Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproduction Further reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. (RE)DISCOVERING THE OLMEC: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY-

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITIONS TO

VERACRUZ/TABASCO, 1939-1946

Rosemary Durkin Lyon

submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

of The American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree

of Master of Arts

Robert L. Humphrey,

lean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Date

1997

The American University

Washington, D.C. 20016

SHE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1383903

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. COPYRIGHT

ROSEMARY DURKIN LYON

1 9 9 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When I resigned from the Council for International Exchange of Scholars to begin

graduate studies in anthropology, my husband, John Lyon, my children, Philip and Julia

Lyon, and my mother-in-law, Carolyn Bartel Lyon, were unanimous in their support

for my decision. I dedicate this thesis to them in appreciation for the confidence they

demonstrated in me and for their patience during the long months of my graduate

program.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (RE)DISCOVERING THE OLMECrNATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY-SMITHSONIAN

INSTITUTION EXPEDITIONS TO VERACRUZ/TABASCO,

1 9 3 9 - 1 9 4 6

Rosemary Durkin Lyon

ABSTRACT

In this thesis, I examine from a comparative perspective eight National

Geographic Society-Smithsonian Institution archaeological expeditions to

Veracruz/Tabasco, Mexico, which took place between 1939 and 1946. The participating

archaeologists-research leader Matthew Stirling, and assistants Clarence Weiant,

Philip Drucker, and Waldo Wedel-carried out important fieldwork which produced the

first significant body of information about Formative period Olmec civilization.

Although the four archaeologists had in common an allegiance to the paradigm of culture

history, they differed in their backgrounds, education, experience and objectives. I look

at how such factors are reflected in the way the expeditions were constituted and carried

out, demonstrating that the production of archaeological information is a complex, and

sometimes fragmented, process which is affected by multiple factors, including the

personal traits of investigators, individual and organizational agendas, the use of

different methodologies, and the political and economic context of the excavations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people provided suggestions and assistance as I worked on this thesis. I am

greatly indebted to Professor Robert Humphrey of George Washington University, in

whose seminar on Mesoamerican archaeology I first became interested in the Olmec, and

to his wife, Johanna Humphrey of the National Museum of Natural History, who

introduced me to the Olmec collection of the Smithsonian Institution.

For an invaluable—and very pleasant-opportunity to learn about the National

Geographic-Smithsonian Institution expeditions from one of the participants, I would

like to thank Marion Stirling Pugh, who graciously gave me the benefit of her memories

about the field seasons in Southern Mexico. Her input and helpfulness cannot be

overstated.

George Stuart, Vice President for Research and Exploration of the National

Geographic Society, spoke with me about the expeditions and their significance for

Mesoamerican archaeology. I very much appreciate his assistance, and that of Richard

Diehl and Sue Scott of the University of Alabama, who shared their reminiscences with

me.

My professors at American University-Richard J. Dent and Charles McNett—

deserve sincere thanks for their advice and support, as do Dr. Lesley Gill, who made

helpful suggestions about my proposal, and Dr. Dolores Koenig, whose

thesis/dissertation seminar prodded me to make progress.

The research staff of the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian

i i i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Institution, and of the Smithsonian Institution Archives, were also very helpful.

Last but not least, my family’s supportive attitude was a fundamental source of

encouragement*

To these individuals, and to others who helped in innumerable ways, I express my

thanks.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1

2. AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW...... 5

3. THE EXPEDITIONS TO SOUTHERN MEXICO...... 10

4. EXPEDITION SUMMARIES ...... 15

5. OBJECTIVES AND INFLUENCES ...... 29

6. METHODOLOGY...... 52

7. PUBLICATIONS...... 92

8. INTERPRETATION...... 102

9. CONCLUSIONS...... 115

APPENDICES...... 122

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Olmec were a pre-historic people who flourished between 1200 B.C. and

300 B.C. in what are now the Mexican states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Many scholars

believe that the Olmec developed the first great civilization of Middle America. Although

our current knowledge is very incomplete, present evidence leads some archaeologists to

regard Olmec society as having been hierarchical in nature, with a ruling or priestly

class ranked above social classes of lower standing.

A hallmark of Olmec civilization was a distinctive and sophisticated art style,

which found its strongest expression in sculpture- a style which can be observed in

relatively small objects carved from jade and serpentine (such as masquettes, votive

axes, and ear ornaments), as well as in giant sculptures carved from basalt. Although it

sometimes contains representations of plants and animals, Olmec sculpture focused

primarily on the human form (such as the colossal heads, which probably represented

real individuals), or upon anthropomorphic beings (such as the “were-jaguar,” a

creature with an amalgamation of human and feline characteristics). Much of Olmec

sculpture is carved “in the round,” and is quite distinct from the sculptural styles of

later Middle American cultures such as the Maya.

In December 1995 and June 1996, major exhibits of Olmec art were mounted at

the Princeton University Art Gallery and at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

The attention these exhibits received was remarkable, since the artistic expression of

the people we call “Olmec” was virtually unknown, except to a small number of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. specialists, until the fourth decade of the twentieth century. It was not until a series of

National Geographic Society-Smithsonian Institution archaeological expeditions which

carried out important excavations in Veracruz and Tabasco between 1939-1946 that the

archaeological community and the interested public began to have any awareness of

Olmec culture.

Focus of Thesis

My intention in the following pages is to produce a comparative analysis of the

1939-1946 National Geographic Society-Smithsonian Institution expeditions to

Veracruz and Tabasco. I will explore the objectives of the four participating U.S.

archaeologists, the influences which informed those objectives, and the methodology

which the archaeologists employed to achieve their ends. Where there were differences

in the approaches taken by the archaeologists, I will note these differences and will

examine the reasons why they may have occurred. I will also explore social, economic,

and political factors which may have had an impact on the expeditions.

The National Geographic Society-Smithsonian Institution expeditions to Veracruz

and Tabasco (states of Southern Mexico) were influential in opening up an entire field of

pre-historic studies, and they added depth and dimension to our understanding of the

formative period of Middle American archaeology. (Note: In this thesis, I will use the

term “Middle America,” rather than “Mesoamerica,” since the latter term was not in

common use during the period covered by this paper.) Despite their importance,

however, very little has been written about the expeditions themselves. This is not to

say that the archaeologists as individuals have been totally ignored. Matthew Stirling

(and to a lesser extent Philip Drucker) are mentioned in historical surveys such as A

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3

History o f American Archaeology (Willey and Sabloff 1994), and Prehistoric

Mesoamerica (Adams 1991). Books about the Olmec authored by Mexican archaeologists

and artists such as Ignacio Bernal, Roman Pina Chan, and Miguel Covarrubias refer to

the Smithsonian research efforts. Nevertheless, most of the books written about the

Olmec have focused on their material culture, primarily their art, rather than on the

pioneering expeditions of fifty years ago.

One of the reasons that archaeology has somewhat neglected the early expeditions

and their archaeologists is th at the study of the Olmec was for a long tim e subordinate to

the study of Maya civilization. In the past few years, however, many archaeologists who

study Middle America have demonstrated an increased attraction to Olmec archaeology.

