurate map of the magnetic anoma lies. Figure 4.5 illustrates the lines walked during the magnetometer survey.

PAGE 171

149 The magnetometer was set to the base sta tion mode to check for possible natural or artificial interference. Once conditions were found to be acceptable, the G858 was set to the Survey Mode and data were acquired in the continuous recording setting; this high sampling rate allowed the operator to survey an area at a rapid pace (Geometrics 2001:28-32). One magnetic storm occurred du ring the survey, which was quickly detected and the affected area was resurveyed. The overall survey area was divided into manageable segments by using the eight contem porary ejido fields as individual sectors. They were identified accordingly and each field was subdivided into 100 m east-to-west segments. These segments were traversed in a generally north-to-s outh direction at 2 m line intervals, with locational marks take n every 2 m as well. Upon completion of a transect, a perpendicular survey was conducted at 5-15 m intervals to permit a cross verification of readings and lo cation. Data collection readin gs were checked at various intervals during the day. Each evening, data from the GPS unit and the magnetometer were downloaded to the project computer and checked for completeness and coverage. Electroconductivity su rveys were conducted across the areas of detected magnetic anomalies to determine if they may have been caused by metal objects. The terrain conductivity surveys were made using a Geonics EM-31 and ground conductivity measurements ranged between 5 and 14 millisiemens per meter (mS/m), a scale consistent with sand, silty sand, and loam (B evan 1998). Metal objects would be expected to generate in excess of 200 mS/m (Peace et al. 1996:7); therefore, metallic materials are not believed to be the caus e of the magnetic anomalies.

PAGE 172

150 Magnetic Data Analysis For the purposes of this survey, a magnetic anomaly is an observe d irregularity or deviation from the normal total magnetic fiel d strength at a location as measured by a magnetometer. A positive anomaly is where the field strength is stronger than expected, a negative anomaly occurs where the field st rength is less than expected (Marshak 2001:67). Variations in the intensity of magne tic fields registered by a magnetometer are measured in nanoTeslas (nT). At El Marquesillo, the Earths total field intensity based on the International Geomagnetic Reference Fiel d (National Geophysical Data Center 2005), is 40921.6 nT. The measured intensity of the ma gnetic field varied about this value, ranging from a low of 40800 nT to a high of 41040 nT, or a peak to peak amplitude of 240 nT. Numerous and varied positive and negative anomalies were detected by the survey and classified into basic types. Two notable anomalies are linear in natu re and of varying length and amplitude. Structure 109 contains a ramp-like appendage that runs to the east-northeast of the structure. At the end of this ramp is Li near Anomaly 1, a 100 nT amplitude magnetic anomaly that extends straight for approxima tely 120 m. This anomaly is not randomly oriented, but is highly cohere nt. In Figure 4.23 the magnetometer data have been laid over a topographic base map. This image illust rates that Linear Anomaly 1 is aligned with the surface features, and if the direction of the anom aly is extended it intersects Structure 84 and the large anomaly buried below it. Other magnetic anomalies parallel Linear Anomaly 1 but have lower amplitudes and are shorter in map length.

PAGE 173

Figure 4.23. Topographical base map w ith magnetic data overlaid. Red line highlights the path of Linear Anomaly 1 from Structure 109 to 84. Coordinates withheld by author. Linear Anomaly 2 is striking. It is a la rger 150 nT amplitude anomaly aligned to the west-southwest and extending for 100 m, and demonstrates the same noteworthy uniformity and cohesion. Specifically, Linear Anomaly 2 consists of a broad negative anomaly, bounded along its lateral sides by lower amplitude positive anomalies. The anomaly begins approximately 30 m west of the Olmec throne location in Field 8. The medial axis of this anomaly is aligned with Structures 77a and 77b and, if it were extended eastward, it would intersect with the throne (Figure 4.24). Beyond the clearly delineated 100 m long anomaly, the anomaly con tinues but weakens, ca using a loss of the positive values, coherence and amplitude. This decrease may be due to the combined effects of the Throne Complex Platform and Structures 77a and 77b covering and, 151

PAGE 174

Figure 4.24. Magnetic base map of the Olmec Throne Complex. Shaded outlines of architectural structures added. Linear Anomaly 2 is indicated within the red rectangle. C oordinates withheld by author. thereby, obscuring the magnetic readings. It is possible that this anomaly may extend significantly further to the west-southwest underneath the constructions. Both Linear Anomalies 1 and 2 have the appearance and amp litude that could be at tributed to buried basalt. Their evenness and arrangement suggests intentional placement and alignment as a wall or pathway. Another magnetic anomaly detected at El Marquesillo is associated with Structure 84 and can be described as elongated and coherent, and has an amplitude of 175 nT. Data filtering, enhancement algorithms, and modeling techniques were conducted at the Geophysics and Volcanology Laborat ory in the University of South Floridas Department of Geology. These procedures indicated that the anomaly is likely a rectangular body of basalt with significant depth (possibly greater than 2 m) and estimated to be up to 10 m long by 10 m wide. This size would preclude th at the anomaly is caused by a single piece 152

PAGE 175

153 of basalt, but instead, a body of stone placed in a fashion similar to the Massive Offerings of serpentine at La Venta (Drucker et al. 1959:127-133). The coherence, or continuousness, of this anomaly is remarkable. To produce the anomaly associated with Structure 84 would re quire that the individu al stone blocks in this structure were deposited together and in the same orientation. In other words, each individual block of stone would have been placed into the gro und at El Marquesillo maintaining a similar orientation with respect to the magnetic field and in respect to the other blocks in the structure. The constructors of this feature had literally replicated the same pattern and orientation of the stone as it was in its original source matrix. Evidence from the Gulf Coast and other Formative peri od sites demonstrates that the inhabitants were acquainted with the principles of magnetism and the presence of magnetic poles within basalt (Breiner and Coe 1972; Carlson 1975; Fuson 1969; Guimares 2004). There are other anomalies that are associat ed with architectural features. Positive and negative anomalies with peak-to-peak amplitudes of 90 nT are associated with Structure 83 and another with Structure 86. These anomalies appear to be produced by basalt blocks located beneath the structures In addition, there are two types of random, isolated anomalies found throughout the site. The primary difference between these latter types is their size and magnetic susceptibility. The smaller anomalies have a peak-to-peak amplitude of approximately 100 nT, while the larger ones have an amplitude of 150 nT. The smaller anomalies may indicate hearths a nd the larger ones ceramic kilns that may be spatially related to the concentrations of ceramics recovered in the surface collection and observations of quantities of potsherds along the exposed river cut bank. Overall, the results confirm that all the individual anomalie s at El Marquesillo pr esent a high level of

PAGE 176

154 magnetization within the relatively low ma gnetic context produced by the surface soil and earth matrix. Moreover, the magnetic da ta display a high degree of uniformity, regularity, and cohesion. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Data collected at El Marquesillo were pr ocessed, correlated and integrated with other data sets and entered into a GIS. Topographic data from total station and GPS surveys were integrated with spatial data from the soil and magnetometer surveys. Nongeoreferenced aerial photographs and regiona l satellite imagery were brought into a uniform coordinate-projection sy stem and used as base maps for the assembled data sets. The ability to visualize collectively these diverse data sets permitted comparisons and analyses to be performed at varying scales, and allowed rela tional and attribute values to be queried, measured, and evaluated. Examples of the utilization of this analytical tool are dispersed throughout this dissertation. Examination of the topographic and magneto meter survey maps of the site, along with observations made in the field, suggested a series of directiona l alignments created by the centerlines of multiple architectura l structures and sub-surface anomalies. Locational positions derived from the GPS and total station surveys were used to plot five different alignments (see Figure 4.25). This series of directional alignments were digitized in a GIS and geo-refe renced to the collected spatial data. Directions for the alignments are presented in the following fo rmat; 0 equals Magnetic North, 90 East, 180 South, and 270 West. Ali gnment A was plotted to 68 NNE and passes through the medial axis of Structures 109 and 84 and al ong Linear Anomaly 1 and the major anomaly

PAGE 177

Figure 4.25. Topographic contour map illustrating the five alignments created by the medial axes of f eatures at El Marquesillo, coordinates withheld by author. that underlies Structure 84. A lignment B lies on a direction of 72 NNE and is created by the longitudinal medial axis of the Olm ec Throne Complex. This axis line bisects Structures 77, 78, 79, 82, and 110 as well as passi ng directly across the center of the seep spring immediately west of the complexs basal pl atform. This axis line also is parallel to 155

PAGE 178

156 Linear Anomaly 2. Alignment C follows 341.5 NNW, which is created by the medial axis of Structure 111 and the alignment of Offerings I, II, and III. This same directional alignment is also created by the medial ax is of the secondary Villa Alta phase longmound complex located 400 m northwest of Field 4. The centerline of the principal Villa Alta long-mound complex, 300 m southsoutheast of the Olmec throne deposition site is plotted at 2 NNE. Referred to as Alignment D, this line longitudinally bisects the complexs 150 m long courtyard and the pyramidal mound structures at either end of the plaza as well as passing directly through the center of Structure 84 and the major subsurface anomaly. Alignment E adheres to 47 NE and it formed by an axis that passes di rectly through the centers of Structure 83, 84, and 86. Anthropogenic Soil Survey The soil survey portion of the research pr oject was designed as a prospection tool aimed at analyzing spatial relationships betw een different activities at the site. Through ethnoarchaeological investigations and a series of archaeometric studies in Mesoamerica (Barba and Ortiz 1992; Manzanilla and Barba 1990; Middleton and Pr ice 1996; Parnell et al. 2002; Terry et al. 1999; Wells 2004a), it ha s been indicated that the preparation and consumption of food and drink is associated with the pres ence of phosphates in the soil. Residual traces of sodium and potassium en ter the soil as a result of wood ash, often generated in hearths and kilns or used in craft production. Hematite and cinnabar, which were used as coloring or addi tives on artifacts, leave concen trations of iron oxide and

PAGE 179

157 mercuric sulfide in the soil. Therefore, through an elemental analysis of soils, it may be possible to detect traces of different activities. Phosphate compounds and metallic ions are fixed quickly and remain stable in soils for extended lengths of time (Ball and Kelsey 1992; Johnston and 75:371-381.; Wells 2004a; Wells et al. 2000:450). At El Marquesillo, anthropogenic soil surveys were conducted in two plazas to prospect for evid ence of various types of activities. The specimens were examined through a weak aci d-extraction ICPOES analysis performed to obtain multi-elemental composition of anthropogenic soils from the plazas. Pedogenesis is the process of soil formation, and of interest here are those soils that have been subjected to human cultural ac tivities. Geoarchaeologi cal researchers have made significant progress in ar chaeological applications of so il science over the past 50 years (Holliday and Gartner 2007; Middleton 2004:47-48). Initially, soil chemistry was used as a prospection tool to identify arch aeological sites and later to clarify their formation processes (Arrhenius 1963; Bi dwell and Hole 1965; McDowell 1988; Woods 1977). Advanced computerized technologies ha ve facilitated the de velopment of multielemental characterizations of soils, and expa nded their applications to the examination of settlement organization and activity pattern s at multiple scales. Projects have ranged from discrete activity areas within individual households (Manzanilla and Barba 1990; Parnell et al. 2002; Wells et al. 2000) to la ndscape-wide surveys and applications (see Holliday 1993). By analyzing the chemical residues in the anthrosols (i.e., soils modified by human activity) patterns can be detected in archaeological contexts where little artifact material exists (Wells 2004a:67). Recent test s have demonstrated the potential power of

PAGE 180

158 this method when applied to investigation of communal activity areas, households, and subsistence systems (Barba 1986; Fernnd ez et al. 2002; Linderholm and Lundberg 1994; Manzanilla and Barba 1990; Wells 2004a; Wells et al. 2000). Spa tial and quantitative elemental patterns can imply ac tivity area locations associat ed with eating and drinking as well as where the processing, preparati on, consumption, and deposition of food may have occurred. It has been demonstrated that the collecti on and analysis of soils from within and around the perimeter of precolumbian plaza groups has consistently revealed evidence of specific human activities (Wells 2004a; Wells et al. 2007; Wells et al. 2000). A caveat to this methodology is the recognition that el emental concentrations alone are not necessarily reliable indicators of human act ivities. The chemical data are used in conjunction with other lines of archaeologi cal evidence to provide support for the understanding of the organization and spatia l distribution of ac tivities. Studying the elemental composition of anthrosols can be c onducted prior to, or in conjunction with, field excavation and other inve stigative techniques, which are essential for inferring the activities that generated chemical residues in soils. Only through an integration of these methods, along with consideration of the archaeological and spatial contexts, can inferences be proposed and evaluated concer ning the type and location of activities. The soil surveys conducted at El Marquesi llo provide an opportunity to observe and evaluate the effectivene ss of this methodology over a si gnificantly greater time depth then has been previously attempted in Meso america. Prior experiments have examined Classic period sites (c. AD 200 to 900) incl uding Piedras Negras, Guatemala and El

PAGE 181

159 Coyote, Honduras (Terry et al. 2000; Wells 2004a; Wells et al 2000). The soil tests at El Marquesillo push the limits of temporal analysis back to c. 1200 to 200 BC. Sampling, Methods, and Collection Two separate plazas in Field 8 were selected for sampling. The decision to focus on these two locations was based on the rec overy of Formative period ceramics on or near their surfaces, their proximity to the Ol mec throne, and the spatial relationship to surrounding architecture. Offerings I and II s uggest that a Formative period feasting event occurred on or near the Olmec throne next to Plaza I. The surrounding architectural features enclose and restrict entry to this smaller area, a feature that suggests a more private space (Grove 1993). Plaza II is larger and has controlled access from other portions of the site that implies a more public character (Heyden and Gendrop 1980). Therefore, sampling from these two plazas could provide opportunities for detection of various activities and possibly comparative spatial relationships The survey in Plaza I was not conducted closer to the throne location due to the excavation and mixi ng of soils created during the rescue operation. Soil Survey Field Methods A total of 279 soil specimens was taken from the two plazas, 117 from Plaza I and 162 from Plaza II. Rectangular grids were laid ou t in each plaza as illustrated in Figures 4.26 and 4.27, and specimens were collected at each point designated by an x on the grid maps. Each specimen was identified acco rding to survey plaza and its position of

PAGE 182

Figure 4.26. Illustration of soil sp ecimen grid in Plaza I. Red markers indicate analyzed sample locations (N=87). Figure 4.27. Illustration of soil sp ecimen grid in Plaza II. Red markers indicate analyzed sample locations (N=90). 160

PAGE 183

161 intersection on the numbered rows and letter ed columns. The red diamonds indicate which specimens were used in the subsequent elemental analysis. At the four corners of the grid maps are the GPS c oordinates for the corner points that define the limits and location of each collection zone. Posthole diggers were used to remove the upper 0.25 to 0.30 m of humus at each extraction point in order to obtain soils below the plowzone. This measurement was determined by the relatively consistent plow zone level observed along the exposed river cut. The extracted upper level soils were deposited next to the hole and checked for cultural material. Some burned clay fragment s and ceramic sherds were recovered (see Ceramic Section in Chapter 5). Specimens from Plaza I (Soil Survey I) were taken from a 40 by 50 m unit using a sampling matrix where samples were collected at regular 5 m intervals (Figure 4.26). In Plaza II (Soil Survey II) an 80 by 90 m area was laid out in a similar grid matrix, but the collection points were staggered on alte rnating rows (Figure 4.27). The soil specimen was collected from the bottom of each of the original postholes. The sample was extracted from a depth of approximately 0.3 to 0.4 m. A stainless steel trowel was used to take each sample. The soil was placed in sterile plastic bags that had been marked with the proper surv ey and grid coordinates. After the soil had air-dried, the bags were sealed and packaged for return to the University of South Florida for analysis.

PAGE 184

162 Laboratory Procedures A total of 177 specimens were used in the weak acid-extraction ICPOES analysis, 87 from Plaza I (Figure 4.26) and 90 from Plaza II (Figure 4.27). The location of these specimens is identified by a red diamond on the grid maps. Each sample was prepared for analysis by James Hawkin and Claire Novotny of the University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology, under the direction of Dr. E. Christian Wells. Each sample was homogenized through thorough mi xing, and a 2.0 g sample was weighed out. The fine consistency of the soil precluded th e need for sieving or pulverizing. The sample was mixed in a polyethylene vial with 20 mL of extract composed of 50 mL HC1, 10 mL HNO 3 and diluted with 1000 mL of Type II deionized H 2 O (0.60 M HC1 + 0.16 M HNO 3 ). Sample mixtures were highly agitated for 30 minutes on an electric platform shaker at 200 rpm. The solution was then filtered through ashless filter paper and decanted into a clean polyethylene vial. The mild acid extraction method was used because recent studies have demonstrated this procedure illustrates the anthropogenic components in the soils (Burton and Simpson 1993; Middleton and Price 1996). The prepared samples were sent to the Paleoclimatology, Paleoceanography and Biogeochemistry Laboratory at the University of South Floridas College of Marine Science on the St. Petersburg Campus. There th e samples were analyzed using a PerkinElmer 4300-DV ICP-OES (Dual View Inductiv ely Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometer) equipped with a cyclonic sp ray chamber and Meinhard C3 High-Solids nebulizer The equipment was calibrated using know n solution standards for elements of interest.

PAGE 185

163 The results were reported in parts per million of the element, which were then standardized to allow discussion of elemental enrichment and for comparing the plazas. The figures were multiplied by the dry weight of the analyzed portion of the sample and converted to milligrams per ki logram of soil for each sample assay. Each element was then divided by the respective value of aluminum (Al) in the sample. Since aluminum is a natural constituent of the soil, it is not expected to vary significantly over space. Finally, the numbers were factored by log base-10 to allow them to be compared. The complete data files for the El Marquesillo soil specimens are presented in Appendix 5. Analytical Methods The purpose of the soil chemical analysis was to study the soil memory, a concept that relates to the physical, biologica l, and chemical traces that various human activities leave in the soil (Wells 2006). Depending on the supporting or collaborating evidence, specific elements can be associated with certain human activities and the area in which they occurred. In the original ICPOES analysis, various levels of 15 chemical elements were detected. In Soil Survey I, cobalt (Co) mercury (Hg), strontium (Sr), titanium (Ti), and zinc (Zn) were not present in quantities sufficient for accurate measurement and were removed from consideration. Nickel (Ni) is not currently considered in anthropic soil analyses in Mesoamerica and was removed from the analysis (B arba and Ortiz 1992; Middleton 2004; Middleton and Price 1996; Parnell et al. 2002; Wells et al. 2000). Calcium (Ca) was also removed due to its natu ral occurrence in the substrate of the soil, which may unduly influence the results. Aluminum (Al), considered to be naturally and

PAGE 186

evenly distributed in the soil, was used to standardize the usable elements and was not included on its own in the final analysis. The same procedure was followed in Soil Survey II, but Sr was present in suff icient amounts to be considered. Box plots were constructed to summarize the datasets (Figures 4.28a and 4.28b). The greater the standard deviations and ranges, the more spatially heterogeneous the element is across the survey area. In both Plazas I and II, potassium (K), manganese (Mn), and phosphorus (P) exhibit the charac teristics required to produce identifiable contrasts and patterns. Alternatively, barium (Ba), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), and strontium (Sr) illustrate a rela tive homogeneity that suggests th at their levels of contrast are not sufficient to provide the distincti ons needed to discern their depositional arrangement. Figure 4.28a. Box plot summaries of elemental data from Plaza I 164

PAGE 187

Figure 4.28b. Box plot summaries of elemental data from Plaza II A primary objective of the soil analysis was to illustrate the chemical signatures in the soils and to see how those markers ma y indicate spatially discrete activities, such as food preparation, cooking, or ceremonial events. Kriging, a met hod of geostatisitcal analysis, was used to spatially interpolate a nd illustrate the differences across the entire area under analysis. This technique provides st atistical methods that interpolate unknown values based on the known values in the plot Autocorrelation determines the quantitative relationships among known, measured point s, which is effective in producing a prediction surface. Variation in the surface is expl ained through a mathematically produced spatial correlation of the distance between sample points. Kriging involves a two-step process that first generates variogram s and covariance functions that statistically approximate the spatial correlation values, a nd second, uses the known values to predict the unknown ones. All points and distances are considered in the determination of the 165

PAGE 188

166 output value for each location. Because krigi ng is most appropriate when spatially correlated distance and directi onal data are known, it is used frequently in soil science studies (McBratney and Webs ter 1986; Oliver 1990). Surfer computational software version 8.01 was used to illustrate the soil chemical data. A point-type, linear variogram model was constructe d with the slope and anisotropy or directional measurement equal to 1, and the angle equa l to zero. The linear error variance was set at one. The data for K, Mn, and P in Plazas I and II were then plotted on standard xyz grids that were pr oduced by the known point s and a probability model of the unknown points. A series of recent Mesoamerican ethnoarchaeological studies have been conducted in efforts to relate observed human activity patterns with soil chemical data (Barba 1986; Barba and Ortiz 1992; Fernndez et al. 2002 ; Middleton 2004; Middleton and Price 1996; Wells and Urban 2002). These studies demonstrate a correspondence between high levels of P with food cons umption and the discard of other organic substances. Conversely, low leve ls of phosphorus were detected near cooking areas, such as hearths and ovens. High levels of Mn have also been related to food preparation and consumption areas and its spatial patterning is similar to that of phosphorus. Manganese has additionally been associated with pyrolusite (manganese dioxide, MnO 2 ) a black pigment used in various types of craf t production (Wells et al. 2000). Wood ash, charcoal, and burned earth from fireplaces, hear ths, and ovens produce elevated levels of K in the soil (Wells et al. 2007). In contrast, re sidues of this element were low in areas of food consumption (Middleton and Price 1996).

PAGE 189

Elemental Analysis of the Soils from Plaza I In Plaza I, elevated levels of the chemi cal element present are illustrated in red, low levels are in blue. The high levels may i ndicate the locations of fires or hearths (see Figure 4.29). In the upper right quadrant of the image map th ere is a sweeping arc that extends from 1994018N/265893E to 1994018N/26910E and down to 199407N/265908E. Figure 4.29. Kriged image maps of soil chemi cal elements in El Marquesillo Plaza I 167

PAGE 190

168 There are also high concentrati ons of K centered at 994033N/265900E, 1994019N/265877E, 1993988N/265882E, 1993998N/265898E, 1993990N/265910E, and 265903N/1993977E. All of these images show a d ecidedly circular and relatively equal lessening of P concentrations as it moves away from the center. This distribution appears to be consistent with fireplaces where wood as h or charcoal is distributed evenly around the feature (see Middleton and Price 1996). The concentrations of Mn are extensive acr oss the survey area in Plaza I, but they do not occur in spaces where high levels of K ar e present. The footprints of Mn actually wrap around or are adjacent to the possible fireplaces. The activitie s that produced these patterns, whether they are food preparation, ceramic craft production, or both, demonstrate clearly significant human activity in the plaza. Phosphorus is also present in varying concentrations and also spatially correlates with Mn, but is not present at the sites of high K deposition. Elemental Analysis of the Soils from Plaza II In comparison to Plaza I, the chemical concentrations of K, Mg, and P in Plaza II are low to say the least (Figure 4.30). A single su bstantially elevated level of K is present at 1993965N/265787E, and there are other lower concentrati ons scattered across the plaza. If these are indeed indi cators of fires, they are si gnificantly larger than those detected in Plaza I, ranging up to 10 m in di ameter. Manganese and P concentrations are aligned and have a significant degree of overlap. The infrequent and lower levels of these three elements may indicate that this pl aza was cleaned repeatedly following activity events, thereby not allowing chemical re sidues to become fixed in the soils.

PAGE 191

169 Summary of the Soil Analyses When the kriged maps of P, K, and Mn are overlain on a base map with the architectural features outlin ed, the spatial relationship of the activity areas becomes clearer. Potassium tends to be associated with the deposition of wood ash. Although the presence of wood ash may suggest fires, it may also represent refuse areas or the result of activities such as corn sl aking, ceramic production, or ceremonies. Whatever the cause, Figure 4.31a illustrates the potential location of a number of human activ ities in Plaza I. In Plaza II, the major concentra tion of K is aligned with the medial, east-west axis of the Throne Complex between Structures 78 and 79. The chemical residues appear to form a ring around the center portion of the plaza. Manganese and P demonstrate significant activity in Plaza I, but the residue is restri cted in Plaza II. Nevertheless, the central portion of this plaza does not dem onstrate any element residues. Examination of Figures 4.31 a, b, and c de monstrates a greater concentration of specific elements in the soils. This condition would suggest significant and varied activities occurred in Plaza I. These activities may have included food preparation and consumption, craft production, and ceremonial events. Plaza II demonstrates a substantially lower level of element residues in the soil, which may be attributed to the occurrence of fewer events or the cleaning of the plaza surface im mediately after the events.

PAGE 192

Figure 4.30. Kriged image maps of soil chemi cal elements in El Marquesillo Plaza II 170

PAGE 193

Figure 4.31a. Potassium distri bution in Plazas I and II Figure 4.31b. Manganese distri bution in Plazas I and II Figure 4.31c. Phosphorus distri bution in Plazas I and II 171

PAGE 194

172 Chapter 5. Artifact and Feature Analysis Introduction This chapter includes an examination and an alysis of the features and artifacts that have been observed, recovered, or documented at the site of El Marquesillo. Assemblages of ceramic and lithic artifacts were gathered during a variety of collection surveys and are described and discussed. A series of five di screte offerings, which I consider to be ritualistic in nature, are presented indivi dually. The presence of a monumental Olmec throne at El Marquesi llo has significant soci opolitical implications; therefore, a section has been allotted to an examination of th e physical nature, sculptural elements, and depositional details of this monumental ba salt block. The chapter begins with the stratigraphic documentation of selected segmen ts of the river cut bank that provided an opportunity to evaluate various portions of the ancient site. River Cut Stratigraphic Wall Profiles Rationale and Methods Erosion and changes in the course of the San Juan River have caused the loss of substantial portions of the site, and with it, significant archaeological material. Nonetheless, aspects of these processes ha ve presented an unexpected opportunity to study the site in greater detail, and provi ded a strategic advantage considering the

PAGE 195

restriction prohibiting further excavations. These natural pr ocesses created a 1.5 km long stratigraphic profile ac ross the site (Figure 5.1). At numerous locations, the rivers actions have exposed archaeological featur es and significant qu antities of cultural material, the most prominent of which wa s the exposure of the Olmec throne. The majority of exposed artifacts are cer amic artifacts, however (Figure 5.2). Figure 5.1. View of river cut bank extending south across the site. River is at a moderate flood stage. Figure 5.2. Example of exposed stra tigraphy containing ceramic deposits 173

PAGE 196

Each annual river inundation causes furt her undercutting and collapse of the embankment while runoff from normal rainfa ll events also exposes new stratigraphic details and more materials as the land is continually eroded away. The results of numerous surveys and collections along the dynamic, cut em bankment are reported in the ceramic and offering sections of this chapte r. Slump and collapse events are common along the 1.5 km-long elevated river cut bank and Figure 5.3 illustrates a 5 m-wide example of the result. Figure 5.3. Collapsed section of embankment 174

PAGE 197

The average depth of any observed ancient cultural material along the exposed cut bank extended to about 2.5 m from the present surface (Figure 5.4). Below this lens of cultural material is a substratum of sediment ary deposits creating a ve rtical wall ranging from 7 m to 12 m in height. In order to access the upper portion of the embankment, I constructed a harness with a supplemental safety line and lowered co-director Hernndez over the edge to conduct the pr ofiling (Figure 5.5 and 5.6). Figure 5.4. View to the west of cut bank in Field 7. The cultural material is outlined in red and is limited to upper 2.5 m of profile. Figure 5.5. View to the west during the profiling of segment 1A 175

PAGE 198

Figure 5.6. View of profiling river cut bank segment The Profile Segments A series of five individual locations along the river cu t bank in Fields 1 through 7 were selected for collection and profiling (Fig ure 5.7). The locations were selected based on in situ cultural artifacts and features that were visible al ong the face of the bank. Each stratigraphic profile was 2 m wide and varied in height acco rding to the cultural deposits present. 176

PAGE 199

Figure 5.7. Site map illustrating locati ons of river cut bank profiles. Note that red brackets are not drawn to scale. In each of the five profiles illustrated in Figures 5.8 through 5.12, the lettered red asterisks identify locations where soil specimens were taken for future analysis. The numbered blue icons indicate places wher e ceramic specimens were extracted. The pottery pieces were selected in an attempt to recover diagnostic t ypes to assist in the chronological and spatial interp retation of the profile. The fre quency (light versus heavy) and location of ceramic artif act concentrations are denoted by other symbols. In the descriptions of the profile ceramics, four chronological phases are referred to: Early Formative (c. 1500-900 BC), Middle Formativ e (c. 900-400 BC), Late Formative (c. 400100 BC), and the Protoclassic period (100 BC-AD 200). The master list of the ceramic types, classifications, and descriptions is contained in Appendix 1a and 1b. 177

PAGE 200

178 Level I throughout the site is consistent. This uppermost layer is made up of semicompacted dark grey humus (Munsell 7.5YR3/2) that, for the most part, contains little cultural material. Mechanized tilling over the past three decades has effected whatever artifacts were present in this upper level and all are small, broken, or highly eroded. The colors used in the computer generated profiles do not portray the true color of the soils, and were employed to more clearly differentiate changes in the stratigraphy. River Cut Profile 1A This segment is located on the southeast pe rimeter of Field 1 and is representative of several locations along the river cut bank in Fields 1 through 7. Level I is a natural layer of soft to semi-compacted humus (Munsell 7.5YR3/1) (Figure 5.8). The few ceramics present in this level are small and diagnostically unrecognizable due to damage caused by repeated agricultural cultivation, cat tle grazing, and natura l erosional effects. This situation is true of Level I in all prof iles. There is evidence of insect and rodent activities and effects of plant and tree roots. Gr avel fill is present, but well dispersed from repeated manipulation of the surface. The presence of gravel anywhere on the site within the top 2 m is significant. River gravel (~0.5 to 5 cm in size) is ubiqu itous, but natural sedimentary deposits only appear at levels that are more than 3.5 m below the present surface. Any occurrence of this gravel near the surface is a result of intentional hum an activity that is generally associated with the constructi on of architectural features.

PAGE 201

Figure 5.8. River cut profile 1A Level II is composed of soft, dark brown to dark grey sandy loam (Munsell 7.5YR3/2) (see NRCS 2006). Gravel is slightly more abundant than in Level I as are ceramic sherds, but they are still small and eroded. Level III is a yellowish brown sandy loam (Munsell 7.5YR4/3) that contains less gravel but significantly more ceramic material that is generally larger and be tter preserved. The density and compaction of 179

PAGE 202

180 ceramic material increased toward the bo ttom of the level, possibly suggesting an intentional deposition. Level IV is a well-compacted mixture of reddish loamy sand (Munsell 7.5YR3/4), and ceramic artifacts comprise virtually all of cultural artifacts in this layer. Sizes of the sherds vary widely, and the high concentration at the lowe r levels suggests a refuse deposit. The lack of organic or other domestic-related artif acts may indicate that this material is waste from ceramic production as opposed to normal household debris. Reddish sand constitutes Level V, an appare nt natural level that contains no cultural material. Level VI is the uppermost a ppearance of natura l river gravel. The ceramics in this profile section pr esent a mixed context. In Level II, the recovered ceramics identified as 1 and 2 ar e diagnostic of the Middle Formative period (Type 11.1). Level III contains the same t ype (11.1) plus examples from the Early Formative (11.4), and Late Formative (11.4a and 21.1) periods. Type 420.1 is also present in this level and is considered transitional between the Late Formative and Protoclassic periods. Level IV contains Early (31.2) and Late Formative (21.2), and Late Formative to Protoclassic transitional (81.4). The deposition and mixt ure of these pieces from various periods is demonstrated th roughout much of the Field I area and may suggest a long term waste disposal site for an enduring ceramic production tradition. River Cut Profile 1B This profile lies on the southern emba nkment of Field 1 between Mound 84 and the remnants of Mound 107. Level I is similar to that in Profile 1A with the upper 10 cm to 20 cm containing the same soil type and dispersed gravel (Fi gure 5.9). Below this

PAGE 203

Figure 5.9. River cut profile 1B initial layer, however, is a 10 cm deep stratum of sand and river gravel that is believed to be the base of a constructed platform. Th e presence of Early and Middle Formative ceramics (Types 11.1 and 31.2) in this stratum a ppears to support the hypothesis that this was construction fill. The yellowish soft sandy loam in Level II (Munsell 10YR5/4) contains small amounts of cultural material and differs signi ficantly from the second level in nearby 181

PAGE 204

182 Profile 1A, a condition that may indicate cons truction or an earlier modification event. The reddish, semi-compacted sand of Level III in this profile location corresponds with Level IV in Profile 1A. The lack of ceramic s in this location may be a result of the construction outlined above. The precise demarcation between Level III and the culturally sterile Level IV is difficult to di stinguish visually, but the underlying layer is extremely hard and rocklike. Late Formative (41.1) and Transitional phase (320.1 and 420.1) ceramics in Levels II and III maintain the idea of a later c onstruction in Level I using older fill material. River Cut Profile 2A The upper level of Profile 2A is consistent with the previous profiles (Figure 5.10). Level II appears to be a trash midden. N ear the top of this level are pieces of burned clay suggestive of construction materi al, and pieces of basalt groundstone objects. Immediately below these items are a series of ceramic deposits that appear to have occurred during four deposition episodes (ide ntified as 1, 2, 3, a nd 4). The layering of ceramics from four separate events suggests the long term use of this deposit site, and their relative positions are consistent with repeated, sequential dumping. The soil is made up of a dark brown to yellowish mixture of sandy loam (Munsell 7.5YR4/4) and, although ceramics, basalt, and burned clay are present, there is no obsidian. The feature is intrusive into Leve l III and possibly into Level IV. Ceramic specimen 1 potsherds include Early (11.4), Middle (11.1, 11.2), Late (11.4a, 21.2, and 21.5), and Transitional (81.1). The 25 pieces of the Late Formative incised polished blackware (21.3) appear to be from a single vessel. Ceramic specimen 2 sherds contained

PAGE 205

Figure 5.10. River cut profile 2A Late Formative (21.1), and ceramic specimen 3 sherds had all four periods represented (11.1, 21.1. 31.2, and 420.1). Ceramic specimen 4 c ontained Middle (11. 1) and Late (21.1) Formative period pieces. Various s lipped and undecorated differentially fired bichromes were the primary diagnostic type s and numerous pieces of Coarse Orange, considered to be non-diagnostic domestic wares, were also present and appear to be from the same vessel. 183

PAGE 206

184 Level III is a reddish semi-compacted sand (Munsell 5YR4/6). A few ceramic pieces are present but only at th e interface with Level II. Level IV is a culturally sterile, hard, rock-like natural substrate that overlies the sedimentar y river gravel of Level VI. These types of depositional layers are found primarily in Fields 1, 2, and 3. River Cut Profile 6B Other than the equivalence of Level I to the rest of the site, Profile 6B demonstrates a different stra tigraphic pattern than those pr eviously presented (Figure 5.11). Although ceramic artifacts are sparse, this location appears to be part of a low earthen platform and is approximately 10 m south of an area containing significant quantities of Early and Middle Formative potte ry. This spatial distribution along with the stratigraphic evidence may suggest that a build ing occupied the top of the platform and that waste was deposited off to the side. So il specimens were taken for future analysis from locations noted in the drawing. Level II is a relatively consistent laye r of yellowish soft sandy loam (Munsell 10YR5/4) that contains little cultural material At the bottom of this level is a line of highly compacted red sand that ranges from only a trace to 4 cm in thickness. Level III appears to be a mixture of sand and ash that is divided into four layers by three hard compacted, red sand lines. These lines diminish in thickness left to right and disappear over the right half of the profile where the soil becomes highly mixed. There is even less cultural material in this layer than in Level II. Mixed sandy ash with some clay comprise s Level IIIa. It is fairly well compacted and divided from Level IV by a well-compacted red sand line. A slight ly greater quantity

PAGE 207

Figure 5.11. River cut profile 6B of ceramics is present including Early (31.2 and 71.7) Late (21.2 and 21.5), and Transitional (420.1) period specimens. Level I IIb is a sandy clay mixed with ash and contains the same measure of ceramics as the previous level. The red sand lines may be evidence of floors of the types recorded at San Lorenzo (Vega 1998). Below this layer is Level IV, a natural segment of gravel and sand. 185

PAGE 208

River Cut Profile 7A This profile is contained within Plat form 111. The uppermost level continues to be consistent with all others depicted. Level II is composed of four separate layers of highly mixed sandy loam that are divided by lines of highly compacted red sand (similar to lines described in Profile 6B ) (Figure 5.12). This level is no t consistent with other site profiles, and its complexity suggests numerous activities and events. Transitional Late Figure 5.12. River cut profile 7A. 186

PAGE 209

187 Formative to Protoclassic ceramics (420.1 and 81.4) were recovered from ceramic specimen location 1. Level IIA is an area of hi ghly mixed sand and silt that is void of cultural material and is possibly intrusive into Level III. Level III is a highly mixed composite of reddish-yellow, semi-compacte d, sandy and silty loam, and contained Early (31.2) and Late (11.4a) Formative ceramics in the area directly below Level IIA. Level IV is a mixture of reddish colore d, semi-compacted sand and ash or ash-like substance. Offering III was located in this level, and the small sand wedge directly above it is an indication of intrusion. The angle a nd degree of erosion to the river cut bank at this point have masked the remainder of the in trusive pit above the offering. In the profile drawing, the thick, red sand line above the offeri ng appears unbroken when, in fact, it is actually behind the offering. There is another similar red sand lens lining the bottom of the level. Ceramic specimen location 3 contai ns a mix of Early (71.7) and Late (11.4a) pieces possibly the result of the disturbance caused during the deposition of Offering III. The intrusion of Offering IV passed comp letely through Level IV and was placed midway into Level V. Ceramic specimen 5 is Early Formative (31.2) and appears to have been relocated during the intr usion of the offering. The quantity of ash-like material mixed with sand is much higher here than in previous levels. A third line of highly compacted red sand underlies this level as well These three lines are wider than the ones observed in Level II and may represent floor s similar to the sand floors documented at San Lorenzo (Vega 1998). Levels Va and Vb contain less ash and sand, and dispersed gravel is mixed into this aggregate. This area appears to be a deposit at the bottom of Level V. On the opposite side of the prof ile, Early Formative Calzadas Carved and Limon Incised (11.4) were recovered in ceramic specimen location 6.

PAGE 210

188 Level VI is a layer of sand and gravel that was mixed and m odified. Contained in a portion of this level is a quant ity of burned clay that acted as a floor with small amounts of ceramics scattered on its su rface. All diagnostic material recovered in the ceramic specimens from this level are Early Formative (11.4). The Ceramics of El Marquesillo In the area of study, newly tilled fields c ontinually reveal potsherds, and the upper portions of the exposed river cut contains 0.5 to 1.5 m deep layers of ceramic pieces that, in some cases, extend for hundreds of meters. The ubiquity of ceramics within specific, albeit sizable, areas of the site suggest po ssible long term production. On the contrary to this prominence of pottery is the absence of other types of as sociated artifacts or materials. Occasionally, 5 to 10 cm pieces of river gravel are noted that, after macroscopic examination (10x magnification), may have been used as polishing or burnishing stones based on their form and wear. Ceramic artifacts were recovered through a surface collection, a collection along the base of the river cut bank, the 2002 Ol mec throne excavations, the 2003 test unit excavations, and the stratigraphic cut bank profiles. For comparison, 1.3 obsidian artifacts were recovered per cubic meter of excavated soil. Ceramics, on the other hand, were recovered at a rate of 264.4 pieces per c ubic meter. Unquestionably, the elimination of sampling bias would lessen the dispar ity, but the overwhelming prominence of potsherds would probably be little diminished. The analysis of El Marque sillos ceramic assemblage provided chronological cross-ties to well-esta blished contemporaneous regional ceramics through comparison of

PAGE 211

189 fabrication methods, technologies, forms, and decoration. The result was a ceramic chronology that is used to assess the spatial di stribution of temporally diagnostic types in order to understand the occupa tion of the site. The qualitative analysis of the ceramic artifact assemblage informs also on the soci oeconomic structure a nd political economy of the site. Counts of identifiable types are provided in Appendix 2. As more work is done, however, El Marque sillos role and level of participation in interregional exchange systems and interaction spheres can be better identified. These future analyses will permit a varying scale of analysis that ranges from discrete intra-site locations (e.g., middens or offerings) to si te-wide considerations. As well, regional considerations can be made when ceramic distributional occurrenc es are recovered and evaluated at neighboring a nd intraregional sites. The following is a summary of the methods of analysis, an explanation of the primary types of chronologically diagnostic wares, and examination of where and how the artifacts were recovered. At this stage of the investigation, the chronology remains rather coarse. Temporal segments include the Pre-San Lorenzo period (c. 1500-1150 BC), the San Lorenzo Olmec period (c. 1150-900 BC), the Middle Formative period (c. 900400 BC), the Late Formative period (c. 400100 BC), and the Prot oclassic (c. 100 BC-AD 200), Early Classic (c. AD 200-550), and Late Classi c periods (c. AD 550-900). Transitional period wares are also identified, and the spatial distribution of all chronologically diagnostic pieces across the site is demonstr ated, including 18th to 20th century Spanish Colonial and European wares.

PAGE 212

190 Analytical Methods The procedures used for ceramic analys is were modeled after those employed by Rodrguez and Ortz (1997) during the Manat Project in the Coatzacoalcos Basin. This system combines the type-variety system w ith modal characteristics. Ceramic categories and classification were defined according to paste color, compactness, type and size of temper, surface finish and color, plastic or painted decoration, and form (Rodrguez and Ortz 1997:74). Identification incorporated analysis of ceramic specimens from the Tuxtla Mountains (Ortz 1975; Ortz and Santley 1989), Sa n Lorenzo (Coe and Diehl 1980a), Tres Zapotes (Drucker 1943a, 1952b; Pool 2003), and Laguna de los Cerros (Bove 1978). Hernndez has extensive experi ence in regional ceramic analysis and oversaw the examination that was conducted in the INAH laboratory in Veracruz. Ortz (Universidad Veracruzana) and Rodr guez (Centro INAH Veracruz), recognized specialists in Southern Veracruz ceramics were consultants to the analysis. They reviewed procedures and determinations and provided direction, support, and advice throughout the process. Chronologically Diagnostic Ceramics The chronology of ancient El Marquesill o was proposed through the identification of temporally diagnostic pottery recovered at the site that conforms to an acknowledged ceramic timeline that has been developed fo r the Formative and Classic periods (see Coe and Diehl 1980a; Ortz 1975; Ortz and San tley 1989; Pool and Britt 2000). The ceramics recovered and analyzed at the site of San Lorenzo offer a realistic comparative sample for

PAGE 213

some of the Formative period wares at El Marquesillo and are referred to when appropriate. Analysis of chronologically diagnostic ceramic types conducted in 2003 used a four digit classification system; in 2004 a nd 2005, a more refined two digit system was employed for identification. The ceramic type numbers are presented below in parentheses following their descriptive label and reflect one or both of the systems. Appendices 1a and 1b contain listings of all the types contained in both systems along with their chronological assignment (for furt her details see Hernndez 2003; Hernndez and Doering 2004, 2005). The Pre-San Lorenzo Olmec Period (c. 1500-1150 BC) The pre-Olmec period is represented primarily by tecomates; curved walled, restricted rim jars with no neck (Lesure 1998: 19). Examples at El Marquesillo include, among others, Ojochi phase Achiotal Gray type (c. 1500-1350 BC) (Figure 5.13), Bajo phase (c. 1350-1250 BC) rocker-stamped (Fi gure 5.14) and Chicharras phase (c. 12501150 BC) Tatagapa Red types (Coe and Diehl 1980a:139, 150-158) (Figure 5.15). Figure 5.13. Examples of Early Formativ e, Ojochi phase tecomate rims 191

PAGE 214

Figure 5.14. Examples of Early Forma tive, Bajo phase tecomate rims Figure 5.15. Examples of Early Formative, Chicharras phase tecomate sherds 192

PAGE 215

The San Lorenzo Olmec Period (c. 1150-900 BC) Two of the traditional type s representative of this period, are Limn Incised (1201) (Figure 5.16) and Calzadas Carved ( 1202) (Figure 5.17). Figure 5.18 illustrates a variant of San Lorenzos Limn Incised po ttery (1201) (Coe and Diehl 1980a:171-174). This flat bottomed vessel was found in situ among other Early Formative period pieces in Field 6, and it is representati ve of numerous other sherds containing the same type of decorative pattern, incision, paste, and color. Figure 5.16. Examples of Early Formativ e, San Lorenzo phase, Limn Incised Figure 5.17. Examples of Early Formative, San Lorenzo phase, Calzadas Carved 193

PAGE 216

Figure 5.18. Example of late Early Formative ware The Middle Formative Period (c. 900-400 BC) Tecomate forms continue from the Ea rly Formative into the early Middle Formative period. The same holds true for the plain White and Black Differentially Fired Bichromes (Type 1101). A change to notably fi ner pastes and new forms occurred in the Middle Formative period and is repres ented by type 11.1. Figure 5.19 illustrates examples of incised double line break variants of this ware (1102 and 11.2). The Late Formative Period (c. 400-100 BC) This period witnessed a transitional Fine Gray ware (3101) that began in the Middle Formative period. Markers of the Late Formative are Polished Black wares; many include incised designs (Types 21.121.4 and 2101-2103). The Rempls phase, Ixpuchuapa Incised wares from San Lorenzo is a near duplicate of the Late Formative El Marquesillo wares illustrated in Figure 5.20 (Coe and Diehl 1980a:208-213). At El 194

PAGE 217

Figure 5.19. Examples of Middle Forma tive, double line break variants Marquesillo, slipped vers ions of Differentially Fired Bichromes (1101.B, 11.3, 11.4A, 11.5, and 11.6) and variations of them that in clude enlarged or elaborated borders around the rim, medial, and basal portions are also c onsidered diagnostic of the Late Formative, but appear to be modifications to the standard type from the Middle Formative period (1103). Figure 5.20. Examples of Late Formative, Rempls phase variants 195

PAGE 218

196 The Protoclassic Period (c. 100 BC-AD 200) The Protoclassic period wares all appear transitional. They extend into the period from the Late Formative and continue into the Early Classic pe riod. There are several examples of the former, including Re d Paste wares (81.1, 81.2, 81.4, and 81.5), an Eroded Gray (320.1), Eroded Gray with a red slip (310.2), and a similar Eroded Orange (420.1) and Eroded Orange w ith a red slip (420.2). Two types of Differentially Fired Bichro mes include a Black and White with a fine to medium sand paste (11.11) and a Black and Light Cream with a fine to medium sand paste (11.12). A Black and Orange Plai n (1105), Black and Or ange Medium Sand Temper (1105A), and black and orange incised (1106) continued into this period from the Late Formative. We reason that these types of Differentially Fired Bichromes are continuations or variations of traditional wares that be gan in the Middle Formative period. They underwent technologi cal modifications in the La te Formative and again in the Protoclassic. The Early Classic Period (c. AD 200-550) A Fine Cream ware with an orange sl ip (5102) and another Fine Cream with medium temper (5103) are believed to be tran sitional from the Protoc lassic period, as are the Eroded Red wares (8101, 8102, and 8105). A seri es of Fine Orange wares are also identified from the Protoclassic and include Fine Orange Incised (4102), with red slip (4103), Polished Orange (4111), and Brown slip on cream or orange/cream paste (4201).