This interest stems from several factors. Among them is the fact that the field of Maya

studies has held center-stage for so long, and is a very crowded field, whereas

comparatively few people are studying the Olmec. There is also a renewed interest in

man’s development in Middle America during the Archaic period. The early radio

carbon dates from some Olmec sites suggest they are fertile areas in which to pursue

this kind of investigation. Additionally, some archaeologists believe that study of the

Olmec may shed light on the origin of written language in Middle America, and on the

development of religion and of the calendar-important issues in the study of any

civilization. Finally, several prominent archaeologists, especially Rebecca Gonzalez

Lauck, at La Venta, Ann Cyphers, at San Lorenzo, and Ponciano Ortiz, at the recently

investigated site of El Manati, have made significant discoveries in the past few years.

There is an awareness that these sites will yield considerably more information in the

future, and that other sites, of possibly equal importance, lie undiscovered nearby.

An analysis of the 1939-46 National Geographic-Smithsonian excavations, as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4

proposed for this thesis, meshes well with this renewed emphasis on the Olmec and

responds to the need for a critical, in-depth look at the early expeditions. Such an

analysis will contribute to our knowledge of the first systematic efforts to study Olmec

civilization and to our understanding about how these expeditions were represented to

other archaeologists and to the American public. It will also show the influence which

the expeditions had on later theories, research, and fieldwork. Recent “post-

processual” interpretations o f archaeology, such as Michael Shanks and Christopher

Tilley’s Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Process (1992), and Ian Hodderis

Reading the Past (1991), have argued that the archaeologist himself or herself plays a

role in creating “truth,” and they have emphasized the importance of understanding the

context of excavations (including the objectives of the archaeologist), as well as the

results of excavations if we are to have a fuller understanding of archaeological

“reality” (Shanks and Tilley 1992; Hodder 1991).

As American archaeology completes its first full century, there is increased

concern that the experiences and lessons of its early practitioners not be lost, and an

awareness that, in fact, there is something to be gained from them. This thesis is one

step toward the preservation of this material, and it should be useful to scholars who

focus on the history of archaeology, as well as to future Olmec scholars.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2

AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

To appreciate the significance of the National Geographic-Smithsonian

expeditions to Southern Mexico, it is helpful to view them against the backdrop of

previous investigations in the same region. In this chapter, I summarize the principal

investigations into Olmec art and archaeology which took place prior to Matthew

Stirling’s first visit to Veracruz in 1938.

Early Explorers

Olmec archaeology can be said to date from 1862, when Jose Maria Melgar y

Serrano, a Mexican adventurer interested in antiquities, travelled to Veracruz to

investigate a large basalt head which had reportedly been found on a fmca (“ranch”) at

Hueyapan, near Tres Zapotes. After confirming the existence of this head, which had

been discovered by a campesino (“farmer”) clearing brush, Melgar published an

illustrated article about it in an 1868 issue of Seminario llustrado. He followed this

with additional published sketches in 1869 and 1871. These sketches initially stirred

controversy over the “Ethiopian” features of the colossal head, and wonder about its

origin. However, public attention eventually turned elsewhere, and only intrepid

adventurers, such as the German pre-Columbianist Eduard Seler who visited the colossal

head during his travels through Veracruz in 1906-1907, made the effort to see the

amazing sculpture in situ in Hueyapan.

There were no further reports of colossal heads for several decades. However,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6

during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a variety of small objects in an

unknown art style which, in the opinion of some people, resembled the style of the basalt

head, began to appear on the antiquities market and in museums. Several of these objects

were celts (ungrooved axes probably used for ceremonial purposes) which had been

carved out of jade or serpentine, and there was some speculation about their origin. In

1889 and 1890, George Kunz, a U.S. gem and mineral expert, wrote an article about one

such inscribed jade axe (which came to bear his name). In 1929, Marshall Saville, a

professor of archaeology at Columbia University, published two articles on votive axes

from Mexico in which he suggested that the particular style they represented be called

“Olmec.” (1) Although scholars knew nothing about the people who had produced the

celts (or other carvings with similar characteristics), the limited information that was

available indicated that many of the carvings had been found in the Gulf Coast region of

Mexico.

Frans Blom, an archaeologist with Tulane University, and Oliver La Farge, an

ethnologist from the same institution, took an important step toward investigating the

geographic area which was reputedly home to the mysterious carvings when they visited

Veracruz and Tabasco on a 1925 research/exploration trip. Although their goal was to

visit the homelands of the Maya Indians, they also explored some areas along the Gulf

Coast. During their trip, Blom and La Farge spent a day in western Tabasco, following up

an allusion to pre-Columbian ruins contained in the 1519 chronicles of Bernal Diaz del

Castillo (Blom and La Farge 1926:79). After hiring local guides to lead them to the

likely area, Blom and La Farge found, amid the jungle growth, two stelae, four “altars,”

and a colossal head, similar to th a t of Tres Zapotes, at a site called La Venta (Blom and La

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Farge 1926:85). Unfortunately, the demands of their schedule did not permit Blom and

La Farge to conduct any excavations, and they continued on their way after only one day.

Even if they had stayed longer, they might not have understood the significance of their

finds, since their interpretations were colored by their interest in Mayan culture. In

Tribes and Temples (1926) which recounts their adventures, Blom and La Farge

reported that many, if not all, of their discoveries had “Maya features so strong that we

are inclined to ascribe these ruins to the Maya.. . . ” (Blom and La Farge 1926:90).

They did, however, concede that:

La Venta is certainly a place of many puzzles, and further work should be done there in order to ascertain more definitely where this ancient city should be placed in our sequence of cultures (Blom and La Farge 1926:85).

In the late 1920s, the Blom-La Farge explorations were of considerable

fascination to scholars who had an interest in the early civilizations of Mexico. Adding to

the intriguing information coming out of the Gulf Coast during that period was the

account of investigations conducted by Albert Weyerstall, a North American working as a

banana planter in Veracruz in 1925. While not a professional archaeologist, Weyerstall

had a keen interest in the pre-history of the Gulf Coast, and he spent much of his free

time locating and exploring ancient ruins. Among the points of interest which he visited

was the colossal head of Hueyapan, with which he was photographed. While at Hueyapan,

Weyerstall persuaded a local guide to show him other monuments in the vicinity. He

photographed these, also, and described them fully in a report, which was published by

Tulane University in 1932 (Weyerstall 1932:30-36).

Dominance of Mava Archaeology

The focus on Maya archaeology exhibited by Blom, La Farge, and other explorers

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8

was hardly surprising. During the mid-nineteenth century, the American explorer and

diplomat, John Uoyd Stephens, and the British illustrator, Frederick Catherwood, had

brought Middle America and the Maya ruins to the attention o f the English-speaking

world through their publications Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and

Yucatan (1841 ) and Incidents of Travel in Yucatan (1 8 4 3 ). Stephens and Catherwood

were followed by other explorers, including the French photographer/archaeologist,

Desire Chamay, whose 1863 book Cites e t ruines americaines (“American Cities and

Ruins”) (1 8 6 3 ), contained the first published photograph o f Maya ruins, and the

British archaeologist Alfred Maudslay, whose photographs, casts, and drawings of Maya

sites such as Palenque brought before an incredulous public the grandeur of a long-

forgotten civilization in the heart of the tropical jungle. During the next fifty years,

North American pioneers in Maya archaeology, such as Alfred Tozzer of Harvard

University, and Sylvanus Morley of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, conducted

numerous excavations in Mexico and Central America. The material culture discovered

by these scholars-stelae, altars, monumental architecture—greatly increased public

awareness of the accomplishments of pre-Columbian Maya peoples and solidified general

belief that the Maya were responsible for the first high-civilization of the Americas.