PAGE 219

197 The Late Classic Period (c. AD 550-900) A series of Fine Orange wares are assigned to the Late Classic or Villa Alta phase. These types include an undecorated or plain variant (41.1 and 4101), one with a dark core (41.2), Fine Orange with an orange slip (4104), and another with a white slip (4105). The vessel forms of these later types vary significantly from any of the earlier types, and there is substan tial advancement in the producti on and firing technologies as well. Offerings III, IV, and V described in this chapter provide examples and further information about the ceramics of this period. Postclassic Period (c. AD 9001500) At this point in the investigation, no cer amic wares have been linked definitively to the Postclassic period at El Marquesill o. Continued work by Hernndez in southern Veracruz suggests that little change occurred in the El Marquesillo region and in areas further east of the San Juan Basin during peri ods subsequent to the Villa Alta occupations (Lourdes Hernndez personal communicati on, 2006). Recent work in the region has indicated that ceramic wares and associated technologies of the Late Classic period extended well into the Postclassic, possibl y up to the time of European contact (Arellanos-Melgarejo and Beuregard-Garca 2001; Esquivias 2002; Pool 2006; Santley and Arnold 1996). Colonial and European Ceramics (c. AD 1500-1940) A variety of post-contact period ceramics are present at El Marquesillo. Identification of these ceramics was made with the assistance of Judith Hernndez

PAGE 220

Aranda, a Centro INAH Veracruz archaeologist and specialist in Colonial and European ceramic wares. Identifiable wares date from the 1700s to early 1900s. Ceramic artifacts from this time period were recovered during the 2003 surface survey an d collected in site quadrant N13-W23, an area approximately 500 m west of Field 1 (Figure 5.21). The diagnostic types recovered incl ude Mexican and European ware s. The recovery of these artifacts demonstrates a restricted pattern of deposition that suggests the Formative period features were not impacted by early European occupations. Figure 5.21. Map of El Marquesillo illustrati ng location of Colonial ware deposits 198

PAGE 221

English annular ware (c. AD 1785-1840) are ri nged or banded ceramics consisting of plates and shallow bowls that were mechani cally turned for the painting of the designs (Hume 1972) (Figure 5.22). Examples of Eng lish blue, red, and black transfer-printed wares common during the early and middle 1800s were also recovered. The decorations are usually varieties of pastoral, naturalistic, or commemorative designs on plates and shallow bowls (Hume 2001: 209-222) (Figure 5.23). Pieces of Loza Fina Blanca, a hand painted white porcelain (c. 18151860) contained the traditional floral patterns, which were painted prior to gl azing (Figure 5.24). Various types of English refined earthenwares, known as pearlwares, were also represented at El Marquesillo including plain fine white and blue edged, both of which were produced c. AD 1785 to 1840. Mexican wares referred to as colonial red and colonial vidriado were identified as used in utilitarian vessels. Ex amples of the Puebla Majolica Tradition wares of the type produced from the 17 th to 19 th centuries were present as well (Figure 5.25). Specimens of German brown earthenware (c. 19 th century) were also recove red as was a portion of a white bottle from Glasgow, Scotland dating be tween the late 1700s and the 1800s (Judith Hernndez Aranda personal communication, 2005). 199 Figure 5.22. Examples of Englis h annular ware c. AD 1785-1840

PAGE 222

Figure 5.23. Examples of English blue, black, and red transfer-printed wares c. 1815-1860 Figure 5.24. Examples of Loza Fi na Blanca, a hand-painted white porcelain c. 1815-1860 Figure 5.25. Ex amples of the Puebla Majolica Tradition wares, 17 th to 19 th centuries 200

PAGE 223

201 Ceramic Collection Areas The identified ceramic collection from El Marquesillo contains in excess of 34,000 potsherds that were assembled from nu merous locations and by various methods (see Table 5.1). Thousands more were unidentif iable due to the eros ional effects of the acidic soils, high humidity, and anthropogenic activities (Coe and Diehl 1980a:131). The unit excavations around the Olmec throne during its rescue operation included 3,894 sherds. The associated Offerings I and II contained 3,348 and 1,055 additional pieces respectively, and a concurrent pedestrian collection of the cut bank profile generated 7,057 pieces (Hernndez and Barrera 2002). In late 2002, seven 1.5 x 1.5 m test units were excavated in Fields 1 and 2 where 14,315 potsherds were recovered (Hernndez 2003). In 2003, a surface collection was conducted that accounted for 4,756 ceramic pieces (Hernndez and Doering 2004). In 2004 and 2005, collections were conducted during stratigraphic profiling of the cut bank that amounted to 209 pieces. Additional surface collection surveys of the river cut ba nk and agricultural fields in and around the survey area provided supplemen tal chronologically diagnostic ceramics (Hernndez and Doering 2005). Table 5.1. Ceramic Collections c onducted at El Marquesillo Ceramic Collection Area Quantity Olmec Throne Recovery Excavations 3,894 Olmec Throne Offering I 3,348 Olmec Throne Offering II 1,055 River Cut Profile 7,057 Northern Test Units 14,315 Surface Collection 4,756 Stratigraphic Profiles 210 Total 34,671

PAGE 224

202 Ceramics from the Surface Collection In October 2003, a surface collection was conducted, and artifact recovery identification was made according to a site grid composed of units measuring 50 x 50 m (2,500 m) (Hester et al. 1997:208-212). The datum point, identified as N0/W0, was arbitrarily placed approximately 10 m west a nd 5 m south of the Olmec throne location. Each grid unit was identified by the number assigned to the north-south and east-west lines that intersected at the northwest corner of the square. The survey grid eventually covered an area in excess of 2 km (2,000,000 m), and extended well beyond Fields 1 through 8. The surface visibility of El Marquesi llo Fields 1 through 8 was medium and relatively consistent. The cultura l visibility or obtrusivene ss of the site is high. Most architectural remains are clearly identifiable and there are no modern structures present. The uppermost 20 to 30 cm of the surface has been subjected to manual and mechanical farming techniques (e.g., plowing, tilling, a nd disking), as well as grazing livestock. Nevertheless, surface and plowzone collectio ns can provide informative data when properly applied (Dunnel and Si mek 1995), and can support infere nces about site types, occupation, and activity areas (Schlanger and Orcutt 1986). Of the 4,756 ceramic sherds recovered during the surface collection, 1,330 were chronologically diagnostic (Figures 5.26 and 5.27). Because some pieces were identified as transitional between two peri ods, such as Middle to Late Formative or Protoclassic to Early Classic, these quantities were arbitrar ily divided equally between both periods and added to the appropriate period and plotted according to their site grid location. The

PAGE 225

Figure 5.26. Distribution of ceramic artifac ts recovered during surface collection 203

PAGE 226

Figure 5.27. Quantities of chronologically di agnostic ceramics recovered during the surface collection at El Marquesillo 204

PAGE 227

205 Formative period accounted for 785 pieces c overing 76 units or 190,000 m. The Classic period material amounted to 545 pieces c ontained within 70 units or 175,000 m. Figure 5.26 illustrates the distribution of chronologically diagnostic ceramics recovered during the surface collection acro ss Fields 1 through 8. Field numbers are provided along the western border of the field. A clearly dist inguishable factor demonstrated in these comparative maps is the consistency and repetitiveness of the depositional pattern through a ll time periods. Figure 5.27 dem onstrates the quantities of chronologically diagnostic ceramics presen t within the deposition grids for each time period. Although the quantities change significantly, as noted, the general areas of deposition remain quite uniform. Whether this indicates similar residential or activity locations has yet to be determined, but the stability of these f actors suggests a strong continuity in the use of space at the site. Ceramics from the River Cut Bank Numerous separate collecti ons were made along the ri ver cut bank from 2002 to 2005. The initial collection was conducted in conjunction with the Olmec throne rescue project in January 2002, and was performed along the approximately 1.5 km-long base of the west bank of the San Juan River (see River Cut Stratigraphic Wall Profiles in this chapter). The artifacts were recovered on the surface of the ground immediately below the 6 m to 8 m high embankment, but they were not found in situ. It was the early annual dry season in Southern Veracruz at the time the collection was carried out, and the flood waters from the previous rainy season ha d recently receded from the lower river bank. The collected material had been repeatedly submerged and subjected to movement by the

PAGE 228

rivers actions. Figure 5.28 illustrates a portion of the upper and lower embankment during the rivers August 2004 flood stage. Due to these conditions, the 7,057 recovered ceramic pieces were highly mixed and displa ced from their original deposition location. While they can offer support for the chronolog ical occupation of the site, they cannot provide dependable spatial information on th eir primary place of disposal. Appendix 2 includes a listing and count of all identified types. Figure 5.28. View to the west of river cut bank and San Juan River near flood stage. Note ceramic pieces embedded in darker, upper cultural layer. St ructure 84 is to the upper right. 206

PAGE 229

207 The survey was conducted along the base of the bank, which was divided into approximate 50 m long segments. Fields 1 thr ough 8, our area of interest, were identified as segments 2 through 55 (see Hernndez 2003). Within these segments, significant quantities of ceramic material, representative of all temporal periods and transitional phases, were recovered. A rough estimate s hows Formative period materials accounted for 32 percent of the entire river cut bank a ssemblage; Protoclassic and Early Classic transitional objects amounted to 5 percent a nd Late Classic ceramics 7 percent. Nonchronologically diagnostic pieces that are considered domestic wares accounted for 31 percent, and the remaining 25 percent consisted of other type s of non-temporally diagnostic pieces. On a strictly quantitative basis, these percentages suggest that the occupational presence in these portions of Fields 1 through 8 was most significant during the Formative period, an assumption that is co nsistent with inferences drawn from the surface ceramic analysis. From November, 2003 to December, 2005, four additional surveys and collections were conducted along the river cut bank. These insp ections were performed in response to the continued collapse of weakened portions of the embankment that exposed or displaced in situ artifacts. Also, follow ing normal rainfall events, run-off from the surface washed away small amounts of soil along the upper portions of the bank. The cumulative effect of these erosional activ ities was the exposure or dislodging of additional in situ artifacts and thei r deposition further down the slope. The artifacts collected during these survey s had not been subject to movement by river action; they had simply fallen from their place of origi n. In respect to these fallen pieces, I conducted a series of drop tests ove r various slopes and descent distances to

PAGE 230

208 determine the lateral movement of these ar tifacts as they tumble d down the embankment. The results from these experiments consistently showed that ceramic sherds of assorted sizes, shapes, and weights landed no more than three to four meters to the left or right of their original position at th e top of the bank. Due to these findings a lateral range was accorded to the recovery locat ion of displaced ceramics that were not affected by inundation or any other taphonom ic movement processes. These later collections focused on the r ecovery of chronologically diagnostic materials. Analysis confirmed the presence of substantial quantities of Middle and Late Formative period ceramics along with lesser am ounts of Early Formative, Protoclassic, and Early and Late Classic ceramics along the northern and eastern borders of Field 1. These findings are in accord with those from the surface collection, and the river cut bank in Fields 2 and 3 produced similar results. Greatly reduced quantities were recovered along the embankment in Fields 4 and 5. The embankment at the north sector of Field 6 contained significant Early Formative piece s, both pre-Olmec and San Lorenzo Olmec phase ceramics. The southern section of Field 6 and all of Field 7 produced Early, Middle, and Late Formative period sherds, but quantities from the later Classic periods were negligible. Ceramics from the Olmec Throne Area Excavations In January 2002, during the Olmec throne rescue operation, 30 contiguous 1.5 x 1.5 m units were staked out and excavated (s ee Hernndez and Barrera 2002). Only six of the excavated units contained diagnostic ce ramics, however. Figure 5.29 illustrates a plan view of the excavation units a nd the yellow shaded units indicat e where these pieces were

PAGE 231

Figure 5.29. Diagram of Olmec throne excavatio n units. Shading indicates units where diagnostic ceramics were recovered, and th e dashed outline illustrates the thrones position. recovered relative to the thrones locati on. Each excavation unit is identified by its northwest corner coordinates (e.g., N1W3, N2W3, N3W3 ). Included in the assemblage of 3,894 pieces identifiable by type were 1,517 Form ative period pieces, 255 Protoclassic to Late Classic pieces, and 1,920 pieces non-diagnostic domestic wares. Complete type counts from these six units are presented in Appendix 2. Note that materials from Offerings I or II are not incl uded. Details of these offerings are discussed later. The deposition of chronologically diagnostic pieces recovered near the throne is notable. All ceramics were encountered belo w 0.4 m below the surface, and the profile drawings illustrate that this upper layer is unbroke n, effectively creati ng a sealed context (see Hernndez and Barrera 2002). Between the 0 .4 to 1.1 m levels in each unit, the soils and chronologically diagnostic ceramics are highly mixed. Early, Middle, and Late Formative potsherds are intermingled with Prot oclassic, Early, and Late Classic pieces. In this stratum, the Formative period diagnosti cs account for 1,331 pieces and the Classic pieces amount to 250 specimens. Below the 1.1 m level, however, only Formative period pieces were recovered. The sole exception wa s Type 5103, a Fine Cream (Buff) ware that previously was considered indicative of th e Classic period. Pool (1997:49) has recently 209

PAGE 232

210 shown that the initial appearan ce of this type occurred in the Late Formative period. This earlier development would explain its pres ence in the lower portions of Unit N8W3. To reiterate, a layer of highly disturbed soil was documented between the 0.4 to 1.1 m levels and contained chronologically mixed ceramics. This disturbance also included a few pieces of obsidian, small pieces of basalt, and some burned clay (Hernndez and Barrera 2002). No chronologically identifiable ceramics or other cultural materials were recovered in any of the other excavated units. It was also noted that the disturbance of the soil and mixing of temporal ceramics did not breech Offering I or II, which were located immediately below the out er eastern edges of this disturbance. Collectively, these conditions suggest an approximately 2m wide basin-like hole was dug at some point during the Late Classic pe riod to a depth of 1.1 m. The hole was then re-filled with a mixture of the unearthed Formative period materials and Late Classic period wares. Finally, this digging even t was limited to this specific area. Ceramics from the Test Unit Excavations In November 2002, Hernndez reentered the field and directed the placement and excavation of seven, 1.5 x 1.5 m test units in Fields 1 and 2 (Figure 5.30). These locations were selected due to the high density of both Formative and Classic period in situ ceramics that were present in the upper 2 m of the nearby river cut bank as well as on the surface. Also, the surface features differed s ubstantially from the Olmec throne complex over 750 m to the southwest, suggesting a dive rgent type of activity area. The following is a description of the chr onologically diagnostic ceramic ar tifacts recovered and their depositional patterns (Table 5.2).

PAGE 233

Figure 5.30. Map illustrati ng the location of the test unit excavations Unit 1 was located 3 m west of Struct ure 86. Three stratigraphic layers were encountered. Level I (0-20 cm) is a layer of so ft to semi-compacted humus that contained few ceramics. Those present are small and, in most cases, diagnostically unrecognizable due to damage caused by repeated agricultural cultivation, cattle grazing, and erosional effects. This situation is true of Level I in all test un its. Levels II and III of Unit 1 contained substantial quantities of ceramics. At a depth of 1 m, a layer of highly compacted, culturally sterile clay was encount ered. The unit contained ceramics from the Table 5.2. Ceramic artifacts recovered from test unit excavations Unit Early Formative Middle Formative Late Formative Proto to Early Classic Late Classic NonDiagnostic Totals 1 62 323 525 167 153 1040 2270 2 127 324 462 129 52 1034 2128 3 244 671 263 438 794 2368 4778 4 32 36 52 18 4 202 344 5 74 147 113 184 96 1036 1650 6 4 4 10 1 7 38 64 7 15 311 137 1965 75 614 3117 Totals 558 1816 1562 2902 1181 6332 14351 211

PAGE 234

212 Early Formative (62 pieces), Middle Forma tive (323), Late Formative (525), Protoclassic and Early Classic (167), Late Classic (153), and non-di agnostic wares (1040). The temporal phase material, Early Formative th rough Late Classic, was highly mixed at practically every level of the excavation. There was no indication of stratigraphic separation. At this time, it is impossible to determine how this depositional pattern was formed, but it may be possible that the ar eas were open trash middens, and the later material was naturally transported down the inclined slope created by previously discarded sherds. Unit 2 was located 5 m west of Unit 1 and extended to a depth of 1.5 m. No cultural material was encountered until the 0.4 m level, at which point a mixture of ceramics from all temporal periods were en countered. The mixed material continued to the culturally sterile levels at the bottom of the unit. The chronological segments included Early Formative (127 pieces), Middle Formative (324), Late Formative (462), Protoclassic and Early Classic (129), Late Classic (52), and non-diagnostic (1034). Unit 3 was placed 31 m south of Structure 86 and 3.5 m from the edge of the river cut bank. It extended down to a layer of hard packed gravel at a depth of 2.5 m. The stratigraphy and contents matched those illustrated in Profile 1A. Nine stratigraphic stages were identified. Little cultural materi al was encountered in Levels I and Ia (0-70 cm), but Levels II and III included quantitie s of ceramics. Level IV contained a denser concentration of ceramics along with pieces of obsidian, ground stone, and burned clay. Level IVa and b illustrate a drop in ceramic quantities and Levels IVc and V had no cultural material but were composed of a highly compacted mixture of sand and gravel. The ceramic content included the Early Forma tive (244 pieces), Middle Formative (671),

PAGE 235

213 Late Formative (263), Protoclassic and Early Classic (438), Late Classic (794) and nondiagnostic material (2368). The Late Classic material recovered in this unit accounts for the highest quantity of sherds in any of the test excavations. Unit 4 was placed approximately 5 m north of Structure 84. A layer of naturally deposited gravel was reached at a depth of 1.7 m. Only a handful of potsherds were recovered in the upper stratum, and there was only a slight increase in quantities in the lower levels. The contents and deposition in this unit differed significantly from the other excavations. Ceramic wares consisted of the Early Formative (32 pieces), Middle Formative (36), Late Formative (52), Protocla ssic and Early Classic ( 18), Late Classic (4) and non-diagnostic (202). The location of Unit 5 was 20 m north of Structure 84. The upper 50 cm contained little cultural material. Increasi ng amounts were recovered through the next meter, the material decreased over the following 40 cm. All cultural material ceased at a depth of 190 cm where a thin stratum of sand and gravel was encountered. Below this level was a sterile, highly compacted layer of clay. The 60-70 cm level contained small fragments of obsidian, basalt, and burned clay. Ceramics diagnostic of the Early Formative amounted to 74 pieces; Middle Fo rmative, 147; Late Formative, 113; Protoclassic and Early Classic, 184; Late Classic, 96; and non-diagnostic, 1036. Unit 6 was north of Unit 5 and approximately 25 m fr om the river cut. A total of 26 potsherds, the lowest concentration of any of the test units, were recovered from depths of 20 to 60 cm. The Early Formative accounted for 4 pieces; Middle Formative, 4; Late Formative, 10; Protoclassic to Early Cl assic, 1; Late Classic, 7; and non-diagnostic, 38.

PAGE 236

214 Unit 7 was located in Field 2, 35 m northeas t of Structure 83, and extended to a depth of 2.1 m. Cultural material appears w ith increasing frequency at the 30 cm level and continues in this manner to 120 cm. Immediately below the 120 cm level, a significant change occurs; the quantity of ceramic artifacts doubles. Th is rate then begins to decline with depth until the 170 cm level at which point there is relative doubling of material again. At 180 cm, the cultural material basically ends. Again, as in the other test units, Formative period ceramics are mixed w ith those of the Classic period, even at maximum depths. The quantities of chronologic ally diagnostic ceramics from this unit differ from all other units, however. Whereas in all other units Formative period artifacts accounted for the majority, here the Protoclassi c to Early Classic transitional material dominated. The Early Formative consisted of 15 pieces, the Middle Formative, 311; the Late Formative, 137; the Protoclassic and Ea rly Classic, 1,965; the Late Classic 75; and non-diagnostic wares, 614. The analysis of excavated material from the seven test units confirms the observations made of in situ ceramics al ong the upper 2 m of th e river cut bank. These potsherds were not deposited in isolated dug-out middens, but strewn along natural depressions in what are considered sheet middens or broadcast scatters (Johnston and Gonlin 1998). The density and thickness of th ese scatters is excep tional. The quantities and depositional consistency of ceramic artif acts across all time periods also support the idea of a continuous use of the northern porti on of the site. These ceramic deposits line the upper 2 m of the northern a nd eastern river cut banks of Field 1, and continue rather consistently along Fields 2 and 3. Their fr equency decreases in Field 4 and 5, and increases again in Fields 6 and 7, but not to the degree of the north ern fields. Figure 5.31

PAGE 237

demonstrates an analogous situation occurring relative to the deposit ion of refuse in the same location by todays residents. Figure 5.31. View north from the top of Field 1 into a depression on the Embankment. Note deposition of trash in the foreground. 215

PAGE 238

216 Ritual Offerings Dedication, termination, and other ritual s and their attendant deposits were a shared trait across time and space in Middl e America (Suhler and Freidel 2003). Their presence, content, and context offer significan t insight into sociopolitical events, religious beliefs, ritual activities and their roles in the legitimation of ancient political leaders (Davis-Salazar 2004). Formative period occupants of various centers in the Southern Gulf Lowlands have left us a significant record of these events. At La Venta, dozens of caches of jade, shell, amber, ceramic vessels, fi gurines, and other exotic items have been documented (Drucker 1952a; Drucker et al. 1959). Similar finds have been made at Cerros de las Mesas (Drucker 1943b) and Tr es Zapotes (Weiant 1943). The established regularity of Formative period repositories of this nature are demonstrated across Mesoamerica at San Isidro, Chiapas (L owe 1981); Cuello, Belize (Hammond 1999); and Puerto Escondido, Honduras (Joyce 2004c). One of the most outstanding examples of ritually deposited items occurred at El Ma nat, Veracruz, where deposits were made at discrete intervals from circa 1650 to 900 BC (Ortz and Rodrguez 2000; Rodrguez and Ortz 1997). At El Marquesillo, Offerings I and II were discovered and excavated in 2002, and appear associated with the termination of the Olmec throne (Hernndez 2003; Hernndez and Barrera 2002) (Figure 5.32). Offerings I II and IV are spatially and temporally associated, and consist of Classic period cer amic vessels that were deposited within a meter of each other (Hernndez and Doeri ng 2005). Offering V is a noteworthy cache that may be related to Offerings III and IV. It is composed of five Late Classic ceramic vessels and was recovered 50 m north of Offerings III and IV.

PAGE 239

Figure 5.32. Locations of five offeri ngs recovered at El Marquesillo Offering I This offering was excavated during the Olmec throne rescue project. It is composed of broken Formative period ceramic vessels deposited immediately southwest of the throne. In Figure 5.33 the placement of the Olmec throne and Offerings I and II are illustrated. The dashed lines represent the 1.5 x 1.5 m units that were excavated during the recovery of the monumental sculpture (see Ceramics from the Olmec Throne Area Excavations section in this chapter). Each unit was identified by its northwest corner on the overall grid system and is shown in the figure. The red line marks the edge of the river cut bank and the blue line delineates the area around the throne that had been cleared by El Marquesillo residents prior to the arrival of the INAH archaeologists. 217

PAGE 240

Figure 5.33. Plan view of Olmec throne and O fferings I and II. The red line indicates the river cut bank, while the blue line illu strates edge of El Mar quesillo residents digging (after Hernndez 2002). The offering filled a U-shaped pit that had been dug close to the thrones depositional location. The ceramic assembla ge began at a depth of 1.10 m below the present ground surface (Figure 5.34) and exte nded to a depth of 2.25 m. The inverted conical offering had an upper diameter of 1.6 m and tapered to 1 m at its bottom (Figure 5.35). Obsidian prismatic blades and flakes, basalt fragments, pieces of chapapote or asphalt, portions of burned clay, and fine sand were all mixed with the ceramic pieces in the lowest portion of the feature. Pieces of very small bones, attributed to an unidentified species of bird, were also presen t (Hernndez and Barrera 2002:27). 218

PAGE 241

Figure 5.34. Offering I is at the center, and O ffering II is in the semi-circular excavation at the upper left-center. The Olmec throne is to the left in the position in which it was uncovered (photo by Hernndez, 2002). The ceramic component included pieces that represent the Early Formative (75 pieces), Middle Formative and transitional to Late Formative (666), and Late Formative periods (974) (see Appendix 2) Other pieces that totaled 1,633 were not chronologically diagnostic and were composed primarily of domestic wares. All wares were recovered consistently throughout all levels of the o ffering. During analysis it was found that the ceramic potsherds were pieces of complete vessels. There were missing pieces whose absence was attributed to the digging up of soil around the throne by the local residents and the deposition of the surr ounding material down the side of the embankment (Figure 4.13). 219

PAGE 242

Figure 5. 35. Drawing of hypothesized depict ion of Offering I and the Olmec Throne Figure 5.36 illustrates two reconstructed Middl e Formative period vessels. Each is a flat bottomed, flared side plate with doubl e-line break motifs around the interior rim. This form and the decorative elements are considered diagnostic of Middle Formative period ceramic wares (c. 900-400 BC) (L ove 2002; von Nagy 1999). Figure 5.37 shows three vessels, the upper two appear to be cont ainers for liquids and the lower composite silhouette bowl suggests an individual servi ng vessel. All are assigned to the late Middle Formative period. Ceramic types, diagnostic of Early, Middle, and Late Formative period wares, were present within the 120 cm d eep cavity that contained the offering (see Appendix 2 for details on the other ceramic t ypes identified). Analysis of this offering has led Hernndez and Ortiz to reconsider th e temporal appearance of wares that have been previously associated with phases of th e Classic period. They be lieve that types of orange and buff wares may have occurred at El Marquesillo by the Late Formative. Pool (1997:49) has arrived at similar conclusions regarding ceramics in the southern Tuxtlas. 220

PAGE 243

Figure 5.36. Two reconstructed plates with double-line break designs from Offering I (photogra phs by Hernndez and Ortiz 2004) Figure 5.37. Three recons tructed Formative period vessels from Offering I (photographs by Hernndez and Ortiz 2004) 221

PAGE 244

Offering II This deposit was located less than 1 m s outh of the throne and 1 m southeast of Offering I. Offering II was also encountered at a depth of 110 cm and extended another 1.60 m to an overall depth of 2.7 m below the present ground surface. This features inverted conical form had an upper diameter of 2.0 m and contained an assortment of burned clay fragments, an as h-like material, and a significant quantity of organic material. Ceramics were recovered in the upper portions of the feat ure and represent the Early, Middle, and Late Formative periods bu t in substantially sm aller amounts than in Offering I, amounting to a total of 416 dia gnostic pieces. Hernndez (2003:18-22) noted that there was a considerable amount of burne d clay that appeared to line the bottom and sides of the cavity. The major portion of the offering was com posed of a thick layer of organic material. Figure 5.38 illustrates this la yer, which appears in the shape of a Figure 5.38. Offering II is the dark crescen t-shaped feature on the rear wall of the excavation within the red dashed line. The partially excavated Olmec throne is to the lower left (photo by Hernndez, 2002). 222

PAGE 245

crescent with its concave and convex radius to the bottom. This particular outline could be the result of a layer of plant, flower, or other organic material being deposited in the pit and then covered with fill. Due to the wei ght of the earthen fill, the organic material would be compressed and assume the shape of the pit. Offering III Offering III was observed during a pedest rian survey along the top of the cut bank. It was recovered 1 m below the present ground surface from the cuts profile in the southern portion of Field 7 (see River Cut Pr ofile 7a above), and was composed of three ceramic pieces. One was a spouted vessel (Figure 5.39), a second was a flute (Figure 5.40), and the third element was an intact co mposite silhouette bowl (Figures 5.41). The Figure 5.39. Front and profile views of the spouted vessel from Offering III 223

PAGE 246

Figure 5.40. Ceramic flute figur ine from Offering III; front, left profile, and rear Figure 5.41. Two oblique views of the compos ite silhouette bowl from Offering III flute and spouted vessel appear to represent the same individual. The physical features and characteristics are identic al but were produced in diffe rent vessel forms. The bowl was recovered in an inverted position directly beneath the two figurin es. A description of the stratigraphic profile wher e this offering was recovered is contained in the Profile section of this chapter. 224

PAGE 247

225 The two figurine types are common to th e Late Classic period (c. AD 550-900). These vessels follow the white-slipped mold-m ade figurine tradition at Classic period Matacapan and Tres Zapotes in their method and technology of pr oduction (Christopher Pool personal communication, 2005), but th e origin of their anthropomorphic and accoutrement details have yet to be determ ined. The composite silhouette bowl is a polished orange ware that is assigned to the Late Formative period along the Southern Gulf. The two mold-made figurines were found side by side. The flute or whistle figures head was to the west and face down; the spouted vessel figures head was to the north but facing west. These two figurines de pict the same individual in two different positions; one standing or lying in a rigid pose, the other sitting with legs in a semi-flexed position. In both figures the hair headpiece, ear ornaments, collar, belt, and loincloth are alike. The right arm of each is extended ne xt to the body and an oversized right hand is open with the palm facing the viewer. The left arm of each figure is wrapped around a spherical, bulging bag-like item that is deco rated with U-shapes. An unidentified animal head or effigy hangs from the spouted vessel figures necklace. The flute figure may have had the same element on its necklace, based on the remnant outline, but it was broken off in antiquity as were the ankles and feet of the figure. The spouted vessel has four parallel black bands painted across the shoulders, midsection, knees, and feet. The flute figure does not have any evidence of paint. The high degree of detail is on the front of these objects only; the rear is smoot h and without elaboration. The flute has a rectangular blow hole at the top of the figures he ad and an exit hole at the bac k. The tone or finger hole is located in the loincloth. Figure 5.42 illustrates a de tail of an interior portion of the spout.

PAGE 248

Figure 5.42. Interior of spout reveali ng apparent imprint of a textile The fabric-like imprint appears to be the resu lt of a textile that was used to form the interior core of the spout during production of the molded vessel. Offering IV Offering IV was located 1 m north of Of fering III, at approximately the same horizontal level. The offering consisted of two flat-botto m tripod bowls, both 23 cm in diameter that were deposited in a lip-to-lip fa shion, one inverted over the other. This type of offering was known and practiced across Mesoamerican during the Classic period (Chase and Chase 1998:308-309; Fox et al. 1996; Taschek and Ball 1999). Their breakage in antiquity and the erosional action along the river cut bank caused the loss of several pieces of each bowl and prevented the recovery of any substance that may have been originally placed in the bowls. As with Offering III, th ese are Classic period ceramic 226

PAGE 249

vessels that were deposited into a Formative pe riod structure. Each vessel was made with a fine tempered paste and was steep-sided w ith a narrow rim border. The tripod legs of both vessels are very similar to those on Vessel 5 from O ffering V. Figure 5.43 contains two views of the offering in situ taken dur ing their excavation. In the photograph on the left, the intrusional cavity into the Formativ e period layers and the offerings placement at the bottom can be seen. Fi gure 5.44 shows a partial recons truction of the upper vessel. Figure 5.43. Offering IV in situ, a lip-to-lip vessel deposit (photos by Hernndez, 2004) Figure 5.44. Partially reconstructed upper bowl from Offering IV 227

PAGE 250

228 Offering V The recovered portion of Offering V is com posed of five, complete or partial, dish-like ceramic vessels identified as Late Classic in origin. The vessels that compose this offering were found during a pedestrian survey of the rive r cut bank in Field 7, located approximately 50 m south of Field 6. On ly one of the vessels was found in situ, in the upper meter of the cut bank, while the others were retrieved along a vertically eroded gully in the nearly 12 m high bank. The discovery of Offering V was made in December 2005. This area had been inspected twice in August 2005, as well as on earlier occasions, and the artifacts would have been plainly visible from either above or below if they were present at those times. It is probable that the upper portions of the vertical cut ba nk that held the offering was eroded by the run-off from the annual rains th at were amplified by the extensive, winddriven precipitation that accompanied Hurri cane Stan, which passed directly over El Marquesillo in early October. Four of the r ecovered pieces had fallen from their original place of deposition and tumbled down 2 to 5 m. Vessels 1, 2, and 3 are similar in shape, size, and form; two of the three are shown in Figure 5.45. Vessel 3 is on the left of the photo and was found in situ; Vessel 2 is on the right and is pictured after its contents had been removed for analysis. This container was recovered approximately 3 m below the in situ vessel, and the size and shape of a negative imprint in the wall immediately belo w Vessel 3 suggests its original location. Vessel 4 is unique to the group and is s hown in Figure 5.46. The upper photo shows the interior and ash-like contents and the lower photo is a view of the inverted exterior illustrating the short tripod legs and coating of the same ash-like substance. Only a

PAGE 251

Figure 5.45. Two of three similar small bowls. Th e one on the left was recovered in situ Figure 5.46. Vessel 4 from Offering V. Left photo is interior with ash-like contents and the right photo is the exterior portion of Vessel 5 was recovered (Figure 5.47), but it contained remnants of the same substance, which also coats the exterior. This bowl is reminiscent of the lip-to-lip vessels in Offering IV. Each of the vessels contained a fine ash-like substance that may be volcanic in origin; analysis of this material is in progress. The surface coating of this material had hardened into a crust-like su rface and had protected the interior portions. Although four of the five vessels assigned to this offering were not found in their place of ancient burial, there are reasons to believe th ey are likely part of a single depositional event. The substance within all five vessels is visually identical. The coating of this same 229

PAGE 252

Figure 5.47. Vessel 5 from Offering V material on the exterior of the vessels sugge sts they were stacked upon one another at the time of interment. This premise is also s upported by the location of the in situ piece and the naturally formed, partial earthen mold immediately below it and in which Vessel 2 fits neatly. Vessel 3 was recovered from within a low platform, 1 m below the surface. This platform is practically imper ceptible on the surface but is apparent in the stratigraphy. Formative ceramics were found under, in, and above this platform suggesting it was constructed during this early period, circa 1200-500 BC. All th e recovered vessels in the offering are considered to be of Late Classi c origin (AD 500-900); thus their presence is believed to be intrusional. This is the same situation demonstrated for Offerings III and IV, which were located in Structure 108, approximately 30 m to the south. 230

PAGE 253

231 Obsidian and Lithic Analyses The Obsidian of El Marquesillo The obsidian analyzed at El Marques illo amounted to 126 pieces that were recovered from the controlled excavations c onducted in conjunction with the rescue project of the Olmec throne and the test excav ations in Fields 1 and 2. The total estimated volume from these two excavation projects is in excess of 87 m, which produces a ratio of 1.44 fragments of obsidian per cubic meter. The quantity of volcan ic glass unearthed in the excavations is consistent with the re sults from the surface and river cut collections. Alternatively, only two very small pieces of chert were identified. Although the collection is not extensive, there are notable inferences that can be drawn from its examination. In the initial st ep in the analysis, each obsidian piece in the assemblage was macroscopically examin ed under 10x magnification, and visual identifications were made based on comparis ons to known samples. Five specimens were selected and sent to the Missouri Univers ity Research Reactor (MURR) in Columbia, Missouri and underwent abbreviated neutron activation analysis to de termine their trace element composition (Table 5.3). The NAA results supported my visual source attributions. Therefore, the 126 obsidian artifacts were assigned sources ba sed on my comparative assessment. The Guadalupe Victoria, Veracruz source accounts for 62 percent (n=78) of the assemblage and 34 percent (n=43) is from the Zaragoza, Ve racruz source. A single piece is identified as originating in Ucareo, Michoacan; one from Pachuca, most likely the Cruz de Milagro source; and three pieces were visually unidentifiable (Table 5.4). Examination of the

PAGE 254

232 Table 5.3. Element levels determined by NAA at MURR and source attributions ID Al (%) Ba (ppm) Dy (ppm) K (%) Mn (ppm) Na (%) Source TFD162 6.81 518 4.98 3.98 277 2. 99 Zaragoza, Puebla TFD163 7.16 878 1.40 3.31 542 3.30 G uadalupe Victoria, Puebla TFD164 7.03 933 1.86 3.41 542 3.33 G uadalupe Victoria, Puebla TFD165 6.86 938 1.81 3.36 538 3.31 G uadalupe Victoria, Puebla TFD166 6.28 111 3.63 3.88 173 2. 75 Ucareo, Michoacan Table 5.4. El Marquesillo obsidian by source and production type SOURCE BLADES FLAKES BIPOLAR QUANTITY PROXIMAL MEDIAL DISTAL Guadalupe Victoria 2* 6* 0 60 10 78 Zaragoza 6 17 3 16 1 43 Pachuca 0 1 0 0 0 1 Ucareo 0 0 0 1 0 1 Unknown 0 0 0 3 0 3 Totals 8 24 3 80 11 126 Possibly assignable to the Orizaba source production typology shows that prismatic bl ades segments accounted for 28 percent (n=35), flakes amounted to 63 percent (n =80), and bipolar reduction represented 9 percent of the assemblage. The spatial distribution of the collecti on is presented in Table 5.5, which shows that the Olmec Throne Unit excavations produced 40 pieces that were assigned to Guadalupe Victoria and 12 to Zaragoza (see Appendix 3b). The indi vidual Ucareo and Pachuca pieces were recovered around the thro ne as well as one unidentified piece. In the seven test units located in Fields 1 and 2, only Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 contained obsidian; a total of 24 artifacts were attributed to Guadalupe Victoria, 30 to Zaragoza, and two were unknown. From within Offerings I a nd II, 14 pieces were recovered from Guadalupe Victoria and a single piece was from Zaragoza.

PAGE 255

233 Table 5.5. El Marquesillo obsidian by source and deposition location Source Blades Flakes Bipolar Quantities PROXIMAL MEDIAL DISTAL Throne Units GV 1 5 0 29 5 40 PAC 0 1 0 0 0 1 UCA 0 0 0 1 0 1 UNK 0 0 0 1 0 1 ZAR 2 5 0 5 0 12 Test Units GV 0 0 0 21 3 24 UNK 0 0 0 2 0 2 ZAR 4 11 3 11 1 30 Offerings I & II GV 1 1 0 10 2 14 ZAR 0 1 0 0 0 1 The presence of four identified sources differs substantially from the eight to twelve sources possible at San Lorenzo (C obean et al. 1971, 1991; Coe and Diehl 1980a) or the nine sources identified for La Venta and San Andrs (Doering 2002, 2003). Obsidian analyses performed at Tres Zapotes demonstrated at least eight sources were present at the site throughout its history (Hester et al. 1971; Knight 2003). It is not known how many of these sources were present during the Formative period alone, however. Nevertheless, Hester et al.s (1971) survey indicates Zaragoz a supplied over 93 percent of Tres Zapotes obsidian during at least 1500 years of occupation. Guadalupe Victoria material was also present but in a minimal amount, accounting for 1.4 percent of the material. The other six sources combined to represent 5.5 percent of the total. Work at Tres Zapotes has recently uncovered evidence of an Early Formative period occupation (Christopher Pool, personal communication 2005), and will provide greater insight into the Formative period obsidian industry there.

PAGE 256

234 The discrepancy between sources at El Marquesillo and the other sites mentioned may be due to sample error; nevertheless, this limited number of sources may suggest that El Marquesillo may have been autonom ous from the San Lorenzo or the later La Venta exchange spheres. More than 38 percent of El Marquesillos obsidian originated at the Zaragoza source, but none of this material is iden tified at San Lorenzo. During extended periods at El Marque sillo, I observed additional obsidian material on the surface. As well, portions of pr ismatic blades were recovered in situ with San Lorenzo phase ceramics (c. 1150-1000 BC) along the river cut. This association indicates that blade technology and its implica tions for elite control were present at El Marquesillo at this early time (see Clar k 1987; Clark and Blake 1994). Based on the formal surveys and informal observations a si gnificant relationship is demonstrated with Zaragoza (400 km) and Guadalupe Victoria (300 km) during the Formative period. Lithic Analysis No stone material, other than river gravel, is indigenous to the alluvial river basins of southern Veracruz and Ta basco (Sisson 1976). Igneous rock such as basalt, pumice, rhyolite, and andesite were favored for ground stone tools and had to be imported to El Marquesillo (see Appendix 4a and 4b). The sour ces for these types of rock are located in the volcanic Tuxtla Mountains, 30 to 40 km to the north. Apart from the Olmec throne, the lithic collection from El Marquesillo is unremarkable for a Formative period site; nonetheless it demonstrates participation in regional economic interaction spheres. The form of involvement in these systems may have been through collective actions with

PAGE 257

inhabitants from other sites, or independent activities by persons from El Marquesillo, or a combination of both. The lithic artifacts examined were rec overed during the surface and river cut surveys and collections. Various types of gr inding and polishing implements compose the majority of the imported lithic assemblage. The primary grinding tools included fragments of manos, metates, mortars and pest les. Most appear to conform to Formative period conventions as to size and form, but reuse after breakage was common. The collection includes a number of celt-form pi eces made from a variety of exotic rock types. Several basalt stones were ground to a narrow point along a lateral edge (Figures 5.48 and 5.49). Most examples of these distinc tly formed pieces were reworked metates; the purpose of this modification is not known. Figure 5.48. Basalt fragment ground to point along lateral edge 235

PAGE 258

Figure 5.49. Basalt fragments ground to point along lateral edge Relative to other lithic tools, the proposed polishing implements appear with exceptional frequency and in various forms. Th ese pieces were recovered across the site in all chronological contexts (Figure 5.50). Some were fashioned from igneous rock, others from nuggets of river gravel, still others from unide ntified fine-grained stones. Macroscopic examination revealed these pieces to have highly smoothed edges and striated wear patterns consistent with the smoothing and burnishing of ceramics as well as other stone items (Sinopo li 1991:24-26; Sullivan 1988). Polishing stones recovered in the Southern Gulf Lowlands have been identified as tools used in the finishing of stone and ceramic artifacts. Fi ne polishing was required to produce celts, masks, discs, and figurines of jade, serpentine, and other greenstones (Benson 1981b; Ortz and Rodrguez 2000; Pohl et al. 2002). The brilliantly polished concave mirrors fabricated from iron oxide ores (hematite, ilmenite, and magnetite), pyrite, marcasite, and obsidian are examples of the adva nced technological skills of Formative period lapidaries (Carlson 1981; Heizer and Gullberg 1981). Polishing stones 236

PAGE 259

Figure 5.50. Examples of stones thou ght to be used as polishers were also used to burnish ceramics to achieve luster and smooth blemishes or imperfections on the vessels surface (S antley et al. 1989; Sinopoli 1991:25-27). Ethnohistoric and ethnographic evid ence also demonstrates the us es of these stones in the finishing of ceramic wares (Druc 2000:82). The analysis of obsidian and other lithic material recovered at El Marquesillo informs us as to the participation in long-di stance exchange or acquisition networks by the sites occupants. The apparent consistency of obsidian sources indicates a stable, long-term relationship with suppliers or a c onsistent method of direct procurement (c. 1500 BC-AD 400). The presence of prismatic blades in Early Formative period contexts suggests the presence of elites who may have controlled portions of El Marquesillos political and economic activities. The scenario surrounding the importation, pr oduction, and use of the other lithic material is more ambiguous. It is currently unknown if the acquisition of the materials 237

PAGE 260

238 was conducted by individuals or organized a nd controlled by the elite members of the society. The production and use of these materi als may be related only to personal or family use or they may have been part of a unified, community-wide demand. Monumental Basalt Olmec Throne In the Archaeology of El Marquesillo s ection in Chapter 3, the discovery and rescue of the monumental basalt sculpture was described. Additionally, the sociopolitical significance of Olmec thrones is discussed in the Olmec Thr ones of the Southern Gulf Coast segment. Due to the implications asso ciated with the presence of a monumental Olmec throne at El Marquesillo, a section is presented here that examines the physical nature, sculptural elements, and depositional details of the monumental basalt block. Physical Attributes The monument is carved from a solid bl ock of coarse grained basalt that, minimally, would have measured 255 cm x 125 cm x 115 cm, and weighed 11,037.2 kg or 12.17 metric tons (Figures 5.51, 5.52, and 5.53). This igneous rock is not indigenous to the alluvial lowlands and would have been brought to El Marquesillo from the volcanic ridge of the Tuxtla Mountains or its foothills a straight-line distance that ranges from 15 to 50 km. Crossing the irregular terrain of the region could do uble the travel distance, and substantial elevations and water cour ses would have to be overcome.

PAGE 261

Figure 5.51. El Marquesillo th rone dimensions, front Figure 5.52. El Marquesillo throne dimensions, back 239

PAGE 262

Figure 5.53. El Marquesillo throne right profile dimensions Sculptural Elements The throne is carved in a simple, angular form without detailed elaboration. The proportional symmetry is notable; during extens ive field measurements it was found that the variation between left and right side el ements was less than 2 cm. Note that the dimensions presented in Figures 5.51 a nd 5.52 are correct; the camera angle was not perfectly perpendicular to the throne and, th erefore, the photographs may appear slightly skewed. Two raised ridges run across the t op of the throne from front to back, and a raised trapezoid feature is centered on the back. In Figure 5.54, this feature has been outlined in red for easier visibility. Overla ying a duplicate trapezoid on the front opening of the piece demonstrates that the rear elemen t closely replicates the niche on the front. It appears that attempts were made to remove all iconographic symbolism or any type of personal identification from the monument. This effacing of identity was not 240

PAGE 263

accomplished through violent blows to the face, body, or hands; instead, the details were literally erased, smoothed away (see Grove 1981) A similar type of sculptural erasure is demonstrated on the side panel of Sa n Lorenzo Monument 14 (see Figure 5.55 and Cyphers 1993:160). The clean, almost abstract lines and surfaces of the remaining Figure 5.54. The red outline demonstrates the correspondence of size and shape on the front and back of the throne. Figure 5.55. View of the side of Sa n Lorenzo Monument 14. Red dashed lines indicate edge of ground su rface that has partially e liminated the previously carved figure (Cyphers 2004:72). 241

PAGE 264

242 portions of the El Marquesillo throne rais e the possibility that additional iconographic details may also have been eras ed prior to its deposition. The robust figure within the niche is s eated in a cross-legged, forward-leaning position (Figure 5.56) and fills the niche, si de-to-side and top-to-bottom. It is anatomically correct and conforms to th e artistic canons of human proportions and position demonstrated on the La Venta and San Lorenzo thrones with seated niche figures (see Grove 1973; Parramon 1990). Still evident are the personages headpiece, pendant, sash-like belt, and rectangular loincloth. Because stone sculpture is a reductive ar t, meaning material can be removed but cannot added, Figure 5.57 clearly illustrates that a ttempts were made to eliminate the eyes, nose, and mouth from the original sculpt ed face. Upon closer in spection, vestiges of the eyes, nose, and mouth can be dis cerned, however, along with other personal adornments. The figure wears a necklace s upporting a rectangular pendant with a diagonal cross-band design and has crenellated ear ornaments. At the sides of the head covering are the faint remains of carved ic onographic elements. It is possible that remnants of a red, paint-like substance are al so present. The hands had been removed at the wrists prior to burial, but other details have not been touched. On the left foot, the ankles, toes, and toe nails are distinct and on the lower arms the extensor Capri ulnaris muscles are well defined. Even though specific identifying features and details have been effaced, discernable remains suggest the fi gure on the El Marquesillo sculpture was intended to represent a specific individual. Furt hermore, this individua l is distinct from those portrayed on the La Venta and San Lorenzo thrones.

PAGE 265

Figure 5.56. Close-up of the figure seated within niche Figure 5.57. Close up of niche figure profile. 243

PAGE 266

244 The monument is not damaged except for a small piece from the lower rear that was broken during its recovery. There are, howev er, what Porter (1989:24) refers to as cupping depressions or circul ar ground holes with smaller, slightly deeper central holes. Two of these are present on the El Marq uesillo monument; one on the left side of the personages loincloth, to the viewers right, and the second under the left tabletop extension. Both are shallow, reaching a depth of perhaps 1.5 cm. Depositional Details The throne was buried with the face of the seated individual downward. The axis plane created by the top of the throne was or iented approximately 15 to 18 west of magnetic north. Based on observations of th e stratigraphy made by Hernndez during the thrones rescue project, it is hypothesized that the monument was lowered into its depositional position by removing the supporting soil at the front of the monument and allowing it to gradually slide from its original position and turn downw ard into a prepared cavity. Prior to its interment, the hands we re broken off, the facial and identifying features removed, and the cupping or shallow circular hole was ground into the loincloth. Once the throne had been lowered and turne d, the cupping hole could have been ground into the underside of the tabl e top extension. This hole is visible in Figure 5.56 at the center of the underside of the table-top exte nsion. The throne was buried at a depth of 245 cm and covered with 30 to 50 cm of soil.

PAGE 267

Figure 5.58. Illustration of magnetic north and the depositional plane of the th rone (Photograph by Hernndez, 2002) 245

PAGE 268

246 Chapter 6. Observations and Interpretations Viewed from the perspective of a living system, an occupation can be defined as the uninterrupted us e of a place by participants in a cultural system. The material consequences of an occupation represent a document regarding an organizational aspect or phase of operation of the cultural system under study (Binford 1982:5). Introduction This chapter examines the landscape signatures at El Marquesillo, the material traces left on the land surface by its huma n occupants. A series of discrete and interconnected features are defined and ela borated according to the available evidence. The data used to evaluate and define El Ma rquesillo was recovered from a series of noninvasive techniques and, in some cases, may be considered preliminary. This investigation of El Marquesillo has been a study of its human occupation. Binfords succinct descripti on of occupation that opened this chapter prefaced his comments on how archaeologists can better understand past cultural systems. He maintains that greater perception of past activities can be ach ieved if the relationships of formation and organization of differentially used places are recognized. Analysis of the data collected at El Marquesillo suggests that its ancient inhabitants left a material record (e.g., ceramic wares and architectural features) that demonstrates occupational and activity patterns. Furthermore, it appears that a spatial uniformity of these activity areas extended from the Early Formative to Postclassic period (c. 1500 BC to AD 1500).