One puzzle about the Maya which intrigued some scholars was the location of the

boundaries of the Maya world. The geographic extent of Maya culture was not clearly

understood. Another puzzling aspect of Maya civilization was that it seemed to have

sprung full-blown in the regions where it predominated. There was not much solid

research about its origins. In the 1930s, some scholars such as George Vaillant of the

American Museum of Natural History became committed to the search for an earlier

culture in the Valley of Mexico and in the Maya lowlands. It was understood that many

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. other regions, including the Gulf Coast, remained to be explored for clues to the Archaic

past.

It was against this backdrop-the fascination with the Maya, the growing body of

information about their civilization, and the realization that many questions remained

answered—that the National Geographic and Smithsonian Institution decided in late

1938 to mount an archaeological expedition to Southern Mexico.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3

THE EXPEDITIONS TO SOUTHERN MEXICO

How did Matthew Stirling come to propose an archaeological expedition to

Southern Mexico? In this chapter, I look at Stirling’s early career, focusing especially

on the events which prompted his interest in the Gulf Coast and which led him to request

financial support from the National Geographic Society.

Role of Matthew Stirling

Matthew Williams Stirling joined the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) of the

Smithsonian Institution in 1921, shortly after his graduation from the University of

California at Berkeley. During the next three years, he was an active participant in

Smithsonian-sponsored archaeological excavations in Florida and South Dakota. In

1924, Stirling resigned from the Smithsonian in order to have the time to make an

adventurous journey to Peru and to the Amazon regions of South America. Following his

return to the United States, during the winter of 1924-25, he took a position selling

real estate in Florida in order to raise money for an archaeological expedition he planned

to undertake the following year. By the end of 1925, financial support in hand, he was

back in the field as the leader of a major Smithsonian Institution-Dutch Colonial

Government expedition to New Guinea. His already strong reputation further enhanced

by this massive and highly successful undertaking, Stirling was asked to head the Bureau

of American Ethnology when he came back to the United States.

Prior to accepting the top job with the Bureau in 1928, Stirling had not

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11

evidenced a special bent toward Middle American archaeology. Bom and educated in

California, with a B.A. from Berkeley and an M.A. from George Washington University,

he had wide-ranging interests which were not restricted to any geographic area.

However, he had already acquired some Latin American experience. As noted above, he

had visited several countries of South America in 1924. A decade later, in 1935, he

made a point to visit archaeological ruins in Guatemala and Honduras, while on a trip to

see friends in Central America. Stirling was aware of the archaeological investigations

in Mexico which were being earned out by the Carnegie Institution of Washington in the

twenties and thirties, and he was very likely impressed by the success that Carnegie had

achieved in that geographic region.

His interest in Mexico growing, Matthew Stirling took a trip in 1938 which was

to profoundly alter the course of his professional career. Accompanied by his wife

Marion and her parents, Stirling travelled to Southern Mexico for a vacation. While the

trip was a way of introducing his in-laws to Mexican culture, it also served to permit

Matthew Stirling to pursue his interests in archaeology. One o f his goals for the tim e in

Mexico was to see the colossal head that had earlier been reported by Jose Melgar y

Serrano. The opportunity arrived while Marion Stirling took her parents to visit Monte

Alban in Oaxaca. At that point, Stirling left his family and made the arduous journey to

the Arroyo Hueyapan in Veracruz. According to Marion Stirling, her husband was

interested not only in seeing the head itself, but in getting a first-hand understanding of

the context in which it had been found (Marion Stirling Pugh, private communication

1996). In other words, did the area also have other monuments or archaeological

features of such potential that they should be investigated?

The answer was strongly affirmative. Writing up his impressions somewhat

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. later, Stirling noted that he had found the colossal head “standing in a plaza formed by

four mounds. . . .” (Stirling 1939:185). And:

. . . somewhat to the east of this plaza was another group of very large mounds, one of which was almost 450 feet in length. Beyond these, on an elevated piece of land, was a third group, the central feature of which was another plaza surrounded by four large mounds (Stirling 1939:185).

Upon his return to Washington, Stirling shared photos of the colossal head with

Smithsonian colleagues and spoke with them enthusiastically about the area near Tres

Zapotes. Among these colleagues was Smithsonian assistant secretary Alexander

Wetmore, who also happened to be a member of the National Geographic Society’s

Committee on Research and Exploration. Wetmore’s interest was piqued by Stirling’s

descriptions of the giant sculpture and by the possibility that Stirling might be able to do

significant archaeological work in the region where it had been found. He urged that

Stirling seek National Geographic funding to support an archaeological expedition to

Veracruz.

The National Geographic Society as Granting Agency

There were few large-scale funding sources available to archaeologists before

World War II. Universities such as Harvard and Tulane sometimes had funds available,

but the monies went to support the research of their own faculty members. The Carnegie

Institution of Washington, an organization which had sponsored archaeological research

since its founding in 1902 and which had a strong interest in Middle America, was one of

the few exceptions. As early as 1914, it had supported the work of Sylvanus Morley at

Maya sites in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. However, Carnegie’s archaeology program

was taken over in 1929 by Alfred Kidder, at which time Kidder recommended that the

Institution adopt a four part program focusing on the following objectives: (1) a study of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the sequence of pre-historic cultures in the Valley of Mexico; (2) a reconnaissance of

the Guatemalan highlands; (3) an intensive excavation of large Maya site, and (4) a

comprehensive investigation of the Yucatan (Woodbury 1973:57). The Carnegie

Institution endorsed this program and became totally committed to the research

trajectory that Kidder had proposed. There was very likely no room, in the Carnegie

purview, for new ventures into unknown archaeological waters not connected with the

Valley of Mexico or the Maya. However, the National Geographic Society was an

organization which sponsored archaeological research without limiting its focus to a

particular region or people in the Americas, and it appeared to be a more likely source

of funding. Because of Matthew Stirling’s position in the Bureau of American Ethnology

and Marion Stirling’s personal contacts with several members of the Geographic staff,

both Stirlings were already well-known to key figures at the National Geographic

Society (Marion Stirling Pugh, personal communication 1996). These contacts, along

with Matthew Stirling’s photos, and Wetmore’s backing, were sufficient to win from the

Society approval and financial backing for a 1939 National Geographic-Smithsonian

Institution research expedition.

The agreement between the Smithsonian and the National Geographic Society,

signed October 15, 1938, was initially for one field season and for the follow-up work

related to that season. In the end, the Geographic renewed its support annually and

supported eight expeditions to Southern Mexico between 1939 (actually, the end of

December 1938) and 1946.

The eight joint expeditions were led by Matthew Stirling, as the scientific leader,

and involved at various times three other U.S. archaeologists: Clarence Weiant, Philip

Drucker, and Waldo Wedel. Upon occasion, “outside” archaeologists, and/or other

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14

short-term visitors spent periods of varying duration at the archaeological sites. With

the exception of Weiant, whose salary was paid by the Geographic, the archaeologists

were staff members of the Smithsonian, which paid their salaries accordingly. The

National Geographic covered the salary of its photographer Richard Stewart, who was an

annual participant in the expeditions. Expenses for family members (Stirling, Weiant,

and Drucker were accompanied by wives on several occasions) were borne by the

archaeologists.

By the standards of the late twentieth century, the projects costs were modest.

Early correspondence reveals that $5,000 was granted for the 1939 season (G.

Grosvenor to A. Wetmore, letter, 25 April 1938, Smithsonian Institution Archives,

Washington, D.C.). In other years, the amount ranged between $4,000 and $6,000 (M.

Stirling to A. Wetmore, memorandum, 25 June 1941, Smithsonian Institution Archives,

Washington, D.C., and A. Wetmore to M. Stirling, letter, 4 May 1939, Smithsonian

Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

As part of the agreement, Stirling was expected to keep the Society fully apprised

of his findings and to write articles about his discoveries for The National Geographic

Magazine. From 1939-1946, Matthew Stirling wrote six such articles (one co

authored with his wife), and Marion Stirling was the author of another. Stirling also

wrote what was supposed to be monograph #1 in a Mexican Archaeology Series that was

initiated (but never continued) by the National Geographic Society. In addition, Stirling

and his three fellow archaeologists wrote up many of their findings in scholarly reports

published by the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4

EXPEDITION SUMMARIES

To analyze the work of the archaeologists who participated in the National

Geographic-Smithsonian Institution expeditions, it is first necessary to understand the

nature of their program in Southern Mexico. In the following pages, I summarize the

eight archaeological expeditions, briefly describing the principal sites that were

excavated and noting the highlights of each field season.

1939--Tres Zapotes

The archaeological site of Tres Zapotes lies near the village of the same name,

between the cities of Tlacotalpan and San Andres in the southeastern part of the state of

Veracruz (Stirling 1943b:4).

As has been indicated, the colossal head of nearby Hueyapan provided the impetus

for the first National Geographic-Smithsonian Institution expedition~to Tres Zapotes

from late December 1938 to mid-April 1939. Heading up the expedition team was

Matthew Stirling, accompanied by his wife Marion, whose responsibilities included

many aspects of camp administration and a range of archaeological tasks, in addition to

invaluable secretarial work. Other members of the expedition included assistant

archaeologist Clarence Weiant, likewise accompanied by his wife, and Richard Stewart,

the National Geographic Society photographer who would work with the Stirlings on all

their subsequent expeditions.

During the 1939 season, the Stirling party was joined for short stays by several

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16

scientists and scholars, among them Alexander Wetmore of the Smithsonian. Other

visitors included Bureau o f American Ethnology artist E.G. Cassedy, who sketched

monuments and artifacts; Mexican archaeologist Dr. D. Juan Valenzuela, and Karl

Ruppert of the archaeological staff of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Tres Zapotes more than met the expectations of the National Geographic-

Smithsonian expeditions. Less than three weeks after his arrival-on January 16,

1939—Stirling discovered a monument that was to have dramatic implications for the

study of pre-Columbian America. The monument was a stela with a bar and dot date in

the Maya calendrical system. Even though a portion of the stela (designated Stela C) was

missing, enough of it remained for the Stirlings to interpret the missing portion in such

a way th a t they translated the date as 291 B.C. (31 B.C. by a different system of

correlating the Maya and the Western calendars). This would be, they realized, the

earliest date ever found recorded in the Americas. Since the stela was discovered outside

the known limits of the Maya world, its presence suggested either that Maya civilization

had been more widespread than previously believed or that a non-Maya people who had

inhabited the region of Veracruz had known “Maya” calendrics. Stirling’s initial

reaction to the discovery was that “it proves that the Maya inhabited this region in the

present Mexican State of Vera Cruz. It thus extends westward by about 150 miles the

previously known limit of Mayan settlements and cities” (Stirling 1939:183). (He

subsequently came to see it as confirming Olmec awareness of the calendar.)

Recognizing that Stirling’s reading of the date would have repercussions among

Maya archaeologists (although not at first realizing the nature of those repercussions),

Alexander Wetmore wrote to Alfred Kidder of the Carnegie Institution, asking that

Mayanist Sylvanus Morley come to Tres Zapotes from the Yucatan to look at the stela.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17

Motley was unavailable, but Karl Ruppert of Carnegie did visit during the 1939 field

season and saw the broken stela. Although his own reactions are not recorded, his

institution clearly disagreed with Stirling’s interpretation of the stela date. A

controversy of the kind Stirling had envisioned broke out, and the archaeological world

divided in two camps on this issue. The majority of Mayanists, led by the formidable

archaeologist J. Eric Thompson, resolutely held that Stirling’s interpretation of the date

was too early and could not be correct (Bernal 1980:179). Stirling, on the other hand,

maintained that his interpretation was accurate.

Unfortunately, no technique was available in 1939 to date the Tres Zapotes site,

or any of its associated monuments, with assurance. Few dating techniques as yet had

been developed. One that did exist, dendrochronology (the analysis of annual growth

rings in trees), had been used successfully in the United States since the early 20th

century. However, its reliability was dependent upon the availability of large timbers

for analysis, and both the species of trees native to the Gulf coastal plains, and the

ciimatological conditions of the region made it impractical as a dating technique in

Southern Mexico. Only when radiocarbon dating was developed in the 1950s did the

possibility of obtaining accurate dates at most archaeological sites became a reality.

However, this discovery was still in the future when Stirling and J. Eric Thompson

argued over Stirling’s reading of Stela C.

When a local Veracruz farm er discovered missing portion o f Stela C around

1972, Stirling’s interpretation of the date was finally proven correct (Pugh 1981:6).

In the decades since, it has became widely accepted that a people living in Veracruz, who

were not Mayas, had used the “Maya" calendar before the Maya. In fact, although

Thompson and some of his supporters were never willing to concede this possibility, it

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18

appears that the Oimec, not the Maya, may have been responsible for the calendar’s

development.

It should be noted that the date on Stela C (now read as 31 B.C.) is actually “epi-

Olmec" and is later than the dates we currently use for mainstream Olmec civilization

(1200 BC to 300 BC). This means that Stela C was not carved by the ancient Olmec.

However, it may have been carved by people in the same region who could have been the

Olmecs’ descendants.

The ultimate significance of Stirling’s discovery of Stela C, then, was that it

enabled archaeologists to push back the window of Middle American written records to a

pre-Maya era.

1940—Tres Zapotes

The success of the 1939 season prompted the National Geographic Society to fund

a 1940 expedition to Southern Mexico. Although the focus was to remain Tres Zapotes,

there was a major change in the field staff. When Clarence Weiant learned in November

1939 that his wife was pregnant, he decided to forego the opportunity for a second field

season in order to remain with her in the United States (C. Weiant to M. Stirling, letter,

22 November 1939, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C.). Weiant passed along to Stirling a suggestion from William Duncan

Strong that Philip Drucker, “whose experience and knowledge of Spanish would make

him especially well-qualified,” be the replacement (C. Weiant to M. Stirling, letter, 22

November 1939, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C.). Other expedition members included M. A. Carriker, who followed in

the footsteps of Alexander Wetmore as Smithsonian ornithologist, and Richard Stewart of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19

the National Geographic Society, who was once again the photographer.

The role of Philip Drucker was somewhat different from that of Clarence Weiant.

Stirling sent (in different years) both assistant archaeologists on ahead to set up camp at

Tres Zapotes, and he assigned both of them administrative duties, such as calling the roll

and settling the payroll, while they were in the field. However, because of Drucker’s

more extensive experience, he was given broader archaeological responsibilities than

Weiant.

The second National Geographic/Smithsonian expedition had as its stated purpose

“working out the chronology of the stratified deposits of pottery in the kitchen middens,

or refuse heaps” (Stirling 1940a:309). The basic thrust, then, was to finish the

ceramic excavations which had begun the year before. Sixty cases of stone and pottery

objects had been sent back to the Smithsonian in 1939, and 100 cases were sent back in

1940. By the end of the season, Stirling believed that he had gotten a “complete record

of human occupation of this site” (Stirling 1940a:310).