PAGE 269

247 Modifications to this pattern occurred follo wing the arrival of Europeans and continued into the contemporary period. For this evidence to be evaluated, it must be placed within its appropriate context. Referring to the Olmec phenomenon, Cyphers (1993:156-158) stresses th at interpretation and meaning cannot be conceived in isolation. She contends that, to be effectively considered, the evidence must be placed w ithin an archaeological and sociological context. Ideally, a context implies not onl y the single object, but those objects found together with it, including constructed architecture and/or modified landscapes, immediate or more remote (Cyphers 1993:158). In turn, the specific contexts must be placed within a broader setting, which defi nes a situation, reminds occupants of the appropriate rules and hence of the ongoing beha viors appropriate to the situation defined by the settings (Rapoport 1990:12). Thus, th e interpretations presented here are constructed from evidence recovered within th e context of the site of El Marquesillo. These conceptual constructions are then eval uated relative to the setting of the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands. Contextual Background The Formative period inhabitants of El Ma rquesillo began a process that led to a development of social complexity and participation in the Gulf Coast Olmec paradigm, a shared array of concepts, values, and pract ices that established a communal worldview and imparted meaning to their cultural and physical surroundings. Th rough an assessment of the occupational continuum, settlement patte rns, and activity areas that are evident at the site, it appears that ancient people at El Marquesillo continued to exhibit a series of

PAGE 270

248 long-held social, cognitive, and material traditions from the Formative to Classic periods (c. 1000 BC to AD 1000). Consideration of the long-term life history of a particular structure or topographic place on the lands cape can demonstrate a development of symbolic and ritual meaning over time (Ashmore 2002; McAnany 1995, 1998), a concept Bowser (2004:1) refers to as a notion of place. Based on the spatial distribution of chr onologically diagnostic ceramics recovered during the sites inves tigation, the initia l occupation of El Mar quesillo occurred during the Ojochi phase of the middle Early Formative period (c. 1500-1350 BC) and was restricted to a small portion of the site. By the late Early Formative, or the San Lorenzo Olmec phase (c. 1150-900 BC), the residential and activity areas had spread to portions of the entire surveyed area. Although expans ion of the inhabited area occurred during the Late Classic period, the initial spatial organization of the site that was established during the Early Formative period (c. 1500-1000 BC) wa s retained, relatively unchanged, over the following 2,500 years. Ringle (1993:185) observes a similar situation among the Formative period Maya Lowland sites where he notes, clear contin uities between the Formative and Classic sites. He believes that, one reason the early urban templates could persist was that later growth was largely additive and did not force a drastic hierarchal restructuring of society. Th e same conditions and resulting social development appear to have occurred at El Marquesillo and other communities along the Southern Gulf Lowlands as well. Along with the increasing early populations that are documented in the Southern Gulf Lowlands (Borstein 2001; Symonds a nd Lunagmez 1997), is the rise of an incipient elite (Cyphers 1996b; Stark 2000). It is believed that the emergence of a ruling

PAGE 271

249 class occurred only in the pres ence and with the c ooperation of a community of labor and support groups (Earle 1989; Gilman 2001; Widm er 2003). Of concern here is the critical balance between the competitive needs of an emerging leadership to demonstrate its influence and stability and a growing populat ion whose fundamental requirements must be met if they were to remain within the community (Price 1977). At least initially, it would appear that this equilibrium required compromise and collaboration by both segments if either was to prosper. Clark and Blake (1994:19) maintain that the competitive and cooperative issues are interrelated, To compete effectively, [elites] require the cooperation and support of indebted clients. They add that elite competition is undertaken to maintain and en large this cooperative unit. To launch and maintain a successful se dentary community during the pre-Olmec period (c. 1500-1150 BC), and for that community to expand significantly during the San Lorenzo phase (c. 1150-900 BC) would requir e the attraction of outsiders. Thus, recruitment and retention of migrants must therefore have been a central concern among the leadership of these emerging polities (Ringle 1993:189-190). Stability of the environmental landscape to continually pr oduce sufficient levels of foods, goods, and services were also necessary. The fact that this community succeeded and endured while San Lorenzo and La Venta rose and fell sugg ests that, at El Marquesillo, these needs were successfully met. The Initial Occupation of El Marquesillo (c. 1500-1150 BC) For centuries, it appears that the initial o ccupation of El Marquesillo was confined to a small restricted area that today, is located along the river cut bank in the northern

PAGE 272

250 portion of Field 6. It is possible that this location was occupied by the sites leaders whose descendents would, over time, become recognized, minimally, as chiefs (Fowler 1991:3; Stark 1997:283, 288; Tolstoy 1989:293). This restricted area is the only locality in the survey area in which chronologically diagnostic, pre-Olmec ceramics have been recovered. These interpretations are based on the existing evidence, and it is noted that the erosive action of the San Juan River has le d to the loss of land at this location of the site. Therefore, it may be that the areas that remain today are only por tions of the original Formative period settlement. Ojochi phase, Achiotal Gray type tecomates (c. 1500-1350 BC) constitute the earliest evidence of settlement at El Marque sillo and have been recovered only in the northern portion of Field 6. Rocker-stamped pieces from the succeeding Bajo phase (c. 1350-1250 BC) indicate the continuance of this spatially limited occupation. The presence of Chicharras phase (c. 1250-1150 BC) ceramics, which are considered transitional to the subsequent San Lore nzo Olmec phase (c. 1150-900 BC) (Coe and Diehl 1980a:150), also demonstrates the occupa tional continuity of this small hamlet. The spatially concentrated presence of obs idian and groundstone implements along with these ceramics suggests a residential context. It is possible that social complexity emerged over time at this early occupation site, a suggestion that is based on a series of factors. The firs t is the initial appearance of ceramics. The Soconusco Coast is a region th at had demonstrable resource exchange, symbolic sculptural similariti es, and linguistic ties to the southern Gulf Coast (Campbell and Kaufman 1976; Cheetham 2005; Clark 1997; C obean et al. 1971; Cobean et al. 1991; Graham 1989; Grove 1997; Rodrguez a nd Ortz 1997; Taube 2004). There the first

PAGE 273

251 appearance of ceramics occu rred during the Barra phase (c. 1550-1400 BC) and is considered a marker of the regions sedent ism and the initiation of the emergence of ranked society. The subsequent Locona pha se ceramics (c. 1400-1250 BC) were closely associated with elite activities and the materi alization of a chiefdom level society (Blake 1991; Clark and Blake 1994). Another factor of emergent complexity is concerned with regional sociopolitical relationships. Clark and Blake (1994:20) mainta in that incipient ranked societies do not appear in isolation but, instead, evolved with in a network of socially equivalent and interacting groups that emerge simultaneousl y. This type of collective group emergence and requisite interrelationships is widely re cognized in the rise of social complexity across Mesoamerica (Earle 1997; Feinma n 1991; Hayden 1995b; Schortman and Urban 1991). At El Marquesillo, duri ng its period of the initial o ccupation, analogous situations were also occurring nearby in the Southe rn Gulf Lowlands. The closest similar habitations with pre-Olmec ceramics transpir ed at Cuatotolapan Viejo, approximately 20 km downstream from El Marquesillo, and to the southeast, at Este ro Rabn-San Isidro, near the juncture of El Julie and El Rabn Rivers (Borstein 2001). The most celebrated initial occupation at this time occurred on the San Lorenzo plateau along the Coatzacoalcos River (Coe and Diehl 1980a ). Therefore, consideration of contemporaneous regional occupations and sim ilarities of ceramic artifacts appear to demonstrate the connections between these site s. There may be others that demonstrate the same evidence as well. At this point in the investigation of th e Southern Gulf Lowl ands, there are little data relating to the social and economic developments that occurred in the pre-Olmec

PAGE 274

252 period (1500-1150 BC) and, therefore, thes e developments are relatively unknown (Sanders and Price 1968). Nevertheless, th ere are political and geographic analogies among El Rabn, Cuatotolapan Viejo, San Lore nzo, and El Marquesillo. Each became strategic centers in their own ri ght, and all were tied directly to river courses and areas of annual inundation (Cyphers 2004:2 73; Killion and Urcid 2001). In summary, these four centers all began during the same temporal pha se and are the only sites known to contain the earliest ceramic horizon in the region. Thei r ceramic inventories were restricted but highly uniform. Each site evolved as centers of socioeconomic development, and all were situated at similar geophysical locations. Cu mulatively, this evidence suggests that the initial deposition of pre-Olmec ceramics could be seen as a marker for the initiation of archaeologically detectable sedentism and eventual soci opolitical development. Continued Occupation and Ex pansion at El Marquesillo Based on analysis of the ceramic evidence from a site-wide surface collection, repeated surveys of the 1.5 km-long exposed river cut, and excavations conducted during the Olmec throne rescue project, the pre-Ol mec phase occupational area appears to be spatially restricted to the northern portion of Field 6. In contrast, the appearance of ceramics associated with the San Lorenzo Olmec phase (c. 1150-900 BC) marks a point of significant change in the scale of El Marquesillos 350 year-l ong settlement history. The distribution of ceramics from this later period indicates an expansion of occupation to sectors across the entire survey area of Fields 1-8. Interpretation of the location of numer ous surface and sub-surface features, along with differential artifact and ceramic deposition patterns suggests that the site contained a

PAGE 275

253 series of interrelated residential, civic-ceremonial, and craft production zones. Within some of these sectors, circumscribed special activity areas can be detected. The most notable aspect of this segmented settlement pattern, however, is that it would remain consistent for at leas t the next 2,000 years. A number of potential reasons for sedentis m at El Marquesillo were detailed in Chapter 3. These factors included environmen tal diversity that ensured subsistence security and readily available local re sources that provide d economic opportunity. Riverine routes simultaneously facilitate d importation of non-local resources from diverse ecological zones and established a st ructure for exportation or redistribution. As well, the elevated lands on the west side of the San Juan River provided natural protection against the annual i nundations of the river. Anot her factor that may have contributed to the longevity of El Marquesillos occupation wa s its inhabitants participation, at some level, in the Gulf Coast Olmec phenomenon that could assist in the facilitation of the development of the site during the Early and Middle Formative periods (c. 1500-300 BC). Socioeconomic support for th e residents may have been provided by the open interaction spheres operating along the Gulf Coast at this time (Clark 1997; Coe 1968; Hirth 1978; Stark 2000). Subsistence issues have not been direc tly addressed primarily because of the limitations imposed on the survey methods. Ne vertheless, comparison with San Lorenzo (Coe 1981; Coe and Diehl 1980a,b) and La Vent a (Pohl 2001; Pope et al. 2001; Rust and Leyden 1994; Rust and Sharer 1988) would app ear appropriate due to environmental and ecological similarities. The conditions surr ounding El Marquesillo would have been exceptional for incipient horticultu re or to eventual fully de veloped agriculture. Prior to

PAGE 276

254 agriculture, native plants, terrestrial and a quatic animals, and possibly animal husbandry would have provided a broad base for a variet y of subsistence systems (Rosenswig 2006; Wing 1978; Wing 1981). Residential Zone The original pre-Olmec resi dential area, along the contem porary river cut in Field 6, continued to be occupied during the Earl y Formative period San Lorenzo phase (c. 1150-900 BC) as well as throughout the Middle and Late Formative periods (c. 900 to 300 BC). During this time the occupation area e xpanded alongside to the south into Field 7. Additional observations of the area re garding these temporal phases support the hypothesis that this area was a s ite of the earliest demonstrab le occupation and that, over time, developed into an elite residential zone. The San Lorenzo phase ceramic types Limon Incised and Calzadas Carved cannot stand alone as markers of an elite presence. Nevertheless, when placed in association with other lines of evidence, the area app ears to have evolved in to the residence of privileged occupants. The de position of San Lorenzo phase ceramics was restricted to this area and was contiguous with the earlier pre-Olmec artifacts. Repeated construction events involving floors and st ructures suggest a continual long-term occupation. The zones location directly adjacent to the Olmec Throne Complex implies a relationship with the elite-based activities that occurre d there. Similar ceramic findings and the analogous development at the contemporaneous sites of Cuatotolapan Viejo, Estero Rabn, and San Lorenzo into elite center s also support this interpretation.

PAGE 277

255 The Early Formative period appearance of obsidian prismatic blades may also be an indicator of elite areas. At San Lo renzo, Coe and Diehl (1980:258-259, 391) and Cobean et al. (1971) demonstrated that obs idian importation and t ool production were associated with the elite. Clark and associat es (1987; Clark and Blake 1994; Clark and Lee 1984; Clark et al. 1989) have argued th at prismatic blades and their requisite technologies were initially tied to elites and their sociopolit ical and economic activities. Over the course of my field work at El Marquesillo, I noted that this specific area contained more obsidian blades and flakes, both on the surface and in situ in the river cut bank, than anywhere else at the site. In December, 2005, a collapse along the northern edge of the Field 6 river cut exposed signifi cant portions of this ar ea and revealed new evidence. Obsidian prismatic blades were f ound in direct association with Limon Incised and Calzadas Carved ceramics. At this point it cannot be definiti vely concluded that blades were present during the earlier pre-Ol mec phases, but it is possible. Thus, the presence of prismatic blades at this early da te in El Marquesillo suggests elite occupation. When compared to other areas of the site a nd considering later intra-site developments, the argument is maintained that this was the elite residential center of El Marquesillo during the Formative period. The sources of the obsidian material al so demonstrate that, although El Marquesillo particip ated in acquisition networ ks to obtain long-distance commodities, its operation and import practices differed from other contemporary sites. This differentiation of obsidian sources at El Marquesillo suggests a level of sociopolitical and economic autonomy. Architectural features are also present in this zone. River cut Profiles 6B and 7A demonstrate a series of Formative period c onstruction events. Formations depicted in

PAGE 278

256 Profile 6B suggest a low platform-like stru cture with a series of compacted red sand floors that are associated with the original pre-Olmec occupation location. Profile 7A demonstrates more substantial and complex construction efforts that occurred between the Early and Late Formative periods (c. 900-300 BC), based on the deposition of chronologically diagnostic ceramics. A series of superimposed construc tions indicate four major construction events that are separate d by thick lines of compacted red sand. The uppermost feature, identified as Levels II, IIa, and III in Profile 7A, represent a series of disturbed floors. Below this feature is a 20 to 30 cm thick layer made up of a mixture of rose colored semi-compacted sand and an as h-like, possibly volcanic, substance. This material is not natural to this location and would have had to have been intentionally mixed and deposited here. The thickness of the layer is relatively uniform and extends beyond the profile a few meters to the south and into Field 6 to the north. Another red sand line marks the lower border of this featur e. Below is Level V, another relatively uniform layer, around 30 cm thick, that cont ains less ash and sand than the level above but has river gravel mixed into the aggregate, a material not found in the upper level constructions. Level VI is a layer of mixed a nd modified sand and grav el with portions of burned clay that may represent a floor. A diachronic analysis of the deposition of chronologically diagnostic ceramics indicates that the lower two levels, V a nd VI, were constructed during the Early Formative period. Level IV contains no defi nitive ceramics and the multiple intrusions may have moved diagnostic mate rial; this level is attribut ed to sometime between the Early and Late Formative. The upper levels were constructed and modified during the Late Formative and possibly early Protocla ssic period according to ceramic deposits.

PAGE 279

Evidence of these constructions is also present on the surface. Results of the topographic mapping survey indicate a raised circular area at the location of the preOlmec ceramic deposition (Figure 6.1). Structure 111 is also clearly defined in the topographic image immediately to the south. A ramp-like appendage appears to extend north northwest from Structur e 111 directly toward the slig htly elevated circular mound containing the pre-Olmec ceramic deposit. Ex amination of the alignment of Structure 111, its ramp, and the circular building shows that the directional axis of these buildings is oriented to 18.5 west of magnetic nort h. Further observations on the significance of this directional alignment are discussed in the Site Planning and Concepts of Directionality section below. Figure 6.1 Contour map illustrating location of Structure 111, Pre-Olmec ceramic deposits, and the Olmec throne 257

PAGE 280

258 Based on recovered ceramics, both of these locations were occupied simultaneously during the San Lorenzo phase and for the remainder of the Formative period. The deposit of mixed sand and ash identif ied as Level IV in Profile 7A and Level III in Profile 6B is continuous across the exposed river cut and match the horizontal dimensions of Structure 111, suggesting th is layer was foundati onal to the surface structure. Along the southern perimeter of Structure 111, the Olmec throne was buried. Surveys of in situ cultural material along the river cut in Fields 6, 7, and 8 have produced no evidence to suggest any reside ntial occupation of this zone beyond the Formative period. Late Classic period ceramics are present here but are all found only in four limited and intrusive contexts. It appears that these invasive Late Classic period episodes were calculated events and are related to each other. Offerings III, IV, and V are all attribut ed to the Late Classic period and were intentionally deposited within Structure 111. Also, at the s outhern edge of this structure, approximately 3 m west of the thrones inte rred location, an intrus ive hole had been dug that reached 110 cm in depth. When this ca vity was refilled, it contained a mix of chronologically diagnostic ceramic sherds from the Early Formative to the Late Classic periods. No offering or artifact assemblage was found in the refilled space. An uninterrupted 40 cm earthen layer above the di sturbed soil literally sealed the entire activity area. The event is ascribed to the La te Classic period based on the latest ceramic phase present. Jones (2001:87-88) describes Mesoamerican offerings or caches as intentionally hidden objectsthat by content, grouping, or context appear to have votive, dedicatory, or ceremonial function. The specific function or social meaning of Offerings III, IV, V,

PAGE 281

259 and the excavated pit is not known, but spatia l analysis of their deposition may provide some clues as to their general objective. A total of 10 ceramic vessels were recovered in the three, apparently formal, offerings and ar e attributable to the Late Classic period. The three offerings are diverse and distinctive in their content, and their individual interments were precise in their loca tion and arrangement. The loca tion and possible meaning of these offerings is discussed further in the following section. The Olmec Throne Complex This architectural complex is so named due to its proximity to the depositional location of the monumental Olmec throne. At this time, no reliable evidence was recovered that would indicate any Formative period occupation or activity occurred to the south of the Olmec Throne Complex. A number of surface and subsurface architectural features are present within this complex a nd suggest it was the sites religious and ceremonial center during the Formative period. Furthermore, the interpretation of the ceramic evidence implies that this area re mained a center of ritual or ceremonial significance through the Classic period. The context of the ar chitectural, artifact, and natural features in this complex is descri bed below. When the cumulative evidence is considered, it appears that the El Marque sillo elite were involved in ideological legitimation as it was practiced within the se tting of the Olmec area of the Southern Gulf Lowlands during the Formative period. It has been recognized that specific architectural comp lexes within Mesoamerican sites contained locations wh ere monumental architecture served as a setting for performance of ritualized ceremonies, rites to venerate ancestors, or reenactments of

PAGE 282

260 creation (Reilly 1999:15; Schele and Freidel 1990:64-77). In these public venues, rulers demonstrated and validated their political pow er. Within the Olmec Gulf Coast, Cyphers (1993:155) states that, display of rulership may be directly associated with the control of two resources, water and stone, both of which are prominently displayed at El Marquesillo. Regarding the setting, Reilly (1994:13) describes how, at La Ventas Complex A, the court itself was a constructed sacred landscape (see also Grove 1999:256; Grove and Gillespie 1992), again this endeavor and intention appears to be present at El Marquesillo. At El Marquesillo this monument al construction and associated features suggest a display of power, aut hority, and social leadership. The sheer monumentality of this complex alone refl ects a substantial expenditure of energy, planning, and organization requi red for its construction. During the Formative period along the S outhern Gulf Lowlands, the public expression of Olmec ideology appears to have seamlessly blended two seemingly opposing functions. At a time when the emerge nce of social complexity compelled the establishment of sociopolitical order and power, it also re quired the enlistment and cooperation of supporters. Turner (1969, 1974) defines this dichotomy where, on the one hand, there is the concept of communitas , a social bonding that provides a sense of identity, affiliation, and homogeny, on the other are the distinc tions required of hierarchy. Turners inclusiveness, or communitas, is demonstrated through unifying rituals of earth and fertility, those rites re presentative of shared equal values common to the entire populace. His exclusiveness is shown thr ough acts of ancestor veneration, which is used to demonstrate distinctions of power, authority, and self interest among specific lineages, houses, or factions.

PAGE 283

261 For the Gulf Olmec, monumental exhibi tions of ideological imagery allowed leaders to operate within an ideological st ructure that created social cohesion through public expressions of earthly cults (e.g., water, fertility, or landscape) (Freidel 1995; Kapplemen 2001; Reilly 2005; Taube 1995). At the same time they could confirm their sanction to rule through illustrating contact with or descent from sacred ancestors. Although the ideological structure and meaning of these exhibitions were similar across the landscape, the intentions and relationship of individual leaders with their communities may have been very different. Monumental Basalt Olmec Throne The monumental Olmec throne is the mo st significant artifac t recovered at El Marquesillo was a motivating influence for the sites investigation and as such deserves further discussion of its observed attributes The iconographic detail, original location, burial position, and a series of related deposit ional events are essential to understanding the local and regional contexts in which th e throne was used. A dditionally, the ancient significance of the throne app ears to have extended from the Formative to the Classic period. The helmet-like head covering and the wide sash-like belt worn by the individual depicted on the throne are remi niscent of the ball player ge ar worn by rulers, which are evident on the San Lorenzo sculptures (Cla rk 2005:212; Coe and Diehl 1980a:269). The carved niche represented cave entrances or portals to the underworld from which the ancestors could be contacted (Clark 2005:212) Thus, the person represented with these symbolic adornments and seated in this supe rnatural location might be interpreted as a

PAGE 284

ruler or lineage founder or protagonist. The im portance and esteem of this individual or the faction they represent can also be infe rred from the amount of wealth, power, and organization required to acquire and construct a 12-ton monolithic throne. The depositional location and placement of the throne, as well as those of associated Offerings I and II, are noteworthy beca use they appear to be related to a ritual termination event. By examining the method and placement of deposition it may be possible to reconstruct the origin al position of the throne. Furt hermore, it is possible that Classic period activities occurred a millennium after the deposition of the throne were affected by the method of its interment. Figure 6.2 illustrates the hypothesized method by which the throne was interred based on observations by Hernndez during th e 2002 rescue project. By digging a hole in front of the monument, it was then possible to turn and lower the sculpture into the hole by removing the earth supporting the front of the piece. This manner of burial would provide control of the movement of the objec t and allow it to be positioned rather Figure 6.2 View to the north of the h ypothesized lowering of Olmec throne 262

PAGE 285

263 precisely. This method would also move the th rone 2 to 3 m from its original upright position on the landscape; the significance of this point will become clear shortly. The throne was turned so that the face of th e personage was positioned downward. If the throne was re-erected by turning it upright on the axis on which it was uncovered, the figure in the niche would be facing an east-nor theast direction, approximately 78 east of magnetic north. Equally significant to the understanding of the sculpture are the symbolic features of the throne itself, the seated personage, and the iconographic elements depicted on the accoutrements of the person. Prio r to the thrones deposition, the hands of the figure were removed, the facial features were obscured, attempts were made to erase the iconographic details, and a cupping hole was ground into the loincloth of the personage. After the throne was lowered and turned, a second c upping hole was ground in to the underside of the right tabletop extension. It appears that all traces of elements that could identify the individual were removed, literally erased or wiped away. This type of sculptural erasure is demonstrated on the left pa nel of San Lorenzo Monument 14 (Cyphers 1993:160). On El Marquesillos altar, there is an unequivocal deletion of surface details relating to the niche figure, but the clean, almost abstract lines and surfaces of the remaining portions of the altar raise the po ssibility that additional iconographic details may also have been erased pr ior to its deposition. The attempt to eradicate identifyi ng iconographic features was not fully successful, however. It is possibl e to distinguish that the pers on seated in the niche wears a necklace with a pendent of diagonal cross-bands and has crenellated ear ornaments, both associated with Formative Gulf Co ast water imagery (Coe 1968:112; Joralemon

PAGE 286

1971:90; Taube 2004:91). San Lorenzo Monument 52 is a depiction of the Olmec rain deity wearing identical adornments (Diehl 2004:40). The relationship of the Monument 52 to water elements is reinforced by the fact that the back of this figure is carved into the typical trough-shape and size of the basalt dr ains used atop the San Lorenzo plateau (Coe and Diehl 1980a; Cyphers 1993) (Figure 6.3. At El Marquesillo, the sides of the head covering are faint remainders of iconographic el ements. It is possible that remnants of a red, paint-like substance are also present. Figure 6.3. San Lorenzo Monument 52, basalt sculpture of the Olmec Rain Deity. Note necklace with cross-band pendent, cr enellated ear ornaments, and head piece. Right photo is reverse side illustrating u-shaped drain (Cyphers 2004:112). 264

PAGE 287

265 An earlier discussion suggested stylistic similarities between the Olmec tabletop thrones at San Lorenzo, La Venta, and the example from El Marquesillo. Although the resemblances are compelling, the differences may be equally telling. The defacement of sculptures may have been intended to releas e the power and danger inherent within the monument (Cyphers 1996a, 1997a; Gillespie 1993; Grove and Gillespie 1992). The brutality accorded some monuments, but not others, indicates selective desecration and iconoclasm rather than ritual decommissi oning (Clark 2005:212). Unlike the forceful mutilation and disfigurement of monuments present at San Lorenzo and La Venta, the throne from El Marquesillo was not subjected to violent blows or ba ttering (see Coe and Diehl 1980a:297; Grove 1999). There is al so no evidence of fracturing, slotting, grooving, or other recarving or reuse of th e stone. In comparison to the condition and deposition of many monumental sculptures at ot her contemporary sites on the Gulf Coast, the throne at El Marquesillo could be cons idered to have undergone a more deferential effacing process and a more venerable interment (see Coe and Diehl 1980a:297-374; Cyphers 2004; Heizer 1960; Porter 1989). Some observations regarding the throne ha ve been made that, initially may appear inconsequential, but, when added to the to tality of evidence from El Marquesillo and other sites, suggest a more profound pattern of Mesoamerican directional alignment and measurement systems. The axis plane create d by the top of the throne was oriented approximately 16 west of magnetic north (Figure 5.84). Implications for this alignment are discussed further in the Site Planning and Concepts of Directionality section below. Offerings I and II are associated with the ritual termination and deposition of the throne. The intimate placement and depths of the offering pits, relative to those of the

PAGE 288

266 throne, support this idea. Evidence from the offerings implies that a feasting event may have been held in conjunction with the thrones termination ritual and the debris from this event was deposited in the two pits. Early, Middle, and Late Formative ceramics (c. 1150-300 BC) were recovered from Offering I, which suggests some of the deposited objects were heirloom items. It is also possi ble that the substan tial lens of organic material in Offering II was a result of th e deposition of flowers or grasses into the opening. During the investigation at El Marquesill o, Hernndez related that the discovery of this monumental sculpture had elicited sp eculation that the throne was not intended to be here, that it was in transit to anot her location (see also Diehl 2004:190-191). The preparation and method of deposition along w ith the proposed ritualistic termination activities (i.e., elimination of identify symbols, feasting event, artifact deposition) associated with the interment seem to de monstrate behaviors that would not have occurred if the monument were in transit. Another argument that th e throne was indeed a cenotaph, or monument erected in honor of an El Marquesillo forebear, is that it is an integral part of a sacred symbolic scene. The scene is composed of multiple monumental features present within the Olmec Throne Complex, which are described in the following section. Therefore, the throne does not appear to be an anomalous in transit monument, but instead, a valued memorial expressive of the sociopolitical status of the people of El Marquesillo. Revisiting the locations of Offerings 3, 4, and 5, we know they were located in Structure 111 and were positioned near the vertical mid-point of the Formative period structure (i.e., Level IV and V in Profile 7A and in Level III s lightly south of Profile 6B),

PAGE 289

267 approximately 100 cm to 120 cm below the present surface. This is the same depth to which the anomalous hole at the southern edge of Structure 111 had reached. Each of these four intrusions fall on a single axis line. In other words, all the intrusions were placed in a straight line, both vertically and horizontally. The horizonta l direction of this axis is 341.5, identical to the orientation observed for the Structure 111 in which they were deposited. Although these offerings are not of the monu mental nature as is the Olmec throne, they may provide substantial information a bout the early and later inhabitants and the origins and development of their settlement pattern. The occupation of Structure 111 in the elite residential zone be gan in the Early Formative a nd continued through the Late Formative period (c. 1150-300 BC). During this ti me, a series of construction events in the form successive platform layers were co mpleted with the last being assigned to the Late Formative. No evidence for residentia l occupation beyond this period has been uncovered. Then, 800 to 1300 years after the constructions we re completed, an aligned series of Late Classic offe rings (c. AD 550-900) were insert ed into the center of the structures along the same axis as the architectural structure. Two major questions arise. Why were th e offerings placed in a precise linear fashion, and why was a large hole dug along th at axis but nothing deposited? I submit that it is possible the Late Classic inhabita nts of El Marquesillo may have performed a type of dedication ceremony designed to end in the locating and recovery of the Olmec throne. The empty Classic period excavation was made where the throne should have been. If this proposal is correct, the reason th e Late Classic people mi ssed their target was because the throne had been moved from its original location during its interment by the

PAGE 290

268 Formative period people (see Figu re 6.3). There is evidence th at Late Classic inhabitants of other Southern Gulf Lowland sites reloca ted Formative period monumental sculptures from their original positions of deposition and moved them to Villa Alta phase architectural complexes. This activity has been illustrated at San Lorenzo Tenochtitln (Coe and Diehl 1980a:293), Laguna de los Cerros (Bove 1978:9), and probably at Las Limas (Rueda 1996). Also supporting this hypoth esis is the fact that the southeasterly extension of the offering and Structure 111 axis intersects the longitu dinal medial axis of the courtyard in the primary Villa Alta pha se long mound complex (see Site Planning and Concepts of Directionality section below). The Basal Platform The Olmec Throne Complex is composed of multiple architectural and natural features that are situated at op a massive earthen platform. The extant portions of this monumental construction m easure approximately 500 m by 250 m, and its elevation above the surrounding landscape ranges from 1 to 8 m. It is probable that this foundational platform was formed through the modification of a natural rise, based on observation of the surrounding topography. The extended depression along the north side of the structure appears to be a borrow pit, the fill from which was used to level and shape the rectangular platform. Constructed atop the platform are a series of earthen buildings of various sizes and shapes. The placement of these buildings cr eated a series of enclosed spaces, two of which are major plaza or courtyard areas. It is possible that the complex of structures that are visible today was built or modified over a series of construction episodes.

PAGE 291

269 Nevertheless, the structural design and specific features present within the complex may offer clues as to its origin and purpose. To assess these clues it is necessary to observe the archaeological features and landscape signatures within the context of El Marquesillo and the setting of the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands. Water Features There are two natural water features associated with the Olmec Throne Complex. One is an apparent spring located immediatel y outside the west perimeter of the complex (Figure 6.4). This feature is notable because it is bisected by the longitudinal medial axis line that divides the basal platform and its surface structures. The second water feature is an almost perfectly spherical pool of standi ng water that is located in the northwest corner of the basal platform. Present day inha bitants who have lived here since the 1940s say the pool, which they refer to as the poza, has never been dry. Based on these observations and the consistency in the level of the water noted in three-years of field observations, this feature also may be th e product of a natural spring. The depth and position of the water table in the Southern Gulf Lowlands were irregular, and Cyphers argues that elevated points in the table made them a circumscribed resource (Cyphers 1993:165). There appears to be another water featur e present atop the platform that is not natural, but was produced through human pla nning and labor. Figure 6.4 is an elevational contour map of Field 8 produced from the tota l station survey data, and the natural seep spring and standing water feature are identifie d. In Plaza 1, in the northeast sector of the platform, is an area of significant depression. Th is sunken area is clearly noticeable in the

PAGE 292

Figure 6.4. The red dashed line outlines th e basal platform of the Olmec Throne Complex. The depression area is identified by concentric contour lines that illustrate the sloped surfaces that dr ain the surface of Plaza 1. field, and the sloping of the surrounding surface effectively drains and retains the rain run-off from Plaza I. Due to the inhabitants ability to create large level surfaces, as demonstrated by the major portions of Plazas 1 and 2, it would appear that the depression is an intentionally constructed feature and th at it can serve as a wa ter retention basin. The skill, detail, and planning evident in all othe r aspects of the complex suggest that this depression was not inadverten t or an unintended result. This type of surface drainage system is also present and clearly identifiable around the standing water feature in the northwest corner of the platform. The surface of Plaza II is drained by the sloping terrain imme diately north, south, and west of Structure 78 that carries the run-off into the standing wa ter feature. Surface wate r features of this nature have been referred to as ponds or lagunas at San Lorenzo, where there has been 270

PAGE 293

discussion about the antiquity of these feat ures (Cyphers 1993; Diehl 2004). Ultimately, it appears that the laguna originated in the Formative period and may have been subjected to later modifications, a situation consider ed analogous to the one at El Marquesillo. Examination of the magnetometer and GPS data shows a linear anomaly located in the northeast sector of Field 8. This anomaly begins 60 m west of the depositional position of the Olmec throne and extends west-southwest for approximately 90 m where it apparently ends. Closer examination of th e surface indicates that the spot where the visualization of the anomaly ends coincides pr ecisely with the eastern edge of Structure 77a (see Figure 6.5). Therefore, it is po ssible that the anomaly actually continues underneath the building, but that the strength of the magnetic signal, captured by the magnetometer, was significantly reduced as a result of the interference caused by up to several meters of intervening fill th at was used in the construction. Figure 6.5. Topographic base map of Fiel ds 7 and 8 with depictions of features and structures. Detected linear anomalies are illustrated by red dashed lines, hypothesized anomaly is illust rated as blue dashed lines. 271

PAGE 294

272 Another, shorter, linear anomaly app ears 150 m to the west-southwest of the primary linear anomaly. This 30 m-long a nomaly runs from the northeast to the southwest. Here, the northeas t end of the anomaly disappears from the magnetic data at precisely the point where it coincides with the edge of Structure 77b. The southwest end of the anomaly ends at the edge of the standing water feature. It is possible that these two linear an omalies are connected and may represent portions of a basalt drainage system the emp ties the recessed retention area in Plaza I to the standing water feature to the west. Figur e 6.5 depicts various f eatures and buildings associated with the Olmec Throne Complex. Portions of a linear anomaly that are clearly represented by the magnetic data are show n as a solid red-dashed line, and the hypothesized portions are repres ented by a blue-dashed line. Thus, the abruptness of the disappearance and reappearance of the anomalous features are seen to be attributable to the presence and absence of the surface structures. There is substantial support for the hypot hesized anomaly from various lines of evidence. The probable source of this anomal y is basalt, and the reason for its linear aspect is that it is a drainage system comp arable to those demons trated at San Lorenzo and La Venta. The San Lorenzo system was composed of carved u-shaped segments of basalt and matching covers that extended for 171 m (Coe and Diehl 1980a:118-126) (see Figure 6.6). The apparent purpose of the drains was the transf er of water between basins or reservoirs, all of which we re used for ceremonial as we ll as utilitarian purposes. San Lorenzo Monuments 9, a basalt basin carved in the form of a duck, is unmistakably symbolic of water and Monument 52, which depicts the Olmec water deity, were both associated with the drain system (Cyphe rs 1993:161-163; Diehl 2004:37-40) (see Figure

PAGE 295

6.3). At La Venta equivalent basalt troughs and drainage systems are present (Heizer, Drucker et al. 1968). In Group E at San Lore nzo, Laguna 8 is a standing water feature similar to that at El Marquesillo. The laguna has been linked to the drain system, and the entire area has been identified as, a clear hotspot of elite activity (Cyphers 1993:159161; Diehl 2004:39). Stirling (1955:15) reports that San Lo renzo Monument 14, a table top throne, corresponding in shape, form, and with simila r symbolic content to the throne at El Marquesillo, was found submerged within La guna 8 and was visible only during the dry season when the water level dropped. Furthe r investigations show ed that Monument 14 Figure 6.6. Linear system of ba salt drains unearthed at San Lorenzo (Coe and Diehl 1980:119 273

PAGE 296

274 originally sat on a patio-like structure on the northeast corner of the laguna (Cyphers 1993:163). If the presumption concerning the depo sition of El Marquesillos throne made by Hernndez and myself is correct, then its original placement a nd location, relative to the water retention area, duplicates that of Monument 14 and Laguna 8. Moreover, excavations of the floor upon which Monument 14 sat at San Lorenzo contained offerings that included numerous ceramic vessels, ev idence of burning, and bird bones, all of which were present in El Mar quesillo Offerings I and II that are directly associated with the throne. At first glance, the extensive seasonal rains and annual rive r inundations of the region under investigation would seem to e liminate water as a potential source of ideological or material concern to the anci ent inhabitants. Cyphers (1993:175), however, makes it clear that, the conventional a ssumption that, in the human Gulf Coast environment, water is seldom, if ever, a limiti ng factor is not correct. She adds that all aspects of the Olmec environment are closely ti ed to water in all of its manifestations (Cyphers 1993:165). The importance of potable water in the ar ea identified as the Gulf Coast Olmec heartland has been repeatedly demonstrated (Cyphers 1997b; Diehl 2004; Reilly 1999; Rodrguez and Ortiz 2000), and its in clusion in symbolic as well as material forms substantiate its significance on multiple social and political levels (Reilly 1994; Scarborough 1998; Taube 1995). The temporal depth of these sacred pl aces and symbolic representations is apparent at El Manat, where initia l offerings began around 1600 BC (Ortz and Rodrguez 1993; Rodrguez and Ortz 1997). Pla ces of pooled water were sacred portals that are closely associated with Formative period architectural complexes and linked to

PAGE 297

275 shamanistic ritual and rulership (Freid el 1995; Reilly 1994; Scarborough 1998). Here, individuals could pass between the natural wo rld and the underworld to contact ancestors and deities (Reilly 1999; Stark 1993; Tate 1999a). In my opinion, all of these examples of ideological representation and elite pract ices are present at El Marquesillo. Structure 77 This u-shaped structure is identified in Fi gure 6.5 as Structures 77a, b, c, and d, to clarify descriptions. The incl usive structure delineates th e western end of the basal platform, and its form and enclosed space is highly suggestive of the court in La Venta Complex A (see Drucker et al. 1959: frontispiece; Reilly 1994, 1999, 2002). The enclosing arms of the construction surround a re stricted area that in cludes Structures 78 and 110, which are analogous to La Vent a Complex A Mound A-2 and South-Central Platform Feature A-1-c (Dru cker et al. 1959:Figure 4). Reilly (1994) perceives Comple x A at La Venta as a cons tructed sacred landscape based on the concept of a watery underworl d, a world of the ances tors and seat of supernatural power. A pool of primordial wate r was the terrestrial entrance to this otherworld, and at La Venta this earthly portal was symbolized by massive mosaic offerings of serpentine stone. At El Marquesillo, however, the sacred portal was not an artificial facsimile but an actual pool of water. Reilly adds that the form and function of the La Venta complex and its associated featur es was indicative of the cosmic view held by the heartland Olmec. It is possible that the natural features al ong with architectural constructions may indicate a similar representa tion by the inhabitants at El Marquesillo.

PAGE 298

276 Mound Structures 78, 79, 82, and 110 Structure 78, a 6 m high earthen pyramid, dominates the Olmec Throne Complex. Structure 79 is a lower but broader based, truncated pyramid. These two structures effectively divide the entire complex into thr ee, relatively comparable segments; Plaza I, Plaza II, and the western secti on containing the standing water feature. Structures 82 and 110 are low 1 m mounds that, from their su rface appearance, do not offer any overt indication as to their function or significance. Nevertheless, their specific placement, along with Structures 78 and 79, and the seep spring immediately west of the complex, suggests a significant alignment. As previ ously noted, the longitudinal medial axis formed by the centers of these four structures also effectively bisects the entire complex and basal platform. This axis line is oriented to approximately 72 east of magnetic north. This estimated alignment is within three degrees of the line-of-site proposed for the throne personage. Plazas I and II Plaza I is located in the ea stern porti on of the Olmec Throne Complex (see Figure 6.5), and may be an area of privileged, elite activities. The pl aza is encircled by a series of variously sized and shaped structures that effec tively isolate the courtyard and restrict entry to its interior. The northeast portion of this plaza was the location of the altars ritual deposition, asso ciated Offerings I and II, and contained the hypothesized ceremonial water retention pond. Structure 79, which forms the western boundary of the plaza, has a unique pedestal-lik e projection at its northeast co rner (see Figure 6.5). Its 2 m

PAGE 299

277 elevation provides an excellent overview of the entire northern portion of the plaza and altar location. As previously mentioned, the artifacts r ecovered in Offerings I and II suggest a feasting event was associated with the al tars termination ritual. Recovered surface collection material from within Plaza I incl uded diagnostic and domestic ceramics wares and stone grinding implements that suggest that this area was used for the preparation of such events. The results of the Plaza I soil analysis also are suggestive of activities associated with fires, food, and ritualistic events. The artifact distribution pattern, documented during the altars rescue excav ation, shows a dramatic drop-off as the eastern perimeter of the hypothesized water basin is approached. Plaza II, which comprises the central segm ent of the Olmec Throne Complex as it exists today, presents an entirely different scenario. Various lines of evidence suggest that this plaza was a place for public assembl y, possibly for the viewing of community oriented ceremonies or rituals. A broad ra mp-like structure rises 4 to 5 m from Field 7 and narrows as it approached a constricted opening on the nort h side of the Olmec Altar Complex between Structures 77a and 77b. This position is the only recognizable entrance to the plaza, which suggests access may have been controlled. The plaza floor is dominated by Structure 78 to the west and Structure 79 to the eas t. The height of either of these buildings would allow observation of any activities occurring on their summits to be clearly visible to occupants of the plaza. The results of the soil analysis conduc ted in Plaza II differed significantly from those from Plaza I. The elemental traces here are minor relative to those in Plaza I, and what evidence that is present suggests restri cted types of activity. The surface collection

PAGE 300

278 illustrates an almost complete absence of ar tifacts, of any type, across the plaza. The interpretation of this combination of evidence suggests that, whatever activity occurred in the plaza, any remains were cleaned from the surface soon after the completion of the event, before the chemical residues had time to leach into the soil and attach to the matrix particles. Additional support for plaza cleansing may be found in the results from the surface collection that suggest a concentrated, long term disposal site. A single 50 m x 50 m grid unit, N1-W6, shows a highly circum scribed and concentrated deposit of 637 ceramic sherds, which represents nearly 15 percent of the total surface assemblage. Chronologically diagnostic ceramics from a ll phases recognized at the site were recovered in this single grid unit. Furthermore, the quantities of each of these diagnostic types were, by far, greater than at any other location at the site. Ceramic sherds were the only type of artifact recovere d here, and no other artifact de position was recorded within 50 m of this unit. Unit N1-W6 is located in the depression at th e foot of the basal platform, and is directly adjacent to the north ern perimeter of Plaza II. Therefore, it is suggested that this location was the deposit si te of the refuse cleaned from the plazas surface. In summation, the natural and construc ted features in and around the Olmec Throne Complex appear to demonstrate that the community of El Marquesillo actively participated in the Formative period Gulf Co ast Olmec ideological paradigm. Sculpture constitutes one of the earliest examples in ancient Mexico of large-scale ideological communication through the intera ction of architecture and sculpture (Gonzlez-Lauck 2001:800). The continued use of the plazas and its features over a 2,000 year period add

PAGE 301

279 further support to the idea th at El Marquesillo represents a well-establishe d, conservative community that practiced rituals and ceremonies. The duration of these proposed practices over more than 1,500 years indicate they were deeply entrenched in the communitys social traditions and exemplif y the cultural continuity of the people and place. Residential and Ceramic Production Zones Examination of the chronologically diagnostic ceramic and lithic artifact deposition indicates that beginning around 1150 BC, a series of residential and ceramic production areas appeared in Fields 1, 2, 3, and 4. Based on the sites geomorphological resources (i.e., numerous colored clays and fine sand tempering agents), along with ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence, it appears that El Mar quesillos inhabitants produced substantial quantitie s of ceramic vessels throughout much of its occupational history (c. 1150 BC to AD 1000). Today, the river cut bank creates the eastern terminus of Field 3, and this portion has been identified as a residential zone based on the deposition and type of surface artifacts and examination of the upper st ratigraphy of the river cut bank. Extending approximately 70 m west of the cut is a leve l, slightly elevated area. Early Formative through Late Classic period ceramics were recovered here in the 2003 surface collection. During 2004 field season, the entire east half of the field was mechanically tilled in preparation for planting. A subsequent pedestri an survey of the exposed area revealed an intensity of domestic ceramic and lithic artif acts limited to the same area as the surface collected material. The continuity of chronologically diagnostic ceramics and the limited

PAGE 302

280 deposition pattern suggests that this residential zone was occupi ed from the Early Formative to Late Classic period. In Field 1, approximately 50 to 70 m northeas t of the residential zone, is an area of significant ceramic production. The magnetomete r survey of Field 1 detected a series of anomalies in this zone that could be localities of significan t concentrated burning activities, as would be expected of ceramic production, either through open fire-pits or kilns (see Hoag 2003). The extended duration of their operation and level of production is indicated by the deposition of large quantities of chronol ogically diagnostic (Early Formative through Late Classic, c. 1150 BC to AD 900) and domestic ceramic sherds visible along the northern rive r cut bank in Field 1 and th e eastern bank of Fields 1 through 4. Analysis of the diagnostic ceramics from the surface collection presents a pattern of expansion and contraction in this zone over time. When the non-diagnostic material is included, the spatial pattern remains basically unaltered, and the lim its of deposition of archaeological materials are adhered to. The restricted depositional occurrence suggests this was a discrete activity area. In th e Early Formative period, the surface area containing diagnostic ceramics covered 10,000 m or approximately 0.01 km. Middle Formative distribution increased to 37,500 m and the Late Formative continued to increase to 45,000 m. The Protoclassic spa tial distribution was re duced to 32,500 m and the decline continued in the Early Cla ssic to 15,000 m. The Late Classic period witnessed a substantial re-flo rescence to 27,500 m. This te mporal pattern of spatial waxing and waning is demonstrated in other se gments of the site as well. It is not possible, at this time, to determine if the production zone also incl uded residential areas.

PAGE 303

281 Also contributing to the ceramic producti on hypothesis is the fa ct that quantities of various colored clays and fine sand from a lluvial sediments were and still are available at the site. Ethnohistoric accounts from resi dents of todays El Marquesillo detail personal experiences of household cera mic production as late as the mid-20 th century. Residents collected high quality clays from locations along th e banks of the San Juan and nearby Jimba Rivers. They also sifted the sandy deposits on the point bars of the San Juan River to use as fine tempering agen t. Based on examination of the geomorphology of the terrain and the location of the San Juan River paleochannels, it appears that these same resources would have been readily ava ilable to the ancient inhabitants as well. Therefore, if these residents were concerne d with the distance and effort required to obtain high quality resources for ceramic production, the area immediately surrounding El Marquesillo would have provide d them an exceptional opportunity. North Group Monumental Architecture and Causeway Structure 84 is located on the east edge of Field 1 and has partially eroded down the river cut bank. This conical earthen pyramid is construc ted atop a slightly elevated platform that extends north and south. At the north end of the platform are the last remnants of Structure 107 and to the south ar e the slightly greater remains of Structure 85. Analysis of river cut Prof ile 1B indicates the platform was constructed sometime during or after the Late Formative. The magnetometer survey detected a ma jor anomaly lying under the northwest portion of Structure 84 (Figure 6.7). Based on in terpretation of the magnetic signature,

PAGE 304

Figure 6.7. Topographical base map w ith magnetic data overlaid. Red line highlights the path of Lin ear Anomaly 1 from Structure 109 to 84. 282 the anomaly may be caused by a substantial body of basalt, possibly up to 15 m wide. A concentration of basalt this size is similar to the Massive Offerings at La Venta (see Drucker et al. 1959:127-133). The magnetic coherence of this anomaly would have required extraordinary planning and assembly to align the magnetic direction of each component of the buried material. The awarenes s of the qualities of magnetism in basalt required to accomplish this type of project a ppears to have been present in the Southern Gulf Lowlands (Carlson 1975; Guimares 2004). A Formative period date is attributed to this event based on the river cut profile ev idence and the supposition that the movement of monumental size stone with in the Southern Gulf Lowl and region apparently stopped prior to the Classic period, other than su rface movements of some Formative period sculptures to later Villa Alta phase complexes (e.g., Laguna de los Cerros, San Lorenzo, and Las Limas).

PAGE 305

283 Another possible basalt deposition event occurred in conjunction with Structure 109, approximately 650 m to the southeast of 84 (see Figure 6.7). As noted in Chapter 4, Structure 109 is a rectangular, truncated pyr amidal platform with rounded corners and a large, level summit area. The most notable feature of the structure is a ramp extending from the top of northeast side of the platform that gradually descends over a distance of nearly 100 m. At the end of this incline is a remarkably straight anomaly that extends approximately 120 m to the northeast. In Figure 6.7 the magnetometer data have been superimposed over a topographic map. This image illustrates that Linear Anomaly 1 conforms to the surface features and that an extension of its direct ional axis intersects Structure 84 and its massive buried anomaly. It s directional path toward Structure 84 may suggest some type of symbolic connection or relationship between th ese two structures. Another major feature was identified through an examination of the surface collection and is directly associated with the causew ay. Data revealed a hi ghly circumscribed area of ceramic and lithic deposition that literall y straddles the axis line and extends between Structure 109 and 84 (Figure 6.8). The Primary Deposition Zone (PDZ) is so named due to the fact that 1,490 of the 4,756 ceramic ar tifacts recovered duri ng the entire surface collection across Fields 1 through 8, were co llected within this bounded sector. Although the PDZ represents only 8.3 percent of the surface area collecte d, it accounts for 33 percent of the total ceramic assemblage and 28 percent of the lithic assemblage recovered in the surface collection. When considering the PDZ, it should be noted that the rectangular shape and straight-line boundaries are feat ures created by the grid-based collection process, not of the original deposition process. As well, during the collection pr ocess, the ground cover

PAGE 306

Figure 6.8. The Primary Deposit Zone is iden tified by the black dashed line. The 50 m buffer is marked by a black dotted line. Li near Anomaly 1 and the causeway feature are present within the red outline. and surface visibility were e ssentially the same throughout all of Fields 2, 3, and 4; therefore, the spatial constric tion of artifact depositi on cannot be attribut ed to a bias due to variations in visibility. The consistency and uniformity of deposition is a major feature derived from the analysis. The PDZ spans three separate fields, each under differing use patterns and methods of cultiv ation and cattle grazing, which further suggest the limited concentration of artifacts was a result of an cient activity and deposition as opposed to contemporary impacts to the surface. There are a number of factor s that warrant further consid eration of the PDZ. First is the density of material, 124 sherds per 50 m x 50 unit within the PDZ compared to 21 sherds in the remainder of the surveyed ar ea units. Second, within a 50 m-wide perimeter zone (55,000 m) that enci rcles the 300 m x 150 m PDZ (45,000 m) only 28 ceramic pieces were recovered (see Figure 6.8). The rate and suddenness of the depositional drop284

PAGE 307

285 off is dramatic to say the least. Third, the evenness of ceramic artifact distribution per grid segment across the surface is striking; the mean is 82.8 sherds, the mode is 81 sherds, and the median is 67 sherds. Four th, chronologically diagnostic ceramics demonstrate distribution occurred conti nuously and consistently from the Early Formative to the Late Classic. The depos it ratios by time period within the PDZ are parallel to the temporal propor tions represented by the entire ceramic assemblage from all sources. An additional feature appears related to the PDZ as well. An anomalous accumulation of ceramic sherds was present 50 m south of the PDZ. Survey grid block N7-W3 contained 816 ceramic pieces, all domesti c wares. In other words, 17 percent of the entire site surface assemblage was rec overed within a single 50 m x 50 m unit. Therefore, the PDZ and grid unit N7-W3 compose only 8.8 percent of the collection surface but account for 49 percent of the en tire ceramic assemblage. No other area, independently or collectively, within the site approaches these proportions, quantitatively or spatially. Although it is possible that th e PDZ was a residential ar ea, a number of aspects seem atypical. Why was the area so tightly conscripted and the depositional pattern so consistent over a period of approximately 2100 years? Regardless of any increase or decrease in the quantity of chronologically di agnostic material, the spatial area remains constant. The linear anomaly and the extended causeway that diagonally bisects the zone do not seem to correspond to Mesoamerican residential patterns. If the zone was a refuse or disposal site, the same basic arguments apply. Why would a trash disposal site be located directly on what appears to be an important or

PAGE 308

286 revered causeway, and why the multiple spatial and temporal uniformities? Widmer (2000:3) maintains that trash middens are spatially disassociated from primary activity areas, and designed to remove debris from ac tivity areas. The PDZ appears to be at the center of a significant administrative or ritual corridor and not a plac e one would expect a Mesoamerican trash heap to be located. Additionally, there is evidence for extensive ceramic trash deposits hundreds of meters away and closer the production areas. It is also recognized that unknown formation processes, natural or anthropogenic, may have contributed to this spatial delinea tion of artifacts. Th e destruction of the artifacts or their conveyance to or from around the PDZ is a possibility. Nevertheless, even this type of apparently precise activity could be considered atypical. Site Planning and Concepts of Directionality Many societies use architect ure for symbolic expressi on, and often buildings and other constructions constitute maps of a cultures worldview (Ashmore 1991:199). Sugiyama (1993:103) adds that material remains at Mesoamerican sites were used to explicitly express id eological aspects that incorporat ed ritual, cosmology, worldviews, legendary history, and calendri cal systems. The alignment of architectural constructions with astronomical events and landmarks on the terrain have been documented and discussed frequently in Mesoamerica (Ave ni and Hartung 1986; Aveni et al. 1982; Benson 1981a; Demarest 1984; Freidel and Schele 1988; Sprajc 2000). The viewshed, or the total visible area from a single or multiple observation points, from El Marquesillo is significant to the layout of the site. The entire southern flank of the Tuxtla Mountain Range is vi sible along the norther n horizon. In the opposite

PAGE 309

287 direction, a series of hills approximately 4 km to the south of El Marquesillo effectively block any vistas in that direction. Numer ous viewshed observations were made and recorded in the field, and they along with an alysis of the results from remote sensing, aerial imagery, GPS and topographi c mapping, and GIS analysis ha ve revealed a series of directional alignments at El Marquesillo. The arranged placement of multiple architectural constructions, linear magnetic anom alies, and artifact offerings demonstrate five primary alignments; three are directed to major landscape locations and two appear to be celestially oriented. These directional pa tterns suggest that porti ons of the lay out El Marquesillos settlement pattern were deliber ately designed to correspond with the major features across the landscape and possible cel estial events. Figure 6.9 illustrates these directional alignments. As a point of re ference, the magnetic declination at El Marquesillo, the current difference between tr ue north and magnetic north, is 4 11. In other words, a correction of +4 must be a pplied to all magnetic readings taken at El Marquesillo in order to arrive at true north. This adjustment is not necessary for terrestrial locations, but is essential fo r interpretation of any celes tial alignments (NGDC 2005). Although I believe the alignments presented are compelling evidence of a planned form and function at El Marquesillo, the attempt here is simply to infer the axes of the mound arrangements. While the terrestrial alignment patt erns appear clear, the astronomical or celestial orientations will requi re additional line of sight observations and measurements in the field for comple te verification (Anthony Aveni personal communication, 2006). A further acknowledgment regarding conditions on the ground is that, at El Marquesillo, the architecture is composed of earthen mounds. Erosion along with other natural and human induced destru ctive processes continually affected these

PAGE 310

Figure 6.9. Directional alignments recognized at El Marquesillo. All degrees readings are relative to magnetic north. structures over the past 3,000 years. Therefore, metrological and alignment considerations are based on the best evidence available today. 288

PAGE 311

289 Finally, the selection and i nvestigation of these alignments was initiated by the placement of multiple structures and features that constituted the axis lines, they are not simply a single point-to-point line. For exam ple, Alignment B intersects the center of four separate structures. Alignment A long itudinally bisects a large 4 m-high, 20 m x 20 m building (Structure 109), its 100 m-long ac cess ramp, a 150 m-long subsurface linear magnetic anomaly, a 5 m-high pyramidal m ound (Structure 84), and the massive rectangular magnetic anomaly that lies bene ath it. Alignment E bisects the centers of Structures 83, 84, and 86, and three of the alignments converge on Structure 84. Lastly, the distances between the features that established these alignments within the site of El Marquesillo range from 400 to more than 1000 m. Alignment A Assistance in the determination of po ssible celestial events that were in accordance with Alignments A and B was provi ded by Alan J. Peche, Director of Group & Planetarium Programs at the Museum of Science & Industr y in Tampa, Florida. The information was generated using Starry Ni ght Pro Version 5.05 astronomy software and formulated for the year 1000 BC. The declinations determined for 3,000 years ago do not differ significantly from those found today, but th e dates for specific solar events such as the equinoxes and solstices have changed significantly. Linear Anomaly 1, and its allied pathway that extends through Fields 1, 2, 3, and 4, conform precisely to the alignment of the axis created by the cen terline of Structure 109 and Structure 84, as well as intersecting the center of the magnetic anomaly (Figure 6.9). The direction of this axis is projected at 72 east of true north (68 east of magnetic

PAGE 312

290 north) and is designated Alignment A. This alignment corresponds to the sunrise azimuth on May 22, 1000 BC, the day of the Suns zenith passage over El Marquesillo. At noon on this date, the Sun would have been at 90 degrees 12 minutes above the southern horizon and 89 degrees 48 minutes above the northern horizon (12 minutes away from vertical) and momentarily would cast no shadow (see Isbell 1982). Because El Marquesillo lies within the Tropic of Can cer, a second zenith passage occurred as the suns path returns to the south following th e Summer Solstice. This second zenith passage occurred about 82 days later around August 13. Alignment A appears to coincide with zenith passage at El Marquesillo. It may be possible that these solar events held a practical and possibly an ideological purpos e for inhabitants of the Southern Gulf Lowlands. The May zenith passage signals the comi ng of the rainy season and expectations of annual inundations of the alluvial river levees and flood plains Ethnographic accounts from the Maya region indicate the zenith pass age not only signals the beginning of their Haab, or 365 day solar calendar, but it was instru mental in the origin of the Mesoamerica calendar (Aveni 1980:144). The second event, in August, could have signaled a second phase of rains along with winds. Ethnogr aphic accounts indicate that throughout Mesoamerica the zenith passage held cel estial and cosmological significance for numerous social groups (see Aveni 1980: 40-47). In addition to the ancient and contemporary observance of the zenith pa ssage, Krupp (1983: 181, 275-276) illustrates that, [t]he zenith is one of the organi zing principles of the Andean world, and it establishes the character of sacred space. It could have served a similar purpose for the inhabitants of El Marquesillo as well. Many Mesoamerican peoples saw in the ball game

PAGE 313

291 a metaphor for the movements of the heavenly bodies, particularly the sun... The ball itself may have been understood as the sun journeying in and out of the Underworld (Miller and Taube 1993: 43). In this respect, the event coul d have had important social and ideological implications relating to the Underworld, home to the ancestors. Alignment B The centers of Structures 78, 79, 82, and 110 all lay on a single axis, referred to here as Alignment B (see Figure 6.9). This same line longitudinally bisects the basal platform of the Olmec Altar Complex and Structure 77, and the seep spring immediately adjacent to the exterior of the basal platform to the west. Linear Anom aly 2 is parallel to this directional axis line as well. The direction of this line is projec ted to be 76 east of true north (72 east of magnetic north). The c onsideration of this directional alignment is based on the centerline of a number of constructions and features located directly along its axis. Importantly, if the Olmec Throne was rotated on its depositional axis to an upright position, the personage sitting in the niche would be gazing out at this same direction. The difference between Alignment A and A lignment B, as measured, is 4. This difference may be due to the fact that the al ignments were designed to identify different celestial events. Alternatively, it may simply represent a error that occurred when constructing two parallel lines that li e some 500 m apart across uneven terrain. Investigation into these two alignments is ongoing.