The 1940 expedition was also expected to include a few “exploratory trips”

beyond the area of Tres Zapotes (Stirling 1940a:309). In the end, Matthew Stirling

made two such trips to nearby regions. The Stirlings, who had heard about Cerro de las

Mesas because of a 1925 visit by Dr. Herbert Spinden, finally located the site with the

assistance of a local truck driver. Both Stirlings spent two days there, “excavating,

cleaning, and photographing the twenty carved stones” [12 stelae and 8 carved

monuments] (Stirling 1940a:313). The site showed great promise, and it became the

focus of the 1941 excavation. At La Venta, which the they visited in an attempt to locate

the monuments described by Blom and La Farge, Matthew and Marion Stirling spent

somewhat more than two weeks excavated two “altars," including Altar 2 which Stirling

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20

described as “as the finest object discovered. . . must rank as one of the best examples of

sculpture from aboriginal America” (Stirling 1940a:326). In total, the Stirlings

located 20 “monuments” at La Venta, where only six had been known prior to their visit

(Stirling 1940a:334). Among the monuments were five newly discovered colossal

heads.

By the end of the second season in Southern Mexico, Stirling had seen enough to be

convinced that the colossal heads, the carved monuments, and the small jade artifacts

were all aspects of the same “curious and easily recognizable art style” (Stirling

19 4 0 a :3 3 3 ). As he reported in the September 1940 issue o f The National Geographic:

The mysterious producers of this class of art have been called the “Olmecs,” a people

whose origin is as yet very little known. Present archaeological evidence indicates that

their culture, which in many respects reached a high level, is very early and may well

be the basic civilization out of which developed such high art centers as those of the

Maya, Zapotecs, Toltecs, andTotonacs (Stirling 1940a:333).

1941-Cerro de las Mesas

Given the go-ahead to investigate Cerro de las Mesas, archaeologists of the

National Geographic/Smithsonian expeditions returned to Veracruz for the 1941 field

season. The new site was located:

. . . near the south bank of the Rio Blanco, some 15 miles east of the Bay of Alvarado.. . situated on an “island” of relatively high land, apparently of aeolian origin, which from earliest times has been known as the Mixtequilla, suggesting a former Mixtec origin (Stirling 1943b:31).

Philip Drucker was once again assistant archaeologist during a season which saw

several distinguished visitors, including the prominent Mexican artist and Olmec

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21

enthusiast Miguel Covarrubias, at the camp.

As at other locations, much preliminary work had to be done prior to the start of

excavations at Cerro de las Mesas. Before they could assess the full extent of the site, the

Stirlings first had to hire ten men who would spend two days clearing away brush with

their machetes. The archaeologists ultimately located 15 stelae and 8 other monuments,

the majority of them within an area no more than 50 yards square (Stirling

1941:281). They also excavated skeletal remains, uncommon at the other sites.

Unusual drought conditions that year permitted the archaeologists to dig stratigraphic

trenches of a greater depth than would have been possible had the water table been

higher (Stirling 1941:281).

On his last day in camp, even while bags were being packed for the return to the

States, Stirling made a spectacular discovery which was to take center stage in his later

descriptions of the 1941 season. In the lower north comer of trench 34 at Cerro de las

Mesas, he discovered a cache of jade hidden under large potsherds, chunks of concrete,

and stone figurines. There were 782 pieces of jade in all, and it took three people 30

minutes just to take the jade out of the ground. Stirling characterized this as the

“largest find yet made of the most precious substance known to the ancient civilizations

of Mexico” (Stirling 1941:292). Among the specimens were three examples of blue

jade in the “Olmec” style. Since it was becoming apparent to the archaeologists that

Cerro de las Mesas was a later site with a culture different from that of Tres Zapotes, it

seemed that the Olmec jades might be heirloom pieces, revered by a later population

which considered them to have special significance.

While based at Cerro de las Mesas, Matthew Stirling continued his practice of

seeking out sites for future excavation, often following up leads from colleagues or from

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22

knowledgeable campesinos. During their visit, Miguel and Rose Covarrubias had

described for the Stirlings “a site with stone monuments, well known locally but only

casually visited, in the vicinity of Tapachula, State of Chiapas” (Stirling 1941:287).

This site, located in the “Lands of Izapa,” near the Guatemalan Border, had been visited

several years earlier by Karl Ruppert and A. V. Kidder. Stirling was intrigued by

Covarrubias’ statement that photos of sculptures from the site had reminded him of

sculptures from La Venta. Concerned with exploring the possible connection between the

Chiapas site and La Venta, the Stirlings and Richard Stewart obtained permission from

Mexican authorities to spend a week at Izapa. While there, they located more than 30

stelae and altars, which they believed demonstrated Olmec influence beyond the heartland

of Veracruz and Tabasco (Stirling 1941:287).

1942—La Venta

With the advent of the war, the National Geographic Society and Smithsonian

Institution decided on a shorter field season for 1942. Philip Drucker preceded the

Stirlings to La Venta, where his role was to follow up on the preliminary excavations

carried out in 1940. Stirling described the archaeological site as “situated on a sandy

island between the Tonala River and its tributary, the Blasillo, in the midst of the great

coastal mangrove swamp of northern Tabasco” (Stirling 1943b:48).

After Drucker had been a t La Venta for about six weeks, Matthew and Marion

Stirling joined him at the site for a short stay before attending a Mexican archaeology

conference, the Roundtable on Anthropological Problems of Mexico and Central America,

at Tuxtla Gutierrez in late April. Upon their arrival at camp, Philip Drucker updated

them on his progress and showed them the excavations, along with the pottery and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

figurines which had been discovered. Then, as Matthew Stirling later reported in The

National Geographic Magazine:

Before leaving [for the Tuxtla Gutierrez conference], we started a test trench near the sarcophagus to locate the edge of the mound covering both sarcophagus and tomb. Soon after our departure, Drucker encountered in the bottom of this pit a cache of 37 polished jade axes, several with [incised] decorations (Stirling and Stirling 1 9 4 2 :6 4 3 ).

Recalling the conference at Tuxtla Gutierrez, Stirling would later explain, “One

of the objectives of the conference was to assemble the characteristic traits then known

as a result of the recent excavations. The concept of the Olmec “art style” was being

changed to that of a culture” (Stirling 1968:5). By bringing news of his findings,

including the newly-discovered celts, to the archaeology conference, Stirling was able to

contribute significantly to the emerging consensus.

1943—La Venta

The National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists returned to La Venta for a

second field season in 1943. Philip Drucker, now serving in the U.S. Navy, was

unavailable, and he was replaced by Waldo Wedel, assistant curator of the U.S. National

Museum Division of Archaeology, Smithsonian Institution (Stirling 1943a:321).

Walter Weber, a Smithsonian ornithologist and artist, was also part of the 1943

expedition staff, as was Richard Stewart. Marion Stirling, who was pregnant, decided to

remain in the United States. Of the eight seasons in Southern Mexico, this was the only

instance when she did not accompany her husband.