PAGE 314

Alignment C The erosion of the face of th e river cut back has fortuitously revealed Offerings III, IV, and V. Alignment C is a straight li ne drawn through these three offerings and is oriented to 18.5 west of magnetic north (see Figure 6.10). If my hypothesis concerning Structure 111 is correct (see pages 252-257), th en the medial axis of this building lies along exactly this same line. Extension of this axis to the south shows that it intersects with the longitudinal centerline of the plaza in th e primary Villa Alta phase long mound complex. The medial axis of the Northwest Arch itectural Complex, a secondary Villa Alta phase long-mound Figure 6.10. Terrain view of El Mar quesillo and proposed alignments, directional alignments ar e from magnetic north (NASA 2006) 292

PAGE 315

293 plaza complex is also oriented to precisely this same alignment. As well, a line drawn through the center of Structur e 83 and the unique platform projection attached to the northeast corner of Structure 79 corresponds exactly to this sa me directional alignment. Therefore, at least three separate axes at El Marquesillo appear to conform accurately to this orientation, and are attri buted to Formative as well as Classic period constructions. When this directional alignment is exte nded northward from El Marquesillo, its path intersects the peak of Cerro el Viga, which is clearly visible from El Marquesillo. This mountain massif reaches an elevation of 850 m, covers an area of 4,500 km, and at its base is the site of Tres Zapotes (Diehl 2004:181). Po rphyritic basalt from Cerro el Viga was the primary source for monument s and groundstone implements at Tres Zapotes (Pool 2003:1-2). Alignment D The medial north-to-south axis of the primary Villa Alta phase long-mound complex intersects with the centerline of Structure 84 and the anomaly that lies below. The direction of this axis is 2 east of magnetic north. A lin e drawn through the centers of Structures 83 in Field 5 and 78 in Field 8 also corresponds to this same direction. Therefore, again, there are multiple architectural alignments that mirror identical directional patterns and they are assigned to Formative and Classic period constructions. An extension of this directional alignmen t intersects the 1,650 m high peak of the San Martn Tuxtla Volcano (see Figure 6.10) Multiple eruptions of this volcano have been documented for the Archaic, Formative, Classic, and present eras (Chase 1981; Mozio 1870; Reinhardt 1991; Sant ley et al. 2000) and would have been clearly visible

PAGE 316

294 from El Marquesillo. The significance of th ese repeated eruptive events, their visual spectacle, and the possible impact on El Ma rquesillo due to as hfall or population movements suggest that this landmark could become a deeply embedded feature in the ideology of the inhabitants. The sociopolit ical and ideological importance of the San Martn Volcano may be demonstrated in the importation of volcanic ash apparently used in the construction of Structure 111. Alignment E A single axis line cleanly bisects Struct ures 83, 84, and 86. The direction of the axis is 47 east of magnetic north, and its extens ion aligns with the 1,700 m high peaks of Cerro Santa Martha (see Figur e 6.10). Santa Martha is an extinct volcano whose igneous stone was known and evidently revered by inha bitants of the Southern Gulf Lowlands (Coe and Diehl 1980a:390-391). On the southern slopes of this volcano is Cerro Cintepec, considered a primary source of the basalt used by the San Lorenzo and La Venta Olmec for the production of their m onumental sculpture (C oe and Diehl 1980a:16, 390-391; Williams and Heizer 1965). Directional Alignment Summary All of the projected alignments and axes are the products of the intersection of three or more architectural or artifact features or they are explicitly repeated in multiple discrete alignments. These recu rring factors significantly less en the possibility of chance or coincidental arrangements. The fact th at these patterns are found in Formative and Classic period structures (c. 1150 BC to AD 900) suggests the landscape played a role in

PAGE 317

295 the traditional communal ideology. Architecture was designed and oriented to conform or correspond with natural and celes tial features. A long-term tr aditional knowledge of place is implied by the ability of Classic period inhabitants to recogn ize and pinpoint the pattern and layout of Formative period constructions. Where the course of the meandering San Ju an River was actually located in the Formative and Classic periods is not known at this time. Wit hout doubt, however, the existing river cut at El Marquesillo has si gnificantly altered the landscape since the precolumbian era. The loss of an entire five-mound complex documented by EspinozaGarcia in 1998 (Figure 4.2) supports et hnohistoric and ethnographic accounts by longtime residents that several buildings existed to the east of Fields 1 and 2. Structure 84 is eroding down the embankment, and Structures 107 and 85, which probably comprised the northern limits of a substantial complex, ar e all but gone. Figure 5.4 illustrates the erosion of Platform 111, and the Campos -Lara and Marn-Ins map (Figure 4.3) demonstrates the increasing loss of portions of the primary Villa Alta phase complex. The portions of the site that do remain provide clues as to the planned structure and arrangement of the site. Other buildings and monuments that have been destroyed may or may not have provided further indications of directionality and the inhabitants recognition of their place on the landscape. Cultural and Occupational Co ntinuity at El Marquesillo The evidence suggests that El Marquesi llo was consistently occupied from the Early Formative Pre-Olmec period (c. 1500 BC) into the Classic period. Occupation extends into the present era as well, but by unrelated groups of people. Although

PAGE 318

296 chronologically diagnostic ceramics along w ith detectable technological changes over time can account for most of this span of tim e, there are continuing questions regarding the transitional period between the Late Fo rmative (c. 300 BC to AD 250) and the Early Classic (c. AD 250550) and a segment of the Post Classic period (c. AD 1100 to 1300). The scarcity of evidence demonstrating the La te Formative to Classic period transition in the Southern Gulf Lowlands has been due prim arily to the absence of investigation (Diehl 2000b). Nevertheless, this perceived lack of ev idence has led some to conclude that the Olmec Heartland was literally depopulated and uninhabited in the Late Formative period (Clark 2001:341). Evans (2003:184) asks how did a region that supported such a vibrant culture become and remain uninha bited between 400 BC to AD 200? Notably, Tres Zapotes is cited as the solitary exampl e of the devolution of an Epi-Olmec social system into Early Classic with other areas of the region evidently being devoid of cultural activity (Evans 2003). Killion and Urcid (2001 :3-4) discuss perceptions of cultural failure and the conventional notion of Olm ec collapse at the e nd of the Formative period. A similar situation is perceived for th e Post Classic period as well. Diehl (2000a:182) characterizes the Post Classi c period along the Gulf Coast as one of political fragmentation followed by the in itial steps of reintegration, small-scale population movements, and renewed intrusions by central Mexican imperialists. The primary determinate of chronology for the re gion remains diagnostic ceramic sequences, and here again, knowledge of the entire Sout hern Gulf Lowland re gion during this period continues to suffer from a scarcity of ev idence. The region surrounding El Marquesillo appears to have entered another phase of homeostasis or a stable unchanging period

PAGE 319

297 where new diagnostic ceramic types are not apparent. This seeming lack of change should not be interpreted as evidence for a landscape void of inhabitants, however. In the case of the Formative to Classi c transition, newly attained evidence is clarifying, if not negating, many of these assumptions by demonstrating long-term cultural development and continuity (Die hl 2004; Killion and Ur cid 2001; Stark and Arnold 1997). The continuity has been revealed in ceramic sequences in the Papaloapan Basin (Daneels 1988; Stark and Curet 1994) and at Tres Zapotes (Pool 2000, 2003). In these ceramic collections, the inclusion of a wi der variety of slips, divergent designs, and finer pastes were noted during the terminal Formative period. Stark and Arnold (1997:25) argue that these modifications demonstrate not only technical continuity by their producers but a social continuum that permitted the foundation of Classic period regional cultural developmentsin south-central Veracruz. At El Marquesillo further support for this continuity is demonstrated in its ceramic compilation. During analysis of this substantial quantity of material, Hernndez distinguished a long-term persistence in ceramic traditions within the assemblage. Variations in Early and Middle Formative peri od differentially fired blackware continued into the Late Formative pe riod, a technological convention that spanned more than a millennium. She also noted the appearance of a Late Formative Orange ware (Types 420.1 and 420.2) that does not appear related to later Teotihuacn wares introduced into the Tuxtla Mountains (Santley et al. 1989), but instead are possibly a precursor to the Classic period Fine Orange. These inferences correlate with findings at Bezuapan (Pool 1997:49) described in Chapter 5.

PAGE 320

298 Among the potsherds recovered in Test Unit 7 (Appendix 2), numerous pieces demonstrated the introduction of new types of pastes, clays, slips, and firing techniques but retained many of the forms, shapes, si zes, and designs from the Middle and Late Formative (Types 420.1 and 420.2). Modifications to surface finishing included greater amounts of polishing and burnishing. The im provements in technology include better control of heat and oxidation during firing and in the fine r processing of clays that removed elements that would have re acted unfavorably during firing. These advancements allowed thinner but stronger, more resilient wares to be produced, which, over time, allowed a greater range of shapes, form s, and plasticity to be created. In short, the ceramic specialists learned to make a be tter product and continue d to improve it over extended periods of time. Based on these observations, the transition of ceramic production technology, probably through experimentation, eventually led to the Fine Orange of the Late Classic period that is also well-represented in the assemblage. Regarding the perception of cultural colla pse or failure of the Post Classic Southern Gulf Lowlands, not only is it di fficult to distinguish and classify these conditions archaeologically but, as Cowgill (198 8) demonstrates, there are obstacles in simply trying to define the terms. Killion a nd Urcid (2001) note these difficulties in the Hueyapan region just north of El Marquesill o and effectively approach the Post Classic period by using a Direct Histor ical Approach. In the Post Classic Period section of Chapter 3, it is demonstrated that the region of El Marquesillo remained active and participated on a limited and indirect basis in the socioeconomic sphere operating out of the Coatzacoalcos Basin region.

PAGE 321

299 Understanding of the early Postclassic al ong the Southern Gulf Lowlands remains clouded (Curet et al. 1994). Nonetheless, ne w evidence points to use of Late Classic ceramic wares and technologies extended well into the Postclassic period, possibly into the European contact period (A rellanos-Melgarejo and Beur egard-Garca 2001; Esquivias 2002; Santley and Arnold 1996). This cultural an d ceramic conservatism replicates the hypothesis for the Formative to Classic tran sitional period. Furthermore, the movement of Contact and Colonial period Spanish into the area further suggest s the inhabitants and subsistence systems in and around the si te attracted the European settlers. Colonial Period The presence of Mexican and European ceramic wares provides significant information about El Marquesillo during the late 1700s through the early 1900s. The single recovery location and restricted deposit ion contained within a 250 m area, suggest a concentrated, non-traditional occupational pr ecinct (see Figure 5.21). This assumption is supported by descriptions that El Marque sillo and surrounding small villages were outposts of the large, nearby Haciendas Nopa lapa or Solcuauhtla (see Chapter 3, Spanish Contact and Colonial Periods). If the documen ted trends were followe d at El Marquesillo, indigenous populations would ha ve declined radically due to European diseases and abuse (Aguirre-Beltrn 1981; Delgado-Calder n 1995). Labor at th e regional cattle and horse ranches was supplied by experienced labo rers from the Caribbean and Africa, and the 1793 census archives documents this real ity. Today, numerous families living in El Marquesillo share the surnames of these late 18 th century occupants.

PAGE 322

River traffic was the primary method of transport from the late 16th through early 20 th century in southern Veracruz. Products a nd livestock were moved in and out of collection depots or warehouses constructed along the San Juan River (Delgado-Caldern 1995, 1997a, 2000). Tlacotalpan was a major Sp anish and Mexican convergence site located at the confluence of the San Juan and Papaloapan Rivers, down stream from El Marquesillo (Figure 6.11). Tlacotalpan acted as a commercial staging center for the import and export of commercial products to and from the region (Delgado-Caldern 2000), a position it held during the prehispani c era as well (Berdan and Anawalt 1997; Scholes and Warren 1965). Col onial period Mexicans imported merchandise to the Port of Veracruz from Europe, Africa, and Asia th at was redistributed to trade nodes such as Tlacotalpan and, from there, transported to more remote parts of the Sotavento (see Chapter 4, Spanish Contact and Colonial Periods ). The recovered colonial and European Figure 6.11. Illustration of riverine relationship between El Marquesillo and Tlacotalpan 300

PAGE 323

301 ceramics probably arrived at the enclave at El Marquesillo in this manner either directly from Tlacotalpan or indirectly by way of the nearby haciendas. Other locations containing exotic items may exis t at El Marquesillo, either un der the present-day ejido or in other unexplored area s surrounding the site. Summary of Interpretations Through the multiple lines of evidence recovered and analyzed during the investigation of El Marquesillo, a pictur e of a 3,500 year old community begins to emerge. The first signs of occupation app eared in the Early Formative period (c. 1500 BC) followed by the presence of Gulf Coast Olmec ceramic styles. During the initial period, the landscape and resources at El Ma rquesillo attracted an archaeologically discernible population who, along with an emerge nt elite class, cooperated to meet the demands of a rudimentary and sedentary community. Between c. 1150 and 900 BC, El Marquesillo expanded its detectable boundaries and appears to have initiate d the production of ceramic ve ssels. Some members of the community began the construction of floors and platforms from exotic natural materials. The natural landscape was modified to pr oduce a massive platform that contained monumental structures and plazas that ma y have been used for public or private ceremonies. Natural springs, which may have be en an initial enticement to the original inhabitants, may have been incorporated into a constructed sacred landscape. At the opening of the Middle Formative period (c. 900-300 BC), San Lorenzo collapsed and the region to the north and east was literally abandoned. If the significant

PAGE 324

302 increase in the quantities and distribution of chronologically diagnostic ceramics is an accurate indicator, El Marquesillo remained a vi able center. The occupants participated in socioeconomic interaction spheres as demons trated by the various sources of obsidian present and the basalt and other igneous rock used for utilitarian and domestic implements. The presence of these material s could suggest an interregional trade and exchange network. Alternatively, some occupa nts may have had the fortitude and means by which to acquire these materials directly fr om their source locations, or possibly both types of acquisition systems may have existed. The procurement of metric tons of basalt used for the throne and possibly in the ex tensive magnetic anomalies demonstrated the economic and social power of the community and its leadership. A unique depositional formation of ceramic and lithic artifacts may indicate a previously unknown type of feature. If the architectural features at El Marquesillo were used in a manner similar to those implied at other contemporaneous s ites during the Formative period, they may support the idea that ritual exhibitions, dances games, feasts were part of the domestic life of the inhabitants (Blake and Clar k 1999; Clark and Blake 1994; Joyce 2004b,c). El Marquesillos populace does not appear to have been noticeably impacted by either the rise or fall of La Venta as a major Gulf Coast Olmec center. Although a number of similar sociopolitical and id eological characteristics ar e noted at both sites, El Marquesillo exhibits a signifi cantly earlier emergence and pa rticipation of in the preOlmec and Gulf Coast Olmec paradigm. As we ll, El Marquesillo continued to flourish during and after La Venta declined. The establis hment of directional alignments to Tuxtla volcanic landmarks, and other ritual and id eological materializations require further

PAGE 325

303 investigation before the direc tion of influence is presumed to be from La Venta to El Marquesillo. Throughout the waxing and waning of major s ites that had social ly, politically, or economically impacted regions near El Mar quesillo (e.g., Teotihuacn or El Tajn), the people of El Marquesillo app ear to have continued their customs and traditions. Based on the evidence recovered to date, sociopolitical or military intrusions are not reflected in the material record at the site. The recurrent changes in ceramic t echnologies throughout the Middle Formative to the Late Classic periods do suggest, however, that external contact was somehow selective and limited. By the Late Classic, the people of El Marquesillo appear to have been participants in what is considered to be a resurgence or reassertion of the Gulf Coast populations. Referred to as the Villa Alta pha se (Coe and Diehl 1980a:213-222), this period saw the spread of a formal architectural pattern called a longplaza complex along the Southern Gulf Lowlands and into upland regions as well (Killion and Urcid 2001:11). The origins of this multiplex pattern has been attributed, by some, to the Middle Formative period (H eizer, Drucker et al. 1968; Symonds and Lunagmez 1997), others believe it is a Cl assic period design (Daneels 1997; Stark 1999). In either case, the expansion of this architectural complex is thought to represent nodes in a local network of elite estates integrated by hereditary, ceremonial, and political relations (K illion and Urcid 2001:13). Again, as in the Olmec paradigm, the region appears to be linked by a shared ideology of rulership that is publicly displayed in a reiterative pattern of monumental constructions. If th e scale and number of buildings and architectural groupings in the primary cen ter is indicative of centralized authority, then El Marquesillo was a major center in the San Juan River Va lley. Moreover, if the

PAGE 326

304 number of surrounding smaller subsidiary site complexes implies pow er and control, as they are thought to at San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes, th en El Marquesillo may also have played a significant role in southern Veracruz as well. The rise of Tenochtitln and the expansion of the Aztec Empire in the Late Post Classic period created tribute st ates along El Marquesillos di stant western edges. It may have been possible for the inhabitants of the Middle San Juan to provide economic assistance to the tribute pa yers on their perimeter by pr oducing and supplying exotic goods. Nevertheless, El Marquesi llo and its environs were not part of the Empire and remained beyond the scope of the Mexca tax coll ectors at the time of the Spanish arrival. Doubtlessly, the populations at El Marque sillo suffered the decimation by disease documented for the Coatzacoalcos Basin in the 16 th and 17 th centuries. The surviving indigenous pe ople that remained in th e area were effectively supplanted by European colonialists and people from Africa and the Caribbean, who along with mestizos and others occupied th e land practicing agricu lture, cattle and horse breeding. Then, 200 years later, the 20 th century descendants of many of those Colonial period inhabitants achieved r ecognition by the Mexican govern ment as the lands legal occupants. Today, the people of the ejido of El Marquesillo, relative to the world around them, continue to live in a conservative tr adition that appears to have served their predecessors well. The Olmec throne, known to contemporary re sidents by the respectful title of El Seor de Marquesillo, was moved to the cen ter of the ejido following its rescue. Today, it resides within a protected but open pavilion that was specially constructed for it by the inhabitants. This monumental block of basalt tangibly bind s together the people of El

PAGE 327

305 Marquesillo, past and present. Fittingly, as it did 2,500 years ago, the personage on the throne once again casts its enduring gaze eastward.

PAGE 328

306 Chapter 7. El Marquesillo: Conclusions and Future Study Results from the investigation of El Marquesillo have not yet necessitated a rewriting of Olmec political history as contemplated by Diehl in the opening quotation of this dissertation. They have, however, dem onstrated the need for a broader, more inclusive examination of regional settlement and socioeconomic evidence. More careful consideration of the human i nhabitants, their activities, and the cultural and physical landscape in which they lived should be a greater priorit y. This attention should be focused not only on their cultural similarities bu t on the deviations and variations in their social and ideological practices. My research and observations at El Marquesillo, as well as new data that are being produced by investigations in the Southern Gulf Lowlands, have made me realize that well-established hypotheses, some that have even reached the level of doctrine, regarding the Formativ e period and the Gulf Olmec need to be reconsidered from new and different pers pectives. These inves tigations support the observation by Pool (2006:197) that the political dominan ce of any particular Olmec center was restricted. Further, I agree w ith Clark (1997:230) when he states that [i]nteractions between the Olmec and their ne ighbors need to be assessed on a case by case basis to determine the nature of the in teraction, the level of complexity of each polity, the contribution to the interaction by both parties, and the significance of the interaction for each.

PAGE 329

307 Through the integration of a sequence of archaeological and geophysical surveys, ethnographic accounts, ethnohistoric records, and consideration of other regional investigations, the site of El Marquesillo has been examined in an attempt to assess its Formative period social and spatial establishm ent and development. The evaluation of the results against settlement system models prov ided explanatory insights into the cultural and physical determinants for El Marquesi llos presence on the landscape. The data derived from El Marquesillo we re also evaluated against theoretical concepts of social organization and interaction in an effort to define the role of the occupants in the evolution of the site and in their relationship with or vari ance from what are considered the sociopolitical and ideological f undamentals of the Olmec paradigm. In this chapter I provide an overvie w of the occupational sequence of El Marquesillo and then discuss its establishmen t and continued development in more detail based on the recovered artifact record and data from the prospection and documentation techniques employed during the project. I also include ethnohistoric accounts and comparative reports from other regional inve stigations in the discussion. From these datasets I detect and examine patterns of emergent sociopoliti cal complexity at the site, and evaluate theoretic al models of Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands spatial organization. Following these assessments, I discuss some of the constraints imposed by past analytical approaches to the Formative period Southern Gulf Coast region that have biased our views and knowledge of the region. Finally, following a summation of the deductions and their implications I present considerations for future investigative work at El Marquesillo.

PAGE 330

308 The Occupational Sequence at El Marquesillo The pre-Olmec period ceramic eviden ce (c. 1500-1150 BC), recovered at El Marquesillo, implies that the early occupant s of the site had initiated some level of sedentism and possibly experienced an acco mpanying modification in their social organization. The depositional pattern of the ensuing San Lorenzo phase ceramics (c. 1150-900 BC) suggests an expanding population and continuing social adaptation. The presence and location of Middle Formative ceramics (c. 900-400 BC) infer an ongoing occupation and further sociopoliti cal alteration. Observations that were made during the ceramic analysis regarding the developmen t and implementation of technologies (see Chapter 5) allude to a con tinual, long-term occupation a nd a transition from the Late Formative to the Early Classic periods (c. 400 BC-AD 500). This hypothesis is supported by similar conclusions based on evidence recovered at other contemporaneous Gulf Coast sites (Loughlin 2004; Pool 2006; Pool and Britt 2000). At El Marquesi llo, however, this period appears to be one of demographic grow th but relative insulation from external sociopolitical influence. Specifically, I am re ferring to Teotihuacan in the west and the emerging Maya region to the east. Unlike the surrounding Tuxtla, Mixtequilla, and Grijalva regions (Stark and Arnold 1997), the ev idence from El Marquesillo, as yet, does not include any reliable material evidence to suggest their presence or direct influence at the site. Regarding the GIS visualization of demogr aphic change in the region to the north and east of El Marquesillo de picted in Figures 4.20, 4.21, a nd 4.22, there is no definitive evidence to suggest abandonment of the site. The increased spatial deposition pattern and quantities of recovered chronologically diagnos tic ceramics suggest th at El Marquesillo

PAGE 331

309 experienced an upward trend in population le vels throughout the Formative period. This trend has been observed in other areas adjacent to the northwest and west of the severely depopulated area as well. Surveys conducted by Killion and Urcid (2001), Pool (2000, 2003), and Arnold (2000, 2003b) indi cate a rise in populated site s at the same time the eastern sites are bei ng abandoned. These data may also suggest that some people in the distressed area were moving to nearby localities. The decline of San Lorenzo Tenochtitln has been at the center of hypotheses constructed to explain this event, which has b een attributed to internal revolt, external invasion, the rise of competing polities, and the collapse of social adhesion (Borstein 2001; Coe and Koontz 2002; Cyphers 1996b; Symonds 2000). An alternative hypothesis holds that changes in the course of the Co atzacoalcos River moved the river away from the centrally located pl ateau. Cyphers (2001:649) ascribes th e substantial change in river channels to more than an above normal flooding sequence. She suggests there was a geological uplift event in the re gion, and that this rapid and dr amatic rise of the landmass caused the waters to flow to lower ground, aw ay from the Olmec core site. She implies the cause of the uplift was tectonic activity that occurred in the Tuxtla Mountains and may have had repercussions in the San Lo renzo region (Cyphers 2001:649). Symonds (2000:69) also posits that tectonic activity may, in conjunction with sea-level rise, have caused the rivers emigration away from th e site. These reasons could explain the movement of the river channe ls, but they do not necessari ly justify the subsequent abandonment of sites across the entire region over such an extended period of time and along a rather clear line of de marcation. Understanding why th e bordering regions to the

PAGE 332

310 north, northwest, and west did not experien ce the same devolutionary processes will apparently require further, concentrated research. The Late Classic presence is substantia ted by a continuing ceramic record and numerous, substantial Villa Alta phase architectural constructions. The Postclassic period occupation appears to follow the same c onservative pattern and social insulation attributed to the Early Classic, and these impressions are corroborated by ethnohistoric accounts (Berdan and Anawalt 1997; Scholes and Warren 1965; Shahagn 1970-1982 ). Spanish Colonial activity (c. 1520-1600) is documented for the adjacent Coatzacoalcos Basin, but non-indigenous pres ence at El Marquesillo is not recorded until the 1700s (Aguirre-Beltrn 1992; Delgado-Calder n 2000). Census archives from 1793 demonstrate that El Marquesillo wa s occupied by the end of the 18 th century (AguirreBeltrn 1981; Delgado-Caldern 1995) and chronologically diagnostic European and Mexican ceramic and glass recovered at El Marquesillo implies occupation during the 19 th century. The surnames of numerous present-day families that reside in El Marquesillo match those of i ndividuals listed in the 1793 census, a condition that implies a continuous 200 year descent group residence that continues today. Whether the 3,500 year occupation at El Marquesillo was an unbroken continuum or the result of periodic recurrences is not known. Changes in the ethnic composition of the population occurred unquestionably in the 16 th century, but prior alterations or transformations cannot yet be determined. Concerning the Formative and Classic period residency (c. 1500 BC-AD 900), however, a variety of evidence is provided below that suggests the establishment and continuance of long-held social or community memories that involved the natural and cultural lands cape. If this hypothesis is correct, the

PAGE 333

311 prehispanic occupation would have been cont inuous, and if not, any interruptions must have been sufficiently brief as to permit the maintenance and perpetuation of these memories. Landscapes, Ancestors, and the Memory of Place In this dissertation, I have provided evid ence that suggests an early and enduring human occupation at El Marquesillo. I have also presen ted interpretations of evidence from the Southern Gulf Lowlands that refe r to ancestors, rulershi p, and landscape. These three factors permeate the iconography and symb olism present at sites across the region during the Formative period (Clark 2005; Cyphers 1993; Gillespie 1999; Grove 1973; Grove and Gillespie 1992; Reilly 1 994, 1999, 2002; Taube 1995, 2004). Significant areas of social theory that have been based on, or derived from, the Olmec phenomenon were presented in Chapter 1. One theoretical ar ea concerning the Formative period along the Southern Gulf Lowlands that has not receiv ed adequate consider ation, however, is the process through which socioeconomic and civi c-ceremonial centers may have initially emerged. What social factors may have been necessary to allow the establishment and development of these core areas? The following is a discussion of these factors and their manifestation and significan ce at El Marquesillo. Theoretical Background Anthropological-geographi cal studies have repeatedly demonstrated that landscapes are not only a natural but a cultural phenomenon as well (Cosgrove 1989; Naveh and Liebrman 1990; Tuan 1974). In f act, Ingold (1993) argues that the physical

PAGE 334

312 and social elements of landscapes cannot be separated. He conclude s that the perception and significance attributed to unified natu ral-cultural landscape s by individuals and groups shape their experiences across time and space. The term collective memory was introduced by Halbwachs (1992) who believed that these types of memories include a spat ial dimension and are intimately linked to, and encoded in, certain places on the landscape. He emphasized the significant effect that social processes had not only on an individuals personal lifetime memories, but also on a community's shared memory of the past. As a result, collective memories are crucial for the construction and demonstrat ion of group identity such as families, lineages, religious and ideological factions, or social classes. The cultural consequence of these memories over time is not necessarily derived from a correspondence to actual past actions but, instead, to the specific conditions under which the memory was constructed as well as the personal and social implications of the event (Fentress and Wickham 1992:xi; Lowenthal 1985:193-210; Thelen 1989:1125). Monuments and other artifacts are exam ples of the process by which people create a past through active remembrances of the social context in which they live (Assmann 2006). It is through such memories of the past that they define both personal and collective identities. Through archaeology it is possible to recognize objects (i.e., artifacts, features, and ecofact s) as evidence for the past. Archaeological evidence can be interpreted as indicators of concepts and pr actices of past societies (e.g., commemoration, inheritance, rituals, or sym bols). This procedure is, as Thomas (1996:63) maintains, very similar to how people actually c onnect with the past in their daily lives. Archaeology can confer meanings to the past and its remains in much the same way memory does.

PAGE 335

313 Assmann (2006) argues that prehistoric monume nts were constructed as expressions of prospective memory or the will to rememb er. Thus, ancient monuments were designed to be time markers, cultural reminders of th e past. Ancestral activities and the locations at which they occurred were memorialized ac ross the natural and cultural landscapes. In these ways specific locations became sites of memory, both individual and community. For purposes of this discussion, a community is considered a social group of varying size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical he ritage (see Arensberg 1961). The geographic area is determined by members and include s economic, environmental, and social features of that area. In respect to government, certain Gulf Coast Olmec centers are acknowledged to have reached a level of sociop olitical complexity be it tribe, chiefdom, or incipient state (Coe and Diehl 1980a; Grove 1997). The topic I address here, however, is not about the type of polit ical organization that existed nor does it address the timing or causation of the transition from transegalita rian to ranked societies or hereditary inequality. Rather, the concern is about a more fundamental i ssue of how the process that eventually led to these various levels of complexity originated, and what factors may have been necessary to provide the catalyst for this transition. It is possible that the information collected by the El Marquesillo pr oject may shed some light on these issues. McAnanys (1995) seminal examination of the Maya practice of ancestor veneration resulted from her earlier i nvestigation of economic organization. She concluded that the archaeologica l data suggested that ancien t people, elite or commoner, and their regard for their ancestors, real or fic tive, played a significant role in the origins of land tenure, resource alloca tion, and the subsequent rise of ranked society among the

PAGE 336

314 Maya. Although the assumptions she reached began with the Late Formative period Maya (c. 400 BC), the same processes may have been at work among the Early Formative period inhabitants of the Southe rn Gulf Lowlands as well (c. 1500 BC). During my research, it became apparent that much of her evidence and reasoning for the significance of ancestor venerati on, kinship relations, and the material demonstration of such was reflected at El Marquesillo. There are, of course, variations between the Maya and Olmec datasets. The primary points of divergence ar e attributable to the dearth of Formative period burial evidence along the Southern Gulf Lowlands, differences in subsistence practices, and a lack of an interpretable writing system. Nonetheless, iconographic depictions and ideological symbolism at El Marquesillo and other Early Formative period sites along the Southern Gulf Coast suggest ancestor vene ration was a factor in the lifeways of the inhabitants. Fried (1967), Fortes (1953), and Servi ce (1971) emphasized that emergent ranked societies are a direct conseque nce of kinship and descent, an d that these consanguineal or fictive groups are established and reinforced within specific residential or occupational clusters. Furthermore, these spatially centered kinship networks are t hought to define and promote the intergenerational transmission of property or resource ri ghts, and that these rights are more often than not anchored both symbolically a nd materially to the use of a particular landscape (McAnany 1995:15). Along the Southern Gulf Lowlands by around 1500 BC, changes in the underlying social structure of transegalitarian societies were brought about by shifting demographic conditions (i.e., move to se dentism) (Coe 1968; Cyphers 1996b; Stark

PAGE 337

315 1997:288). These changes in residency patterns in turn, affected the development of kinship systems. According to Widmer (2003), the shift to sedentism resulted in larger family units that for the first time in huma n history became sufficiently large to permit the establishment of an extended lineage. The leader of this corporate structure, which included collateral kin, could differentially focus the gr oups labor to develop an oversupply of required resources. At the same time, the unilineal kin group provided a built-in mechanism that promoted and facilita ted the hereditary inheritance of social positions and the proprietary rights to land a nd resources (Clark and Blake 1994; Widmer 2003). Thus, for this transition in social orga nization to have occurred, three sequential elements needed to coalesce: changes in th e demographic processes (sedentism) that led to new kinship systems (extended family) whose labor resulted in excess food (surplus). At the center of any migratory or sedentary society is the family. This is the entity whether it be nuclear, extended, fictive, hous ehold, or kin group that is explicitly or implicitly referenced by authors regardless of their approaches, terminologies, or models, in their explanation of egalitarian or tran segalitarian social in equality (Bender 1990; Blanton 1995; Braun 1990; Brumfiel 1994; Earle 1991a; Feinman 1995; Hayden 1995b; Junker 2001; Pauketat 1994; Pinto 1991; Sa hlins 1968; Saitta and Keene 1990). Human biological heritage dictates that initial social relationships were developed in the nuclear family, and it is considered a social a nd economic unit that pr ovides the teaching of beliefs, habits, and techniques that are re quired for survival and adaptation to the environment. It is where culture is lear ned (Ember and Ember 2003:342; Feder and Park 2001:152-154).

PAGE 338

316 One outcome of these family-based cooperatives are ranked societies, which are considered to be kin-based organizations wher ein a persons status or political position is determined by their place with in the hierarchical kinshi p system (Bender 1990; Earle 1997; Lee 1990; Widmer 2003). Change from lineal decent groups to collateral kin creates a more inclusive corporate family orga nization as well as a significantly increased labor force and status differe ntiation (Lowie 1928). Control of social status was of the utmost importance to emergent social comple xity (Earle 1987:4). As the relationships of power within families progressed over time, they could, in the proper social milieu, extend to the larger commun ity (i.e., band, clan, or lin eage) (Malinowski 1944). For example, Redmans (1998:3-6) chieftain is no t only the head of the household and associated lineage or house (see Gillespi e 2000b), but could also preside over other factions and member households comprising th e village as a whole. In this position, the chieftain becomes the sole representative of the community in inter-village relations. Through this position, the leader could exte nd ties, formulate exchanges, and achieve regional prominence if not outright authority over other villages. The second portion of the trip artite mechanism that, at some point, may lead to hereditary inequality is sedentism. The speci fic reasons for the app earance of sedentary communities are not at issue he re, but the results of its onset are significant. Varying degrees of semior fully sedentary lifestyle s resulted in an increase in the size of the nuclear family, and consequently the extended family and communities overall (Lee 1990:253-253). This increase in population is attr ibutable to several factors. The demands and restrictions of nomadic life among hunt er-gatherer societies gave way to semisedentary or settled communities that allo wed the formation of corporate kin-group

PAGE 339

317 structures that could provide long-term stability and co-operative care for expanding families (Moore 1978). Female fertility rate s improved, shorter spacing of birthing intervals, and a decline in infant mortality a ll contributed to larger family units (Bender 1975:9; Boone 2002; Schultz and Lavenda 1998) A general understanding is that the change to some level of sedentism, for what ever reason, resulted in larger family size (Cohen 1978). The third recurring entity required to perm it the eventual emergence of inequality is that of surplus (Carneiro 1981; Cl ark and Blake 1994; Cobb 2003; Earle 1997; Feinman 1991; Junker 1998). Surplus consti tutes the fund of power according to Sahlins (1968:68), but what is the surplus at the center of this incipient social organizational transformation? Humans can en dure without status, prestige, and their associated material components, but they cannot survive without food. The shift from nomadic hunting and gathering to sedentism is contributable to the acquisition of sufficient foodstuffs and, likewise, the increas e in family size coul d not occur without more than sufficient food resources. Therefore, in transegalitarian societies, biological necessity mandates that initia l surplus refers to food (B rown 2001; Dietler and Hayden 2001; Drennan 1991; Earle 1997; Upman 1990b). The presence of some degree of sedentism is repeatedly associated with changes in subsistence practices that moved societies away from restricted, fluctuating resources and toward what they believed to have been more reliable resources (Bender 1990; Braun 1990; Brumfiel and Earle 1987:6; Earle 1991b; Ember and Ember 2003; Fish et al. 1992; Pearson 2004; Plog 1990). Hayden (1995a) explains that hunter-gatherers employed a strategy of maintaining their population leve ls in a dynamic equilibrium with their

PAGE 340

318 available resources. Thus, if these types of human groups departed from their three million-year tradition of nomadic food colle ction, deduction would suggest that the motivation was food-related. For whatever the reason, the exploitation of more dependable resources required a sedentary or semi-sedentary lifestyle. In other words, its all about the food (Ward 2000). Food is the single overriding factor that unites the three interdependent elements necessary for the emergence of ranked ine quality; family, sedentism, and surplus. Population pressures among families were cons tant, and family size was always pushing against the ability of the family unit to feed themselves (Earle 1991b:5; Gilman 1991). The regions where sedentism and initial heredi tary inequality are known to have occurred possess conditions within their environments that would permit the extraction or production of a subsistence surplus (e.g., the Southern Gulf and Soconusco Coasts) (Blake and Clark 1999; Clark and Bl ake 1994; Coe 1981; Coe and Diehl 1980a; Rosenswig 2006). The transformation in subsistence practice does not specifically imply agriculture; natural resources could provide sufficient subsistence to allow sedentism as well. For example, Clark and Blake (1994) illustrate that cultigens were imported into an already self-sufficient subsistence system along the Soconusco Coast of Chiapas, Mexico. Maize appears to have been a status food used in ceremonial rituals and feasting events, not a dietary staple (Rosenswig 2006). The same natu ral subsistence situations occurred in the Amazon and Orinoco Basins (Roosevelt 1987), among the Chinchorro of northern coastal Chile (Arriaza 1995), and the Calu sa of the southern Florid a Gulf Coast (Marquardt and Payne 1992; Marquardt 1985; Widmer 1988).

PAGE 341

319 Analysis of these three components s uggests that when they are present collectively they provide a foundation from which heredita ry inequality can emerge through the accumulation of wealth or st ature (Drennan 1987; Feinman 1995). This argument does not suggest that fusion of th ese components will lead to ranked society, but simply that it becomes possible not predes tined. What does appear to be a consistent result of these integrated factors, ho wever, is some form of land tenure. Lineages have been intimately linked to intensified methods of subsistence, control and propriety rights to land and resources (Johnson and Earle 2000:184; Sahlins 1961:330). Among the ancient Maya, the original rights or claims to land and resources were created through what McAnany (1995: 96-99) terms the principle of first occupancy. This tenet holds that the initial occupier or cultivator of the land became its possessor and their righ ts could be passed on. The prac tice of inheritance emphasizes genealogy, since demonstrating established li nkages to ancestors is the means by which resource rights are inhe rited (McAnany 1995:99). Archaeological Expressions at El Marquesillo The question now becomes, how can this theoretical process be tested archaeologically? McAnany (1995:113) offers th at one can postulate that the emergence of lineages with proprietary re source rights (which is arch aeologically invisible) may be diagnosed by references to corollary changes in archaeologically visi ble domains such as land use, architecture, and burial practices. At El Marquesillo, no burials have been encountered, but inference of land use and analys is of architecture and associated features provide support for the proposed hypothe sis concerning the in itial and extended

PAGE 342

320 occupation of the site. The types and placements of Classic period offerings into Formative period structures and the presence and apparent terminati on rituals associated with the Olmec throne further bolster the id ea of ancestor veneration and its link to land and resource rights. In order for the process of social change that is unde r consideration to occur, sufficient occupational time depth is required along with residential stability and the economic and demographic ascendancy of the li neage. At El Marquesillo, the available evidence indicates the initia l, archaeologically visible occupation occurred around 1500 BC. The distribution of pre-Olmec ceramics (c. 1500-1150 BC) is restricted to a single residential area. San Lorenzo Olmec peri od ceramics (c. 1150-900) show a slightly broader distribution, but only in areas adjoining the original residential locality. This presumed 600 year occupation of the same lo cation at El Marquesi llo is suggestive of descent group traditions. The presence of a continuous sequence of chronologically diagnostic ceramics appears to indicate that they practiced successful subsistence strategies and experienced demographic growth to the point where food surpluses allowed specialized craft pr oduction or their acquisition. Geographically and environmentally, ancient El Marquesillo possessed components conducive to extended human habita tion. The location of the site on the San Juan River provided various resources for communication and transportation, clays, and river gravel for building constructions. The site also contained natural springs for potable water, a rich biotic diversity that could provide diverse comestibles, and the elevated embankments protected inhabitant s from the annual inundations.

PAGE 343

321 Early architectural units, specifically lo w basal platforms that could provide foundations for perishable structures, are pos sibly diagnostic of de scent group residence (Ashmore 1991; McAnany 1995:102). This type of structure is present at El Marquesillo at the location of th e earliest ceramic deposits in Field 6. Other similar platforms are present in Fields 5 (Structure 83) and Fiel d 7 (Structure 111) as well. River cut bank Profiles 6B and 7A illustrate sequential fl oor constructions suggesting continuous and spatially consistent occupation along the east edge of Fields 6 and 7. The differential orientation of basal pl atforms and other structures is also associated with lineage groupings and related activities. Two complexes with differing orientations are present a nd are delineated by Alignments A and B, both possibly associated with celestial events. Structure 109, Linear Anomaly 1, and Structure 84 compose the complex immediately to the north of the original Early Formative residence, and the Olmec Throne Complex is directly adjacent to the south. The architectural features that create A lignments C, D, and E may also be demonstrations or delineations of land and resource boundaries and their inherited proprietary rights. The effort, coordination, and motivation (i.e., economic, ideological, coercive, or other form of exploitation) required to accomplish these larg e-scale labor projects suggests some level of organizational authority, possibly a result of real or fictitious ancestral inheritance issues. Symbolic allusions to ancestor veneration ar e present at El Marquesillo as well as other Formative period sites in the Southern Gulf Lowlands discussed in Chapter 2. In Chapter 6, El Marquesillos standing pools of water and the symbolic representation of a cave entrance on the monumental throne were detailed and interpreted as portals to the

PAGE 344

322 underworld, the abode of the ancestors. Among the Zinacantan Maya of Chiapas, caves, waterholes, or springs are c onsidered entrances to the home of the Earth Lord ( Yahval Balamil literally, Earth Owner) (Vogt 1981:126), and ceremonies, prayers, and pilgrimages are conducted to these landscap e markers. Also, Zinacantecos perform lineage ceremonies to honor, remember, and reinforce association with their ancestors at waterholes and springs, the por tals to the world of ancesto rs. The significance of the symbolism and connotations on the Olmec throne, relating to ancestors and underworld portals, that was examined earlier may be fu rther demonstrated through its termination rituals. The personage depicted may have been an ancestor or ruler or both. Lineages are dynamic entities that, because of their longevity, display varying cycles of growth dissolution, or coalescence with othe r ancestral groups (McAnany 1995:16). Whether or not the Formative and Clas sic period inhabitants of El Marquesillo were affiliated with one or more descent groups is unknown. What does appear relatively certain is that, over millennia, the later resident s of the site were aware of their precursors and their activities. This idea is derived from evidence that suggests continual or steady occupation of the site and repe ated reuse of established activ ity areas prior to the arrival of the Spanish. The exception to this ope rational continuum was that, following the Formative period (c. 300-100 BC), the original residential zone in Field 6 and 7 was not reoccupied. Nevertheless, at least six centuri es after its final residential occupation the original structure was revisited, and a series of Late Clas sic offerings were, seemingly intentionally, placed along the central ax is of the Formative period building. Ceramic deposition patterns derived from the surface collection suggests that the northern sector of the site, primarily Fields 1 and 2, was used for ceramic production

PAGE 345

323 activities and that these activities are not pres ent elsewhere in the site, at least at this scale. Various lines of evidence support this conclusion. The analytical results from the seven test excavations that were conducted in these northern fields, the observation and analysis of cultural deposits along the 1.5 km-long stratigraphic river cut that crosscuts the site, and the types and lo cations of magnetic anomalie s possibly associated with firing, cumulatively imply that ceramic productio n activity was restricted to this specific area. Furthermore, this evidence suggests thes e activities occurred repeatedly in the same area for more than two millennia. Evidence from the Olmec Throne Comp lex, specifically Plazas I and II, demonstrates a parallel pattern of continual, long-term use a nd reuse as is illustrated in the northern area of the site. Analysis of the soil from these two plazas may imply regular, possibly repeated activities. When surface artifact deposition and excavation data recovered during the throne rescue project are considered, Plaza I appears to have been the site of residential or ceremonial feasting events. The location of the Olmec throne, with physical proximity to a possible water rete ntion facility and associated stone drains, implies significant ideological symbolism. Th e analysis of ceramic evidence recovered in and around Plaza II suggests the area was used for different activities than was Plaza I. The implications of the size, restricted entry, and circumscription of the plazas boundaries, along with the multiple monumental buildings and their placement, imply a more public venue. Analysis of Plaza II soil s supports the idea of spatially limited activity areas and that these areas were cleared and cleaned upon the conclusion of events. Results from the surface collection co rrelate with the assu mption of cleaning, and is further supported by the repeated depositi on of refuse in a specific and restricted

PAGE 346

324 location immediately outside the plaza. Again, these activities appear to have occurred continually in the same places a nd over extended periods of time. From the Late Formative to the Postclassic period (c. 400 BC-AD 1500), across the Maya territory, a system of inheritan ce emphasized genealogical linkages based on shared origins or a common belief syst em (Barlett and McAnany 2000; McAnany 1995:99; Yaeger 2000). At El Ma rquesillo, the evidence presented above implies a series of highly developed, long-held social patterns that are indicative of regulated site-wide practices. These enduring habitual practices ar e suggestive of marker s of social memory and are relevant for the formation of sett led societies (Hodder and Cessford 2004). Social practice has both a spatial and temporal dimension. Sedentism, demographic centralization, and domestication, along with treatment of the dead and the veneration of ancestors, all involve changes in temporality, memory, and re lationships with the past (Hodder and Cessford 2004). An important element of social practice is its connection to the past and links to ancestors. It is the extent to which c ontinuing practices repeat earlier ones that form and reinforce social memory and in this way are designed to facilitate the construction and perpetuation of lineages (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Shanks and Tilley 1988; Whittle 1996). The Spatial Organization of El Marquesillo Another issue addressed in this investigat ion also focused on the analysis of the spatial organization at El Marquesillo. In the previous section, proposals concerning the establishment and development of El Mar quesillo as a Formative period occupation center were discussed. Questions remain, how ever, regarding the form of the sites

PAGE 347

325 political structure. Was it an independent center that functioned as an autonomous unit, or a subsidiary site that operated within a de ndritic system? In Chapter 2, proposed models for Southern Gulf Lowland centers were pres ented and detailed. Here, the data recovered from El Marquesillo are evaluated against each of the proposed models in an attempt to assess the sites structure. Models of Settlement Patterns Starks (1999) capital zone model posits an extensive area containing dispersed formal groups that cumulatively repres ent an administrativ e core. Anticipated architecture includes large and small complexe s, major isolated structures, and smaller outlying groups. The complexes are expected to be relatively equi valent with no one dominant cluster. Craft production is anticipa ted to be widely distributed and present across central complexes as well as in residential zones. At El Marquesillo, the existing data do not appear to correspond to the projected conditions of a capital zone. The occupational s ector at El Marquesi llo is concentrated, restricted within a contiguous circumscribe d area with no outlying formal complexes. The Olmec Throne Complex dominates the site surpassing all other architectural groups in elevation, volume, and labor invest ment. Moreover, ceramic production, which appears to be the primary craft at El Marquesillo, is restricted to specific portions of Fields 1 and 2. The confederacy model infers that several individuals, factions, or elite lineages shared authority over the polity (Pool 2003:92-96 ), and is similar to the capital zone in that it is also a distributive model of authority. Physically and politically, it presents a

PAGE 348

326 different structure, however. This model is primarily concerned with the nucleation or spatial clustering of these separate groups w ith respect to residential and activity areas. Residential settlement would be arranged in a concentric pa ttern extending outward from a central formal core. Several distinct s econdary plaza groups extend outward around the periphery. These individual architectural comple xes represent an indivi dual faction in the ruling confederation. These ar chitectural groups would e xhibit similar content and function and are surrounded by intensive occupational zones. This model holds that small-scale domestically-centered craf t production had littl e elite control. At El Marquesillo, it could be argued th at the residential ar eas extended outward, but only in one direction. This directional template may be a consequence of land loss due to the river action, and ceramic craft production may or may not have had elite control at El Marquesillo. The spatial placement and design of the formal Formative period architecture at El Marquesillo do not appear to equate with multiple secondary complexes nor do they present similarities in their form or perceived function as proposed by the confederacy model. The feudalistic model represents a minor cen ter within a hierarch ically structured settlement system. Its structure is seen as an alogous to a feudal estate where vassal sites owed goods and labor to a region al power but, at the same tim e, collected its own tribute from the inhabitants of the estates land (Taschek and Ball 2003). Although this model has not been suggested specifically for the Gu lf Coast, the circumstances and conditions for its presence appear to make it a benefi cial model when evaluating Formative period sites along the Southern Gulf Lowlands (e.g., the San Lorenzo and La Venta subsidiary support areas). A center, under the feudalistic model, is soci opolitically autonomous but

PAGE 349

327 subordinate to a nearby primary center to whic h it owed allegiance or tribute (Taschek and Ball 2003:388). The residents were consider ed a self-sufficient corporate group that may have consisted of multiple nuclear units of a single extended family, lineage, or house that controlled the center. In such an arrangement, architecture is modest and without the spatial organizati on of major centers. In other words, large, directionally oriented plazas and flanking civic-ceremonial structures are not present. Elite, exotic, or monumental items are minimal anywhere in the site. Craft production consists solely of utilitarian items and is generally con ducted under a centralized administration. Although data from El Mar quesillo could correspond to various components (i.e., residential core, possible presence of lineage or factional leadership, and apparent selfsufficiency), a number of other factors of the feudalistic model are not supported. For example, El Marquesillo cont ains significant ceremonial and public architecture and monumental objects with ritual associations. Alignments of architectural features appear to have specific directionality. Finally, at this time, the evidence does not suggest subordination to a nearby primary center. The central place model is formulated around a nexus that serves as a redistribution center of goods and services for the surrounding area (Bove 1978; Hirth 1978). Central places may be primary or sec ondary centers that perform administrative and managerial functions such as resour ce acquisition and allocation, production and storage (Symonds et al. 2002). Ce ntral places consist of high ly nucleated site cores and have larger occupation areas and greater popula tions than outlying sites. At the core of the center are monuments, major constructed features, and elite residences. Specialized activity and craft area are situated on integrative facilities su ch as plazas or ballcourts.