It was during this third excavation at La Venta (1940, 1942, 1943) that the

National Geographic/Smithsonian archaeologists uncovered two of the most famous

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24

features of Olmec archaeology-room size mosaic floors made of polished greenstone

paving blocks and colored clays in a “mask” design which seemed to resemble the face of

a jaguar. It took two months of digging to excavate one of the masks, which was located at

a depth of 23 feet, covered by a fill of clay bricks and rubble. Also uncovered in 1943

was a cist-a stone box which once may have once held the body of a chieftain or priest,

and which was filled with “scores of jade, crystal, and turquoise,1’ along with a

collection of jade necklaces, earplugs, and ax heads (Stirling 1943a:321). Additional

sculpture, including a four foot monkey carved from green serpentine, was also

discovered and was sent, along with the other pieces, to the National Museum of

Anthropology in Mexico City.

Stirling used La Venta as his home base in 1943 while continuing to search for

other sites of potential importance. He was particularly interested in corroborating

rumors about ancient ruins at a place called Pueblo Viejo, but he had no success in

locating them.

1944-Tabasco. Chiapas. Campeche

In a December 11,1943 letter from Alexander Wetmore to Gilbert Grosvenor,

president of the National Geographic Society, Wetmore wrote:

In view of the success that has attended the Society’s archaeological work in Mexico, I beg to suggest for your consideration a further research project in that field for the coming year It is contemplated this year to make a reconnaissance in certain sections of Tabasco, adjacent Veracruz and nearby Chiapas to locate areas for further detailed exploration. It may be desirable also to investigate a site of which we have information in western Campeche. It is not planned to make extensive excavations as in other seasons, but to select sites for further detailed work (A. Wetmore to G. Grosvenor, letter, 11 December 1943, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

The National Geographic Society did, In fact, approve Stirling’s request to carry

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25

out an investigation in several new areas. His exploration resulted in the discovery of

sites at San Miguel near by headwaters of the Blasillo River, and a t Corral Nuevo,

although neither of these locations became the objects of major excavations (Stirling

1 9 6 8 :6 ).

1945-C hiapas and San Lorenzo

In 1945, the National Geographic/Smithsonian expedition turned from the Gulf

Coast to explore archaeological sites further inland. After beginning the field season by

spending a week at Izapa on the Pacific coast of Chiapas, the Stirlings, accompanied by

Richard Stewart, searched for additional sites near the Tacana Volcano (Stirling

1947:141). The principal locus of their activity, however, was Piedra Parada, located

about 30 miles northwest of Tuxtla-a site with five principal mounds, including three

“high pyramidal structures oriented in a north-south line, with two rectangular

flanking mounds just north of the central one” (Stirling 1947:144). From this base,

the Stirlings spent three months exploring local caves, which contained large quantities

of ceramics, and visiting other caves and ruins near the gorge of the nearby La Venta

River (not the archaeological site of La Venta in Tabasco). The region was home to

massive stone-masonry structures and ball courts, and Stirling reported that “Our

work among the La Venta has opened up an important new archaeological area” (Stirling

1947:155). However, a subsequent discovery caused him to turn to another site, rather

than to the La Venta River, for future work.

Due to a combination of excellent contacts, sound archaeological intuition, and

very good luck, Matthew Stirling ended the 1945 season with a major find. As the field

work drew to a close, the Stirlings travelled to Tuxtla to begin the journey home. Before

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26

departing, they received a surprising message. According to Matthew Stirling:

Awaiting us was a letter from a Mexican friend in Coatzacoalcos, telling of stone monuments on the Rio Chiquito, in a remote part o f southern Veracruz. Juan del Alto, an acquaintance of ours, had heard that two of these were colossal heads. Although we had plane reservations for Mexico City, we made a rapid-fire change of plans. Stewart, who had a photographic assignment in the capital, would go there, and Mrs. Stirling and I would g et o ff the plane a t Ixtepec and cross the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to Coatzacoalcos (Stirling 1947:157).

After spending 12 hours on a train, the Stirlings linked up with Juan del Alto.

The party then travelled further, by local train, on foot and on horseback, to reach the

village of Tenochtitlan, on the left bank of the Rio Chiquito. A fairly recent community

(carved out of the jungle only eight years earlier), Tenochtitlan was located on two

parallel ridges covered with different size mounds and including a rectangular court.

Visible about four miles away, on the same low ridge as Tenochtitlan, were the heights of

San Lorenzo, where further mounds were located (Stirling 1947:158).

The Stirlings could only spend a brief two days in the Tenochtitlan/San Lorenzo

area before continuing on their way back to the United States. However, even in that

minimal time, they encountered, and excavated, two colossal heads. One of these was a

massive head (nicknamed El Rey or “the king”, by local residents), which was the

most impressive monument they encountered at San Lorenzo from the point of view of

size, state of preservation, and artistic quality (Stirling 1947:159).

Among other major finds in this short, intense period of exploration and

excavation, was what Stirling described as:

. . . (a) big, table-top altar, lying on its back at the edge of a deep depression about 30 yards across. This stone is under water most of the year because the depression becomes a lake in the wet season. Arriving at the close of the dry season, we were fortunately able to excavate it and take pictures (Stirling 1947:159).

The altar, with a front niche featuring a seated figure holding what appeared to be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

a baby, was strikingly similar to an altar that the expedition had found at La Venta.

Other notable monuments which the Stirlings found during their brief stay

included a seated (headless) woman holding an image of an Olmec jaguar god, and another

headless, seated woman, this time holding a cylindrical bar across her lap. To their

surprise, the archaeologists also found hollowed-out, tile-shaped stones which suggested

the existence of an aqueduct in ancient times.

Before the Stirlings’ brief visit came to a close, it was clear that the Rio Chiquito

area near Tenochtitlan and San Lorenzo was a major site, ripe for further exploration.

1946—San Lorenzo

The Stirlings returned to the complex of sites on the Rio Chiquito (today often

referred to as San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan) a year later to conduct further excavation.

Philip Drucker, back from the war, and Richard Stewart were with them at camp on the

plateau of San Lorenzo. Before work could begin, they had to expend considerable time

clearing the brush from the area during a period of heavy rain.

During this field season, the National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists

“cleared the central section of the site, mapping its mounds, courts, and plazas”

(Stirling 1947:170). Trenches were cut through several of the mounds. The

archaeologists mapped the big mound site at nearby Tenochtitlan and carried out

excavations in its principal court. Stratigraphic trenches were dug in various locations

at both Tenochtitlan and San Lorenzo. Among the major discoveries of the season were

five additional stone heads and, from the nearby site of Potrero Nuevo, a table top

“altar” featuring two figures supporting the altar top with their upright arms (Stirling

1 9 4 7 :1 7 1 ).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28

By the end of the season, Matthew Stirling had concluded that San Lorenzo was

“one of the richest and most interesting monument sites in the New World" (Stirling

1947:171). Nevertheless, the 1946 season was to be the finale of the National

Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions to Southern Mexico. The National Geographic

Society had apparently concluded that it was time to shift the focus of its archaeological

coverage to other areas (George Stuart, personal communication 1996). Marion

Stirling does not recall that her husband wished to turn his attention elsewhere (Marion

Stirling Pugh, personal communication 1996). However, it would not have been

surprising if Stirling had welcomed a change. He was a man who had many interests,

among them several archaeological problems involving sites in Panama and Ecuador, and

he went on to excavate these sites in future years with support from the National

Geographic Society.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5

OBJECTIVES AND INFLUENCES

In this chapter, I explore the reasons why Matthew Stirling chose to undertake a

challenging series of excavations, under difficult circumstances, in a geographic region

where he had limited prior experience. My interest is in identifying Stirling’s

objectives and those of his assistant archaeologists. I then examine the influences which

I believe shaped those objectives and which may have had an impact on the results that

the archaeologists achieved. Some of the questions I consider include the following:

What prompted Matthew Stirling to undertake the expeditions to Southern

Mexico? Prior to 1938, his career did not reveal a particular focus on Middle America.