PAGE 350

328 Public architecture (e.g., platform mounds, open plazas, temple mounds) is used for administrative duties, and may provide the st age for ritual ceremonies and religious functions as well (Smith 1979). The production of prestige goods occurs in workshops generally monitored by elites, and craft speci alization is expected. Early and extended occupation of a central place may indicate it wa s also a place of original occupation. When the existing data from El Marquesi llo are evaluated against the central place model, there is a significant degree of uniformity. For example, the public architecture and the residential zone that appears to contain a de veloping elite compound are in accordance with expecta tions, as are specialized activ ity and craft production areas. If my interpretation of the original pre-Olmec settlement patterns is correct, El Marquesillo could also be consider ed a place of occupational origin. The geographic factors of El Marquesillos location fit well with Groves (1968:182) contention that Formative period trade nodes were located on constricted passes that facilitated the control of trade routes. The sites position on a major water route, the preferred mode of transport by a riverine society (Diehl 2004:29), could control passage to and from the Gulf of Mexico and its primary tributaries. As a trade node, El Marquesillo had the capability to serve as a redistribution center of goods and services for the local area. Administrative, acquisition, and storage functi ons could have occurred in or around the Olmec Throne Complex or around Structure 109 in Field 4. At this time, however, it cannot be determined if craft production was conducted under elite supervision or not. Also, the presence, size, and number of possi ble surrounding support sites are not known; therefore, the acquisition, administrative, and redistribution functions at El Marquesi llo remain conjecture.

PAGE 351

329 Explanation of Spatial Orga nization at El Marquesillo Christaller (1966 [1933]) orig inally development the Central Place Theory in an effort to explain the distributi on of retail market centers (i .e., towns and central places). He compared patterns of settlement he f ound in the real-world and evaluated them against a deductive model in order to determin e their degree of fit. The purpose of his efforts was to seek the causes of towns because, as he believed, there is an unrecognized ordering principle that determined their distri bution across the landscape (Christaller 1966:2). Thus, he wanted an explanation for the placement of towns, not only a description of their location. The current evidence from El Marquesill o suggests a better f it with the central place model, as it has been postulated for th e Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands (Bove 1978; Evans 2003; Hirth 1978), rather th an the other viable models discussed above. This model may offer insights regarding the determinants of se ttlement patterns if adequate attention is paid to the various elements that can affect placement on the landscape. The implementation of idealized patterns such as average daily walking distance or average intersite distances to produce hinter land areas around higher order central places must be tempered by cultural and geographical considerations. Physical aspects of the landscape and environment must be recognized along with possible subsistence strategies and the availability and location of natural resources. As Evans (2003:199) affirms, landscapes ar e never featureless. Cultural aspects that enter into the equation minimally include agents, factions politics, economics, and ideologies. If scenarios are based on idealized cultural or physical structure as opposed to real-world factors, the results may lead to possible misconceptions. For example, Laguna

PAGE 352

330 de los Cerros is considered a major San Lorenzo phase (c. 1150-900 BC) Olmec center (Adams 1997; Coe and Diehl 1980a:293, 394; Drennan 1991:267; Gillespie 2000a:95; Santley et al. 1997:203). The site has also been depicted as a San Lo renzo phase regional administrative center and spatially delinea ted by patterns of tangential circles and Thiessen polygons that neatly ci rcumscribe the assumed extent of the polity area (i.e., the central place and its hinterland sites) (Bor stein 2001; Bove 1978). Only 11 km to the south, however, and well within the projected confines of the political domain is El Marquesillo. The presence of the site, its position, significantl y earlier and more protracted occupation, and propos ed sociopolitical organizati on appear to challenge the boundaries of the proposed administrative-e conomic models. To reduce the risk of misinterpretation of the data, we need to c onsider not only the arti fact record but the physical attributes of our study areas as well as those adjacent, both surveyed and unsurveyed. The neighboring presence of El Marquesi llo and Laguna de los Cerros initiates interesting new questions regarding settlement systems along the Formative period Southern Gulf Lowlands. Were they both subsid iary sites in a larger network, were they aligned or united as co-centers, did they have an antagonistic relati onship, or was there some other unknown relationship occurring? El Marquesillos unanticipated presence at an unexpected locale requires new perspectiv es from which to design our investigations and consider our data. Applications of geographic or spatial models of settlement assisted in generating a robust description of El Marquesillo and the conditions in which it developed. In addition, their use provided insight regarding th e reasons and processes for settlement. In

PAGE 353

331 conjunction with other forms of archaeological or ethnohistoric eviden ce, the use of this model can provide a whole new line of evid ence in circumstances where knowledge of cultural processes is limited (Evans 2003:199). Therefore, El Marquesillo presents a good test case. As a prelude to her development of the capital zone model, Stark (1978) examined 16 th century ethnohistoric data from the lower Papaloapan Basin. These data were used to develop a model of economic diversification and se ttlement location. The San Juan River empties into the Papaloapan less than 18 km from the Gulf. Therefore, other than the coastal and estuarine zone s of the Papaloapan, the ecological and environmental conditions are comparable. Moreover, based on repeti tive or continual occupations of numerous sites in the San Juan region as well as those adjacent to the east and west, her predictive locational model woul d appear to be justifiable for not only the Postclassic but earlier periods as well. Borstein (2001:229) summarizes a set of archaeologically te stable predictions based on Starks findings that liter ally describe El Ma rquesillo. He states that the largest regional centers should be f ound at the boundary of contrastin g environmental zones (i.e., ecotones) where ecological diversification allows a variety of subsistence strategies to be employed. He adds that these centers are expected to be lo cated along waterway communication routes, specifically at key nodes in the fluvial systemsuch as confluences or bends in rivers. These loca tions would: 1) permit strategic control of trade; 2) minimize trade and transport cost s; and 3) provide po table water, aquatic resources, and floodplain farming (Stark 1978:223-227). Finally, Borstein (2001:229)

PAGE 354

332 maintains that these centers were organized according to principles related to [Christallers 1966] central place theory. Pool (2006:191) has recently noted that concepts of urban form varied even among coexisting communities. St udies of artifact style and distribution along with economic exchange and settlement pattern surveys illustrate differential levels of interregional interaction along the Gulf Coast. These findings support the possibility that El Marquesillo was insulated from influences external to the Gulf Olmec Lowlands. This seclusion may have allowed the preservation and continuity of social traditions along with economic and production methods. The dis tinctive character and uniqueness of El Marquesillos long-term uniformity and stabili ty of social and spatial traditions is underscored by the knowledge that elsewhere in the Gulf Lowlands these traits were changing and variable (Pool 2006:212). El Marquesillo appears to differ from other contemporaneous Formative period architectural designs of settlement layout. Perh aps the location of El Marquesillo also had significance beyond the political and economic r ealm. Tribal peoples the world over are noted for the extent to which they live into their natural environments (Vogt 1981:119). Vogt (1969, 1981, 1983) describes th e intimate knowledge of each microniche used in subsistence practices and th e naming and classification of geographical features that are a part of their ceremonial life and worldvi ew. He adds that settlement patterns among the Zinacantan Maya form an aggregate that repres ents the villages social structure and, in turn is marked by natural features on the landscape. Vogt concludes that observation and examinati on of the sacred landscapes formed by mountains, caves, waterholes, and othe r features provide an introduction to

PAGE 355

333 Mesoamerican worldviews (Vogt 1981:137). Vari ous lines of eviden ce suggest that the inhabitants of Formative period El Marquesi llo not only materialized and maintained portions of the worldview of the Southern Gulf Lowlands but may have influenced its development. The placement of architectural co nstructions on axes that are aligned with visually and possibly ideologically significant la ndmarks is apparent. It is clear that the Archaic period to 18 th century inhabitants of El Marque sillo had an unobstructed line of sight to the numerous eruptions of the San Martn Tuxtla Volcano less than 60 km away. The physical and psychological impact of th ese repeated explosiv e events on ancient inhabitants is essentially unknown (see Chas e 1981; Reinhardt 1991) but, according to historical accounts, th e consequences for 18 th century residents were catastrophic (Mozio 1870). Cerro el Viga (800 m asl) and Cerro Santa Martha (1878 m asl), two extinct volcanic peaks, are clearly visible from El Marquesillo. Alignments C, D, and E intersect with Ce rros Viga, San Martn Tuxtla, and Santa Martha respectively (see Chapter 6). The si gnificance of some of the alignments was sufficiently important to Cla ssic period inhabitants for them to continue arranging their constructions in the same directions a mille nnium later. Vogt (1981), in his observations of the Maya of Zinacantan, Chiapas states th at [t]he largest and highest mountains are always singled out for special treatment in the ceremonial lif e. He adds that there are three mountains, which all happen to be asso ciated with a volca no, are considered the home of high-ranking ancestral gods. Furthermore, to the Zinacantecos these three peaks form the Three Hearthstones of creation. At the center of the hearth of creation is the generative fire, which has direct association with creator ancestors (Bassie 2006). At the center of El Marquesillos three mountain pe ak alignments is San Martin Tuxtla, an

PAGE 356

334 active volcano whose repeated eruptions were witnessed by Formative residents. Two other significant alignments at El Marquesillo (A and B) may be re lated to astronomical events, possibly indicative of annual calendrical cycles. The symbolic use of space can involve the built or natural environments or both. Ashmore (1991:199) maintains that a peoples wo rldview is presented at various scales from ritual deposits, to enti re communities and wider lands capes. This interpretation appears to be supported at El Marquesillo. The buildings, cons tructed features, and sacred offerings at El Marquesillo ar e devices that illustrate the emic perspective of societys structure and ideological relati onships to its environment. From the construction and use of large architectural complexes and features (i.e., major, controlled work projects) it may be possible to deduce that the sociopolitical le adership was at the forefront of the society, and that these constructions demonstrated their power, authorit y, and right to rule (Benson 1981a; Hodder 1987). Based on implications of the data from El Marquesillo, th e investigation of alignments toward landscape features and th e marking of celestial events needs to be pursued or revisited at other contemporaneous sites to determine if correlations or correspondences are present. This type of investigation has been simplified and made significantly more accurate with the availabi lity of applicable geomatic technologies. Moreover, closer investigati on and greater consideration needs to be placed on the geomorphology of the region because of the im pact that natural hazards, environments, ecologies, and resources can have on dem ographic shifts, resource procurement, and political economies.

PAGE 357

335 Expanding the Boundaries and a Look to the Future The recent accidental rediscovery of Formative period El Marquesillo (c. 1500 BC to AD 150) underscores the fact that the investigation of the Olmec Heartland over the past 60 years has been restricted to traditionally acknowledged sectors surrounding San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes (Diehl 1989, 2000b; Grove 1997). Furthermore, this spatially limited examination has influenced the theoretical image of the Gulf Coast Olmec and other groups along the Southern Gulf Lowlands. Only a small portion of the Olmec Heartland has been s ubject to differential surface surveys or cursory observation, and much less has receiv ed thorough levels of investigation. The pronounced majority of what is considered Gulf Coast Olmec territory has not been assessed, evaluated, or even contemplated. Ye t determinations about the Southern Gulf Lowlands have been derived from a restrict ed and incomplete corpus of sites: San Lorenzo, La Venta, Laguna de los Cerros, and Tres Zapotes (see Chapter 2). This constraint has led to a narrowing of th e Olmec phenomenon to a point where many consider it an undiversified, homogenous culture When data from El Marquesillo are considered new issues arise, and established conclusions are called in to question. In other words, when deep-seated assumptions are examined, they prove to be less clear-cut than they were prior to the introducti on of the El Marquesillo data. Tacon (1999:34) has succinctly concluded th at the landscape is in the eye of the beholder, a statement that encourages re searchers to look beyond the socially or environmentally defined settlement region. It is important to r ealize that, although the archaeological record is static, the landscap e that produced it was, and remains dynamic (Waters and Kuehn 1996). In the Southern Gulf Lowlands, volcanoes, earthquakes,

PAGE 358

336 hurricanes, and El Nio enhanced floods were as much a part of ancient life and impacted it as severely as these environmental hazards have affected the historic and contemporary inhabitants. Observation and consideration of the landscape are especially significant in the discussion of El Marquesillo, because the entire region southwest of the middle San Juan River has not been taken into acc ount in the discussi ons of sociopolitical development in the Formative period. Portions of the information derived fr om the current inve stigation of El Marquesillo are, by necessity, preliminary in nature, and num erous details of the sites occupants remain out of reach at this point. Nevertheless, the data have revealed insights into the sociopolitical structure and cultural continuity of the Southern Gulf Lowlands. As the research design originally intende d, the detection and recognition of both the similarities to, and variability or divergence from, the Southern Gulf Lowland Olmec paradigm were central issues The collections of artifact ethnohistoric, and historic evidence from El Marquesillo infer that people occupied the s ite for 3,500 years. Investigation into the sites Form ative period phases (c. 1500-100 BC) demonstrated that residents participated to some extent in the sociopolitical and ideological aspects of the Olmec paradigm. Th e throne, including its style, medium, and symbolism, illustrate an accord with pan-Southe rn Gulf Coast symbolic representation of ancestor or ruler veneration. The water im agery, hydraulic modification, and adjacent architecture also conform to expected pa tterns. Based on the interpretation of the magnetic anomalies, the proposed drain syst em as well as linear and massive basalt deposits are further support for involvement by the elite in major work projects designed

PAGE 359

337 to illustrate their power and w ealth. The spatial and symbolic disposition of these features further demonstrates an adhere nce to recognized Olmec tenets. There are also significant correspondences between geographic locations of Early Formative sites that evolved into various types of centers. This correlation may or may not be cultural in nature. Occ upation of naturally elevated ar eas near principal rivers and tributary systems is commonplace, as is dire ct access to river le vees and alluvial floodplains. Furthermore, these environmental conformities would promote and facilitate similarities in food procurement. This type of geographic location may be more a factor of human survival security, subsistence systems, and the availability of desired resources than a culturally induced phenomenon, however. At the same time, residents of El Marque sillo exhibit behavior s that are not in accord with prevailing hypothesized models of the Olmec. In some cases the evidence suggests subtle variations to the expected Olmec norm, while in others, new or unanticipated factors are present. For example, the enduring cultural continuity at the site spans the pre-Olmec, San Lorenzo, and La Venta periods (c. 1500400 BC) and, at this point in the investigation, does not seem to have suffered to any great extent from the rise, florescence, and declin e of either one of these do minant sites. As well, the communal longevity, or persistence through time, facilitated the process for the development of a social or collective memory. Ancestor veneration, including the rememb rance of leaders or founders, and a particular regard for the la ndscape are all suggested at El Marquesillo and imply a communitys identity and place. This supposition is reinforced by analysis of the structural grammar indicated by the architect ural division of space at the site, public

PAGE 360

338 versus private for example. As well, there a ppears to be a difference in the treatment and deposition of monuments at El Marquesillo relative to San Lorenzo, La Venta, and other contemporaneous sites. These assumed differ ences in action could suggest that at El Marquesillo the monument served as a reminder in the memory of place. Lastly, the deposition of what may have been heirloom items in Offering I, and the intentional caching of symbolically significant Classic period objects into apparently a respected Formative period structure. This action can be interpreted as intentional social reminders that again point to the persistence of this place in memory and the transmission of this knowledge through long periods of time. The suggested multiple alignments of architectural structures toward landscape mark ers (i.e., the three most prominent peaks of the Tuxtla Volcanic Ridge) are shown to have occurred repeatedly over time, lending further support to the idea of the comm unitys collective memory. Vogt (1981:135-136) has illustrated how the constructed settlement pattern can mirror the sacred landscape, and directly alluded to the i nhabitants beliefs concerning th e structure of the universe, the nature of the gods, and the functioning of the social syst em. These apparently overt expressions of the peoples connection to their landscape, an d possibly to their worldview, are substantially more evident at El Marquesillo than at other Early or Middle Formative sites (cf. Tate 1999b). The scale of ceramic production relative to population, during any given time period at El Marquesill o, cannot be accurately assessed. In other words, we do not know, at this point, if they were produced in quanti ties adequate only to meet the needs of the inhabitants, or if they we re produced in amounts designed for export. Regardless, the disparity in the degree to which pottery is present over other types of material culture

PAGE 361

339 remains is striking. This di sproportion may be indicative of craft production that was somehow 'specialized,' an economically oriented initiative. If so, this economic aspect may have provided a stabilizing factor that al lowed residents to withstand the types of cultural or environmental upheavals that cause d sites like San Lorenzo and La Venta to decline so precipitously. The geographic location of El Marquesillo, a site that demonstrates significant size, level of complexity, and commanding physical position, brings into question previous hypotheses concerning regions and bou ndaries. El Marquesill o appears to have been a nexus for communication into regions not previously anticipated (i.e., to the Jimba, La Lana and Trinidad Rivers, and the Oaxaca Mountains) (cf. Coe 1968:102). Therefore, other areas within the Olmec Heartland can no longer be considered the 'hinterland' simply because they remain archaeologically unexplored. El Marquesillos placement on the landscape also calls into question assumed relationships and the purported significance of other nearby sites. Th e concepts of heartland versus hinterland, center versus periphery, and subregion or cu ltural hearth along the Southern Gulf Lowlands require reevaluation. The suite of survey techniques employe d during the 2002 to 2006 examination of El Marquesillo was also anticipated to provide a guide for more specific or focused work in the future. The results were intended to assist in the development of new research designs for further investigation. From th e accumulated data, a ge neral organizational pattern of the site has been proposed, in cluding ceramic production areas, residential zones, ceremonial precincts and public architectural complexes.

PAGE 362

340 The precision and accuracy of the mapping procedures and the magnetometer survey can indicate specific area s of interest and identify thei r location to within a meter. This accuracy permits limited, highly focused excavations that can be designed to address specific questions. The anthropogenic soil survey can be expanded to targeted areas of the site that will generate greater info rmation on human activities. The magnetometer survey area should be enlarged to include the Villa Alta long-mound complexes, and other locations likely to contain any Forma tive period stone sculptures that may have been found and relocated by Classic period i nhabitants. A closer examination of the ceramic assemblage, along with other artifacts, can add substantial insight into the spatial organization and political economy of the site. Other issues for future work to addre ss include the extension of investigative boundaries. The margins of the study area need to be expanded to include the adjacent Classic Villa Alta complexes, which will provide substantially more information regarding the cultural continuity at the site As well, regional surveys are needed on both sides of the San Juan River; one to fill in th e critical areas not covered by earlier surveys on the northeast side of the river, and anot her on the southwest si de to bring that unexplored region into the ar chaeological forum. The regional surveys will allow El Marquesillo and its environs to be assessed on a broade r scale and possibly reveal interactions with other regional centers. The critiquing of the Gulf Coast Olmec paradigm is significant to scholarly research. Nevertheless, to more fully unders tand what or who the Olmec were, we need to know more about their genesis, their origin. It is possible that present and future data from El Marquesillo may be ab le to contribute to this pursu it. During my research into

PAGE 363

341 the earliest detectable occupation of the site in the Early Formative pre-Olmec period (c. 1500-1150 BC), it became apparent that a number of sites contained the equivalent of Ojochi, Chicharras, and Bajo phase ceramic material. According to regional surveys, these settlements went on to become centers during what is termed the San Lorenzo Olmec phase (Borstein 2001; Killion a nd Urcid 2001; Symonds 2000). These data suggest a significant link between specific si tes and the later development of the Olmec phenomenon. Further documentation of sites that contain pre-Olmec and Olmec ceramics needs to be assembled. Recording their spat ial positions is an efficient and effective method that would involve entering these data into a GIS where it could be layered and queried across the Olmec Heartland and beyond as needed. The desirability of this type of platform is the ability to include a comple te diachronic placement of sites according to type, size, chronology, ceramics, and any other tr ait or characteristics deemed significant. Furthermore, this database would be expanda ble to include any ne w data recovered and could begin with the earliest occupations al ong the Southern Gulf Lowlands, to Spanish Contact, and even to contemporary habitati on. Finally, the database could be made available to any and all researchers via the internet, thereby expanding the investigation and promoting focused collaborative efforts. Concluding Remarks Although a rewriting of Olmec political history may not yet be necessary, the investigation of El Marquesill o has shown that the unexpected appearance of a single site can have archaeological repercussions throughout the Southern Gulf Lowlands. The formation of the theoretical Olmec paradigm commenced at the Hacienda de Hueyapan in

PAGE 364

342 Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, in 1862. It began with a misconception about a monumental stone sculpture, an error that was based on incomplete evidence and a lack of fuller understanding. Precisely 140 year s later, the discovery of an Olmec throne at El Marquesillo, Veracruz, and subs equent investigation of this previously unknown site, has illustrated that our spatial and theoretical pers pectives need to be broadened to permit a greater understanding of th e archaeological record. I studied and was trained according to the accepted precepts and teachings regarding the Formative period Olmec and th eir Heartland. My init ial response to El Marquesillo was that it probabl y represented a departure from the Olmec paradigm, a site that was peripheral to the Heartland. Now, after lengthy consid eration of the site and its regional surroundings, I am convinced that El Marquesillo is anomalous but not in the manner of my initial interpretation. The anci ent inhabitants of El Marquesillo were a dynamic group, emerging from the pre-Olmec phase to exhibit culturally determined characteristics. It is possible that the s ite represents an element within the Olmec paradigm that is more prototypical than th e major centers upon which the majority of information has been derived. El Marquesillos Classic period successors maintained a millennium-long cultural continuity that was subsequently expressed in a substantial Villa Alta phase occupation that continued independent of the expansion of the Aztec empire. Upon the arrival of the Spanish, New and Old World people merged and continued to live off the land, a trad ition that continues to this day. It is in these respects that El Marques illo is an anomaly. A single site has caused me to reevaluate my ideas and perceptions of the entire Southern Gulf Lowlands. After contemplation of the vast, unexplored, middle regions of the San Juan, Coatzacoalcos,

PAGE 365

343 and Uxpanapa River Basins, I wonder how ma ny more sites like El Marquesillo remain to be found and how they will continue to improve our corpus of knowledge about the Olmec, their predecessors, and successors.

PAGE 366

344 References Cited Adams, R. E. W. 1997 Ancient Civilizations of the New World Essays in World History. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Adams, W. Y., D. P. Van Gerven and R. S. Levy 1978 The Retreat from Migrationism. Annual Review of Anthropology 7:483532. Aguirre-Beltrn, G. 1981 La Poblacin Negra de Mxico: Estudio Etnohistrico Reprint ed. Coleccin Fuentes Para La Historia Del Agrarismo En Mxico. SRA-CEHAM, Mexico City. 1989 Cuijla. Esbozo Etnogrfico de un Pueblo de Mxico Second ed. Fondo de Cultura Econmica, Mxico City. 1992 Pobladores del Papaloapan: Biografa de Una Hoya Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social, Mexico City. Allen, K. M. S., S. W. Green and E. B. W. Zubrow 1991 Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology: Applications of Geographic Information Systems. Taylor & Francis, New York. Anderson, J. and L. O'Dowd 1999 Borders, Border Regions and Territoriality: Contradictory Meanings, Changing Significance. Regional Studies 33(7):593-604. Arellanos-Melgarejo, R. a nd L. Beuregard-Garca 2001 La Villa del Espiritu Santo y sus Materiales Culturales Ediciones Cultura de Veracruz, Mexico City. Arensberg, C. M. 1961 The Community as Object and as Sample. American Anthropologist, New Series 63(2, Part 1):241-264.

PAGE 367

345 Arnaiz-Villena, A., G. Vargas-Alarcon, J. Granados, E. Gomez-Casado, J. Longas, M. Gonzales-Hevilla, J. Zuniga, N. Salgado, G. Hernandez-Pacheco, J. Guillen and J. Martinez-Laso 2000 Hla Genes in Mexican Mazatecans, th e Peopling of the Americas and the Uniqueness of Amerindians. Tissue Antigens 56 (5):405. Arnold, P. J. 2000 Sociopolitical Complexity and the Gulf Coast Olmecs: A View from the Tuxtla Mountains, Veracruz, Mexico. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 117-135. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 2003a Classic Period Cultural Cu rrents in the Tuxtla Mountains Paper presented at the Classic Veracruz: Cultural Currents in the Ancient Gulf Coast Lowlands, Dumbarton Oaks Symposium. Washington, D.C. 2003b Early Formative Pottery from the T uxtla Mountains and Implications for Gulf Olmec Origins Latin American Antiquity 14(1):29-46. 2005 The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography. Mesoamerican Voices 2(1-39). Arrhenius, O. 1963 Investigation of Soil from Old Indian Sites. Ethnos 2(4):122-36. Arriaza, B. T. 1995 Beyond Death: The Chinchorro Mummies of Ancient Chile Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Ashmore, W. 1991 Site-Planning Principles and Con cepts of Directionality among the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 2(3):199-226. 2002 Decisions and Dispositions: Socializing Spatial Archaeology. American Anthropologist 104(4):1172-1183. 2004 Classic Maya Landscapes and Settlement In Mesoamerican Archaeology edited by J. A. Hendon and R. A. Joy ce, pp. 169-191. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Blackwell, Malden, MA. 1999b Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives Blackwell, Oxford. Assmann, J. 2006 Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies Translated by R. Livingstone. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

PAGE 368

346 Aveni, A. F. 1980 Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico University of Texas Press, Austin. Aveni, A. F. and H. Hartung 1986 Maya City Planning and the Calendar Transactions. American Philosophical Society 76, Part 7. American Philosophical Society, Darby, PA. Aveni, A. F., H. Hartung and J. C. Kelley 1982 Alta Vista (Chalchihuites), Astronomi cal Implications of a Mesoamerican Ceremonial Outpost at the Tropic of Cancer. American Antiquity 47(2):316-335. Ball, J. H. W. and R. G. Kelsey 1992 Prehistoric Intrasettlement Land Us e and Residual Soil Phosphate Levels in the Upper Belize Valley, Central America In Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeology of Settlement Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica edited by T. W. Killion, pp. 234-257. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Barba, L. 1986 La Qumica en el Estudio de reas de Actividad In Anlisis de Unidades Habitacionales Mesoamericanas y Sus reas de Actividad edited by L. Manzanilla, pp. 21. Instituto de Inves tigaciones Antropolgicas, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico. Barba, L. and A. Ortiz 1992 Analisis Quimico de Pisos de Ocupacion: Un Caso Etnografico en Tlaxcala, Mexico Latin American Antiquity 3(1):63-82 Barcelo, J. A. and M. Pallares 1996 A Critique of GIS in Archaeology: From Visual Seduction to Spatial Analysis. Archeologia e Calcolator 6. Barlett, M. L. and P. A. McAnany 2000 "Crafting" Communities: The Ma terialization of Formative Maya Identities In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective edited by M. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 102-122. Routledge, New York. Barrett, J. 1999 The Mythical Landscape of the British Iron Age In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives edited by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, pp. 253-265. Blackwell, Oxford. Barth, F. 2000 Boundaries and Connections In Signifying Identitie s: Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values edited by A. Cohen, pp. 1-34. Routledge, New York.

PAGE 369

347 Bassie, K. 2006 The Fire and Water of the Creator Grandparents Paper presented at the 24th Annual Maya Weekend, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Basso, K. H. 1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Language and Landscape among the Western Apache. University of New Mexi co Press, Albuquerque. Bender, B. 1975 Farming in Prehistory: From Hunter-Gatherer to Food Producer John Baker Ltd., London. 1990 The Dynamics of Nonhierarchical Societies In The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Sm all-Scale Sedentary Societies edited by S. Upham, pp. 247-263. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Benson, E. P. 1981a Mesoamerican Sites and Worldviews Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1981b Some Olmec Objects in the Robert Woods Bliss Collection at Dumbarton Oaks In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essa ys in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 95-108. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C. 1996 History of Olmec Investigations. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico edited by E. P. Benton and B. de la Fuen te, pp. 17-27. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Berdan, F. F. 1996 Tributary Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies edited by F. F. Berdan, R. E. Blanton, E. H. Boone, M. G. Hodge, M. E. Smith and E. Umberger, pp. 115136. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C. Berdan, F. F. and P. R. Anawalt 1992 The Codex Mendoza University of California Press, Berkeley. 1997 The Essential Codex Mendoza University of California Press, Berkeley. Berger, R., J. A. Graham and R. F. Heizer 1967 A Reconsideration of the Age of the La Venta Site. Contributions of the University of California Archaeol ogical Research Facility, Berkeley 3:1-24.

PAGE 370

348 Bevan, B. 1998 Geophysical Exploration for Ar chaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Midwest Archaeological Ce nter Special Report 1, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. Beyer, H. 1927 Review of Blom and La Farge, Tribes and Temples. El Mexico Antiguo 2:305-313. Bidwell, O. W. and F. D. Hole 1965 Man as a Factor of Soil Formation. Soil Science 99:65-72. Binford, L. R. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:531. Bingham, P. M. 1999 Human Uniqueness: A General Theory. The Quarterly Review of Biology 74(2):133-169. Bittman, B. and T. D. Sullivan 1978 The Pochteca In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Cultural Contacts edited by T. A. Lee and C. Nava rrete, pp. 211-218. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, Numb er 40. New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young Un iversity, Provo, Utah. Blake, M. 1991 An Emerging Formative at Paso De La Amada, Chiapas, Mexico In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica edited by W. R. Fowler, pp. 27-46. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 2006 Dating the Initial Spread of Zea Mays. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz, pp. 56-72. Academic Press (Elsevier). Blake, M., B. S. Chisholm, J. E. Clark and K. Mudar 1992 Non-Agricultural Staples and Agri cultural Supplements: Early Formative Subsistence in the Soconusco Region, Mexico In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, edited by A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price, pp. 133-151. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

PAGE 371

349 Blake, M. and J. E. Clark 1999 The Emergence of Hereditary Ineq uality: The Case of Pacific Coastal Chiapas, Mexico In Pacific Latin America in Prehistory: The Evolution of Archaic and Formative Cultures edited by M. Blake, pp. 55-74. Washington State University Press, Pullman. Blanton, R. E. 1978 Monte Alban: Settlement Pattern s at the Ancient Zapotec Capital Studies in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1995 The Cultural Foundations of Inequality in Households In Foundations of Social Inequality edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 105-127. Fundamental Issues in Ar chaeology. Plenum, New York. Blzquez, C. 1986 Veracruz: Informes De Sus Gobernadores Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz. Blom, F. and O. LaFarge 1926 Tribes and Temples Middle America Research Institute Publication 1. Middle America Research In stitute, New Orleans. Boone, J. L. 2002 Subsistence Strategies and Ea rly Human Population History: An Evolutionary Ecological Perspective. World Archaeology 34(1):6-25. Borstein, J. A. 2001 Tripping over Colossal Heads: Se ttlement Patterns and Population Development in the Upland Olmec Heartland (Mexico). Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. 2005 Epiclassical Political Organiza tion in Southern Veracruz, Mexico: Segmentary Versus Centralized Integration. Ancient Mesoamerica 16:11-21. Bove, F. J. 1978 Laguna de los Cerros, an Olmec Central Place. Journal of New World Archaeology 2(3):1-56. Bowser, B. J. 2004 Prologue: Toward an Archaeology of Place. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11(1):1-3.

PAGE 372

350 Bradley, D. E. 2001 Gender, Power, and Fertility in the Olmec Ritual Ballgame In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame edited by E. M. Whittington, pp. 33-39. Thames and Hudson, New York. Braun, D. P. 1990 Selection and Evolution in Nonhierarchical Organization In The Evolution of Political Syst ems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies edited by S. Upman, pp. 62-86. School of Am erican Research Advanced Seminar Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Breiner, S. 1999 Application Manual for Portable Magnetometers Geometrics, San Jose, California. Breiner, S. and M. D. Coe 1972 Magnetic Exploration of the Olmec Civilization. American Scientist 60:566-575. Brown, L. A. 2001 Feasting on the Periphery: The Produc tion of Ritual Feasting and Village Festivals at the El Ceren Site, El Salvador In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 368-390. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Brggeman, J. and M.-A. Hers 1970 Exploraciones Arqueolgicos en San Lorenzo Tenochtitln. Boletn del INAH, Mexico 39:18-23. Brumfiel, E. M. 1994 Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World: An Introduction In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, pp. 3-13. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brumfiel, E. M. and T. Earle 1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies edited by E. Brumfiel and T. Earle, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bueno, C. M. 2004 Excavating Identity: Archaeology and Nation in Mexico, 1876-1911 (Porfirio Diaz). Ph.D. dissertation, Univ ersity of California.

PAGE 373

351 Butler, R. F. 1992 Paleomagnetism: Magnetic Domains to Geologic Terranes Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston. Burton, J. H. and A. W. Simpson 1993 Acid Extraction as a Simple and Inexpensive Method for Compositional Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics. American Antiquity 58(1):45-59. Campbell, L. and T. Kaufman 1976 A Linguistic Look at the Olmec. American Antiquity 41(1):80-89. Carlson, J. B. 1975 Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy? Science, New Series 189(4205):753-760. 1981 Olmec Concave Iron Ore Mirrors: Th e Aesthetic of a Lithic Technology and the Lord of the Mirror. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 117-147. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C. Carneiro, R. L. 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:733-738. 1981 The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State In The Transition to Statehood in the New World, edited by G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz, pp. 37-79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1998 What Happened at the Flashpoint? C onjectures on Chiefdom Formation at the Very Moment of Conception In Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas edited by E. M. Redmond, pp. 18-42. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Carroll, P. J. 2001 Blacks in Colonial Veracruz: Race, Ethnicity, and Regional Development. University of Texas Press, Austin. Hansen, A. J. and F. di Castri 1992 Landscape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows. Springer-Verlag Ecological Studies Series, 92. SpringerVerlag, New York. Ceja-Tenorio, J. F. 1997 Los Sitios Arqueolgicos del Suroeste de Los Tuxtlas. In Memoria del Coloquio: Arqueologa del Ce ntro y Sur de Veracruz edited by S. L. de Guevara and Sergio Vsquez Z., pp. 177-196. Universidad de Veracruzana, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico.

PAGE 374

352 Chase, D. Z. and A. F. Chase 1998 The Architectural Context of Caches Burials, and Othe r Ritual Activities for the Classic Period Maya (as Reflected at Caracol, Belize) In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture edited by S. Houston, pp. 299-332. Dumbarton Oaks Research Librar y and Collection, Washington, D.C. Chase, J. E. 1981 The Sky Is Falling: The San Martin Tuxtla Volcanic Eruption and Its Effects on the Olmec at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz. Vinculos 7(1-2):53-69. Chavero, A. 1883 Historia Antigua De Mexco In Mexco a Traves de los Siglos Libro Primero, Capitulo Primero, Mexco, D.F. Cheetham, D. 2005 Recent Investigation at Cantn Corralito: A Possible Olmec Enclave on the Pacific Coast of Chiapas, Mexico Arizona State University and the New World Archaeological Foundati on, Brigham Young University. Christaller, W. 1966 [1933] Central Places in Southern Germany. Translated from Die Zentralen Orte in Sddeutschland by C. W. Baskin. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1972 How I Discovered the Theory of Central Places: A Report About the Origin of Central Places In Man Space and Environment, edited by P. W. Mayfield and R. C. Mayfield, pp. 601-610. Oxford University Press. Cioffi-Revilla, C. 1996 Origins and Evolution of War and Politics. International Studies Quarterly 40(1):1-22. Clark, J. E. 1987 Politics, Prismatic Blades, and Mesoamerican Civilization In The Organization of Core Technology edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 259-284. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 1991 The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early Formative In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica edited by W. R. Fowler Jr., pp. 13-26. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 1993 Los Olmecas en Mesoamerica. El Equilibrista, S.A de C.V, Mexico City. 1997 The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:211-234.

PAGE 375

353 2001 Gulf Lowlands: South Region In Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia edited by S. T. Evans and D. L. Webster, pp. 340-344. Garland, New York. 2005 The Birth of Mesoamerican Metaphysics: Sedentism, Engagement, and Moral Superiority In Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World edited by E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and C. Renfrew, pp. 205-224. McDonald Institute Monograph Series McDonald Institute, Cambridge. 2006 The Olmec and Their Early Format ive Neighbors Symposium, Discussant Society for American Archaeology 71st A nnual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Clark, J. E. and M. Blake 1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitiv e Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, pp.1730 New Directions in Archaeology. Camb ridge University Press, Cambridge. Clark, J. E. and D. Cheetham 2002 Mesoamerica's Tribal Foundations In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies edited by W. Parkinson. Archaeological Series, no. 15. International Monographs in Prehistory. Univer sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clark, J. E. and T. A. Lee 1984 Formative Obsidian Exchange and the Emergence of Public Economies in Chiapas, Mexico In Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica edited by K. G. Hirth, pp. 235-274. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Clark, J. E., T. A. Lee and T. Salcedo 1989 The Distribution of Obsidian In Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica edited by B. Voorhies, pp. 268-284. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Clark, J. E. and M. E. Pye 2000 The Pacific Coast and the Olmec Question In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 217-252. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Clay, R. B. 2001 Complementary Geophysical Survey Techniques: Why Two Ways Are Always Better Than One. Southeastern Archaeology 20(1):31-43. Clendinnen, I. 1989 Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 376

354 Cobb, C. R. 2003 Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review of Anthropology 32:63-84. Cobean, R. 1996 La Oaxaquea, Veracruz: Un Centro Olmeca Menor en su Contexto Regional In Arqueologia Mesoamericana: Homenaje a William T. Sanders edited by A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C. S. Puche, pp. 3761. Vol. 2. Editorial Raices-INAH, Mxico City. Cobean, R. H., M. D. Coe, J. Edward, A. Perry, K. K. Turekian and D. P. Kharkar 1971 Obsidian Trade at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mexico. Science 174:666671. Cobean, R. H., J. R. Vogt, M. D. Glascock and T. R. Stocker 1991 High Precision Trace Element Characterization of Major Mesoamerican Obsidian Sources and Further Analys is of Artifacts from San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 2:69-91. Coe, M. D. 1965 Archaeological Synthesis of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 2 edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 679715. Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vo l. 3. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1968 America's First Civilization American Heritage Publishing, New York. 1981 Gift of the River: Ecology of the San Lorenzo Olmec In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Me mory of Matthew W. Stirling edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 15-20. Dumbarton Oa ks, Washington, D.C. 1989 The Olmec Heartland: Evolution of Ideology In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 68-82. School of American Research Books. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Coe, M. D. and R. A. Diehl 1980a In the Land of the Olmec: The Arch aeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan 1. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1980b In the Land of the Olmec: The People of the River 2. University of Texas Press, Austin. Coe, M. D. and R. Koontz 2002 Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs Fifth ed. Thames and Hudson, New York.

PAGE 377

355 Coe, M. D., D. Snow and E. Benson 1986 Atlas of Ancient America Facts On File, New York. Cohen, R. 1978 State Origins: A Reappraisal In The Early State edited by H. J. M. Claessen and P. Skalnik, pp. 3175. Walter De Gruyter, New York. Connor, C. B. and C. O. Sanders 1994 Geophysics Review Topical Report: Application of Seismic Tomographic and Magnetic Methods to Issues in Basaltic Volcanism U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contract NRC-02-93-005. CNWRA report 94-013. Conyers, L. B., E. G. Ernenwein and L.-A. Bedal 2002 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Mapping as a Method for Planning Excavation Strategies, Petra, Jordan. E-tiquity, An Electronic Publication Series of The Society for American Archaeology 1. ( Cook, S. and W. Borah 1980 Ensayos Sobre la Historia de la Poblacon: Mxico y el Caribe Coleccon Amrica Nuestra I and II. Siglo XXI, Mxico, D.F. Cosgrove, D. 1989 Geography Is Everywhere: Culture and Symbolism in Human Landscapes In Horizons in Human Geography edited by D. Gregory and R. Walford, pp. 118135. Barnes & Noble Books, Totowa, NJ. Covarrubias, M. 1957 Indian Art of Mexico and Central America Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Cowgill, G. 1988 Onward and Upward with Collapse. In The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations edited by N. Yoffee and G. Cowgill, pp. 244-276. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Cowgill, G. L. 1993 War and Society in Ancien t Mesoamerica, Book Review. American Anthropologist 95(3):754-755. Crumley, C. L. 1979 Three Locational Models: An Epistomogical Assessment for Anthropology and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 141-173. Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York.

PAGE 378

356 1994 Historical Ecology: A Multidisciplinary Ecological Orientation In Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes edited by C. L. Crumley, pp. 1-16. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. Crumley, C. L. and W. H. Marquardt 1987 Regional Dynamics in Burgandy In Regional Dynamics: Burgandian Landscapes in Historical Perspective edited by C. L. Crumley and W. H. Marquardt, pp. 609-623. Academic Press, New York. 1990 Landscape: A Unifying C oncept in Regional Analysis In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology edited by K. M. Allen, S. W. Green and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 73-79. Taylor & Francis, London. Curet, L. A., B. L. Stark and Z. S. Vsquez 1994 Postclassic Changes in Veracruz, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 5:13-32. Cyphers, A. 1993 From Stone to Symbols: Olmec Art in Social Context at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica edited by D. C. Grove and R. A. Joyce, pp. 155-180. Dumb arton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. 1994 San Lorenzo Tenochtitln In Los Olmecas en Mesoamrica edited by J. E. Clark, pp. 42-67. Ediciones el Equilibrista and Citibank, Mexico City. 1996a The Colossal Heads In Arqueologia Mexicana pp. 48-55. Special Edition. 1996b Reconstructing Olmec Life at San Lorenzo In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico edited by E. P. Benson and B. Fuente, pp. 61-72. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 1997a Olmec Architecture at San Lorenzo In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands edited by B. L. Stark and P. J. Arnold, pp. 96-114. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1997b Poblacon, Subsistencia y Medio Ambi ente en San Lorenzo Tenochtitln Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolgicas, Mexico City. 2001 San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan (Veracruz, Mexico) In Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia edited by S. T. Evans and D. L. Webster, pp. 645-649. Garland, New York.

PAGE 379

357 2003 Laguna de los Cerros: Una Capital del Periodo Clsico Terminal en la Costa Sur del Golfo de Mxico Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc. 2004 Escultura Olmeca de San Lorenzo Tenochtitln Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Ciudad Un iversitaria, Mexico City. Daneels, A. 1988 La Cermica de Plaza de Toros y Colonia Ejidal, Informe Sobre las Excavaciones Realizadas en 1984 en el Marco del Proyecto Exploraciones en El Centro de Veracruz. 2 vols. Archivo Tcnico, Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City. 1997 Settlement History in the Lower Cotaxtla Basin In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands edited by B. L. Stark and P. J. Arnold, pp. 206-252. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Davis-Salazar, K. 2004 Multi-Elemental Analysis of Ancient Maya Pigments Reveals New Information on Political and Religio us Rituals at Copn, Honduras. Society for Archaeological Sciences Bulletin 27 3:9-10. de la Fuente, B. 1996 Homocentrism in Olmec Monumental Art. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico edited by E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente, pp. 41-49. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 2000 Olmec Sculpture: The First Mesoamerican Art In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 252-263. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Delgado-Caldern, A. 1995 Pueblos Negros del Sur de Veracruz. Races: Revista de Analisis 19:13-14. 1997a Historia Indgena Durante la Poca Colonial: Segunda Parte. Races: Revista de Analisis 32:11-12. 1997b Los Nahuas en el Sur de Veracruz. Races: Revista de Analisis 34:7-12. 2000 La Conformacon de Regions en el Sotavento Veracruzano: Una Aproximacon Histrica In El Sotavento Veracruzano: Procesos Sociales y Dinmicas Territoriales, edited by E. Lonard and E. Velzquez, pp. 27-41. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios, S uperiores en Antropol oga Social, Mexico, D.F.

PAGE 380

358 Demarest, A. 1984 Overview: Mesoamerican Human Sacr ifice in Evolutionary Perspective In Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica edited by E. H. Boone, pp. 227-247. Dumbarton Oaks Research Librar y and Collection, Washington. D.C. DeWalt, B. and M. W. Rees 1994 The End of Agrarian Reform in Mexico: Past Lessons, Future Prospects Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Univ ersity of California, San Diego, CA. Diehl, R. A. 1989 Olmec Archaeology: What We Kn ow and What We Wish We Knew In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 17-32. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1998 The Archaeology of Mexico's South Gulf Coast: Future Directions. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. 2000a Gulf Coast Classic and Postclassic Cultures In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas edited by R. E. W. Adams and M. J. MacLeod, pp. 157-195. Volume II, Part 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2000b Olmec Archaeology after Regional Perspectives: An Assessment of Recent Research In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 19-30. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 2004 The Olmecs: America's First Civilization Thames and Hudson, New York. Dietler, M. and B. Hayden 2001 Digesting the Feast: Good to Eat, Good to Drink, Good to Think. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 1-23. Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. Dobrin, M. B. and C. H. Savit 1988 Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting. Fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Doering, T. F. 2002 A Study of the Obsidian Artifacts fr om San Andres, La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

PAGE 381

359 2003 Analysis of Formative Period Obsidi an Artifacts from La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico Manuscript on file with the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida. Drennan, R. 1991 Pre-Hispanic Chiefdom Trajectories in Mesoamerica, Central America, and Northern South America In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology edited by T. Earle, pp. 263-287. Cambri dge University Press, Cambridge. Drennan, R. D. 1987 Regional Demography in Chiefdoms In Chiefdoms in the Americas edited by R. D. Drennan and C. A. Uribe, pp. 307-323. University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Druc, I. C. 2000 Ceramic Production in San Ma rcos Acteopan, Puebla, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 11(1):77-89. Drucker, P. 1943a Ceramic Sequences at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico In Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 140. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1943b Ceramic Stratigraphy at Cerro De Las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 141. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1947 Some Implications of the Ce ramic Complex of La Venta Smithsonian Miscellanous Collections 107, Number 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1952a La Venta, Tabasco, a Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art Bulletin 153. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. 1952b Middle Tres Zapotes and the Preclassic Ceramic Sequence. American Antiquity 17:258-260. 1960 The La Venta Olmec Support Area. Kroeber Anthropological Society, University of California Spring:59-73. 1970 Foreword In Noticias De Nutka: An Account of Nootka Sound in 1792, by Jos Mariano Mozio, edited by I. H. Wilson, pp. vii-x. The American Ethnological Society, Monograph 50. Universi ty of Washington Press, Seattle.

PAGE 382

360 Drucker, P. and E. Contreras 1953 Site Patterns in the Eastern Part of Olmec Territory. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 43:389-396. Drucker, P. and R. F. Heizer 1956 Gifts for the Jaguar God. National Geographic 110:366-375. Drucker, P., R. F. Heizer and R. Squier 1957 Radiocarbon Dates from La Venta, Tabasco. Science 126:72-73. Drucker, P., R. F. Heizer and R. J. Squier 1959 Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955 Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 170, Washington, D.C. Duffy, D. and P. J. Bryant 1999 The 1997-98 El Nio/Southern Oscill ation (Enso 97-98): One of the Most Severe Enso Events in History? Dunlop, D. J. and zdemir 1997 Rock Magnetism: Fundamentals and Frontiers Cambridge Studies in Magnetism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Dunnel, R. C. and J. F. Simek 1995 Artifact Size and Plowzone Processes. Journal of Field Archaeology 22(3):305-319. Earle, T. K. 1987 Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:279-308. 1989 The Evolution of Chiefdoms. Current Anthropology 30(1):84-88. 1991a Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1991b The Evolution of Chiefdoms In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by T. Earle, pp. 1-15. Cambri dge University Press, Cambridge. 1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Ehrich, R. W. 1949 Anthropology: A Brief Survey. The Scientific Monthly 68(5):343-353.

PAGE 383

361 Elachi, C. 1987 Introduction to the Physics and T echniques of Remote Sensing WileyInterscience, Indianapolis, IN. Ember, C. and M. Ember 2003 Anthropology: A Brief Introduction Fifth ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Espinoza-Garca, L. 1994 Rescate Arqueolgico Aut opista La Tinaja-Acayucan Archivo Tcnico de CIV-INAH, Mexico. 1998 Informe de las Affectaciones en El Marquesillo y Cerro de Montezuma Submitted to Daniel Goeritz Rodrguez, Director. Centro Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Veracruz, Mexico. 2001 Informe de Inspeccon de El Marquesillo. Centro INAH Veracruz, Investigacon. Submitted to Daniel Goeritz Rodriguez, Director. Centro Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Hi storia, Veracruz, Mexico. Esquivias, C. 2002 The Eastern Boundaries of the Triple Alliance on the Southern Gulf Coast of Mexico: A Continuing Debate. Mexicon 24:50-54. Evans, S. T. 2003 Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology and Culture History Thames and Hudson, New York. Fallaw, B. 2001 Crdenas Compromised: The Failure of Reform in Postrevolutionary Yucatn Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Feder, K. L. 2007 The Past in Perspective: An Introduction to Human Prehistory Fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Feder, K. L. and M. A. Park 2001 Human Antiquity: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology McGraw-Hill, New York. Feinman, G. 1991 Demography, Surplus, and Inequality: Early Political Formations in Highland Mesoamerica. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by T. Earle, pp. 229-262. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 384

362 Feinman, G. M. 1995 The Emergence of Inequality: A Focus on Strategies and Processes In Foundations of Social Inequality edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 255-280. Fundamental Issues in Archaeology. Plenum, New York. Feinman, G. M., S. Banker, R. F. Cooper, G. B. Cook and L. M. Nicholas 1989 A Technological Perspective on Changes in the Ancient Oaxacan Grayware Ceramic Tradition: Preliminary Results Journal of Field Archaeology 16(3):331-344. Fentress, J. and C. Wickham 1992 Social Memory Blackwell, Oxford. Fernndez, F. G., R. E. Te rry, T. Inomata and M. Eberl 2002 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Ch emical Residues in the Floors and Soils of Qeqchi Maya Houses at Las Pozas, Guatemala. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 17(6):487-519. Filloy-Nadal, L. 2001 Rubber and Rubber Balls in Mesoamerica In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame edited by E. M. Whittington, pp. 20-31. Thames and Hudson, New York. Fish, S. K., P. R. Fish and J. H. Madsen 1992 Early Sedentism and Agriculture in the Northern Tucson Basin In The Marana Community in the Hohokam World edited by S. K. Fish, P. R. Fish and J. H. Madsen. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, Number 56. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Flannery, K. V. 1968 The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-Regional Interaction in Formative Times In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec edited by E. Benson, pp. 79-118. Dumbart on Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C. 1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426. Ford, J. A. 1966 Early Formative Cultures in Georgia and Florida. American Antiquity 31(6):781-799. Fortes, M. 1953 The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups. American Anthropologist 55:17-41.

PAGE 385

363 Foster, G. M. 1940 Notes on the Popoluca of Veracruz Instituto Panamericano De Geografia E Historia 51. Imprenta Grafos, Mexico, D.F. 1942 A Primitive Mexican Economy. Monographs of the American Ethnological Society 5. Fowler, W. R. 1991 Approaches to the Study of the Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. R. Fowler, pp. 1-11. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Fox, J. G., W. Ashmore, J. H. Blitz, S. D. G illespie, S. D. Houston, T. J. J. Leyenaar, J. Marcus, J. D. Moore, P. A. Urban, E. M. Schortman and D. Webster 1996 Playing with Power: Ballcourts and Political Ritual in Southern Mesoamerica [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology 37(3):483-509. Fox, R. 1977 Urban Anthropology Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Freidel, D. A. 1995 Preparing the Way In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership pp. 3-9. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton. Freidel, D. A. and L. Schele 1988 Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The Instruments and Places of Ritual Power. American Anthropologist 90:547-567. Freidel, D. A., L. Schele and J. Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman's Path William Morrow and Company, New York. Fried, M. H. 1961 Warfare, Military Organization, and the Evolutio n of Society. Anthropologica III(2):134-147. 1967 The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology Random House, New York. Fuson, R. H. 1969 The Orientation of Mayan Ceremonial Centers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59(3):494. Garmin 2005 About GPS. June 4, 2005,

PAGE 386

364 Garner, P. 2001 Porfirio Daz Profiles in Power. Longman, London. Geometrics 2001 G-858 Magmapper Operation Manual Geometrics Inc., Sunnyvale, CA. Gillespie, S. D. 1993 Power, Pathways, and Appropriation in Mesoamerican Art In Imagert and Creativity: Ethnoaesthetics and Ar t Worlds in the Americas edited by D. S. Whitten and N. E. Whitten, pp. 67-107. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1994 Llano Del Jicaro. Ancient Mesoamerica 5:231-242. 1999 Olmec Thrones as Ancestral Altars: The Two Sides of Power In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory edited by J. E. Robb, pp. 224-253. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper, 26. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 2000a The Monuments of Laguna De Los Cerros and Its Hinterland In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 94-115. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 2000b Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Or ganization: Replacing "Lineage" With "House". American Anthropologist 102(3):467-484. Gilman, A. 1991 Trajectories Towards Social Complexity in the Later Prehistory of the Mediterranean In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology edited by T. Earle, pp. 146-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2001 Assessing Political Development in Copper and Bronze Age Southeast Spain In From Leaders to Rulers, edited by J. Haas, pp. 59-81. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Gonzlez-Lauck, R. 1996a La Venta: A Great Olmec City In Arqueologia Mexicana pp. 42-47. Special Edition. 1996b La Venta: An Olmec Capital In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente, pp. 73-82. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 1997 Acerca de Piramides de Tierra y Seres Sobrenaturales: Observaciones Preliminares en Torno al Edif icio C-1, La Venta, Tabasco. Arqueologia 17:79-97.

PAGE 387

365 2001 La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico In Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia edited by S. T. Evans and D. L. Webster, pp. 798-801. Garland, New York. Graham, J. 1989 Olmec Diffusion: A Sculptural View from Pacific Guatemala In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 227-246. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Grayson, G. W. 1980 The Politics of Mexican Oil University of Pittsburgh Latin American Series. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. Grieder, T. 1968 Unpublished Manuscript, Field Note s, and Drawings, Austin, Texas. Grove, D. C. 1968 The Preclassic Olmec in Central Me xico: Site Distribution and Inferences In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 179185. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. 1970 The Olmec Paintings of Oxtotitlan Cave, Guerrero, Mexico Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 6. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1973 Olmec Altars and Myths. Archaeology 26. Archaeological Institute of America, New York. 1981 Olmec Monuments: Mutila tion as a Clue to Meaning In The Olmec and Their Neighbors edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 49-68. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C. 1984 Chalcatzingo: Excavations on the Olmec Frontier New Aspects of Antiquity. Thames and Hudson, New York. 1989 Olmec: What's in a Name? In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 8-16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1993 "Olmec" Horizons in Formative Peri od Mesoamerica: Diffusion or Social Evolution? In Latin American Horizons edited by D. S. Rice, pp. 83-112. Dumbarton Oaks Research Librar y and Collection, Washington, D.C. 1996 The Olmec: An Archaeological Culture In Arqueologa Mexicana pp. 1223. Olmec Special Edition.

PAGE 388

366 1997 Olmec Archaeology: A Half Century of Research and Its Accomplishments. Journal of World Prehistory 11(1):51-101. 1999 Public Monuments and Sacred Mountains: Observations on Three Formative Period Sacred Landscapes In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, edited by D. C. Grove and R. A. Joyce, pp. 255-295. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. 2001 Olmec Culture. In Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia edited by S. T. Evans and D. L. Webster, pp. 554-557. Garland, New York. Grove, D. C. and S. D. Gillespie 1992 Archaeological Indicators of Forma tive Period Elites: A Perspective from Central Mexico In Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment edited by D. Z. Chase and A. F. Chase, pp. 191-205. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Grove, D. C. and L. I. Paradis 1971 An Olmec Stela from San Miguel Amuco, Guerrero. American Antiquity 36(1):95-102. Guimares, A. P. 2004 Mexico and the Early History of Magnetism. Revista Mexicana de Fsica 50(1):51-53. Gunn, J. and R. E. W. Adams 1981 Climatic Change, Culture, and Civilization in North America. World Archaeology 13(1):87-100. Guzmn, E. 1934 Los Relieves de las Rocas del Cerro de la Cantera, Jonacatepec, Mor. Mexico Museo Nacional de Arqueologa, Historia y Etnogafia, anales poca 5, 1:237-251. Haas, J. 1998 A Brief Consideration of Cultural Evolution: Stages, Agents, and Tinkering. Complexity 3(3):12-21. 2001 Cultural Evolution and Political Centralization In From Leaders to Rulers, edited by J. Haas, pp. 3-18. Fundament al Issues in Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

PAGE 389

367 Halbwachs, M. 1992 On Collective Memory Translated by L. A. Coser. The Heritage of Sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hammond, N. 1974 The Distribution of Late Classic Maya Major Ceremonial Centres in the Central Area In Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches edited by N. Hammond, pp. 313-334. Duckworth, London. 1999 The Genesis of Hierarchy: Mortua ry and Offertory Ritual in the PreClassic at Cuello, Belize In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica edited by D. C. Grove and R. A. Joyce, pp. 49-66. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Harris, M. 1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. Random House, New York. Harris, T. M. 2002 GIS in Archaeology In Past Time, Past Place, edited by A. K. Knowles, pp. 131-144. ESRI Press, Redlands, California. Haslip-Viera, G., B. O. de Montellano and W. Barbour 1997 Robbing Native American Cultures: Va n Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs. Current Anthropology 38(3):419-441. Hassig, R. 1992 War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Hayden, B. 1992 Models of Domestication In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, edited by A. Gebauer and T. Price, pp. 11-19. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. 1995a A New Overview of Domestication In Last Hunters-First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture edited by T. Price and A. Gebauer, pp. 273-299. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. 1995b Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities In Foundations of Social Inequality edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 15-86. Plenum, New York. Heizer, R. F. 1960 Agriculture and the Theocratic St ate in Lowland Southeastern Mexico. American Antiquity 26(2):215-222.

PAGE 390

368 1968 New Observations on La Venta In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 9-36. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Heizer, R. F., P. Drucker and J. A. Graham 1968 Investigations at La Venta, 1967. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley 5:1-39. Heizer, R. F., J. A. Graham and L. K. Napton 1968 The 1968 Investigations at La Venta. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley 5:127-203. Heizer, R. F. and J. E. Gullberg 1981 Concave Mirrors from the Site of La Venta, Tabasco: Their Occurrence, Mineralogy, Optical Description, and Function In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 109-116. Dumbarton Oaks Research Librar y and Collections, Washington, D.C. Heizer, R. F., T. Smith and H. Williams 1965 Notes on Colossal Head No. 2 from Tres Zapotes American Antiquity, 31(1):102-104. Hernndez, M. L. 2003 Informe Technico Segunda Temporada de Campo Sitio Arqueologico El Marquesillo y Proyecto Arqueologico El Marquesillo Centro Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia Ve racruz, Veracruz, Mexico. Hernndez, M. L. and L. H. Barrera 2002 Informe Tecnico Final Rescate Arqueologico El Marquesillo y Proyecto Arqueologico El Marquesillo Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico. Hernndez, M. L. and T. F. Doering 2004 Proyecto Arqueolgico El Marquesillo Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Veracruz Centro, Veracruz, Mexico. 2005 Proyecto Arqueologico El Marquesillo, Informe Tcnico, Cuarta Temporada de Campo, Mayo-Julio, 2004 Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Centro Veracr uz, Veracruz, Mexico. Hester, T. R., R. N. Jack and R. F. Heizer 1971 The Obsidian of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Contributions of the University of California Archaeol ogical Research Facility, Berkeley 13.

PAGE 391

369 Hester, T. R., H. J. Shafer and K. L. Feder 1997 Field Methods in Archaeology 7th ed. Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, California. Heyden, D. and P. Gendrop 1980 Pre-Columbian Architecture of Mesoamerica Translated by J. Stanton. Electa/Rizzoli, New York. Hirth, K. G. 1978 Interregional Trade and the Fo rmation of Prehistoric Gateway Communities. American Antiquity 43:35-45. Hoag, E. 2003 Interpreting Burned Earthen Artifacts: A Spatial and Quantitative Analysis of Daub and Kiln Debris from Tres Zapotes In Settlement Archaeology and Political Economy at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico edited by C. A. Pool, pp. 47-55. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeol ogy, University of California, Monograph 50, Los Angeles. Hodder, I. 1987 The Contextual Analysis of Symbolic Meanings In The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings edited by I. Hodder, pp. 1-10. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hodder, I. and C. Cessford 2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at atalhyk. American Antiquity 69(1):17-40. Holliday, V. T. 1993 Soils in Archaeology: Landscap e Evolution and Human Occupation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Holliday, V. T. and W. G. Gartner 2007 Methods of Soil P Analysis in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:301-333. Hume, I. N. 1972 Creamware to Pearlware: A Williamsburg Perspective In Ceramics in America edited by I. M. G. Quimby, pp. 217254. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 2001 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

PAGE 392

370 Hyder, W. D. 1996 High Technology In The Oxford Companion to Archaeology edited by B. M. Fagan, pp. 276-277. Oxford University Press, Oxford. INEGI 1991 Aerial Photograph, D.F. 15196l-200 E15-1-4 Number 11. Instituto Nacional de Estadstica Geografa e Informtica (INEGI), Mexico City. 1994 Aerial Photograph, D.F. 27297c-152.17 E15 A83 Line 33. Instituto Nacional de Estadstica Geografa e Informtica (INEGI), Mexico City. 2000 Aerial Photograph, D.F. 272305c-1 52.16 E15-1-4 Line 200. Instituto Nacional de Estadstica Geografa e Informtica (INEGI), Mexico City. 2003 Coatzacoalcos E15-1-4. Second ed. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geographia e Informatica (INEGI), Mexico City. Ingold, T. 1993 The Temporality of Landscape. World Archaeology 25(2):152-174. Inomata, T. and K. Aoyama 1996 Central-Place Analyses in the La Entrada Region, Honduras: Implications for Understanding the Classic Maya Political and Economic Systems Latin American Antiquity 7(4):291-312. Isbell, B. J. 1982 Culture Confronts Nature in the Dialectical World of the Tropics In Ethno-Astronomy and Archaeo-Astr onomy in the American Tropics edited by A. F. Aveni and G. Urton, pp. 353-363. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 385. Jefferies, D. W. 1953 Pre-Columbian Negroes in America. Scientia 88(495-496, Series 6):202217, Bolagna. Jimnez-Salas, O. H. 1990 Geomorfologa de la Regin de La Venta, Tabasco: Un Sistema FluvioLagunar Costero del Cuaternario. Arqueologa 2(3):5-16. Johnson, A. W. and T. Earle 2000 The Evolution of Human Societies : From Foraging Group to Agrarian State Second ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Johnston, K. J. 2001 Broken Fingers: Classic Maya Scri be Capture and Polity Consolidation. Antiquity 75:371-81.

PAGE 393

371 Johnston, K. J. and N. Gonlin 1998 What Do Houses Mean? Approaches to the Analysis of Classic Maya Commoner Residences In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture edited by S. D. Houston, pp. 141-185. Dumb arton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Jones, C. 2001 Caches In Archaeology of Ancient Mexi co and Central America: An Encyclopedia edited by S. T. Evans and D. L. Webster, pp. 87-88. Garland, New York. Joralemon, P. D. 1971 A Study of Olmec Iconography In Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology Vol. 7. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington. Joyce, R. A. 2004a Mesoamerica: A Working Model for Archaeology In Mesoamerican Archaeology edited by J. A. Hendon and R. A. Joyce, pp. 1-42. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeol ogy. Blackwell, Malden, MA. 2004b Unintended Consequences? Monumen tality as a Novel Experience in Formative Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeolog ical Method and Theory 11(1):529. 2004c Unprecedented Projects: The Birth of Mesoamerican Pyramids. Expedition 46(2):7-11. Joyce, R. A. and J. A. Hendon 2000 Heterarchy, History, and Ma terial Reality: Communities In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective edited by J. Yaeger and M. A. Canuto, pp. 143-160. Routledge, New York. Junker, L. L. 1998 The Transition to History in Sout heast Asia Part Ii: Malaysia, the Philippines and Southwest China Integr ating History and Archaeology in the Study of Contact Period Philippine Chiefdoms. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 2(4):291-320. 2001 The Evolution of Feasting Systems in Prehispanic Philippine Chiefdoms In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographi c Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 267-310. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 394

372 Justeson, J. and T. Kaufman 2003 The Epi-Olmec Cultural Tradition: Textual, Linguistic, and Iconographic Evidence Paper presented at the Classic Veracruz: Cultural Currents in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, Dumbarton Oaks Symposium, Washington D.C. Kapplemen, J. G. 2001 Sacred Geography at Izapa a nd the Performance of Rulership In Landscape and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica edited by R. Koontz, K. ReeseTaylor and A. Headrick, pp. 81-122. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Killion, T. 2006 An Olmec Context: The Hueyapan Regi on of Southern Veracruz, Mexico. Gulf Coast Olmec Symposium, Society for American Archaeology 71st Annual Meeting San Juan, Puerto Rico. Killion, T. W. and J. Urcid 2001 The Olmec Legacy: Cultural Continu ity and Change in Mexico's Southern Gulf Coast Lowlands. Journal of Field Archaeology 28(1 and 2):3-25. Kirch, P. V. 1991 Prehistoric Exchange in Western Melanesia. Annual Review of Anthropology 20:141-165. Kirchoff, P. 1943 Mesoamerica. Acta Americana 1:92-107. Knapp, A. B. and W. Ashmore 1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives edited by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, pp. 1-30. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA. Knight, C. 2003 Obsidian Production, Consumption, and Distribution at Tres Zapotes: Piecing Together Political Economy In Settlement Archaeology and Political Economy at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico edited by C. A. Pool, pp. 69-89. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Univer sity of California, Los Angeles. Kohl, P. L. 1978 The Balance of Trade in Southweste rn Asia in the Mid-Third Millennium B.C. Current Anthropology 19(3):463-492. Kolb, M. J. 1994 Monumentality and the Rise of Reli gious Authority in Precontact Hawaii. Current Anthropology 35(5):521-547.

PAGE 395

373 Kruger, R. P. 1996 An Archaeological Survey in the Regi on of the Olmec, Veracruz, Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ ersity of Pittsburgh. Krupp, E. C. 1983 Echoes of the Ancient Skies: Th e Astronomy of Lo st Civilizations Harper and Row, New York. Kuijt, I. and N. Goring-Morris 2002 Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexi ty in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis Journal of World Prehistory 16(4):361-440. Kvamme, K. L. 1996 Bringing the Camps Together: GIS and ED. Archaeological Computing Newsletter of the Soil Science Society of America 47:1-5. 1999 Recent Directions and Developm ents in Geographical Information Systems. Journal of Archaeological Research 7(2):153-201. 2001 Current Practices in Archae ogeophysics: Magnetics, Resistivity, Conductivity, and Ground-Penetrating Radar In Earth Sciences and Archaeology edited by P. Goldberg, V. Holliday and R. Ferring, pp. 353-384. Plenum Publishers, New York. 2003 Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:435-457. Lee, R. B. 1990 Primitive Communism and the Origin of Social Inequality In The Evolution of Political Syst ems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies edited by S. Upman, pp. 225-246. School of American Research Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lenski, G. 1966 Power and Privilege: A Theory of Stratification McGraw-Hill New York. Lenski, G., J. Lenski and P. Nolan 1970 Human Societies: An Intr oduction to Macrosociology. McGrawHill, New York. Lesure, R. G. 1998 Vessel Form and Function in an Early Formative Ceramic Assemblage from Coastal Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(1):19-36.

PAGE 396

374 Linderholm, J. and E. Lundberg 1994 Chemical Characterization of Vari ous Archaeological Soil Samples Using Main and Trace Elements Determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:303-314. Lopez-Portillo, J. 1939 Documentos Basicos que Amparan la Propiedad Social y Posesion de la Tierra. Secretaria de la Refroma Agraria, Mexico, D.F. Lsch, A. 1954 [1944] The Economics of Location: A Pioneer Book in the Relations between Economic Goods and Geography Second Revised ed. Translated by W. H. Woglom and W. F. Stolper. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Loughlin, M. L. 2004 El Mesn Regional Survey, Veracruz, Mexico Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. Love, M. W. 2002 Early Complex Society in Pacific G uatemala: Settlements and Chronology of the Ro Naranjo, Guatemala Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 67. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Lowe, G. W. 1981 Olmec Horizons Defined in Mound 20, San Isidro, Chiapas In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Me mory of Matthew W. Stirling edited by E. Benson, pp. 231-255. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1989 The Heartland Olmec: Evolution of Material In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 33-67. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lowenthal, D. 1985 The Past Is a Foreign Country Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lowie, R. H. 1928 A Note on Relationship Terminologies. American Anthropologist 30:263268. Lunagmez-Reyes, R. 2004 Archaeological Investigations at Medias Aguas, Veracruz, Mxico. Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc., Crystal River, FL

PAGE 397

375 Madry, S. L. H. 1987 A Multiscalar Approach to Remote Sensing In Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective edited by C. L. Crumley and W. H. Marquardt, pp. 173-236. Academic Press, New York. Magellan 2005 About Satellite Navigation. June 5, 2005, Malinowski, B. 1944 A Scientific Theory of Culture, and Other Essays by Bronislaw Malinowski University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Manzanilla, L. and L. Barba 1990 The Study of Activities in Classic Households: Two Case Studies from Coba and Teotihuacn. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:41-49. Marcus, J. 1973 Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya. Science 180:911916. 1976 Emblem and State in the Classi c Maya Lowlands: An Epigraphic Approach to Territorial Organization Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Marquardt, W. and C. Payne 1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa In Monograph, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies Vol. 1. University of Florida, Gainesville. Marquardt, W. H. 1985 Complexity and Scale in the St udy of Fisher-Gatherer-Hunters: An Example from the Eastern United States In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity edited by T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, pp. 5998. Academic Press, Orlando. Marquardt, W. H. and C. L. Crumley 1987 Theoretical Issues in the Analysis of Spatial Patterning In Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective edited by W. H. Marquardt and C. L. Crumley, pp. 1-18. Academic Press, San Diego. Marshak, S. 2001 Earth: Portrait of a Planet W.W. Norton, New York. Mayhew, S. 1997 A Dictionary of Geography 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York.

PAGE 398

376 Mays, S. 2000 New Directions in the Analysis of Stable Isotopes in Excavated Bones and Teeth In Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science, edited by M. Cox and S. Mays, pp. 425-438. Greenw ich Medical Media Limited, London. McAnany, P. A. 1995 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship to Kingship in Ancient Maya Society University of Texas Press, Austin. 1998 Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Environment In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture edited by S. D. Houston, pp. 271-298. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. McBratney, A. B. and R. Webster 1986 Choosing Functions for Semi-Vario grams of Soil Prope rties and Fitting Them to Sampling Estimates. Journal of Soil Science 37:617-639. McDowell, P. F. 1988 Chemical Enrichment of Soils at Archaeological Sites: Some Oregon Case Studies. Physical Geography 9(3):247-62. McManamon, F. P. 1984 Discovering Sites Unseen In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 223-292. Vol. 7. Academic Press, New York. Medelln-Zenl, A. 1960 Monoltos Inditos Olmecas In La Palabra y El Hombre pp. 75-97. Vol. 16. Revista de la Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa. Meggers, B. J. 1975 The Transpacific Origin of Meso american Civilization: A Preliminary Review of the Evidence and Its Theoretical Implications. American Anthropologist 77(1):1-27. 1976 Yes if by Land, No if by Sea: Th e Double Standard in Interpreting Cultural Similarities. American Anthropologist 78(3):637-639. Melville, E. G. K. 1994 A Plague of Sheep: Environmental Consequences of the Conquest of Mexico Studies in Environment and History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 399

377 Middleton, W. D. 2004 Identifying Chemical Activity Resi dues on Prehistoric House Floors: A Methodology and Rationale for Multi-Elemen tal Characterization of a Mild Acid Extract of Anthropogenic Sediments. Archaeometry 46(1):47-65. Middleton, W. D. and T. D. Price 1996 Identification of Activity Areas by Multi-Element Characterization of Sediments from Modern and Archaeol ogical House Floors Using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:673-687. Miller, M. and K. Taube 1993 The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Me xico and the Maya: An Illustrated Dictionary of Mesoamerican Religion Thames and Hudson, New York. Moore, A. M. T. 1978 The Neolithic of the Levant University of Oxford. Moore, I. D., R. B. Grayson and A. R. Ladson 1991 Digital Terrain Modeling: A Revi ew of Hydrological, Geomorphological, and Biological Applications. Hydrological Processes 5:3-30. Morales, A. T. 2002 Prepara el Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia Proyecto de Rescate para El Marquesillo. In La Jornada, Mexico City. Morgan, L. H. 1963 Ancient Society: Researches in th e Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. World Publishing, Cleveland. Morrison, F., J. Benavente, C. W. Clewlow and R. F. Heizer 1970 Magnetometer Evidence of a Stru cture within the La Venta Pyramid. Science, New Series 167(3924):1488-1490. Morrison, F., C. W. Clewlow and R. F. Heizer 1970 Magnetometer Survey of the La Venta Pyramid. Contributions of the University of California Archaeol ogical Research Facility, Berkeley 8:1-20. Moseley, M. E. and G. R. Willey 1973 Aspero, Peru: A Reexamination of the Site and Its Implications. American Antiquity 38(4):452-468.

PAGE 400

378 Mozio, J. M. 1870 Informe Sobre la Erupcon de Volcn de San Martn Tuxtla (Veracruz) Ocurrida el Ao de 1793. Boletin de la Sociedad Mexican de Geografia y Estadistica (2nd Epoca 2):62-72. Mundkur, B. 1976 The Cult of the Serpent in the Americas: Its Asian Background. Current Anthropology 17(3):429-455. NASA 2006 Learning Technologies, World Wind, V 1.3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. National Geophysical Data Center 2005 Geomagnetic Online Calculator NOAA Satellite and Information Service, Boulder, CO Navarrete, C. 1978 The Prehispanic System of Communications between Chiapas and Tabasco In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Culture Contact edited by T. A. Lee and C. Navarrete. New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Naveh, Z. and A. S. Liebrman 1990 Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application Student edition. SpringerVerlag, New York. NGDC 2005 Magnetic Declination, National Geophysical Data Center NOAA Satellite and Information Service, Boulder, CO. NRCS 2006 Soils Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. Oates, J. 1993 Trade and Power in the Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC: New Evidence from Northern Mesopotamia. World Archaeology 24(3):403-422. Oliver, M. A. 1990 Kriging: A Method of Interpol ation for Geographical Information Systems. International Journal of Ge ographic Information Systems 4:313-332.

PAGE 401

379 Ortz, P. 1975 La Ceramica de los Tuxtlas. Master's thesis, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Mexico. Ortz, P. and M. C. Rodrguez 1993 Olmec Ritual Behavior at El Manat: A Sacred Space. In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica edited by D. C. Grove and R. A. Joyce, pp. 225-254. Dumbarton Oaks Research Librar y and Collection, Washington, D.C. 2000 The Sacred Hill of El Manat: A Preliminary Discussion of the Site's Ritual Paraphernalia In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 75-93. Nati onal Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. Ortz, P. and R. S. Santley 1989 La Ceramica De Matacapan. Manuscript on file, Veracruz Centro, INAH, Veracruz. Park, T. K. 1992 Early Trends toward Class Stratif ication: Chaos, Common Property, and Flood Recession Agriculture. American Anthropologist 94(1):90-117. Parkinson, W. A. 2005 Tribal Boundaries: Stylistic Variab ility and Social Boundary Maintenance During the Transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Unpublished document on file with the Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Parnell, J. J., R. E. Terry and Z. Nelson 2002 Soil Chemical Analysis Applied as an Interpretive Tool for Ancient Human Activities in Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:379-404. Parramon, J. M. 1990 How to Draw the Human Figure Watson-Guptill, New York. Paso y Troncoso, F. 1939 Epistolario de la Nueva Espaa, 1505-1818 Antigua Librera Robredo VII. J. Porra e hijos, Mxico. Pauketat, T. R. 1994 The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Miss issippian Politics in Native North America University Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

PAGE 402

380 Paz-Snchez, F. 2000 La Poltica Econmica del Porfiriato First ed. Instituto Nacional de Estudios Histricos de la Re volucin Mexicana, Mexico City. Peace, J. L., D. A. Hyndman and T. J. Goering 1996 Application of Non-Intrusive Geophysi cal Techniques at the Mixed Waste Landfill, Technical Area 3, Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico Report SAND95-1609 l UC-903, Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico Pearson, R. 2004 New Perspectives on Jomon Society In Bulletin of the International Jomon Culture Conference Vol.1 2004 edited by R. Pearson. The International Jomon Culture Conference, Peebles, C. S. and S. M. Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42:421-448. Prez, M. A. O. and A. Cyphers 1997 La Geomorfologa y las Evidencias Arqueolgicas en la Region de San Lorenzo Tenochtitln, Veracruz In Poblacin, Subsistencia y Medio Ambiente en San Lorenzo Tenochtitln edited by A. Cyphers, pp. 31-53. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City Pike, R. J. 1995 Geomorphometry: Progress, Practice, and Prospect. Annals of Geomorphology, Supplement 101:221-238. Pina-Chan, R. 1989 The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica Rizzoli, New York. Pinto, G. L. 1991 Sociopolitical Organization in Central and Southwest Honduras at the Time of the Conquest: A Model for the Formation of Complex Society In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica edited by J. William R. Fowler, pp. 215-236. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Piro, S., P. Mauriello and F. Cammarano 2000 Quantitative Integration of Geophys ical Methods for Archaeological Prospection. Archaeological Prospection 7(4):203 213.

PAGE 403

381 Plog, S. 1990 Agriculture, Sedentism, and Enviro nment in the Evolution of Political Systems. In The Evolution of Political System s: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies edited by S. Upman, pp. 177-199. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Ca mbridge University Press, Cambridge. Poe, W. C. 1997 The GPS Mapping Project at the Prehistoric Site of Uj uxte, Guatemala Department of History, S onoma State University. Pohl, J. M. D. 1999 Exploring Mesoamerica Places in Time. Oxford University Press, New York. Pohl, M. D. 2001 Economic Foundations of Olmec Civili zation in the Gulf Coast Lowlands of Mexico Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Crystal River, FL. Pohl, M. D., K. O. Pope, J. G. Jones, J. S. Jacob, D. R. Piperno, S. D. deFrance, D. L. Lentz, J. A. Gifford, M. E. Danforth and J. K. Josserand 1996 Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 7(4):355-372. Pohl, M. D., K. O. Pope and C. von Nagy 2002 Olmec Origins of Mesoamerican Writing. Science 208:1984-1987. Pohorilenko, A. 1996 Portable Carving in Olmec Style In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico edited by E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente, pp. 119-132. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Pool, C. A. 1997 The Spatial Structure of Fo rmative Houselots at Bezuapan. In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands edited by B. L. Stark and P. J. Arnold, pp. 40-67. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2000 From Olmec to Epi-Olmec at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 137-153. Studies in the History of Art. Vol. 58. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 2003 Settlement Archaeology and Political Economy at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Publications, UCLA, Los Angeles.

PAGE 404

382 2005 Perspectives on Variation in Olmec Settlement and Polity Using Mississippian Models. In Gulf Coast Archaeology: The Southeastern United States and Mexico edited by N. White, pp. 223-244. Un iversity Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 2006 Current Research on the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:189-241. Pool, C. A. and G. M. Britt 2000 A Ceramic Perspective on the Formativ e to Classic Transition in Southern Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 11(2):139-161. Pope, K. O. and M. D. Pohl 1998 Agricultura Prehistorica de Mexico en la Planicie Costera del Golfo Centro Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia Tabasco. Pope, K. O., M. D. Pohl, J. G. Jones, D. L. Lentz, C. von Nagy and F. V. Vera 2000 Early Agriculture on the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Submitted to National Science Foundation Pope, K. O., M. D. Pohl, J. G. Jones, D. L. Lentz, C. von Nagy, F. J. Vega and I. R. Quitmyer 2001 Origin and Environmental Setting of Ancient Agriculture in the Lowlands of Mesoamerica. Science 292:1370-1373. Porter, J. B. 1989 Olmec Colossal Heads as Recarved Thrones: Mutilation, Revolution and Recarving. Res, Anthropology and Aesthetics (17-18):23-29. Price, B. J. 1977 Shifts in Production and Organiza tion: A Cluster-In teraction Model. Current Anthropology 18(2):209-233. Price, M. 1998 Terrain Modeling with Arcview 3d Analyst. ArcUser Magazine (JulySeptember). Pye, M. E. and J. E. Clark 2000 Introducing Olmec Archaeology. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 9-17. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Raab, M. L., M. A. Boxt and K. Bradford 1995 Informe Sobre las Exploraciones Ar queologicas en Bari 2 Durante la Temporada 1994. Archivo del Proyecto Arqueologi cas La Venta, Centro INAH.

PAGE 405

383 Rapoport, A. 1990 History and Precedent in Environmental Design Springer-Verlag, New York. Redmond, E. M. 1998 The Dynamics of Chieftaincy and the Development of Chiefdoms In Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas edited by E. M. Redmond, pp. 1-17. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Reilly, F. K. 1991 Olmec Iconographic Influences on the Symbols of Maya Rulership In Sixth Palenque Roundtable, 1986 edited by V. M. Fields, pp. 151-166. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 1994 Enclosed Ritual Spaces and the Wa tery Underworld in Formative Period Architecture: New Observations on th e Function of La Venta Complex A In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989 edited by M. G. Robertson and V. M. Fields, pp. 125-135. Pre-Columbian Art Re search Institute, San Francisco. 1995 Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership pp. 27-46. The Art Museum Princeton University, Princeton. 1999 Mountains of Creation and Underwor ld Portals: The Ritual Function of Olmec Architecture at La Venta, Tabasco In Mesoamerican Architecture as a Cultural Symbol, edited by J. K. Kowalski, pp. 14-39. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2002 The Landscape of Creation: Architecture, Tomb, and Monument Placement in the Olmec Site of La Venta In Heart of Creation: The Mesoamerican World and the Legacy of Linda Schele, edited by A. Stone, pp. 3465. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2005 Olmec Ideological, Ritual, and Symbo lic Contributions to the Institution of Classic Maya Kingship In Lords of Creation: The Origins of Sacred Maya Kingship edited by V. M. Fields and D. Reents-Budet, pp. 30-36. Scala, London. Reilly, F. K. and J. F. Garber 2003 The Symbolic Representation of Warfare in Formative Period Mesoamerica In Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare edited by M. K. Brown and T. W. Stanton, pp. 127-148. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

PAGE 406

384 Reinhardt, B. K. 1991 Volcanology of the Younger Volc anic Sequence and Volcanic Hazards Study of the Tuxtla Volcani c Field, Veracruz, Mexico. Master's thesis, Tulane University. Reynolds, J. M. 1997 Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics John Wiley and Sons, New York. Rice, P. M. 1977 Whiteware Pottery Production in th e Valley of Guatemala: Specialization and Resource Utilization. Journal of Field Archaeology 4(2):221-233. Rick, J. W. 1996 Total Stations in Archaeology. SAA Bulletin 14(4):31-34. Ringle, W. M. 1993 Pre-Classic Cityscapes: Ritual Politics among the Early Lowland Maya In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica edited by D. C. Grove and R. A. Joyce, pp. 183-223. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Rodrguez, M. C. and P. Ortz 1997 Olmec Ritual and Sacred Geography at Manat In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands edited by B. L. Stark and P. J. Arnold, pp. 68-95. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Rodrguez, M. C. and P. Ortiz 2000 A Massive Offering of Axes at La Merced, Hidalgotitln, Veracruz, Mexico In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 154-167. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Rojas-Chavez, J. M. 1990 Analisis Preliminar de Industria de la Litica Tallada en La Venta, Tabasco In Arqueologia pp. 25-32. Vol. 3, Enero-Junio. INAH, Mexico City. Roosevelt, A. C. 1987 Chiefdoms in the Amazon and Orinoco In Chiefdoms in the Americas edited by R. D. Drennan and C. A. Uribe, pp. 153-185. University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Rosenswig, R. M. 2006 Sedentism and Food Production in Early Complex Societies of the Soconusco, Mexico. World Archaeology 38(2):330-355

PAGE 407

385 Rueda, H. G. 1989 Nuevas Exploraciones en la Regin Olmeca: Una Aproximacin a los Patrones de Asentamiento en el Preclsico o Formativo In Avances y Perspectivas edited by M. M. Carmona. CONACULTA-INAH, Mxico. 1996 Las Limas, Veracruz, y Otros Asenta mientos Prehispnicos de la Regin Olmeca Coleccin Cientfica, Nmero 324, Se rie Arqueologa. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Hist oria, Mexico City. Rust, W. F. 1988 Informe Preliminar de la Temporada de Campo de 1987, Proyecto Arqueologico La Venta Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia de Mexico. 1992 New Ceremonial and Settlement Evid ence at La Venta and Its Relation to Preclassic Maya Cultures In New Theories on the Ancient Maya edited by E. Damien and R. Sharer, pp. 123-130. University Museum Monograph 77. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Rust, W. F. and B. W. Leyden 1994 Evidence of Maize Use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World edited by S. Johannessen and C. Hastorf, pp. 181-201. We stview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Rust, W. F. and R. J. Sharer 1988 Olmec Settlement Data from La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico. Science 242:102-104. SAA, Society for American Archaeology 2006 Program for 71st Annual Meeting, April 26-30, 2006, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C. Sahlins, M. D. 1961 The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion. American Anthropologist 63:322-345. 1968 Tribesmen Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Sahlins, M. D. and E. R. Service 1960 Evolution and Culture University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Saitta, D. J. and A. S. Keene 1990 Politics and Surplus Flow in Prehistoric Communal Societies In The Evolution of Political Syst ems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies edited by S. Upham, pp. 203-224. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 408

386 Sanders, W. and D. Webster 1988 The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition. American Anthropologist 90:521546. Sanders, W. T. 1971 Cultural Ecology and Settlement Patterns of the Gulf Coast. In Handbook of Middle American Indians: Archae ology of Northern Mesoamerica, edited by G. F. Ekholm and I. Bernal, pp. 543-557. Vol. 11, Part Two. University of Texas Press, Austin. Sanders, W. T. and B. J. Price 1968 Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization Studies in Anthropology. Random House, New York. Sanderson, S. K. 1995 Social Transformations: A General Th eory of Historical Development. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Santiago, M. 2006 The Ecology of Oil: Environment, Labor, and the Mexican Revolution, 1900-1938. Studies in Environment and History. Cambridge University Press Cambridge Santley, R. S. 1992 A Consideration of the Olmec Phenomenon in the Tuxtlas In Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeology of Settleme nt Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica edited by T. W. Killion, pp. 150-183. Universi ty of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Santley, R. S. and P. J. Arnold III 1996 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Tuxtla Mountains, Southern Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:225-249. Santley, R. S., P. J. Arnold III and T. P. Barrett 1997 Formative Period Settlement Patterns in the Tuxtla Mountains In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, edited by B. L. Stark and P. J. Arnold III, pp. 174-205. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Santley, R. S., P. J. Arnold III and C. A. Pool 1989 The Ceramics Production System at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico Journal of Field Archaeology 16(1):107-132. Santley, R. S., P. O. Ceballos and C. A. Pool 1987 Recent Archaeological Research at Matacapan, Veracruz: A Summary of the Results of the 1982 to 1986 Field Seasons. Mexicon 9(2):41-48.

PAGE 409

387 Santley, R. S., S. A. Nelson, B. K. Reinhardt, C. A. Pool and P. J. Arnold III 2000 When Day Turned to Night: Volcan ism and the Archaeological Record from the Tuxtla Mountains, Southern Veracruz, Mexico In Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response, edited by G. Bawden and R. M. Reycraft, pp. 143-162. Vol. Anthropologi cal Papers No. 7. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Santley, R. S. and R. Lunagmez 1991 Informe Final De Campo: Proyecto "Reconocimiento Arqueologico de Los Tuxtlas," Temporada 1991. Archivo Tecnico, Centro Regional de Veracruz, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Veracruz, Mexico. Saville, M. H. 1929 Votive Axes from Ancient Mexico, Parts 1 and 2. Indian Notes 6:266-299, 335-342. Scarborough, V. L. 1998 Ecology and Ritual: Water Management and the Maya. Latin American Antiquity 9(2):135-159. Scarre, C. and B. Fagan 2002 Ancient Civilizations Second ed. Prentice Hall, New York. Schele, L. and D. Freidel 1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya William Morrow, New York. Schlanger, S. H. and J. D. Orcutt 1986 Site Surface Characteristics and Functional Inferences. American Antiquity 51(2):296-312. Schneider, H. K. 1977 Prehistoric Transpacif ic Contact and the Theory of Culture Change. American Anthropologist 79(1):9-25. Scholes, F. V. and R. L. Roys 1948 The Maya Chontal Indians of Acalan-Tixchel Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 560, Washington, D.C. Scholes, F. V. and D. Warren 1965 The Olmec Region at Spanish Contact In Handbook of Middle American Indians edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 776-787. Vol. III, Part 2. University of Texas Press, Austin.

PAGE 410

388 Schortman, E. M. and P. A. Urban 1991 Patterns of Late Preclassic Inte raction and the Formation of Complex Society in the Southeast Maya Periphery In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. R. Fo wler, pp. 121-142. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Schultz, E. A. and R. H. Lavenda 1998 The Consequences of Domestication and Sedentism In Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition edited by E. A. Schultz and R. H. Lavenda. Mayfield, Mountain View, California. Seely, R. 2006 Teeth Clarify Slavery's Timeline In Wisconsin State Journal pp. 1 and 8, Madison. Serrano, J. M. M. y. 1869 Antigedades Mexicanas. Sociedad Mexicana de Geografa y Estadstica Boletn, poca 2(1):292-297. Service, E. 1971 Primitive Social Organization Second ed. Random House, New York. Service, E. R. 1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective Random House, New York. 1975 The Origins of State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution Norton, New York. Shahagn, B. 1970-1982 Florentine Codex: General Hist ory of the Things of New Spain. Second ed. Translated by C. E. Dibble and A. J. O. Anderson. Monographs of the School of American Research and th e Museum of New Mexico, Number 14. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Shanks, M. and C. Tilley 1988 Social Theory and Archaeology University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Sharer, R. J. 1978 Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salv ador. University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia

PAGE 411

389 1989 Olmec Studies: A Status Report In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grov e, pp. 3-7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sheets, P. D. 2003 Warfare in Ancient Mesoamerica: A Summary View In Warfare in Ancient Mesoamerica edited by K. Brown and T. Stanton, pp. 287-302. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Silverman, H. 2002 Ancient Nasca Settlement and Society University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Sinopoli, C. M. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics Plenum, New York. Sisson, E. B. 1976 Survey and Excavation in the Northwestern Chontalpa, Tabasco, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard. Smalley, J. and M. Blake 2003 Sweet Beginnings: Stalk Sugar and the Domestication of Maize. Current Anthropology 44:675. Smith, A. T. 2003 The Political Landscape: Constellati ons of Authority in Early Complex Polities University of California Press, Berkeley. Smith, M. E. 1979 The Aztec Marketing System and Se ttlement Pattern in the Valley of Mexico: A Central Place Analysis American Antiquity, 44(1):110-125. 2004 The Archaeology of Ancient State Economies. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:73-102. Solis, R. S., J. Haas and W. Creamer 2001 Dating Caral, a Preceramic Site in the Supe Valley on the Central Coast of Peru. Science 292(5517):723-726. Soustelle, J. 1984 The Olmecs: The Oldest Civilization in Mexico Translated by H. R. Lane. Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York.

PAGE 412

390 Spencer, C. S. 1987 Rethinking the Chiefdom In Chiefdoms in the Americas edited by R. D. Drennan and C. Uribe, pp. 369-389. Univ ersity Press of America, Landon, Maryland. Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond 1992 Prehispanic Chiefdoms of the Western Venezuelan Llanos. World Archaeology 24(1):134-157. Spencer, H. 2004 The Social Organism In Anthropological Theory edited by R. J. McGee and R. L. Warms, pp. 24-40. McGraw-Hill, Boston. Sprajc, I. 2000 Astronomical Alignments at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 11(4):403-415. Stark, B. L. 1978 An Ethnohistoric Model for Native Economy and Settlement Patterns in Southern Veracruz, Mexico In Prehistoric Coastal Adaptation, the Economy and Ecology of Maritime Middle America edited by B. L. Stark and B. Voorhies, pp. 211-238. Academic Press, New York. 1991 Settlement Archaeology of Cerro de las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico. Monograph 34, Institute of Archaeology, Univ ersity of California, Los Angeles. 1993 Commentary: Ritual, Social Iden tity, and Cosmology: Hard Stones and Flowing Water In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, edited by D. C. Grove and R. A. Joyce, pp. 310-317. Dumb arton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. 1997 Gulf Lowland Ceramic Styles and Political Geography in Ancient Veracruz. In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands edited by B. L. Stark and P. J. Arnold III, pp. 278-309. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1999 Formal Architectural Complexes in Southern-Central Veracruz, Mexico: A Capital Zone? Journal of Field Archaeology 26(2):197-225. 2000 Framing the Gulf Coast Olmecs In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 31-54. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 413

391 Stark, B. L. and P. J. Arnold 1997 Introduction to the Archaeology of the Gulf Lowlands In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands edited by B. L. Stark and P. J. Arnold, pp. 3-32. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Stark, B. L. and L. A. Curet 1994 The Development of Classic-Peri od Mixtequilla in South-Central Veracruz, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 5:267-287. Stark, B. L. and L. Heller 1991 Residential Dispersal in the Environs of Cerro De Las Mesas In Settlement Archaeology of Cerro De Las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico edited by B. L. Stark, pp. 49-58. UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 34, Los Angeles. Stark, B. L., L. Heller and M. Ohnersorge 1998 People with Cloth: Mesoamerican Economic Change from the Perspective of Cotton in South-Central Veracruz. Latin American Antiquity 9:1-30. Stark, M. T. 1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C. Steward, J. H. 1955 The Theory of Cultural Change: Th e Methodology of Multilinear Evolution University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Stirling, M. W. 1939 Discovering the New World' s Oldest Dated Work of Man. National Geographic 79:183-218. 1943 Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 138, Washington, D.C. 1955 Stone Monuments of the Ro Chiquito. Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 157, Washington, D.C. 1965 Monumental Sculpture of S outhern Veracruz and Tabasco In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 716-738. Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 3. University of Texas Press, Austin. Stokes, B. 1999 Lithic X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian Blades from Isla Alor: An Olmec and Post-Olmec Residential Site near La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ca lifornia State University, Northridge.

PAGE 414

392 Strange, J. F. 1982 New Developments in Greco-Roman Archaeology in Palestine. The Biblical Archaeologist 45(2):85-88. Stuart, G. E. 1993 New Light on the Olmec. National Geographic Magazine 184(5):88-115. Sugiyama, S. 1993 Worldview Materialized in Teotihuacan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 4(2):103-129. Suhler, C. and D. Freidel 2003 The Tale End Two Cities: Tikal, Yaxuna, and Abandonment Contexts in the Lowland Maya Archaeological Record In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America edited by T. Inomata and R. W. Webb. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry Univer sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Sullivan, A. P. 1988 Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramic Manufacture: The Limitations of Current Evidence American Antiquity 53(1):23-35. Symonds, S. 2000 The Ancient Landscape at San Lo renzo Tenochtitln, Veracruz, Mexico In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 55-74. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Symonds, S., A. Cyphers and R. Lunagmez 2002 Asentamiento Prehispnico en San Lorenzo Tenochtitln Serie San Lorenzo. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City. Symonds, S. C. and R. Lunagmez 1997 Settlement Systems and Population Development at San Lorenzo In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands edited by B. L. Stark and P. J. Arnold, pp. 144-173. Univ ersity of Arizona Press, Tucson. Tacon, P. 1999 Identifying Ancient Sacred Landsca pes in Australia: From Physical to Social. In Archaeologies of Landscape : Contemporary Perspectives edited by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, pp. 33-57. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Taladoire, E. 2001 The Architectural Background of the Pre-Hispanic Ballgame: An Evolutionary Perspective. In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by E. M. Whittington, pp. 96-115. Thames and Hudson, New York.

PAGE 415

393 Tarling, D. H. 1983 Geomagnetism Chapman and Hall, London. Tarling, D. H. and F. Hrouda 1993 The Magnetic Anisotropy of Rocks Springer, New York. Taschek, J. T. and J. W. Ball 1999 Las Ruinas de Arenal Ancient Mesoamerica 10(2):215-235. 2003 Nohock Ek Revisited: Th e Minor Center as Manor. Latin American Antiquity 14(4):371-388. Tate, C. E. 1999a Patrons of Shamanic Power: La Vent a's Supernatural Entities in Light of Mixe Beliefs. Ancient Mesoamerica 10:169-188. Taube, K. A. 1995 The Rainmakers: The Olmec and Their Contribution to Mesoamerican Belief and Ritual In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership pp. 83-103. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton. 2000 Lightning Celts and Corn Fetishe s: The Formative Olmec and the Development of Maize Symbolism in Mesoamerica and the American Southwest. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica edited by J. Clark and M. Pye. 58 ed. Studies in the History of Art. Na tional Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 2004 Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks Dumbarton Oaks Re search Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Terry, R. E., P. J. Hardin, S. D. Houston, S. D. Nelson, M. W. Jackson, J. Carr and J. J. Parnell 2000 Quantitative Phosphorus Measurement: A Field Test Procedure for Archaeological Site Analysis at Piedras Negras. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 15:151-166. Terry, R. E., T. Inomata and P. Sheets 1999 Reading the Soil Chemical Signa tures of Ancient Maya Activities Paper presented at the Association of Amer ican Geographers 95th Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii. Thelen, D. 1989 Memory and American History. The Journal of American History 75:1117-1129.

PAGE 416

394 Thomas, H. 1993 Conquest: Montezuma, Cortes, and the Fall of Old Mexico Touchstone, New York. 2000 Who's Who of the Conquistadors. Cassell, London. Thomas, J. 1996 Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology Routledge, London. Tolstoy, P. 1989 Western Mesoamerica and the Olmec In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 275-302. School of American Research and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tren, M. B. 1992 Historia de Veracruz, I-VII. Secretara de Educacon y Cultura, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mxico. Trigger, B. G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2003 Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Trimble 2005 All About GPS. June 4, 2005, Tuan, Y.-F. 1974 Topophilia. A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Turner, V. W. 1969 Humility and Hierarchy: The Limina lity of Status Elevation and Reversal. In The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure edited by V. W. Turner, pp. 166-203. Aldine, Chicago. 1974 Pilgrimages as Social Process In Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society edited by V. W. Turner, pp. 166-230. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

PAGE 417

395 Tykot, R. H. 2004 Stable Isotopes and Diet: You Are What You Eat In Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Proceedings of the Inte rnational School of Physics Enrico Fermi Course cliv edited by M. Martini, M. Milazzo and M. Piacentini, pp. 433444. Societ Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. 2006 Isotope Analyses and the Histories of Maize In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz, pp. 131-142. Academic Press (Elsevier). Tykot, R. H., N. J. van der Merwe and N. Hammond 1996 Stable Isotope Analysis of B one Collagen and Apatite in the Reconstruction of Human Diet: A Case Study from Cuello, Belize In Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic and Biochemical Analysis edited by M. V. Orna, pp. 355-365. ACS Symposium Series 625. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. Tylor, E. B. 1976 Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom Gordon Press, New York. Tyson, P. 1994 Noninvasive Excavation. Technology Review 97(2):20 -22. Ucko, P. J. and R. Layton 1999 The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape Routledge, London. Upman, S. 1990a Analog or Digital?: Toward a Generic Framework for Explaining the Development of Emergent Political Systems In The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Sm all-Scale Sedentary Societies edited by S. Upman, pp. 87-115. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1990b The Evolution of Political Syst ems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies. In School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, edited by D. W. Schwartz, pp. 87-115, School of American Research Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Urcid, J. and T. Killion 2003 Social Landscapes and Political Dynamics in the Southern Gulf Coast Lowlands (500-1000 AD) Paper presented at the Classic Veracruz: Cultural Currents in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, Washington D.C.