To what extent can Stirling’s objectives be determined from written and

archaeological records?

W hat was the relationship between his stated objectives, and the way in which

the expeditions were organized and executed?

Were the aims of Weiant, Drucker, and Wedel similar to those of Stirling? If

they diverged, how were they different?

Did the goals of the four archaeologists remain constant during the seasons they

were in the field, or did they change over time?

Objectives

In reading primary and secondary sources about the expeditions to Southern

Mexico, It becomes clear that the four archaeologists on the National

2 9

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30

Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions had certain objectives in common, but that they

also had individual goals, it is likewise apparent that some objectives were implicit,

rather than stated, and that others were modified during the course of the expeditions.

Interestingly, one purported objective of the National Geographic-Smithsonian

expeditions, as mentioned in correspondence, does not appear to have been pursued. In a

June 2, 1938 letter to Dr. C.G. Abbot, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,

Licenciado Alfonso Toro, Chief of the Department of Monuments, Department of

Education, Mexico authorizes the Smithsonian to:

. . . make archeological studies in the State of Veracruz with the object of investigating the possible relations between the cultures of the southeast of the United States and that of the Tontonac-Huasteca region of the Republic [italics mine] (A. Toro to C.G. Abbot, letter, 2 June 1938, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

This objective-exploring contacts between Southern Mexico and the United

States Southeast, with the intention of investigating the diffusion of cultural traits from

South to North—would have been an understandable goal, since many archaeologists of

that era were interested in South-North diffusion. However, it does not appear again in

Stirling’s subsequent statements about the expeditions, for reasons that cannot be

determined.

Margins of the Mava World

If an analysis of Mexican contacts with the Southeast was not, in the end,

Stirling’s objective, the study of other kinds of contacts and relationships was definitely

one of his goals. When writing later about one of the expeditions, Matthew Stirling

would describe the objectives for Veracruz and Tabasco as part of a larger plan which

had been:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31

. . . inaugurated in 1932 by the Bureau of American Ethnology for the purpose of studying cultural sequences in Middle America by attending the archeological problems of the eastern and western margins of the Maya area, with the idea of determining relationships with the better-known pre-Columbian Maya (Stirling 1 9 4 3 b :l).

In other words, the contacts, the connections, and the relationships being studied

were specifically linked with the Maya. Understanding these relationships seems to have

been the basic goal of Stirling as an archaeologist, and o f the Smithsonian’s Bureau of

American Ethnology, as an institutional entity. Although archaeologists from both

Europe and the Americas had been making important discoveries about Maya civilization

since the 19th century, prior to the 1930s there had been no systematic attem p t to

ascertain the outer boundaries of the Maya world. Stirling’s sense of initiative and his

innate curiosity made such a systematic exploration an attractive and logical project for

the Smithsonian to undertake.

This is not to say that a determination of Maya boundaries was Stirling’s only

objective. In addition to learning more about the Maya “frontier,” he was clearly

interested in investigating the Gulf Coast for clues to the culture which appeared to have

produced the stone sculpture and carved jades which were by then being labeled

“Olmec.” As has been seen, it was a visit to Tres Zapotes which had initially prompted

his application to the National Geographic for financial support, even though he would

later comment that the Southern Mexico expeditions fit into a pattern of exploration

which had begun earlier in the decade (Stirling 1968:4).

Still, the objective of investigating relationships persisted throughout the period

of the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions. Stirling intended not merely to

excavate known sites well, but to search for additional, unexcavated sites with

significant monuments and large mounds which might be able to tell him something about

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32

both Maya boundaries and the Olmec culture. By the end of the first season, Stirling was

thinking well beyond Tres Zapotes, and he suggested on May 3,1939:

I think that it would be desirable in the new application to include for possible preliminary excavation the site at La Venta near Puerto Mexico. This shows strong indications of cultural relationships to the Tres Zapotes site and would furnish us with some very interesting additional material. .. . (M. Stirling to A. Wetmore, letter, 3 May 1939, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

In a March 11,1940 letter to Alexander Wetmore, Stirling reiterated that he

remained open to finding new sites. Before going to La Venta, he comments, he had

located:

. . . an important group of very large mounds in which were 18 carved stone monuments, 12 of which were stelae, a number of them with glyphs. It seems incredible th a t such a striking site as this should be unknown in such a comparatively accessible region but I have never seen it mentioned in the literature (M. Stirling to A. Wetmore, letter, 11 March 1940, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

Gilbert Grosvenor, writing on June 28, 1940, agreed to support an

archaeological investigation in the new area Stirling had proposed for the 1941 field

season, stating:

Dr. Stirling has been most conscientious in responding to every request of the Natbnal Geographic Magazine staff. His articles summarizing his explorations are interestingly written, with the result that our National Geographic Society members understand the importance of his discoveries and unanimously approve the action of The Society in granting him financial support (G. Grosvenor to A. Wetmore, letter, 28 June 1940, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

After 1941, Stirling’s interest in searching out sites with a relationship to the

ones he had already investigated continued to be as strong as ever. On December 11,

1943, Alexander Wetmore wrote to Gilbert Grosvenor about the 1944 season, proposing

further reconnaissance in Tabasco, Chiapas, and Campeche (A. Wetmore to G. Grosvenor,

letter, 11 December 1943, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33

Washington, D.C.). And an undated National Geographic News Bulletin, issued in 194 5,

announced that an expedition, headed by Stirling, was on its way to:

. . . the southernmost Mexican State of Chiapas where, digging into large burial mounds and clearing dense jungle growth, he will continue to reveal some of the secrets of pre-Columbian civilizations in this hemisphere.. . . The expedition’s explorations last year demonstrated that the Olmec did not extend their civilization beyond the middle of the State of Tabasco but turned toward the Pacific Ocean, following the mountains bordering the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (National Geographic News Bulletin, undated, 1945).

Cultural Sequences

Once the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions got underway in 1939,

Stirling framed many of his objectives in chronological terms: the desirability of

understanding the sequence of Southern Mexican cultures with respect to other pre-

Columbian civilizations. He remarked about Tres Zapotes in an article which he wrote

for the August 1939 issue of The National Geographic Magazine:

As a result of the large shard collection obtained, we hope eventually to establish a detailed chronology for this site, which may then be tied in with other known archeological centers of Middle America. This will, in fact, represent the most important scientific result of the expedition. (Stirling 1939:217).