PAGE 418

396 Vaillant, G. C. 1930 Excavations at Zacatenco. Anthropological Papers, no. 32, part 1, American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1935 Excavations at El Arolillo,. Anthropological Papers, no. 35, part 2, American Museum of Natural History, New York. Van de Noort, R. 2004 The Humber Wetlands: The Archaeology of a Dynamic Landscape Windgather Press, Cheshire, UK. VanDerwarker, A. M. 2006 Farming, Hunting, and Fishi ng in the Olmec World University of Texas Press, Austin. Van Sertima, I. 1976 They Came before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America Random House, New York. Vega, A. A. 1998 Archaeological Investigations of San Lorenzos Northern Alluvial Floodplain Foundation for the Advancemen t of Mesoamerican Studies. Vogt, E. Z. 1969 Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1981 Some Aspects of the Sacred Geography of Highland Chiapas In Mesoamerican Sites and Worldviews edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 119-142. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C. Vogt, E. Z. and R. M. Leventhal 1983 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Es says in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. University of New Mexico Press an d Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Albuquerque and Cambridge. von Nagy, C. 1999 Research Report on Olmec Pottery Complexes at Isla San Andres (Bari 1) Tulane University. von Nagy, C. L., M. E. D. Pohl and K. O. Pope 2001 A Theater Community in a Theater Polity: Archaeological Research at San Andres, Tabasco, Mexico Unpublished manuscript on file with the Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

PAGE 419

397 Wallerstein, I. 1974 The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century Academic Press, New York. Ward, C. 2000 World History Presentation, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Waters, M. H. and D. R. Kuehn 1996 The Geoarchaeology of Place: The Effect of Geological Processes on the Preservation and Interpretation of the Archaeological Record. American Anthropologist 61(3):483-497. Weaver, M. P. 1993 The Aztecs, Maya, and Their Predecesso rs: Archaeology of Mesoamerica 3rd ed. Academic Press, New York. Weiant, C. W. 1943 An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 139. Welch, D. 2001 The Chacalapan Geophysical Survey, Veracruz, Mexico Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. Submitted to Project Report. Wells, E. C. 2004a Investigating Activity Patterning in Prehispanic Plazas: Acid-Extraction ICP Analysis of Midden Anthrosols at Classic Period El Coyote, Northwest Honduras. Archaeometry 46(1):67-84. 2004b Settlement Archaeology and Political Economy at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. (Book Review). Latin American Antiquity 15(2):243-245. 2006 Cultural Soilscapes In Function of Soils for Human Societies and the Environment edited by E. Frossard, W. E. H. Blum and B. P. Warkentin, pp. 125132. Geological Society, Special Publication 266, London. Wells, E. C., C. Novotny and J. R. Hawken 2007 Quantitative Modeling of Soil Chemical Data from ICP-OES Reveals Evidence for Cooking and Eating in Ancient Mesoamerican Plazas In Archaeological Chemistry: Analytic al Techniques and Archaeological Interpretation edited by M. D. Glascock, R. J. Speakman and R. S. PopelkaFilcoff. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 420

398 Wells, E. C., R. E. Terry, J. J. Parnell, P. J. Hardin, M. W. Jackson and S. D. Houston 2000 Chemical Analyses of Ancient Anthro sols in Residential Areas at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:449-462. Wells, E. C. and P. A. Urban 2002 An Ethnoarchaeological Perspect ive on the Material and Chemical Residues of Communal Feasting at El Coyote, Northwest Honduras In Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology VI edited by P. Vandiver, M. Goodway and J. Mass, pp. 193-198. MRS Proceedings Volume 712. Materials Research Society, Warrendale, Pennsylvania. Weymouth, J. W. 1986 Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 9 edited by M. B. Schiffer. Academic Press, New York. Wheatley, D. and M. Gillings 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. Taylor and Francis, New York. White, L. A. 1959 The Evolution of Culture McGraw-Hill, New York. Whitley, T. G. 2000 Dynamical Systems Modeling in Archaeology: A GIS Approach to Site Selection Processes in the Greater Yellowstone Region. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. 2001 Spatial Variables as Proxies for Modeling Cognition and Decision-Making in Archaeological Settings: A Theoretical Perspective Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th Computer Applications in Archaeology Conference Visby, Gotland, Sweden. Whittle, A. 1996 Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Widmer, R. J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2000 Activity Areas and Assemblages In Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia edited by S. T. Evans and D. L. Webster, pp. 2-4. Garland, New York.

PAGE 421

399 2003 The Role of Kinship and Demogra phy in the Origin of Corporate Groups and Sociopolitical Complexity: A Sout hern United States Perspective. Paper presented at the Society for Ameri can Archaeology 68th Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Williams, H. and R. F. Heizer 1965 Sources of Rock Used in Olmec Monuments. Contributions of the University of California Archaeol ogical Research Facility, Berkeley 1:1-40. Wing, E. S. 1978 Use of Dogs for Food: An Adaptation to the Coastal Environment In Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations: The Economy and Ecology of Maritime Middle America edited by B. L. Stark and B. Voor hies, pp. 29-42. Academic Press, New York. 1981 A Comparison of Olmec and Maya Foodways In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 21-28. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Winters, C. A. 1984 Africans Found First American Civilization. African Monitor 1:16-18. Woods, W. I. 1977 The Quantitative Analysis of Soil Phosphate. American Antiquity 42(2):248-52. Wright, R. 1999 Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny Pantheon, New York. Yaeger, J. 2000 The Social Construction of Communities in th e Classic Maya Countryside: Strategies of Affiliation in Western Belize. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective edited by M. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 123-142. Routledge, New York. Yoffee, N. 2005 Myths of the Archaic State: Evolutio n of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Younker, R. W. 1997 Moabite Social Structure. The Biblical Archaeologist 60(4):237-248.

PAGE 422

400 Appendices

PAGE 423

401 Appendix 1a. Ceramic Analysis: T ypes and Temporal Assignment A Ceramic type identification and assigned temporal period applied to surface and river cut collections, Offerings I & II, and Throne area excavations made in 2002 and 2003. 1100. Differentially Fired Bichromes 1101 Blanco Negro sencillo (no decoration) Middle to Late Formative 1101B Blanco Negro con engobe (slipped) Late Formative 1102 Blanco Negro inciso Middle Formative 1103 Blanco Negro con reborde Late Formative 1105 Negro Naranja sencillo Late Formative to Protoclassic 1105A Negro Naranja pasta arenosa media Late Formative to Protoclassic 1106 Negro Naranja inciso Late Formative to Protoclassic 1109 Crema Negro con desgrasante burdo N/A* 1109A Negro Amarillento pasta arenosa media Early Formative 1110A Negro Blanco con desgrasante medio 1201 Limn Inciso Early Formative 1202 Calzadas Excavado Early Formative 2100 NEGRO PULIDO 2101 Negro pulido erosionado Late Formative 2102 Negro inciso Late Formative 2103 Negro burdo con desgrasante medio Late Formative 2107 Negro burdo con desgrasante burdo Late Formative 3100 GRIS FINO 3101 Gris fino erosionado Middle to Late Formative 3102 Blanco burdo N/A 3102A Blanco caoln Early to Middle Formative 3103 Gris fino con desgrasante medio Early Formative ** 3104 Gris fino inciso N/A 3105 Gris fino con engobe desgrasante medio N/A 4100 NARANJA FINO 4101 Naranja fino sencillo Late Classic 4102 Naranja fino inciso Protoclassic to Early Classic 4103 Naranja fino con engobe rojo Protoclassic to Early Classic 4104 Naranja fino con engobe naranja Late Classic ** 4105 Naranja fino con engobe blanco Late Classic ** 4109 Naranja pulido pasta arenosa media N/A 4110 Naranja fino con desgrasante medio a grueso N/A 4111 Naranja pulido Protoclassic to Early Classic 4201 Caf engobe sobre crema-naranja/crema Protoclassic to Early Classic 5100 CREMA FINO 5101 Crema fino erosionado N/A 5102 Crema fino con engobe naranja Protoclassic to Early Classic 5103 Crema fino con desgrasante medio Protoclassic to Early Classic 5105 Crema con desgrasante burdo N/A 5106 Crema burdo con desgrasante medio N/A 5107 Crema burdo porosa (porosity due to sand) N/A 5108 Hujuapan crema: compacto con desgrasante grueso, algunos con ncleo oscuro (grisceo) N/A

PAGE 424

402 Appendix 1a. Ceramic Analysis: Type s and Descriptions (Continued). 6100 NARANJA BURDO DESGRASANTE MEDIO (Domestic, not considered diagnostic) 6101 Naranja burdo desgrasante medio erosionado 6102 Naranja burdo desgrasante medio con engobe rojo 6103 Naranja burdo desgrasante medio con engobe naranja 6104 Naranja burdo desgrasante medio con engobe blanco 6105 Naranja burdo desgrasante medio inciso 7100 NARANJA BURDO DESGRASANTE BURDO 7101 Naranja burdo erosionado N/A 7101A Naranja burdo con desgrasante de mica cuarzo y ceniza volcnica N/A 7102 Naranja burdo rastrillado N/A 7102A Naranja burdo rastrillado con engobe N/A 7102B Tecomates Early to Middle Formative 7103 Naranja con engobe naranja N/A 7104 Naranja con pintura roja N/A 7105 Naranja con engobe negro N/A 7201 Naranja con desgrasante mica N/A 7201A Naranja amarillento con desgrasante de mica N/A 8100 ROJO EROSIONADO 8101 Rojo erosionado pasta fina Protoclassic to Early Classic 8102 Rojo inciso pasta fina Protoclassic to Early Classic 8103 Rojo con engobe pasta fina N/A 8104 Rojo erosionado pasta medio Protoclassic to Early Classic 8105 Rojo pasta media con engobe Protoclassic to Early Classic 9100 NEGROS BURDOS UTILITARIOS 9101 Negro pulido de pasta media caf rojiza Late Formative to Protoclassic 9102 Negro pulido de pasta media inciso Late Formative to Protoclassic 11.0 Differentially Fired Bi-Chromes (Bicromo por Coccion Diferencial) 11.1 Black White, fine paste Middle Formative 11.2 Black Light Cream, fine paste Middle Formative 11.3 Black Light Cream, fine paste, slipped Late Formative 11.4 Black Light Cream, medium paste Early Formative 11.4A Black Light Cream, medium sand paste Late Formative 11.5 Black White dark-reddish brown slip Late Formative 11.6 Black Light Cream, w/dark-reddish brown slip Late Formative Similar types, unconfirmed: 11.11 Black White, fine-to-medium sand paste Protoclassic to Early Classic ** 11.12 Black Light Cream, same paste anterior Protoclassic to Early Classic ** 21. Polished Black (Negro Pulido) 21.1 Polished Black, fine paste Late Formative 21.2 Polished Black, medium paste Late Formative 21.3 Polished Black, incised Late Formative 21.4 Polished Black, coarse paste Late Formative 21.5 Polished Black, red paste Late Classic

PAGE 425

403 Appendix 1b. Ceramic Analysis: Types and Temporal Assignment B. Ceramic type identification and assigned temporal period applied to river cut bank profiles and test excavations in Fields 1 and 2 made in 2002 and 2004. 31. Fine Grey (Gris Fino) 31.1 Fine Grey, weathered/eroded N/A* 31.2 Grey, medium sand-tempered Early Formative Transitional types: 320.1 Grey, weathered/eroded Protoclassic to Early Classic ** 320.2 Grey, weathered/eroded, red slip Protoclassic to Early Classic ** 41. Fine Orange (Naranja Fina) 41.1 Fine Orange Late Classic 41.2 Fine Orange, dark core Late Classic Transitional types: 420.1 Orange, weathered/eroded Protoclassic to Early Classic ** 420.2 Orange, weathered/eroded, red slip Protoclassic to Early Classic ** 51. Fine Cream (Crema Fina) 51.1 Cream, fine temper Late Classic 51.2 Cream, medium temper N/A 61. Coarse Brown (Caf Burdo) Domestic 61.1 Coarse Brown, mica temper N/A 61.2 Coarse Brown, smoothed, medium temper N/A 61.3 Coarse Brown, medium-to-coarse paste N/A 71. Coarse Orange (Naranjo Burdo) Domestic 71.1 Coarse Orange, medium quartz temper, grey core N/A 71.2 Coarse Orange, medium volcanic ash temper, grey core N/A 71.3 Coarse Orange, medium volcanic ash temper, orange-red core N/A 71.4 Coarse Orange, medium quartz temper, cream-to-red paste N/A 71.5 Coarse Orange, w/coarse quartz temper N/A 71.6 Raked or Scraped surface (rastriado) N/A 71.7 Tecomates Early to Middle Formative 71.8 Coarse Orange, medium quartz temper, Smoothed, light grey-to-orange-cream core N/A 71.9 Smoothed Orange, medium quartz temper, porous N/A 71.10 Coarse Orange, irregular quartz temper, dark grey to dark reddish-brown core N/A 81. Red Paste (Pasta Roja) 81.1 Red Paste, fine Protoclassic to Early Classic** 81.2 Red Paste, dark core Protoclassic to Early Classic** 81.3 Red Paste, coarse N/A 81.4 Red Paste, medium Protoclassic to Early Classic** 81.5 Red Paste, white slip Protoclassic to Early Classic** N/A types are unknown temporally or are considered domestic and not diagnostic. ** Indicates types chronology remains tentative.

PAGE 426

404 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts Offering I TYPE 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1109 2101 2102 2103 2104 3101 UNIT N8W2 LEVEL 12 18 4 7 3 1 19 5 4 13 20 6 6 3 12 1 10 15 7 2 6 7 4 17 49 8 21 47 7 18 23 2 8 14 1 10 1 1 19 35 5 21 6 1 35 2 2 4 1 20 2 1 1 21 3 2 1 22 UNIT N9W3 LEVEL 13 3 1 8 2 14 1 5 1 15 5 1 16 1 2 17 3 3 18 5 1 2 7 2 19 7 2 1 4 2 1 1 20 10 1 7 2 1 21 2 1 1 3 UNIT N9W2 LEVEL 10 17 1 9 19 1 1 11 15 3 1 10 2 1 19 1 2 12 20 3 16 1 34 1 1 13 37 14 2 24 5 1 67 4 1 1 3 14 31 8 3 1 35 11 1 15 40 6 9 7 1 39 2 10 16 7 8 10 2 1 23 1 17 16 1 3 14 1 4 18 12 4 3 2 21 19 18 2 6 19 2 1 20 14 7 15 5 23 2 21 25 2 15 3 21 22 59 12 52 5 3 49 6 12 6 UNIT N10W2 LEVEL n/a 3 3 1 21 1 2 8 1 1 1 TOTALS 501 106 2 1 270 61 7 3 554 42 17 14 59

PAGE 427

405 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Offering I TYPE 3102 3103 3104 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 5101 5102 5103 6101 6102 UNIT N8W2 LEVEL 12 4 3 1 13 13 3 3 2 15 1 1 2 8 1 17 7 11 1 8 23 4 18 4 3 19 1 2 10 1 20 21 2 2 22 2 1 UNIT N9W3 LEVEL 13 1 6 14 2 4 15 16 4 17 1 18 2 9 19 1 6 20 4 21 1 1 UNIT N9W2 LEVEL 10 14 2 71 1 11 6 1 1 4 55 1 12 13 3 1 1 80 13 18 6 3 1 14 5 5 1 15 5 4 1 7 16 6 1 16 17 5 6 18 2 5 1 6 6 2 19 2 8 1 12 20 1 1 2 21 4 3 12 6 22 2 1 7 1 2 2 4 16 UNIT N10W2 LEVEL n/a 1 21 1 1 TOTALS 41 31 1 101 12 6 10 4 16 1 6 377 16

PAGE 428

406 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Offering I TYPE 6103 6104 6105 6106 7101 7102 7103 7104 8101 Burned Clay UNIT N8W2 LEVEL 12 33 7 13 47 4 15 24 2 17 2 116 11 18 31 1 5 2 19 1 40 4 3 6 20 11 2 4 21 6 22 2 UNIT N9W3 LEVEL 13 1 6 4 14 4 15 2 2 1 16 17 5 18 2 13 11 1 19 16 2 4 20 7 5 1 21 3 UNIT N9W2 LEVEL 10 4 4 11 1 3 12 8 1 13 1 106 10 19 14 1 29 2 15 1 42 5 16 1 20 3 9 1 17 3 1 16 9 2 2 18 41 9 10 7 19 36 1 9 20 75 2 4 4 21 2 32 25 15 18 2 22 3 37 3 4 1 UNIT N10W2 LEVEL n/a 5 21 14 1 TOTALS 11 3 3 814 141 67 46 1 29

PAGE 429

407 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). OFFERING II TYPE 1101 1102 1105 1106 2101 2102 2103 2104 3101 3102 3103 Cuadro N9W1 LEVEL 13 24 4 16 6 32 2 2 2 3 14 18 2 9 2 25 1 1 2 7 15 9 2 11 1 14 3 2 4 3 16 7 2 4 6 3 2 1 2 17 2 3 4 1 2 18 4 1 6 6 3 3 19 3 3 6 1 3 20 1 4 3 3 21 6 3 1 5 22 6 5 1 5 1 10 6 23 5 8 1 24 2 1 2 11 6 25 3 4 26 5 1 3 27 1 Cuadro N10W1 LEVEL 14 3 15 1 1 3 1 2 16 2 1 3 17 1 2 1 18 3 1 19 1 2 2 22 1 TOTALS 99 10 62 10 117 2 50 7 11 13 48

PAGE 430

408 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). OFFERING II TYPE 4101 4102 5101 5103 6101 6102 6104 6105 6106 7101 7102 7104 Cuadro N9W1 LEVEL 13 2 1 1 3 80 14 2 4 7 1 1 65 10 12 15 5 59 5 16 1 1 3 2 35 6 17 27 18 20 5 2 19 1 15 20 1 1 24 4 21 1 24 5 22 1 1 1 37 8 1 23 2 20 4 24 2 2 11 14 4 25 1 2 14 2 26 1 2 25 4 27 3 Cuadro N10W1 LEVEL 14 4 1 1 15 1 3 2 16 1 17 4 18 4 19 1 22 4 2 TOTALS 10 1 8 3 48 1 4 2 1 473 60 15

PAGE 431

409 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). THRONE RECOVERY EXCAVATION UNITS UNIT N7W2 TYPE 1101 1102 1103 1105 1106 1107 1108 2101 2102 2103 2104 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 40-50 3 3 8 50-60 7 1 4 60-70 10 2 4 2 70-80 17 3 15 80-90 13 1 6 1 1 17 5 II 90-100 14 1 2 6 8 100-110 1 2 8 2 III 110-120 4 4 5 120-130 140-150 1 UNIT N9W3 Ia 50-60 3 1 1 60-70 2 70-80 1 7 80-90 22 2 14 Ia/II Collapse 8 1 II 90-100 5 1 6 8 1 100-110 3 2 7 III 110-120 3 3 III 200-210 UNIT N8W3 I 40-50 5 1 1 1 50-60 10 8 60-70 7 1 7 70-80 29 4 4 25 1 80-90 7 2 1 16 II 90-100 25 8 6 21 1 100-110 15 2 6 1 15 110-120 1 1 5 III 120-130 2 1 1 2 130140 2 140-150 1 3 140-150 1 1 1 III/IV 150-160 1 1 1 2 4 160-170 2 1 1 1 5 170-180 1 1 V 180-190 IV 190-200 200-210 2 1 210-220 UNIT N9W1 I 60-70 26 7 12 II 60-70 3 4 3 70-80 17 2 2 2 Ia 80-90 27 4 17 Ia/II 90-100 34 6 9 1 29 2 2 II 100-110 34 2 6 33 110-120 47 8 24 7 92 1 4 UNIT N8W2 I 50-60 2 1 1 3 60-70 6 1 6 70-80 9 4 Ia 80-90 17 2 5 1 17 Ia/II 90-100 43 7 7 25 3 II 100-110 30 11 1 22 1 1 UNIT N9W2 II 60-70 7 1 5 Ia 70-80 3 1 2 II 80-90 10 5 6 1

PAGE 432

410 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). THRONE RECOVERY EXCAVATION UNITS UNIT N7W2 TYPE 3101 3102 3103 3104 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 5101 5102 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 40-50 1 5 1 50-60 3 60-70 1 2 7 1 70-80 3 14 4 80-90 4 8 7 11 5 II 90-100 3 3 7 3 100-110 1 5 1 III 110-120 4 3 11 120-130 140-150 UNIT N9W3 Ia 50-60 1 60-70 4 70-80 4 4 1 8 80-90 2 8 2 6 Ia/II Derrumbe 1 II 90-100 2 2 2 3 100-110 7 2 1 III 110-120 2 2 III 200-210 2 UNIT N8W3 I 40-50 1 1 50-60 4 1 7 60-70 1 1 3 70-80 2 10 12 10 7 80-90 7 5 7 II 90-100 11 1 3 3 100-110 3 2 3 5 110-120 1 3 10 1 III 120-130 2 18 130140 2 11 1 140-150 15 140-150 2 4 III/IV 150-160 1 14 160-170 13 170-180 V 180-190 5 IV 190-200 4 200-210 1 210-220 1 UNIT N9W1 I 60-70 3 II 60-70 2 70-80 1 7 Ia 80-90 1 16 19 Ia/II 90-100 5 2 12 12 II 100-110 7 3 7 2 110-120 4 5 7 2 UNIT N8W2 I 50-60 2 2 60-70 8 70-80 6 3 3 Ia 80-90 2 6 19 6 Ia/II 90-100 5 11 10 3 10 2 II 100-110 3 4 2 2 2 UNIT N9W2 II 60-70 1 2 2 1 Ia 70-80 2 1 II 80-90 2 18

PAGE 433

411 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). THRONE RECOVERY EXCAVATION UNITS UNIT N7W2 TYPE 5103 6101 6102 6103 6104 6105 6106 7101 7102 7103 7104 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 40-50 2 18 1 50-60 1 25 60-70 1 27 2 70-80 6 2 56 1 80-90 8 18 66 10 II 90-100 6 4 31 19 100-110 4 10 2 III 110-120 3 1 15 11 120-130 3 1 140-150 1 UNIT N9W3 Ia 50-60 5 4 60-70 4 1 70-80 11 1 10 80-90 41 3 25 10 1 Ia/II Derrumbe 3 4 II 90-100 7 1 10 2 100-110 5 4 2 III 110-120 3 1 1 3 1 III 200-210 1 1 UNIT N8W3 I 40-50 4 50-60 2 22 2 60-70 3 19 1 70-80 21 2 87 7 1 80-90 1 21 3 II 90-100 2 47 13 100-110 5 10 50 11 110-120 1 1 14 7 III 120-130 6 4 130140 20 1 24 15 140-150 2 7 1 140-150 6 4 III/IV 150-160 6 5 1 160-170 1 4 2 170-180 1 V 180-190 2 1 IV 190-200 1 200-210 1 1 8 1 210-220 1 2 UNIT N9W1 I 60-70 3 25 1 II 60-70 8 2 70-80 8 30 Ia 80-90 3 96 2 Ia/II 90-100 12 89 9 II 100-110 4 77 2 110-120 16 99 6 UNIT N8W2 I 50-60 1 5 60-70 15 2 70-80 11 Ia 80-90 9 1 67 Ia/II 90-100 17 2 100 14 2 II 100-110 1 16 3 61 8 3 UNIT N9W2 II 60-70 28 Ia 70-80 5 3 II 80-90 70 1

PAGE 434

412 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). RIVER CUT COLLECTION TYPE 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 2101 2102 2103 2104 3101 SEGMENT 2 3 1 3 3 4 2 2 5 2 1 3 6 3 1 1 7 1 1 8 4 1 11 1 15 9 12 12 5 27 10 12 1 2 1 10 11 21 1 13 15 3 12 52 4 4 19 7 3 3 3 53 9 13 19 3 24 1 11 10 17 9 2 6 14 97 14 49 11 3 14 124 12 14 11 15 16 6 3 3 17 5 2 6 16 23 6 1 8 18 3 17 21 7 26 6 18 1 2 4 19 9 5 17 21 22 24 3 7 18 7 2 23 39 8 4 17 4 15 1 52 3 11 3 24 13 10 2 3 2 1 3 31 4 25 13 8 1 10 4 1 1 3 4 8 3 26 12 1 6 5 6 27 10 1 7 10 10 28 9 28 12 3 1 10 6 29 8 3 30 28 3 5 1 5 2 7 12 1 4 31 34 2 4 2 1 1 6 2 31 3 11 32 3 3 33 8 4 15 1 4 6 1 1 26 34 22 2 7 1 2 1 3 31 7 35 3 1 1 1 2 6 1 37 2 3 1 38 2 10 17 39 1 7 7 1 40 9 4 1 2 6 2 41 7 1 3 4 3 3 1 43 3 1 51 2 1 55 8 TOTALS 531 81 8 4 230 37 9 1 76 1 355 75 373 21 143

PAGE 435

413 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). RIVER CUT COLLECTION TYPE 3102 3103 3104 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4107 5101 5102 5103 5104 6101 6103 SEGMENT 2 1 1 3 1 5 6 4 1 2 13 1 2 4 5 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 7 2 6 12 1 7 2 8 14 1 1 3 7 36 7 9 2 32 5 6 94 10 25 1 2 9 98 3 11 7 12 5 13 20 12 4 17 13 1 1 44 13 4 1 17 2 5 1 14 5 14 11 10 3 1 1 15 136 18 15 5 16 3 3 1 3 5 4 42 16 5 29 8 29 17 3 1 10 2 12 18 1 2 19 21 3 17 21 1 22 3 8 20 4 31 23 8 19 32 4 1 3 10 53 4 24 31 9 5 1 16 25 1 3 1 3 1 18 1 26 6 6 13 2 55 27 2 22 15 17 75 7 28 4 3 1 3 1 23 29 5 7 12 4 1 19 30 5 22 1 5 6 1 25 1 31 3 21 1 5 1 14 3 4 53 1 32 5 4 9 1 12 33 4 18 2 26 8 15 7 26 34 46 23 1 40 2 59 13 153 2 35 19 20 1 1 4 6 60 37 5 9 13 38 3 32 17 1 2 11 54 39 16 11 1 1 18 1 40 10 14 1 3 1 11 1 3 28 41 1 1 8 2 43 4 5 17 2 15 1 1 32 51 1 17 15 15 55 32 4 70 TOTALS 60 390 2 462 14 5 11 16 1 218 19 189 28 1420 54

PAGE 436

414 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). RIVER CUT COLLECTION TYPE 6102 6104 6105 6106 7101 7102 7103 7104 7107 8101 8102 9101 9102 SEGMENT 2 2 3 1 22 5 4 12 5 20 11 6 3 1 7 14 1 8 1 7 1 57 18 9 3 2 2 59 20 3 2 10 3 1 3 48 21 11 49 24 4 12 3 88 23 5 1 13 4 1 2 20 8 5 14 10 5 1 2 129 37 6 1 15 3 3 3 96 31 1 2 3 1 16 54 15 6 2 17 1 31 7 1 18 1 19 30 21 1 22 2 43 10 3 23 5 4 6 3 110 13 10 4 24 1 45 10 4 2 4 2 25 1 3 9 7 1 26 1 3 60 13 1 5 27 2 4 18 72 22 1 2 1 28 2 42 3 3 29 2 31 7 2 1 30 1 1 37 10 1 31 77 12 1 2 1 32 3 2 9 4 1 1 1 33 2 26 5 2 34 1 5 1 2 65 49 35 13 6 13 37 9 11 1 38 39 1 65 11 40 1 52 2 41 20 1 43 18 1 51 10 3 55 TOTALS 54 31 29 38 1540 429 19 32 1 29 3 17 1

PAGE 437

415 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 1 TYPE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11,4a 11.5 11.6 11.11 11.12 21.1 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 2 I 10-20 2 1 2 I 20-30 19 5 7 7 I 30-40 25 18 6 6 30 I 40-50 61 21 10 25 69 I 50-60 24 18 2 14 15 II 60-70 33 43 17 1 49 III 70-80 25 8 4 33 III 80-90 14 11 7 1 16 III 90-100 1 TOTALS 204 119 0 51 54 0 0 1 0 223 UNIT 2 TYPE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11,4a 11.5 11.6 11.11 11.12 21.1 LEVEL Depth (cm) 40-50 35 8 28 50-60 36 8 21 60-70 38 22 11 2 57 70-80 59 9 22 48 80-90 14 1 8 13 90-100 51 18 15 27 100-110 18 6 15 21 110-120 10 7 1 9 TOTALS 261 63 0 88 0 0 0 2 0 224 UNIT 3 TYPE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11,4a 11.5 11.6 11.11 11.12 21.1 LEVEL Depth (cm) II 70-80 3 5 80-90 10 24 19 14 90-100 12 22 5 8 III 100-110 23 21 25 23 110-120 36 15 8 23 27 IV 120-130 43 53 9 38 52 130-140 18 28 15 35 140-150 12 49 28 3 30 150-160 20 21 20 22 160-170 58 35 6 27 IV/V 160-170 10 10 9 14 170-180 51 20 6 21 180-190 16 4 7 V 190-200 20 13 3 12 200-210 5 7 1 4 210-220 6 2 220-230 2 2 2 TOTALS 345 326 17 198 0 3 0 0 0 303

PAGE 438

416 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 1 TYPE 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 31.1 31.2 31.3 320.1 320.2 320.3 41.1 41.2 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 3 I 10-20 2 I 20-30 1 1 13 4 I 30-40 11 4 4 1 59 I 40-50 32 16 4 24 2 51 3 I 50-60 11 3 7 23 1 7 3 II 60-70 49 16 2 9 1 6 7 III 70-80 10 8 2 3 2 III 80-90 6 4 1 1 III 90-100 1 TOTALS 120 52 13 63 1 11 0 0 0 0 146 12 UNIT 2 TYPE 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 31.1 31.2 31.3 320.1 320.2 320.3 41.1 41.2 LEVEL Depth (cm) 40-50 8 1 4 15 50-60 7 2 5 3 60-70 6 16 10 10 3 1 70-80 31 7 16 25 1 17 12 1 80-90 8 3 3 1 5 1 3 90-100 12 22 33 4 2 3 100-110 2 12 110-120 16 1 1 3 TOTALS 88 50 18 82 5 31 0 8 0 0 49 5 UNIT 3 TYPE 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 31.1 31.2 31.3 320.1 320.2 320.3 41.1 41.2 LEVEL Depth (cm) II 70-80 1 24 80-90 17 1 1 63 90-100 5 1 3 1 41 III 100-110 19 2 8 43 110-120 18 1 5 65 IV 120-130 51 7 5 9 158 2 130-140 23 4 4 2 62 140-150 21 5 1 7 108 150-160 29 4 5 78 160-170 16 40 2 IV/V 160-170 9 31 170-180 3 16 180-190 8 11 V 190-200 11 200-210 5 210-220 1 220-230 1 TOTALS 219 23 1 0 14 39 0 0 0 0 758 4

PAGE 439

417 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 1 TYPE 41.3 420.1 420.2 51.1 51. 2 51.3 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 71.1 71.2 71.3 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 1 I 10-20 1 1 I 20-30 6 1 3 2 8 7 I 30-40 2 9 5 2 39 11 8 I 40-50 7 4 10 8 5 48 9 7 I 50-60 6 2 21 3 3 II 60-70 1 29 3 5 III 70-80 2 2 5 10 23 2 1 III 80-90 4 2 20 4 3 III 90-100 TOTALS 0 17 0 7 1 0 29 26 19 0 188 41 27 UNIT 2 TYPE 41.3 420.1 420.2 51.1 51. 2 51.3 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 71.1 71.2 71.3 LEVEL Depth (cm) 40-50 5 22 4 10 50-60 5 19 3 17 60-70 3 1 2 6 2 81 9 10 70-80 1 1 1 18 9 34 80-90 1 2 5 5 90-100 2 4 1 2 100-110 1 3 20 1 110-120 5 1 4 3 TOTALS 0 2 0 3 1 0 2 13 20 0 170 31 81 UNIT 3 TYPE 41.3 420.1 420.2 51.1 51. 2 51.3 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 71.1 71.2 71.3 LEVEL Depth (cm) II 70-80 1 1 2 80-90 3 2 11 3 13 8 11 3 90-100 13 9 13 26 9 III 100-110 4 6 51 9 21 20 20 15 110-120 2 6 14 17 25 25 10 5 IV 120-130 3 7 25 44 63 77 23 13 130-140 6 3 16 11 24 33 14 3 140-150 4 1 57 13 22 48 18 7 150-160 1 1 35 8 24 32 13 3 160-170 4 2 3 16 15 53 2 9 IV/V 160-170 3 6 2 11 20 3 4 170-180 1 2 3 9 44 10 180-190 1 10 1 V 190-200 2 1 2 6 15 3 200-210 2 1 2 1 210-220 1 5 220-230 1 1 4 TOTALS 0 0 0 36 28 0 235 139 248 0 422 137 66

PAGE 440

418 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 1 TYPE 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71.9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 1 3 I 10-20 2 I 20-30 13 11 1 11 6 2 I 30-40 36 21 25 3 4 13 5 2 2 13 1 I 40-50 41 92 77 6 13 9 10 14 3 27 8 I 50-60 11 35 53 1 16 5 1 8 9 II 60-70 11 70 22 2 15 11 2 1 1 4 5 III 70-80 10 12 5 6 3 5 3 8 2 III 80-90 8 6 5 1 2 7 III 90-100 1 3 TOTALS 134 250 188 0 29 60 40 26 19 7 67 25 UNIT 2 TYPE 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71.9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 LEVEL Depth (cm) 40-50 36 1 14 4 5 3 8 2 5 50-60 29 6 3 1 3 9 17 6 1 4 4 60-70 57 5 5 7 6 4 17 7 4 12 70-80 105 21 12 2 16 23 45 2 6 7 18 1 80-90 27 3 3 1 4 1 90-100 26 6 1 6 21 1 18 2 100-110 70 2 1 1 2 1 110-120 82 2 1 1 1 2 2 TOTALS 432 40 41 8 36 66 77 51 16 19 44 1 UNIT 3 TYPE 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71.9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 LEVEL Depth (cm) II 70-80 5 5 7 6 1 80-90 36 14 10 1 3 1 1 90-100 28 21 6 1 2 1 3 1 III 100-110 24 62 18 1 5 3 2 5 6 2 110-120 7 69 44 2 13 IV 120-130 30 86 76 3 4 12 9 5 130-140 12 54 29 2 6 4 1 140-150 13 74 17 2 1 3 1 7 1 150-160 17 56 26 1 6 3 1 2 2 160-170 13 38 10 11 13 IV/V 160-170 10 55 12 2 2 4 4 2 170-180 12 5 8 2 2 5 180-190 1 7 2 1 V 190-200 2 2 200-210 4 3 210-220 1 220-230 2 TOTALS 196 562 265 7 34 0 0 62 24 22 39 6

PAGE 441

419 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 4 TYPE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11,4a 11.5 11.6 11.11 11.12 21.1 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 2 1 I 10-20 1 I 20-30 7 3 7 5 I 30-40 3 3 3 I 40-50 12 4 2 5 I 50-60 1 3 3 II 60-70 1 1 3 II 70-80 1 1 2 II 80-90 1 3 3 1 II 90-100 7 2 II 100-110 2 1 III 100-110 1 3 TOTALS 28 8 0 25 30 0 0 0 0 7 UNIT 5 TYPE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11,4a 11.5 11.6 11.11 11.12 21.1 LEVEL Depth (cm) 30-40 50-60 1 1 70-80 2 1 2 80-90 5 1 4 90-100 2 1 2 100-110 7 1 110-120 23 3 5 1 9 22 120-130 19 5 5 3 3 15 130-140 19 15 2 1 140-150 22 1 11 8 1 13 150-160 10 11 8 1 7 160-170 3 6 6 170-180 6 1 1 4 180-190 3 3 1 TOTALS 122 25 1 57 0 0 0 14 16 72 UNIT 6 TYPE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11,4a 11.5 11.6 11.11 11.12 21.1 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 I 10-20 I 20-30 1 2 1 I 30-40 2 1 1 I 40-50 1 2 I 50-60 2 2 TOTALS 0 4 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 2

PAGE 442

420 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 4 TYPE 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 31.1 31.2 31.3 320.1 320.2 320.3 41.1 41.2 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 1 1 I 10-20 1 I 20-30 1 2 3 1 I 30-40 2 I 40-50 2 1 I 50-60 1 II 60-70 3 II 70-80 II 80-90 2 1 1 II 90-100 2 2 II 100-110 1 III 100-110 TOTALS 12 0 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 0 3 1 UNIT 5 TYPE 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 31.1 31.2 31.3 320.1 320.2 320.3 41.1 41.2 LEVEL Depth (cm) 30-40 50-60 1 4 70-80 1 80-90 1 2 90-100 10 100-110 3 6 110-120 5 16 27 2 120-130 4 7 12 130-140 12 5 10 3 140-150 10 3 1 12 150-160 4 2 2 160-170 9 170-180 3 4 180-190 1 TOTALS 29 8 3 0 0 11 0 0 0 29 85 17 UNIT 6 TYPE 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 31.1 31.2 31.3 320.1 320.2 320.3 41.1 41.2 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 I 10-20 I 20-30 2 I 30-40 2 2 I 40-50 3 I 50-60 1 TOTALS 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0

PAGE 443

421 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 4 TYPE 41.3 420.1 420.2 51.1 51. 2 51.3 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 71.1 71.2 71.3 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 2 1 2 I 10-20 1 I 20-30 1 1 3 2 I 30-40 2 1 2 3 I 40-50 2 1 2 2 3 7 3 2 I 50-60 1 1 II 60-70 6 II 70-80 3 II 80-90 1 II 90-100 6 1 1 II 100-110 6 3 III 100-110 1 5 1 TOTALS 0 6 0 1 2 0 0 7 6 0 39 9 9 UNIT 5 TYPE 41.3 420.1 420.2 51.1 51. 2 51.3 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 71.1 71.2 71.3 LEVEL Depth (cm) 30-40 50-60 2 1 70-80 1 3 5 1 1 80-90 2 1 7 1 1 6 90-100 1 2 6 3 100-110 1 10 2 110-120 3 50 13 7 10 120-130 1 1 2 23 3 21 8 20 130-140 5 24 15 6 15 140-150 2 17 17 11 7 150-160 3 8 2 19 1 7 160-170 10 2 12 9 170-180 1 7 1 6 1 180-190 2 1 2 1 TOTALS 0 6 0 11 5 0 0 137 50 0 107 34 83 UNIT 6 TYPE 41.3 420.1 420.2 51.1 51. 2 51.3 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 71.1 71.2 71.3 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 I 10-20 I 20-30 2 I 30-40 4 3 I 40-50 1 1 5 I 50-60 TOTALS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 3 0

PAGE 444

422 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 4 TYPE 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71.9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 1 2 I 10-20 1 I 20-30 3 10 1 I 30-40 4 4 3 4 8 I 40-50 6 6 6 9 1 I 50-60 2 1 3 2 II 60-70 1 3 6 II 70-80 1 1 1 1 3 II 80-90 2 5 4 2 II 90-100 10 2 2 7 1 II 100-110 1 1 1 2 III 100-110 1 2 2 TOTALS 16 38 19 3 4 27 26 1 0 0 3 2 UNIT 5 TYPE 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71.9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 LEVEL Depth (cm) 30-40 2 1 50-60 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 70-80 4 1 2 1 1 80-90 7 8 3 2 6 1 3 90-100 7 2 3 5 2 5 100-110 5 3 2 4 1 6 4 110-120 39 25 17 1 21 10 23 2 9 120-130 48 39 8 2 6 19 13 130-140 49 14 20 3 8 13 11 6 140-150 35 32 7 1 1 13 15 150-160 24 9 1 2 5 3 5 160-170 11 4 8 1 3 2 1 170-180 12 1 4 3 3 7 180-190 5 5 TOTALS 249 138 70 6 40 47 74 37 3 2 61 1 UNIT 6 TYPE 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71.9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 LEVEL Depth (cm) I 0-10 I 10-20 I 20-30 2 1 I 30-40 7 4 1 1 2 I 40-50 1 1 2 I 50-60 1 TOTALS 7 7 3 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 445

423 Appendix 2 Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 7 TYPE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11,4a 11.5 11.6 11.11 11.12 21.1 LEVEL Depth (cm) 10-20 20-30 1 30-40 1 2 40-50 1 2 50-60 1 4 4 60-70 1 70-80 8 4 2 80-90 6 5 2 90-100 6 6 6 100-110 15 8 13 11 110-120 11 15 4 6 6 120-130 35 43 2 5 14 14 32 130-140 15 52 2 7 6 4 140-150 14 23 3 3 4 15 150-160 3 10 2 6 4 160-170 5 6 2 4 1 170-180 12 1 2 5 200-210 3 TOTALS 123 188 3 13 0 6 28 45 14 90 Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 7 TYPE 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 31.1 31.2 31.3 320.1 320.2 320.3 41.1 41.2 LEVEL Depth (cm) 10-20 20-30 1 2 30-40 8 2 40-50 19 1 1 50-60 23 1 60-70 2 70-80 26 80-90 25 4 90-100 53 4 5 100-110 118 7 110-120 120 1 120-130 5 274 32 2 130-140 1 126 3 140-150 1 93 18 150-160 33 12 1 160-170 3 24 2 16 170-180 41 2 24 3 200-210 TOTALS 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 984 58 3 73 11

PAGE 446

424 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 7 TYPE 41.3 420.1 420.2 51.1 51. 2 51.3 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 71.1 71.2 71.3 LEVEL Depth (cm) 10-20 1 20-30 30-40 5 2 40-50 8 1 50-60 19 3 60-70 1 70-80 22 1 2 1 80-90 14 2 90-100 57 16 1 3 2 100-110 144 3 2 12 7 110-120 84 6 2 1 2 4 3 120-130 185 78 3 3 11 53 9 1 130-140 82 28 3 9 8 2 1 140-150 73 14 9 21 4 3 150-160 6 1 1 3 160-170 5 170-180 2 2 5 4 1 200-210 1 TOTALS 0 702 142 2 0 0 11 16 29 0 116 36 8 Test Excavation Units, Counts and Types UNIT 7 TYPE 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71.9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 81.5 LEVEL Depth (cm) 10-20 20-30 1 30-40 40-50 12 3 50-60 3 3 2 60-70 1 1 70-80 14 1 1 2 80-90 11 1 90-100 13 5 100-110 36 4 2 110-120 50 2 5 6 120-130 44 3 2 7 5 130-140 68 9 2 140-150 27 13 3 1 4 150-160 11 2 1 160-170 6 4 170-180 11 1 200-210 1 2 TOTALS 307 43 12 2 3 22 11 6 0 0 0 0

PAGE 447

425 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Ceramics from Stratigraphic Profiles Profile 1A Type 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.4a 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.5 31.2 320.1 41.1 420.1 51.1 61.2 LEVEL II 2 III 2 1 1 2 1 1 IV 1 1 Profile 1B Type 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.4a 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.5 31.2 320.1 41.1 420.1 51.1 61.2 LEVEL I 3 1 II 1 1 III 1 1 Profile 2A Type 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.4a 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.5 31.2 320.1 41.1 420.1 51.1 61.2 LEVEL I II 1 II 6 1 1 25 2 IIA 2 IIB 2 3 1 1 IIC 6 1 Profile 6B Type 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.4a 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.5 31.2 320.1 41.1 420.1 51.1 61.2 LEVEL I II 2 1 III 1 1 1 2 IIIB Profile 7A Type 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.4a 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.5 31.2 320.1 41.1 420.1 51.1 61.2 LEVEL II 1 II III 1 1 IV 1 IV 1 VI 1 1 VI 1 VI 2 VI 2 VI VI VI VI 1

PAGE 448

426 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Ceramics from Stratigraphic Profiles Profile 1A Type 61.3 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71. 9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.4 81.5 LEVEL II 1 2 1 1 III 1 1 1 2 1 1 IV 1 1 1 Profile 1B Type 61.3 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71. 9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.4 81.5 LEVEL I 1 1 2 1 1 1 II 1 III 1 1 2 1 1 Profile 2A Type 61.3 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71. 9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.4 81.5 LEVEL I 2 1 2 II II 25 2 10 7 1 1 1 IIA 1 1 1 IIB 1 1 1 IIC 1 2 Profile 6B Type 61.3 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71. 9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.4 81.5 LEVEL I 2 II 1 2 1 III 1 4 1 1 IIIB 1 1 Profile 7A Type 61.3 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71. 9 71.10 81.1 81.2 81.4 81.5 LEVEL II II 1 1 III 1 IV 1 1 IV 1 1 VI VI VI VI 1 1 VI 1 VI 1 VI 1 VI

PAGE 449

427 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Surface Collection Type 1101 1101B 1102 1103 1105 1105A 1106 1109 1109A 1110A 1201 1202 2101 2102 2103 UNIT S1E1 S1E2 S2E1 3 S3E1 1 7 S3E2 7 4 7 S4E1 5 S5E1 S1W2 2 S1W3 8 1 S1W6 1 S1W7 S2W1 1 1 2 S2W2 3 1 S2W3 1 2 S2W4 S2W5 S2W6 1 1 S2W9 S3W1 1 1 S3W2 1 1 3 S3W3 S3W5 S4W1 1 2 1 S4W2 1 1 5 6 4 S4W3 2 1 S4W4 7 7 2 3 S4W5 6 3 2 S4W9 1 N1W1 N1W3 N1W4 N1W5 N1W6 25 11 7 5 25 29 6 1 12 N1W8 N2W2 N3W2 N3W3 17 N3W5 1 1 N3W7 4 3 3 N3W9 N4W2 1 N4W3 N4W4 2 1 N4W5 N4W6 1 1 N4W7 N5W3 1 1 1 3 1 N5W4 2 1 N5W5 N5W6 N5W7 N5W8 1 1 N6W3 1 N6W4 N6W5 1 N6W6 16 N6W7 3 1 2 N6W8 N6W9 1 N7W3 1 1 N7W9

PAGE 450

428 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Surface Collection Type 2107 3101 3102 3102A 3103 3104 3105 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4109 4110 4111 UNIT S1E1 1 S1E2 S2E1 3 S3E1 2 S3E2 1 S4E1 2 S5E1 S1W2 1 S1W3 3 S1W6 1 S1W7 S2W1 5 1 S2W2 S2W3 3 S2W4 S2W5 1 S2W6 2 S2W9 S3W1 3 S3W2 1 S3W3 S3W5 S4W1 2 6 S4W2 7 3 2 S4W3 1 4 S4W4 14 3 S4W5 2 2 S4W9 N1W1 N1W3 N1W4 1 N1W5 N1W6 2 1 7 55 3 4 3 2 N1W8 N2W2 1 1 N3W2 1 1 6 2 N3W3 N3W5 1 N3W7 5 4 N3W9 2 N4W2 1 N4W3 N4W4 N4W5 1 N4W6 N4W7 N5W3 2 N5W4 1 N5W5 N5W6 N5W7 N5W8 N6W3 N6W4 N6W5 1 N6W6 1 N6W7 1 N6W8 N6W9 N7W3 N7W9

PAGE 451

429 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Type 4201 5101 5102 5103 5105 5106 5107 5108 6101 6102 6103 6104 6105 6110 7101 UNIT S1E1 2 2 S1E2 1 5 S2E1 10 S3E1 1 12 12 S3E2 3 1 9 21 S4E1 2 6 6 S5E1 1 1 S1W2 1 1 S1W3 7 2 3 1 10 10 S1W6 1 S1W7 2 S2W1 5 1 6 5 S2W2 1 S2W3 4 1 1 3 S2W4 1 S2W5 1 1 5 S2W6 2 S2W9 6 S3W1 2 8 28 S3W2 1 6 S3W3 1 S3W5 1 1 S4W1 5 1 28 S4W2 5 5 4 30 S4W3 2 2 6 5 S4W4 16 4 22 30 12 S4W5 3 3 13 S4W9 N1W1 1 1 N1W3 1 N1W4 1 N1W5 1 N1W6 10 44 16 22 10 3 112 208 N1W8 1 2 N2W2 1 N3W2 2 1 3 4 12 N3W3 1 N3W5 1 1 2 N3W7 2 2 1 7 20 N3W9 1 N4W2 1 2 5 N4W3 2 N4W4 3 N4W5 1 5 N4W6 N4W7 1 2 N5W3 2 2 2 2 12 N5W4 1 3 6 N5W5 3 N5W6 1 N5W7 1 9 N5W8 2 3 6 N6W3 N6W4 N6W5 1 4 1 N6W6 1 4 N6W7 4 N6W8 1 2 N6W9 1 N7W3 3 811 N7W9 1

PAGE 452

430 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Surface Collection Type 7101A 7102 7102A 7102B 7103 7104 7105 7201 7201A 8101 8104 8105 9101 UNIT S1E1 S1E2 S2E1 S3E1 S3E2 2 2 1 1 S4E1 S5E1 S1W2 1 S1W3 1 1 S1W6 S1W7 S2W1 S2W2 S2W3 1 1 S2W4 S2W5 S2W6 S2W9 S3W1 1 S3W2 S3W3 S3W5 S4W1 S4W2 S4W3 S4W4 2 S4W5 S4W9 N1W1 N1W3 N1W4 N1W5 N1W6 3 1 6 3 1 N1W8 N2W2 N3W2 N3W3 N3W5 2 N3W7 3 N3W9 N4W2 N4W3 N4W4 N4W5 N4W6 N4W7 N5W3 4 N5W4 N5W5 N5W6 N5W7 N5W8 N6W3 N6W4 N6W5 1 N6W6 N6W7 N6W8 1 N6W9 N7W3 N7W9

PAGE 453

431 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Surface Collection Type 1101 1101B 1102 1103 1105 1105A 1106 1109 1109A 1110A 1201 1202 2101 2102 2103 UNIT N9W1 10 1 3 N9W2 1 N9W3 2 5 9 N9W4 9 5 1 2 19 N9W5 10 14 1 1 N9W6 1 8 4 7 4 6 N9W7 2 N9W8 1 1 1 N9W9 1 1 1 N10W1 22 1 1 3 1 17 N10W2 2 1 N10W3 5 3 4 3 1 N10W4 1 6 1 8 31 7 N10W5 5 2 N10W6 1 2 N11W1 1 1 5 N11W2 6 1 4 9 N11W3 4 8 N11W4 3 3 7 2 N11W5 1 2 1 1 N11W6 9 3 3 N12W5 N12W6 3 2 5 N12W7 N13W4 N13W5 1 1 N13W6 N13W8 N14W4 N14W5 1 N14W6 N14W7 2 1 N15W6 1 N10E1 17 1 1 1 9 N10E2 1 2 1 N11E1 1 N11E3 N12E1 1 N12E2 10 6 1 15 1 N12E3 16 2 11 N12E4 3 1 6 6 4 N12E5 3 1 2 4 N12E6 1 2 4 4 N13E3 2 3 N13E4 1 1 2 N13E5 2 1 N13E6 6 2 1 4 N13E7 2 1 1 1 N14E1 2 1 2 N14E2 7 N14E3 7 2 6 2 2 N14E4 2 1 N14E6 16 19 3 12 5 N14E7 13 3 1 19 7 N14E9 11 5 4 3 9 4

PAGE 454

432 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Surface Collection Type 2107 3101 3102 3102A 3103 3104 3105 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4109 4110 4111 UNIT N9W1 9 1 6 N9W2 1 4 N9W3 6 9 N9W4 1 17 N9W5 1 1 6 2 N9W6 1 6 N9W7 N9W8 N9W9 N10W1 6 4 5 N10W2 1 N10W3 5 20 N10W4 2 1 29 N10W5 2 N10W6 N11W1 3 1 N11W2 2 2 N11W3 1 4 N11W4 4 N11W5 3 N11W6 2 N12W5 N12W6 N12W7 N13W4 N13W5 N13W6 1 N13W8 N14W4 N14W5 N14W6 3 1 N14W7 N15W6 N10E1 1 11 1 1 1 N10E2 3 N11E1 N11E3 N12E1 1 N12E2 1 N12E3 3 N12E4 10 N12E5 2 N12E6 N13E3 1 1 N13E4 N13E5 N13E6 5 N13E7 3 N14E1 3 N14E2 N14E3 3 N14E4 2 N14E6 3 N14E7 4 3 N14E9 3 2 1

PAGE 455

433 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Surface Collection Type 4201 5101 5102 5103 5105 5106 5107 5108 6101 6102 6103 6104 6105 6110 7101 UNIT N9W1 7 7 47 N9W2 6 7 16 N9W3 2 9 14 60 N9W4 1 1 1 4 9 38 N9W5 6 4 4 1 4 1 43 N9W6 4 3 31 30 N9W7 1 5 N9W8 2 16 N9W9 1 1 3 N10W1 4 2 19 83 N10W2 1 12 N10W3 4 11 24 41 N10W4 10 7 35 64 N10W5 1 12 N10W6 2 17 N11W1 1 4 22 N11W2 1 4 45 N11W3 4 22 N11W4 1 2 17 N11W5 1 3 29 N11W6 2 2 8 23 N12W5 3 N12W6 3 2 N12W7 1 N13W4 3 N13W5 3 N13W6 N13W8 1 3 N14W4 N14W5 1 N14W6 1 N14W7 1 9 35 N15W6 3 N10E1 11 3 4 6 8 5 39 N10E2 1 1 1 N11E1 N11E3 2 N12E1 2 2 N12E2 2 8 N12E3 6 18 N12E4 3 32 N12E5 1 2 15 N12E6 1 1 23 N13E3 2 N13E4 1 N13E5 3 N13E6 1 3 23 N13E7 4 1 N14E1 2 2 N14E2 2 N14E3 3 9 N14E4 N14E6 1 2 7 20 N14E7 1 N14E9 4 6 32

PAGE 456

434 Appendix 2. Ceramic Types and Counts (Continued). Surface Collection Type 7101A 7102 7102A 7102B 7103 7104 7105 7201 7201A 8101 8104 8105 9101 UNIT N9W1 1 1 2 1 N9W2 1 N9W3 N9W4 2 1 1 N9W5 1 5 3 2 N9W6 5 N9W7 N9W8 1 2 1 N9W9 N10W1 4 2 1 6 N10W2 1 1 N10W3 7 7 N10W4 5 2 8 N10W5 N10W6 3 N11W1 1 4 N11W2 2 2 3 1 N11W3 N11W4 3 N11W5 5 3 N11W6 N12W5 N12W6 1 N12W7 N13W4 N13W5 N13W6 N13W8 N14W4 N14W5 N14W6 N14W7 1 N15W6 N10E1 4 2 2 N10E2 1 2 N11E1 N11E3 N12E1 N12E2 3 N12E3 N12E4 N12E5 N12E6 3 N13E3 N13E4 1 N13E5 N13E6 1 N13E7 2 N14E1 N14E2 N14E3 3 1 N14E4 N14E6 3 1 N14E7 N14E9 5 1

PAGE 457

435 Appendix 3a. Obsidian from Test Unit Excavations UNIT ID # LEVEL CAPA SOURCE BLADES FLAKE BIPOLAR QUANTITY PROXIMAL MEDIAL DISTAL 1 43 60-70 II UNK 2 2 1 43 60-70 II GV* 1 1 1 790 70-80 III GV 2 2 1 B 4 20-30 N/A ZAR 1 1 2 1 B 20 30-40 N/A GV 1 1 1 B 20 30-40 N/A ZAR 1 1 2 52 59-69 II GV 1 1 2 81 79-89 N/A GV* 1 1 2 81 79-89 N/A GV 2 2 2 85 39-49 N/A GV 1 1 2 67 69-79 II GV 2 2 2 67 69-79 II ZAR 2 2 2 236 40-50 N/A GV 1 1 3 127 120-130 IV ZAR 1 1 3 127 120-130 IV ZAR 5 5 3 127 120-130 IV ZAR 1 1 3 127 120-130 IV ZAR 1 1 3 127 120-130 IV GV 4 4 3 102 2 I ZAR 1 1 3 117 100-110 III GV 2 2 3 126 110-120 III-IV ZAR 2 2 3 126 110-120 III-IV ZAR 1 1 3 147 160-180 IV GV 1 1 3 147 160-180 IV ZAR 1 1 3 114 90-100 II GV 1 1 3 114 90-100 II ZAR 1 1 3 114 90-100 II ZAR 1 1 3 135 130-140 IV ZAR 5 1 6 3 135 130-140 IV ZAR 1 1 3 135 130-140 IV GV 1 1 3 158 160-170 IV GV 2 2 3 140 140-150 IV ZAR 1 1 4 235 50-60 N/A GV 1 1 4 237 100-110 N/A ZAR 1 1 7 295 60-70 II ZAR 1 1 Totals 4 11 3 34 4 56

PAGE 458

436 Appendix 3b. Obsidian from Throne Excavations. UNIT CAT # LEVEL CAPA SOURCE BLADES FLAKE BIPOLAR QUANTITY N W PROXIMAL MEDIAL DISTAL 2 2 472 5 II GV 1 1 3 1 407 8 IV GV 1 1 3 2 128 4 II GV* 1 1 3 3 461 5 II ZAR 3 3 3 3 459 4 I ZAR 1 1 1 225 9 III GV 1 1 4 1 237 13 V GV 1 1 4 1 222 8 III GV 1 1 4 2 249 7 IV GV 2 2 4 2 242 5 I GV 1 4 2 250 7 IV UCA* 1 1 4 2 240 4 I GV 1 1 4 3 202 21-30 I GV 2 2 4 3 206 40-50 II ZAR 1 1 4 3 204 30-40 I GV 1 1 5 1 184 8 III GV 2 2 5 1 178 7 II ZAR 1 1 5 1 174 6 I GV 1 1 5 1 168 4 I ZAR 1 1 5 1 168 4 I GV 2 2 5 2 156 60-70 II GV 1 1 6 3 105 6 I GV 1 1 6 3 105 5 I ZAR 1 1 7 1 75 60-70 I GV 1 1 7 2 54 50-60 I GV 1 1 7 3 88 110-120 III GV 1 1 8 1 20 90-100 II PAC 1 1 8 1 20 90-100 II GV 1 1 8 2 339 100-110 II GV 2 2 8 2 309 80-90 I-A GV 1 1 8 2 650 190-200 N/A GV 1 1 8 2 306 60-70 I GV 2 2 8 2 629 170-180 N/A GV 1 1 8 2 376 150-160 V GV 1 1 8 3 9 70-80 I GV 1 1 8 3 28 100-110 II GV 1 1

PAGE 459

437 Appendix 3b. Obsidian from Throne Excavations (Continued). UNIT CAT # LEVEL CAPA SOURCE BLADES FLAKE BIPOLAR QUANTITIY N W PROXIMAL MEDIAL DISTAL 9 1 651 210-220 INTRU GV 1 1 9 1 303 70-80 I ZAR 1 1 9 1 318 90-100 I-A ZAR 2 2 9 1 318 90-100 I-A GV 1 1 9 2 606 150-160 V GV* 1 1 9 2 271 90-100 II GV? 1 1 10 3 539 110-120 N/A GV 1 10 3 539 110-120 N/A UNK N/A 1 N E 9 1 324 150-160 II-BS ZAR 1 1 9 1 307 150-160 BAJO II GV 1 1 9 1 195 110-120 BAJO II GV 1 1 Totals 3 11 0 36 5 55

PAGE 460

438 Appendix 3c. Obsidian fr om Offerings I and II OFFERING I CAT # LEVEL CAPA SOURCE BLADES FLAKE BIPOLAR QUANTITY PROXIMAL MEDIAL DISTAL 339 100-110 II GV 2 2 309 80-90 I-A GV 1 1 28 100-110 II GV 1 1 650 190-200 N/A GV 1 1 306 60-70 I GV 2 2 629 170-180 N/A GV 1 1 606 150-160 V GV 1 1 271 90-100 II GV 1 1 376 150-160 V GV 1 1 Totals 0 1 0 8 2 11 Offering II 651 210-220 INTRU GV 1 1 324 150-160 II-BS ZAR 1 1 307 150-160 BAJO II GV 1 1 195 110-120 BAJO II GV 1 1 Totals 1 1 0 2 0 4

PAGE 461

439 Appendix 4a. Lithics from Surface Collection. UNIT LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT DESCRIPTION N1 W4 9.25 8.5 7 Large base/foot of metate? N1 W6 11 7 3.75 Mano end fragment N4 W3 9.5 8.25 6 Mano fragment N4 W4 7.5 5.5 4.5 Metate fragment N4 W4 5.5 5.5 4 Metate fragment with base/foot N4 W4 8.5 10 6 Metate fragment N4 W4 13.5 10 11.75 Metate fragment multiple ground planes N6 W9 12 11 8 Basalt chunk, rounded on edge N7 W3 8.5 8 5.5 Metate edge fragment N7 W5 10.5 6.5 7 Basalt chunk, rounded on edge N9 W1 5 3.5 3.25 Fine stone, ground on both sides N9 W3 6.75 2.75 1.5 Mano fragment N9 W3 4.5 4 3.25 Basalt fragment N9 W3 5 2.5 2 Basalt fragment N9 W3 4 2 1.5 Basalt fragment N9 W3 3 2.75 3.5 Basalt fragment, one side ground N9 W4 5 4 3 Possible metate fragment N9 W4 5 4 2.25 Basalt fragment N9 W4 6 3.5 2.5 Possible mano fragment N9 W5 55 5 2 Mano fragment N9 W5 6 5 5.5 Mano fragment N9 W6 4 3 3.75 Basalt chunk, one side ground N10 W 2 6.5 4 5 Basalt fragment N10 W 2 4 3 3 River cobble, polished flst on two sides N10 W1 13.25 8.25 6.25 Metate edge fragment N10 W3 6.75 6.5 4.5 Metate fragment, 3 overlapping holes in work surface N10 W3 2.25 2 2 Basalt fragment N10 W3 3.5 3 3 Basalt fragment N10 W4 6 4.5 4 Metate fragment N10 W4 6 5 3 Metate fragment N10 W4 3.75 5.25 2.25 Basalt fragment N10 W4 6 3.5 2.25 Basalt fragment N10 W4 4.5 3 2 Basalt fragment N10 W4 6 4.75 4 Metate fragment? N10 W5 7.5 6.5 4 Mano fragment N10 W5 6.75 6 3 Metate fragment? N10 W5 4.75 4 4 Metate fragment? N10 W5 6.75 6 3.25 Metate fragment? N10 W5 Burned clay N10 W9 4.25 3.25 2.5 Polishing stone, basalt N10 W9 5.5 3.5 4 Basalt chunk N11 W1 12 11 9.5 Basalt chunk N11 W2 7.5 5 2.75 Metate fragment? N11 W2 Burned clay N11 W4 11.5 5 5.5 Basalt fragment, curved edge N11 W4 8.5 6.5 5.5 Fine-grained metate fragment N11 W6 3.75 3.5 3 Basalt fragment N12 W1 17.5 15 9 Basalt chunk, multiple grooves ground at angles

PAGE 462

44012 W5 6 agment 13 W1 9 9 se/foot 13 W3 17 ment 14 W6 112 t chunk 14 W7 85.75 gment S1 W1 6.5 5 gment S1 W1 pieces S1 W1 53.25 agment S1 W2 110 ment? W3 109.25 oint W3 9.5 8 4 oint S2 E1 1 gment S2 E2 115.5 gment 2 E2 7.5 7.5 4 ent W0 11.5 9 ent W0 13.5 11 ent W0 8 5 4 ent W1 10 65 5 und W1 8 8 /foot S2 W1 64.5 gment S2 W1 6.7 gment S2 W1 17.75 ment S3 E2 rnt clay S3 W1 8 8 e form S3 W1 8.75 ment? S3 W2 5.5 gment S3 W4 14.75 ment S4 W0 6 5 agment S4 W0 7.25 ment? S4 W0 7.5 gment S4 W0 9.71 gment S4 W1 6.5 gment S4 W2 6 5 ent? S4 W2 6.5 4 ent? S4 W2 111 ment S4 W2 rnt clay S4 W4 5.5 bit end Appendix 4a. Lithics from Surface Collection (Continued). N 8 .5 7.75 Basalt fr N 9 Metate fragment with ba N 0 .5 5.25 Metate edge frag N 1 7 Basal N .25 5 Metate fra N14 W7 15 8 5.5 Metate fragment, groove ground into non-work surface 4 Metate fra Burned clay .25 3.5 Basalt fr 2 6.5 Metate frag S1 3 Wedge-shaped piece, worn to p S1 .25 Wedge-shaped piece, worn to p 9 0 5.75 Metate fra .5 4.5 Metate fra S .25 Rectangular metate edge fragm S2 5 Metate fragm S2 7 Mano end fragm S2 .25 Mano fragm S2 .25 Metate fragment? Both lateral sides gro S2 9 Metate fragment with base S2 W1 7 4.75 3.75 Mortar, polishing stone, worn on multiple edges .5 6 indeterminate fra 10 5 6.75 Possible metate fra 18.5 4 Metate edge frag S2 W11 8 8 7 Possible mano fragment, wedge-shaped, convex wear S2 W2 22 20.5 4.5 2 pieces of same metate, edge pieces S3 E2 9.5 7.5 3 Metate fragment, edge S3 E2 7.5 3.5 3.5 Rounded fragment of fine-grained stone Bu 4 indeterminat 7 3.25 Metate frag S3 W1 6.5 7.25 5.25 Circular stone, one side flattened from grinding motion 7 4 Mano fra 16.5 5 Metate edge frag S4 E1 18 6.5 6 Sandstone chunk, possibly worked 3 Basalt fr 5 5.75 Metate frag 5 5.75 Metate fra 5 0 5.75 Metate fra S4 W0 9.75 7 4.75 Donut shaped fragment (see Coe & Diehl 1980) 5 4.75 Possible metate fra S4 W1 4 4 4.25 Rectangular polishing stone, worn on 5 surfaces S4 W1 7 4 6 Wedge-shaped piece, worn to point (see photos) 4 Metate fragm 3.5 Metate fragm 4 4 Metate edge frag Chunk of bu 5 1.75 Celt fragment,

PAGE 463

441 Appendix 4b. Lithics from River Cut Collection. UNIT LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT DESCRIPTION 30 12.5 10 3.5 Metate edge fragment 13 7 6 Metate edge fragment, fine grained stone 18 9.5 3.5 Metate edge fragment 7.5 5.75 5 Metate edge fragment 7 5 2.75 Metate edge fragment 29 7.5 3 1.75 Polishing stone 7 6 4 Grinding stone, pestle or mano? 7 5 4.25 Metate fragment 35 7 5.5 3.5 Metate fragment 6 4 3 Metate fragment 38 12.5 10 4.5 Metate edge fragment 12 11.5 4 Metate edge fragment 8.5 7.5 4.5 Mano fragment 16 12.5 11 Metate fragment, with large foot/base 6.75 5 3.75 Mano fragment, dogboned 8 6 4 Metate Fragment 14 14 9 5 Mano end fragment 9.25 7.5 0.75 Possible stone bowl Burned clay, stick impression on back 39 12.5 9 5.25 Metate edge fragment with broken base/foot 10 7 2.25 Possible stone bowl 33 15 11 12 Metate fragment, with large foot/base 31 11.5 8 10 Metate fragment, with large foot/base 7.25 5 5.5 Mano end fragment 55 Burned clay, stick impression on back 11 6.5 4.5 Mano end fragment 37 8 7 6.5 Metate fragment 5 4.5 3 Metate fragment 12 10.25 2.75 Metate fragment 28 7 7 3.75 Metate fragment Burned clay, stick impression on back 46 8 6.5 5.5 Metate fragment with base/foot 36 9.5 9 4 Metate edge fragment 20 14 3.5 Metate edge fragment

PAGE 464

442 Appendix 4c. Unprovenienced Lithics. LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT DESCRIPTION Field 1 NE Complex 11 6 7 Metate, ground/polished on opposing lateral sides Field 9 Throne Area 23.5 7 5.5 Semi-circular piece, ground on one lateral side Field 7 Corte 6 5.5 4.25 Polishing stone, ground &highly polished on multiple facets 4.75 2 2.75 Polishing stone, ground/polished flat on one side 4 3.5 2.75 Polishing stone 15 9 3.5 Worked & ground on one side

PAGE 465

443 Appendix 5a. Soil Survey I Element Data Table These data represent milligrams of each element per kilogram of soil for each sample assay. Sample Al Ba Ca Co Fe Hg K SSI 1A 46.27899 6.95842 80.31690 22.38050 8.19557 SSI 1B 41.98015 7.48179 79.19162 20.66994 12.14355 SSI 1C 50.50095 12.39059 190.63801 33.67690 4.15246 SSI 1D 38.88954 7.46449 89.64925 26.80758 2.37706 SSI 1E 36.25626 5.37691 38.26033 16.52622 18.16273 SSI 1F 36.30344 3.67620 40.93276 15.78894 6.26875 SSI 1G 23.57090 3.54834 61.03130 11.98712 4.09745 SSI 1H 23.84102 3.39814 63.05538 13.85461 2.53591 SSI 1J 25.87208 1.92622 28.39960 10.44974 7.84405 SSI 2B 37.96359 3.81524 47.31406 20.32670 2.77057 SSI 2D 45.57285 13.61250 162.66245 31.90691 30.92444 SSI 2F 29.37825 5.32823 68.35914 17.34797 4.42239 SSI 2H 22.38881 3.03744 39.97624 11.82101 11.72565 SSI 3A 30.60537 4.50840 65.20623 13.58852 20.43844 SSI 3B 36.55244 6.05550 69.06253 21.13737 28.60981 SSI 3C 42.99596 10.38535 148.85179 30.29521 4.21676 SSI 3D 45.47861 11.74074 142.76188 26.49229 22.99213 SSI 3E 41.45586 8.94676 117.00710 29.00281 5.96915 SSI 3F 25.54357 5.51269 76.79116 11.92946 4.14700 SSI 3G 24.55265 2.26187 86.81113 19.57455 45.93559 SSI 3H 23.82427 4.67430 56.41112 13.40603 10.26780 SSI 3J 18.64879 2.28767 22.88594 10.95669 5.47490 SSI 4B 27.28843 4.57540 59.09893 15.05428 13.67333 SSI 4D 39.05136 9.31994 161.86211 25.60099 3.26552 SSI 4F 38.02093 6.79810 71.28911 26.31700 10.48852 SSI 4H 26.31549 4.85090 65.86992 18.27854 3.45979 SSI 5A 29.40744 3.86730 69.74373 14.55514 9.83500 SSI 5B 23.00083 2.00162 31.44575 11.15362 1.55362 SSI 5C 48.01753 7.50455 147.84943 33.46577 21.44720 SSI 5D 35.64687 6.56198 116.86411 22.49932 2.25013 SSI 5E 34.94691 5.99784 95.94223 19.19654 2.75093 SSI 5F 31.26345 7.23284 102.98017 16.12889 2.19920 SSI 5G 21.00091 5.76925 83.20275 12.95991 23.36500 SSI 5H 23.74582 4.89426 58.11349 12.84984 15.26955 SSI 5J 26.46756 3.02666 43.55273 13.61441 3.19322 SSI 6B 32.41210 5.12423 74.19866 19.06522 9.93412 SSI 6D 38.08037 7.51686 107.35314 27.52899 25.15929 SSI 6F 26.43410 4.94633 85.64640 19.13030 18.50885 SSI 6H 26.57819 4.55360 44.42122 15.45776 1.92026 SSI 7A 38.71656 4.45477 63.82657 25.79616 3.62476 SSI 7B 34.50775 5.00667 69.76892 18.47548 3.38539 SSI 7C 43.12024 6.13253 82.91977 26.68925 3.09841 SSI 7D 37.79820 6.08475 73.84114 18.56893 3.44318 SSI 7E 38.39280 5.19201 61.76023 21.52307 3.17966

PAGE 466

444 Appendix 5a. Soil Survey I Elem ent Data Table (Continued) Sample Al Ba Ca Co Fe Hg K SSI 7F 19.28451 3.47367 65.62409 9.67938 19.62676 SSI 7G 24.35553 3.88660 67.77998 14.70312 3.60264 SSI 7H 29.38108 2.13991 22.47523 14.61452 2.25540 SSI 7J 23.93548 2.92943 37.18708 10.00183 2.96737 SSI 8B 40.84524 7.32562 124.69099 25.02605 4.32205 SSI 8D 36.29955 4.29508 44.79480 19.79197 4.56364 SSI 8F 23.98740 4.70926 78.36334 14.43819 10.75810 SSI 8H 22.73541 2.42860 40.55260 11.07280 1.75262 SSI 9A 48.28687 7.79871 109.87587 30.31307 2.96638 SSI 9B 33.21681 7.81350 131.28316 24.93407 2.69492 SSI 9C 46.88053 7.44587 107.47917 33.34297 4.66775 SSI 9D 36.71354 6.86329 114.88820 25.44579 2.51741 SSI 9E 37.00562 4.86397 79.91177 21.01711 3.32089 SSI 9F 35.48067 5.48527 86.96600 22.79831 2.58809 SSI 9G 40.13195 4.51003 59.79580 22.29244 3.51998 SSI 9H 35.22436 2.89283 51.81914 20.35580 3.76397 SSI 9I 33.19483 4.41314 53.76274 17.12185 1.74132 SSI 10B 39.76005 5.75203 75.19808 15.91002 2.64938 SSI 10D 31.30684 5.90148 72.21900 17.70848 26.73321 SSI 10F 41.01361 5.41208 75.12513 20.22488 2.32573 SSI 10H 44.01563 2.94819 36.53868 18.84199 1.87419 SSI 11A 41.91016 5.74460 63.56736 23.02402 40.51894 SSI 11B 41.03852 4.99151 61.02886 19.32572 2.49349 SSI 11C 27.10358 5.47144 66.40843 13.91861 8.81287 SSI 11D 42.31594 7.18824 103.23333 22.95194 3.00512 SSI 11E 49.72697 7.19515 100.77452 29.87320 4.22010 SSI 11F 52.79392 6.20168 75.98833 32.81772 3.21695 SSI 11G 46.92884 4.97077 58.98785 18.48163 5.39693 SSI 11H 53.77295 6.04945 66.10473 26.63517 2.92788 SSI 11J 38.95252 7.36914 113.86382 30.33881 3.25554 SSI 12B 28.78177 4.20423 46.84328 12.18055 13.48206 SSI 12D 40.41696 7.59787 105.50368 22.26292 3.01001 SSI 12F 37.46622 3.92277 51.88425 19.47060 3.98989 SSI 12H 29.36070 5.57691 100.53435 15.15105 4.39078 SSI 13A 32.11181 3.55728 42.70594 15.47904 1.75730 SSI 13B 41.12798 4.95859 61.35549 21.59492 2.88532 SSI 13C 51.05868 6.70466 96.40014 26.29946 9.45526 SSI 13D 41.63357 7.00470 70.89775 25.53645 14.20075 SSI 13E 32.67789 4.21100 46.77374 17.69021 5.59540 SSI 13F 34.85477 3.54756 45.34793 16.73970 3.64007 SSI 13G 31.54506 5.47436 71.49616 17.52384 7.61948 SSI 13H 46.24418 6.54249 86.00217 23.74616 2.57200 SSI 13J 40.63182 3.66657 51.54723 19.36370 4.46675

PAGE 467

445 Appendix 5a. Soil Survey I Elem ent Data Table (Continued) Sample Mg Mn Na Ni P Sr Ti Zn SSI 1A 12.50138 3.13190 4.55013 0.17105 0.89937 SSI 1B 7.92235 1.46966 4.53045 0.22994 0.28147 SSI 1C 16.17259 7.06808 7.52738 0.65225 0.29047 0.11871 SSI 1D 9.94876 3.49371 4.83734 0.34273 0.57626 SSI 1E 4.64726 3.98862 4.59406 0.16861 0.47843 SSI 1F 5.55904 4.72129 4.43341 0.07512 1.73273 0.43115 SSI 1G 8.45147 0.44520 4.63607 0.04892 SSI 1H 10.91090 1.71610 8.72399 0.05855 1.68265 SSI 1J 6.04280 1.27278 4.55160 0.01386 1.50879 0.20928 SSI 2B 12.02584 1.33307 4.78843 0.10733 2.83300 0.48028 SSI 2D 19.13455 3.46910 5.39400 0.57410 0.95863 0.12430 SSI 2F 18.95995 2.22050 5.01432 0.13553 1.56901 SSI 2H 2.93107 3.27790 4.41950 0.05870 1.11019 0.40296 SSI 3A 12.04422 0.21705 4.67051 0.06893 0.46215 SSI 3B 7.93250 2.44644 4.69057 0.13353 1.63070 SSI 3C 20.93322 1.92096 5.20553 0.38392 4.04519 0.07307 SSI 3D 14.19106 2.63197 4.87003 0.39292 1.11939 0.02863 SSI 3E 14.40913 3.90609 6.54347 0.34894 1.59783 0.13734 SSI 3F 12.22339 2.06659 4.73096 0.12290 SSI 3G 7.31907 3.96919 9.45307 0.13308 0.71177 0.01756 SSI 3H 10.67512 2.66696 3.90639 0.13923 2.28233 SSI 3J 4.43087 7.89149 3.64859 0.09847 1.15354 0.26960 SSI 4B 7.86124 0.25334 4.61151 0.11341 0.94358 SSI 4D 16.71645 5.36919 0.32153 0.72498 0.02629 SSI 4F 9.52576 4.44187 4.74547 0.18166 1.94217 0.04087 SSI 4H 7.32142 4.00114 4.62722 0.14426 1.26646 SSI 5A 7.98315 4.92452 4.71848 0.19701 0.67011 SSI 5B 2.06359 0.81846 4.71653 0.04415 0.96791 0.29938 SSI 5C 19.07835 4.36892 4.62622 0.36197 4.91511 0.25167 SSI 5D 9.84883 1.11543 4.83171 0.20502 1.14731 0.00199 SSI 5E 12.38191 1.98908 4.96656 0.22143 1.88595 SSI 5F 9.01564 2.57824 5.24130 0.24744 2.18279 SSI 5G 6.22475 5.62873 4.78824 0.15568 SSI 5H 7.32216 2.65171 4.51235 0.11345 0.63299 SSI 5J 5.58770 4.25781 4.86562 0.06816 0.95496 0.40045 SSI 6B 14.17830 3.25241 4.94382 0.23018 1.63160 SSI 6D 9.47349 1.77062 4.48562 0.17138 1.60697 0.07669 SSI 6F 11.10244 4.96171 4.84446 0.20546 1.48186 SSI 6H 6.33454 4.46230 4.54331 0.11739 0.58325 0.44256 SSI 7A 8.11176 5.23658 4.43353 0.11233 3.32095 0.52683 0.04094 SSI 7B 7.29830 0.43654 5.05301 0.19131 2.53190 0.63022 SSI 7C 7.68638 3.15336 5.42393 0.21734 1.94649 0.76268 0.00190

PAGE 468

446 Appendix 5a. Soil Survey I Elem ent Data Table (Continued) Sample Mg Mn Na Ni P Sr Ti Zn SSI 7D 7.25681 1.91960 4.84821 0.13850 2.24812 0.73666 SSI 7E 6.00596 5.50466 4.06161 0.12124 1.19061 0.66041 SSI 7F 9.77971 4.60457 0.03933 0.85342 0.55584 SSI 7G 8.89097 1.28283 4.28082 0.04528 1.20066 0.57456 SSI 7H 3.38741 0.25734 4.17245 1.84473 0.25807 SSI 7J 5.20094 0.18149 4.42564 0.01542 0.86010 0.38414 SSI 8B 14.66183 1.76190 6.67129 0.24290 1.51484 1.05630 SSI 8D 6.38305 2.05892 4.29675 0.07271 1.32953 0.53264 SSI 8F 16.01282 4.11078 0.06682 4.09200 0.78395 SSI 8H 6.66603 3.06273 4.96995 0.82366 0.43068 SSI 9A 19.53867 2.77641 4.44286 0.26459 1.68681 1.15949 0.07931 SSI 9B 17.26322 0.45858 4.91940 0.17355 1.48568 1.43542 0.02015 SSI 9C 14.48849 2.23457 4.29938 0.23180 2.16798 1.26345 0.07975 SSI 9D 15.16290 2.33328 5.50618 0.20226 1.11460 1.33164 0.01238 SSI 9E 12.47587 0.21876 4.47805 0.08807 1.32978 1.06074 SSI 9F 7.16142 1.39494 4.62318 0.09820 2.48020 1.21228 SSI 9G 5.80396 5.30894 6.44953 0.07198 2.16827 0.89014 SSI 9H 10.12885 2.08684 5.10528 0.00521 8.38305 0.71955 SSI 9I 6.81432 0.29292 4.54103 0.07818 2.62470 0.84056 SSI 10B 9.41873 4.59815 0.18933 1.19314 SSI 10D 9.29524 0.53952 4.38060 0.14503 0.66031 1.17023 SSI 10F 7.67065 2.50966 5.00664 0.10795 0.90841 1.27182 SSI 10H 6.66441 4.30015 0.03217 4.00374 0.68846 SSI 11A 13.07734 2.35807 4.95543 0.08738 3.99749 1.07209 0.13538 SSI 11B 9.59452 1.94502 5.08239 0.10578 1.22848 1.07900 SSI 11C 13.15654 5.57975 0.08724 0.77318 1.15881 SSI 11D 13.44010 1.43958 4.43313 0.20156 1.44526 1.86566 SSI 11E 13.63375 0.88503 5.85839 0.20593 1.80335 0.17888 SSI 11F 11.48940 8.33162 4.60212 0.15120 3.42105 1.50401 0.02987 SSI 11G 10.55139 4.72779 0.08295 5.84076 1.16785 SSI 11H 7.84782 0.86796 4.55874 0.17502 2.22114 1.47863 SSI 11J 14.55973 0.76175 4.83702 0.22831 0.97614 2.10256 SSI 12B 8.36874 1.03738 4.39238 0.06797 0.59124 0.99496 SSI 12D 8.85408 2.66463 4.68031 0.22745 0.37729 2.10175 SSI 12F 6.62488 2.01478 6.05434 0.07443 1.86649 1.07264 SSI 12H 16.47854 4.93746 0.10883 0.80671 2.05096 SSI 13A 9.95398 4.13118 0.00767 0.94412 SSI 13B 10.22171 0.44458 4.33061 0.11727 0.67825 1.32647 SSI 13C 15.96660 0.35451 6.10800 0.17119 0.67676 1.95897 0.03536 SSI 13D 9.32694 1.19856 4.80171 0.15206 1.08702 1.68669 SSI 13E 6.43693 0.60768 4.61915 0.08671 1.31607 1.06683 SSI 13F 6.22304 0.24829 5.90602 0.03214 0.32407 1.01095 SSI 13G 5.80652 0.10139 4.19245 0.06402 0.69795 1.52187 SSI 13H 12.37071 1.36251 4.53572 0.16398 0.59881 2.10708 SSI 13J 6.40537 0.30435 5.54684 0.03577 1.06526 1.07851

PAGE 469

447 Appendix 5b. Soil Survey II Element Data These data represent milligrams of each element per kilogram of soil for each sample assay. Sample Al Ba Ca Co Fe Hg K SSII 1A 23.24016 4.69418 46.57284 15.42904 0.20536 19.73990 SSII 1C 12.10235 4.80681 77.78754 6.67439 1.90208 SSII 1E 25.72419 6.65073 87.67686 13.72481 2.60113 SSII 1G 18.91567 5.19524 77.18959 13.25205 2.43700 SSII 1J 12.89465 4.92794 73.25304 6.89125 1.27266 SSII 1L 11.13800 5.86913 89.85112 6.62198 7.61039 SSII 1N 11.69565 7.00292 110.50317 7.08051 2.07441 SSII 1Q 23.93019 10.13845 138.06851 22.78972 2.36286 SSII 1S 19.58770 10.66367 160.19095 14.33361 1.94556 SSII 3A 30.19855 4.96350 71.78878 14.91695 1.86697 SSII 3C 27.88376 5.10053 52.91916 12.43874 1.78582 SSII 3E 34.83821 3.94207 50.66491 16.40576 3.28401 SSII 3G 16.45423 3.52205 46.43253 8.85350 10.91104 SSII 3J 22.14046 3.78873 47.67450 12.89303 3.55624 SSII 3L 19.69308 5.06657 55.39376 10.56411 7.40841 SSII 3N 22.27757 6.83593 78.32361 10.61998 8.58587 SSII 3Q 31.12890 4.33410 41.22461 15.14150 3.55661 SSII 3S 33.05553 3.25266 21.55465 11.00712 14.74821 SSII 5A 28.02662 6.50486 135.35786 39.68184 20.84294 SSII 5C 17.60198 1.89965 49.34631 12.25393 4.70270 SSII 5E 22.92988 3.46680 40.88606 8.69443 18.59387 SSII 5G 22.08484 2.80688 39.88893 9.68399 8.99501 SSII 5J 16.13557 3.08691 53.84195 16.40705 8.87021 SSII 5L 18.84701 1.08855 44.08623 11.55277 40.01736 SSII 5N 26.96175 5.37836 56.37149 14.31613 11.42719 SSII 5Q 18.31729 3.30614 51.12114 8.89519 8.47659 SSII 5S 20.76771 5.30591 68.70477 18.98377 2.60037 SSII 7A 21.98177 6.47180 61.40696 10.87207 8.20665 SSII 7C 17.82974 3.50299 73.48505 9.32876 7.94643 SSII 7E 25.31375 4.56393 54.06594 14.44008 4.92487 SSII 7G 23.47814 3.75596 72.25705 10.32189 17.62495 SSII 7J 20.89692 3.33561 32.70418 7.29979 10.29784 SSII 7L 22.37287 5.34604 62.42732 10.05124 4.22397 SSII 7N 15.60065 3.12228 51.65699 7.38557 2.87022 SSII 7Q 23.81409 3.41911 43.80798 9.56719 2.16199 SSII 7S 23.14527 5.25630 75.82109 10.06222 11.34785 SSII 9A 21.55130 6.31054 48.67796 10.10354 11.02474 SSII 9C 31.15584 9.28311 114.09953 18.34232 3.85482 SSII 9E 15.78747 6.41897 83.16667 7.79612 9.83190 SSII 9G 26.27144 2.99145 68.89856 14.96520 4.08019 SSII 9J 27.50837 5.54924 56.32886 15.00229 2.05516 SSII 9L 36.15181 5.99477 55.06231 15.75887 1.63383 SSII 9N 24.02433 3.68983 35.59269 11.98102 2.12922 SSII 9Q 27.75007 4.74053 36.84969 9.49641 4.36556

PAGE 470

448 Appendix 5b. Soil Survey II Element Data (Continued) Sample Al Ba Ca Co Fe Hg K SSII 9S 32.86744 4.37475 41.57749 12.27106 2.04849 SSII 11A 22.90720 4.20756 54.56692 0.03392 14.01985 12.47777 SSII 11C 28.72449 10.30546 137.85107 16.14092 6.60066 SSII 11E 34.78994 9.50231 115.87231 20.60241 13.66579 SSII 11G 13.48654 2.84290 28.06479 6.45938 11.34457 SSII 11J 20.85667 12.71776 140.41682 11.87801 2.82510 SSII 11L 31.19496 7.15427 74.70099 19.71203 2.14082 SSII 11N 26.12739 4.72681 44.33518 9.41515 2.22795 SSII 11Q 13.46141 2.39844 25.75540 5.34202 4.34193 SSII 11S 17.74270 4.91299 57.48125 7.36729 5.56169 SSII 13A 31.92474 6.63063 64.87735 16.73566 2.66189 SSII 13C 17.72795 7.44269 77.20409 9.16428 11.21532 SSII 13E 27.18593 5.38354 60.59862 13.60601 6.62931 SSII 13G 13.24013 5.37661 79.40113 6.93379 2.69237 SSII 13J 19.79719 3.67232 44.66215 8.99054 5.09214 SSII 13L 30.81972 3.95582 44.27233 13.00703 2.87281 SSII 13N 26.54280 4.03018 33.07650 9.89249 20.04780 SSII 13Q 23.84785 5.31383 42.91315 9.60195 6.72396 SSII 13S 20.63005 4.19320 51.95877 9.13501 2.51174 SSII 15A 25.81060 7.08000 77.60839 12.92519 2.43454 SSII 15C 28.26027 6.40384 58.59120 13.79500 14.95959 SSII 15E 27.09750 6.16151 56.49126 13.07052 14.83003 SSII 15G 9.25924 2.79603 31.35615 3.67241 5.57755 SSII 15J 14.64790 1.50125 27.88342 4.99850 2.28572 SSII 15L 22.05333 1.22655 24.42004 9.11202 7.59321 SSII 15N 21.49266 2.36272 25.45861 6.72647 8.58160 SSII 15Q 21.36130 6.81629 52.37181 10.40031 14.59296 SSII 15S 22.72582 4.17442 47.03533 8.39248 2.32398 SSII 17A 29.54402 14.42696 142.48247 17.84157 16.88853 SSII 17C 46.17587 5.87956 55.56576 31.39293 7.32081 SSII 17E 13.07716 4.66005 45.65391 5.94435 5.80888 SSII 17G 14.74860 3.99644 63.06510 6.97155 14.71065 SSII 17J 16.38054 4.83358 52.94218 8.47893 3.45302 SSII 17L 29.79918 3.81636 29.97370 10.79394 3.09492 SSII 17N 26.25028 7.14613 62.25385 12.77489 4.40188 SSII 17Q 20.35909 7.77831 112.09620 13.55419 22.78151 SSII 17S 33.72990 12.23550 100.33209 20.27872 9.93641 SSII 19A 34.10389 8.34763 88.34686 19.39886 4.15590 SSII 19C 19.10221 7.39241 84.70408 10.19343 4.17967 SSII 19E 22.77808 8.34722 76.65032 12.04574 7.17308 SSII 19G 17.68661 6.74313 80.70968 12.07345 4.55014 SSII 19J 26.66192 8.10175 80.14446 13.71385 4.07402 SSII 19L 26.51206 6.65392 64.64434 14.10253 5.84372 SSII 19N 18.52905 7.65692 93.63385 9.68959 13.68621 SSII 19Q 16.35837 3.49284 39.91776 6.76714 4.17416 SSII 19S 28.64422 7.53141 81.39434 12.79878 2.17470

PAGE 471

449 Appendix 5b. Soil Survey II Element Data (Continued) Sample Mg Mn Na Ni P Sr Ti Zn SSII 1A 5.94080 7.12466 0.05708 0.81814 0.49289 SSII 1C 7.83858 3.93886 0.05745 0.00000 0.89761 SSII 1E 12.50532 0.11614 4.12530 0.13965 0.00000 1.02176 SSII 1G 14.37855 2.64631 4.30147 0.13416 0.05571 0.84404 SSII 1J 3.60122 4.33675 0.12930 0.00000 0.87472 SSII 1L 10.11860 0.26878 4.25141 0.15790 0.00000 0.98735 SSII 1N 7.27566 4.37688 0.15128 0.00000 1.24165 SSII 1Q 10.16111 1.48397 8.22638 0.32747 0.06688 1.51203 SSII 1S 11.32135 0.96948 6.15083 0.31405 0.00000 1.81293 SSII 3A 5.85415 6.54575 4.50193 0.14145 1.18641 0.88366 SSII 3C 5.54831 3.80837 0.07491 0.00000 0.77125 SSII 3E 20.75790 8.88189 6.00793 0.08923 18.48525 0.45081 SSII 3G 11.42668 3.65663 0.00000 0.56807 SSII 3J 4.48653 0.44936 7.13883 0.08209 0.87632 0.56682 SSII 3L 8.94015 0.12290 7.12347 0.13307 0.20169 0.73992 SSII 3N 14.80525 0.71150 4.26835 0.19134 0.00000 0.95305 SSII 3Q 6.35397 2.59930 7.20153 0.16884 1.08168 0.54093 SSII 3S 2.87313 4.34690 4.43038 0.12534 0.00000 0.33433 SSII 5A 24.83634 1.05780 5.91421 0.39618 1.89441 1.56839 0.07689 SSII 5C 13.54365 2.71882 4.99304 1.01662 0.49465 SSII 5E 7.43889 0.88211 3.80156 0.02904 0.52113 SSII 5G 18.84471 0.58424 3.81333 0.00795 0.00000 0.49190 SSII 5J 7.65282 2.56775 4.82903 0.10724 0.08223 0.60448 SSII 5L 21.63151 7.39435 11.31476 0.04300 1.17429 0.45162 SSII 5N 9.51752 4.23400 4.32849 0.35706 0.00000 0.68846 SSII 5Q 12.01952 5.88661 0.02863 0.00000 0.59352 SSII 5S 11.30321 6.79090 0.07638 0.10254 0.85426 SSII 7A 9.80273 3.93228 0.18534 0.00000 0.81039 SSII 7C 26.27332 1.03062 4.52322 0.06201 0.73273 0.76209 SSII 7E 17.11914 2.26560 4.18447 0.01027 1.92069 0.61267 SSII 7G 16.53517 1.24379 3.91230 0.16008 0.00000 0.78083 SSII 7J 11.81799 4.15219 0.00000 0.43586 SSII 7L 14.58264 5.16614 0.14211 0.00000 0.74705 SSII 7N 8.56783 2.26767 5.02240 0.09760 0.10245 0.59736 SSII 7Q 7.33899 0.20411 5.88129 0.00693 0.00000 0.53255 SSII 7S 27.84267 0.23448 3.93309 0.08623 0.44557 0.86152 SSII 9A 6.19043 1.76047 3.81359 0.12811 0.00000 0.70165 SSII 9C 16.28833 1.44573 4.66547 0.39510 0.00000 1.41874 SSII 9E 11.26760 4.78912 0.06329 0.00000 1.04772 SSII 9G 11.32880 1.97718 5.44563 0.26223 0.00000 0.72980 SSII 9J 6.09511 2.53223 6.11065 0.16798 0.07209 0.84107 SSII 9L 11.56398 7.91357 4.80605 0.24143 0.00000 0.79969 SSII 9N 7.12860 1.09893 6.20812 0.12012 0.12626 0.53754 SSII 9Q 8.29755 0.78056 4.11688 0.15907 0.00000 0.57851 SSII 9S 6.86174 1.79787 4.26197 0.08994 0.00000 0.64366 SSII 11A 8.36612 13.16303 6.47992 0.16203 2.65704 0.74223

PAGE 472

450 Appendix 5b. Soil Survey II Element Data (Continued) Sample Mg Mn Na Ni P Sr Ti Zn SSII 11C 13.79863 4.63227 4.26515 0.38303 0.00000 1.69912 SSII 11E 12.69391 5.65337 3.90372 0.37439 0.00000 1.50349 SSII 11G 4.34938 3.72176 0.00000 0.30732 SSII 11J 14.95943 1.50736 4.73646 0.42529 0.00000 1.83705 SSII 11L 15.02039 1.13149 4.63763 0.23751 0.00000 1.01478 SSII 11N 13.23252 0.99571 4.04917 0.11395 0.00000 0.63504 SSII 11Q 7.17851 0.29450 3.85803 0.00000 0.34917 SSII 11S 8.96782 0.03859 3.97276 0.08330 0.00000 0.76413 SSII 13A 11.04701 2.21044 4.24691 0.28818 0.00000 0.92232 SSII 13C 9.26871 3.83450 0.10780 0.00000 0.96800 SSII 13E 12.83939 2.68991 4.35296 0.20260 0.00000 0.82343 SSII 13G 21.10619 4.55275 0.07956 0.00000 0.97407 SSII 13J 9.18633 0.55840 3.73487 0.03315 0.00000 0.55605 SSII 13L 10.11533 4.62005 4.49067 0.13149 0.35860 0.58979 SSII 13N 7.67484 1.42440 3.87400 0.11860 0.00000 0.47074 SSII 13Q 10.36484 0.67683 3.57248 0.18119 0.00000 0.60345 SSII 13S 11.45346 0.06577 3.91647 0.11188 0.00000 0.69674 SSII 15A 11.24402 2.74650 4.18645 0.26092 0.00000 0.99806 SSII 15C 9.40031 2.97765 4.52698 0.20325 0.00000 0.83182 SSII 15E 8.80524 2.85880 4.48471 0.19611 0.00000 0.78642 SSII 15G 6.24754 3.99210 0.00000 0.35103 SSII 15J 4.60446 0.06358 5.32525 0.14800 0.30136 SSII 15L 9.90051 2.45407 3.61603 0.46547 0.29479 SSII 15N 7.96415 1.39699 3.57295 0.14458 0.35622 SSII 15Q 24.75066 5.15491 0.34101 0.00000 0.63964 SSII 15S 12.82401 0.36028 4.36948 0.10052 0.00000 0.56220 SSII 17A 19.21686 0.57979 4.31843 0.47539 0.00000 1.68518 SSII 17C 7.52594 21.57744 5.81221 0.46813 8.67621 0.82290 SSII 17E 8.79096 0.52883 3.96565 0.24065 0.55962 SSII 17G 17.39991 3.67782 0.06436 0.11273 0.71765 SSII 17J 6.39078 1.37548 4.39329 0.23218 0.00000 0.69505 SSII 17L 9.69360 1.66575 3.90283 0.08845 0.00000 0.44529 SSII 17N 13.89598 0.67130 3.87484 0.14402 0.00000 0.84542 SSII 17Q 17.20497 1.72548 4.21926 0.28732 0.46280 1.30534 SSII 17S 15.32871 2.44974 4.39997 0.59107 0.00000 1.30297 SSII 19A 16.49630 5.11894 4.54971 0.43059 0.00000 1.07418 SSII 19C 14.30032 1.47923 5.13309 0.26100 0.00000 0.98803 SSII 19E 15.88226 4.14005 0.16693 0.00000 1.01473 SSII 19G 17.83011 0.29588 4.29072 0.29592 0.77218 1.00007 SSII 19J 11.17041 1.41285 4.03597 0.28926 0.00000 0.99260 SSII 19L 14.21543 1.61654 3.79056 0.23184 0.00000 0.84965 SSII 19N 16.32174 5.29675 0.17236 0.00000 1.08497 SSII 19Q 7.78280 0.62555 3.69165 0.03740 0.27340 0.49358 SSII 19S 14.69612 1.39623 4.40908 0.16584 0.00000 1.02097

PAGE 473

451 About the Author Travis F. Doering graduated from Bryant University in Rhode Island with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration a nd went on to experien ce successful careers in the corporate world. He has traveled ex tensively throughout North, Central, and South America to study ancient and contemporary cultu res. Pursuing his life-long interest in archaeology and three decades of involvement in Mesoamerican studies, Doering returned to the Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, where he earned a Master of Science Degree in Anthropology in 2002. In 2003, he entered the University of South Florida in Tampa to pursue a Ph.D. in Applied Anthropology, Archaeology Track.

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001934607
003 fts
005 20080417100623.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080417s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001889
GN397.5 (ONLINE)
1 100
Doering, Travis F.
3 245
An unexplored realm in the heartland of the Southern Gulf Olmec :
b investigations at El Marquesillo, Veracruz, Mexico
h [electronic resource] /
by Travis F. Doering.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: This dissertation examines El Marquesillo, a settlement in an archaeologically unexplored region of the Southern Gulf Lowlands of Veracruz, Mexico. Evidence suggests the site has been consistently occupied from the Early Formative period (c. 1500 BC) to the present. Thus, this investigation presents an opportunity to re-examine the sociopolitical continuum encompassing the Olmec cultural phenomenon (c. 1150-300 BC), the emergence of which has been used repeatedly as an example of incipient social complexity. Theorists have portrayed the development of sociopolitical complexity as a mosaic process in which environmental, social, political, economic, ideological, and demographic variables act independently or in combination to bring about change. In order to examine these variables, a suite of traditional and progressive archaeological techniques -- remote sensing, geophysical survey, GIS, mapping, anthropogenic soil survey --^ were employed to prospect, document, and analyze the natural and built environments along with the material record documented at El Marquesillo. I argue that the resulting data do not fit many of the traditional models that have been offered to explain the development of Olmec sociopolitical complexity.The term "traditional Olmec paradigm" is used to describe a collective array of conjectural concepts that have been proposed by theorists to explain how Formative people of the Southern Gulf Lowlands constructed and experienced their reality. Findings from El Marquesillo and other recent Heartland investigations suggest that much of this traditional Olmec paradigm may not be accurate. The Gulf Olmec were not a homogeneous and uniform entity across space and time. At El Marquesillo, idiosyncratic behaviors of the ancients relating to ancestor veneration and their connection to the landscape and worldview have been identified.^ These noted variations in social expression and the lack of adherence to the traditional Olmec paradigm suggest that some hypotheses regarding the Formative people of the Southern Gulf Lowlands be re-visited and possibly revised in the light of new evidence.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 451 pages.
Includes vita.
Co-adviser: Robert H. Tykot Ph.D.
Co-adviser: E. Christian Wells, Ph.D.
Mesoamerican archaeology.
Formative period.
Preclassic period.
Remote sensing.
Non-destructive survey techniques.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
x Applied Anthropology
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856