This focus on time was strengthened by Stirling’s discovery at Tres Zapotes of the

stela with an early date carved in the Maya numeric system. In a May 1939 letter to

Alexander Wetmore, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian, in which he requests a

second season of National Geographic support, Stirling reports that:

. . . we are now familiar with the site and have several problems that we are ready to attack. Most important of these would be an attempt at definitely correlating the seventh-cycle date with the proper ceramic and other material culture remains (M. Stirling to A. Wetmore, letter, 3 May 1939, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34

Influence of South America

Continuing to pursue his interest in locating unexcavated sites-even if they

might be some distance from Veracruz and Tabasco-and linking them to his broader goal

of studying cultural relationships—Stirling wrote a June 24, 1941 letter to Alexander

Wetmore in which he laid out his objectives for the next field season. Requesting that

Philip Drucker return to the valley of the Rio Blanco in Southern Veracruz, Stirling

proposed that he himself conduct an archaeological reconnaissance during the next few

years to consist in:

. . . an examination of the Pacific Coast region of the Central American republics of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras and Salvador. If time would permit, part of the west coast of Guatemala might be included. Although this area is known to be rich in archeological remains, no systematic excavations have ever been conducted here ___ The scientific importance of the region lies in the fact that South American influences have thrust northward this far and have blended with the more familiar civilizations o f Middle America. [Italics mine]. This would in a sense be attacking the southern border of the Maya area in somewhat the same manner as the work in Vera Cruz and Tabasco attacked the northern border, and would supplement and complete the work begun by the Bureau a few years ago when Dr. Duncan Strong worked on the Bay Islands and along the Ulua River in Honduras (M. Stirling to A. Wetmore, memorandum, 24 June 1941, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

Interest in Olmec Art Style

Among Matthew Stirling’s most immediate goals once he was in the field was the

discovery and analysis of monumental sculpture. He appears to have long had an interest

in sculpture as an art form, even apart from what it might reveal about cultural

contacts or chronology. In the same March 11,1940 letter mentioned above, after the

National Geographic had funded the short-term exploration of La Venta, Stirling reported

from the field to Alexander Wetmore:

I have sent Dr. Abbot copies of the report on La Venta which turned out to be even

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35

more interesting than I had hoped. Instead o f one colossal head, we found five, three of them being much bigger than the Tres Zapotes example, and in addition we discovered a number of beautifully carved large stone altars or stelae (M. Stirling to A. Wetmore, letter, 11 March 1940, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

Stirling’s written statements make it clear that he had not one, but several,

objectives for the eight field seasons in Southern Mexico. The most fundamental

objectives were to investigate the boundaries of the Maya area, to look for evidence of

Maya expansion, and to understand the relationships among the peoples of Southern

Mexico by investigating the patterns of cultural dissemination in Middle America—and

even look into the influence of South America. However, while keeping these broad,

long-term objectives in view, Stirling had the more specific, short run goal of learning

about the Gulf Coast cultures now called “Olmec.” As he became convinced of the

existence and coherence of this culture, he focused on identifying new sites throughout

Middle America which might have an Olmec connection. Interestingly, he did not state in

his early writings that he was looking for the Olmec civilization. In fact, he does not use

the word “Olmec” in the article he wrote for The National Geographic Magazine about

the 1939 field season. Only gradually, does he employ this term and describe his

purpose as looking for the Olmec. By the time he published a report on his last

expedition to Southern Mexico—to the Rio Chiquito site of San Lorenzo—his memory

may have become selective, as he stated that the “primary objective” of the National

Geographic/Smithsonian Institution archaeological program had been “the study of the

La Venta or Olmec culture” (Stirling, 1955:6).

Personal and Institutional Objectives

Matthew Stirling may also have had other objectives that were less explicit than

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36

the ones described above. That he was motivated by a desire to enhance the program and

reputation of the Bureau of American Ethnology, which had been in the shadow of the

Carnegie Institution with respect to Middle American archaeology, is a reasonable

speculation. Certainly he wished to (and did) challenge the belief in Maya preeminence

which had been fostered by some Carnegie archaeologists, whose mindset was less

flexible than his own. Stirling may also have seen the National Geographic-Smithsonian

expeditions as vehicles for giving more focus to his own career, which had previously

ranged widely from excavations in Florida to fieldwork in New Guinea. There is no

question that he succeeded. At the conclusion of the expeditions to Southern Mexico,

Stirling had become known and respected for his expertise in Middle America. Building

on this, he went on to do further archaeological work elsewhere in Mexico, and in

Panama and Ecuador.

Objectives of the Other Archaeologists

Clarence Weiant, Philip Drucker, and Waldo Wedel have left less written

evidence about their objectives in Southern Mexico than did Matthew Stirling. Since

they were Stirling’s subordinates, and since their scholarly reports were official

publications of the Bureau of American Ethnology, their statements generally reflect

their supervisor’s views. According to Clarence Weiant in his report on Tres Zapotes:

The entire project envisaged in the National Geographic Society-Smithsonian expedition to the Mexican Gulf Coast constitutes one link in a comprehensive plan which Mr. Stirling and Dr. Strong conceived several years ago to attack the problem of the origins of the high cultures in Middle America by investigating peripheral areas (Weiant, 1943:Xll).

Likewise, Philip Drucker, also reporting on Tres Zapotes, stated:

Ever since the discovery over 30 years ago. . . of the significance of the Tuxtla

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37

statuette(2), with its early date, the southern Veracruz region has been recognized as an archeologically im portant zone. Conceivably, it might hold the key to the problem of Maya-Huastec relationships, to the Maya problem in general, and investigation there might ultimately cast more light on the major problem of Middle American civilizations (Drucker 1943a:1).

As in the case of Stirling, the word “Olmec” does not appear in the Tres Zapotes

report written by Drucker and appears only in tangential terms in Weiant’s BAE report.

In addition to seeing their major goals as those described above, Weiant,

Drucker, and Wedei had individual goals for their participation in the National

Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions. Weiant, a 41 year old chiropractor from New

York State, was pursuing a Ph.D. In anthropology at Columbia University when he joined

Stirling’s team in 1939. The excavations, particularly the information he obtained on

ceramics, gave him the data he needed to write a doctoral dissertation-his major reason

for participation. In fact the title of his dissertation, An Introduction to the Ceramics of

Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico, is identical to the title of his Bureau of American

Ethnology report.

Drucker, younger than Weiant but with more field experience, found the

expeditions to be a good way of establishing some credentials as an archaeologist with a

Middle American focus. (His previous work was in Oregon and Washington State, and he

also had a strong interest in the Northwest Coast) Several times at the end of a field

season, Drucker asked about the possibility of remaining in Mexico to write up the

results of his work. In one instance, he argued:

And this is on the side, but I think of importance to my future utility as a Middle American archeologist— I’ll be able to get myself up to date on all this recent work the local talent has done here-learn what they have turned up in the way of ceramics-l’ll swear you have to study their collection to find out-you can’t do it from reading their descriptions (P. Drucker to M. Stirling, letter, undated, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38

As he put it another way, “I would have access to more “Olmec” material, in the

Museo, and in private collections, for comparative dope for the art-style study, here

than anywhere else” (P. Drucker to M. Stirling, letter, undated, National

Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.). Unfortunately

for Drucker, his presence was usually required in Washington sooner than he wished.

Drucker also had a strong personal reason for his interest in Mexico-a Mexican

wife. Eventually he would buy land in Veracruz and spend approximately ten years there

as a rancher, before returning to the United States and resuming his career in

anthropology.

At the time of Waldo Wedel’s participation, he was on the staff of the U.S. National

Museum, and the season at La Venta gave him the opportunity to work closely with a

more senior Smithsonian official in a project which was by then garnering considerable

publicity. Wedel was a young but quite experienced archeologist whose previous work

had focused on the Great Plains. Participating in a National Geographic-Smithsonian

expedition was a way for Wedel to add to his field experience while being introduced to a

new cultural setting. Wedel does not appear to have had any particular interest in

Middle America, however. Following his stint at La Venta, he returned to the

Smithsonian where he had a long and distinguished career and where he specialized in

U.S. Archaeology. He retired in 1976 as “Archaeologist Emeritus” and continued to

publish extensively about the archaeology of Kansas.

Academic Influences

Along with a look at objectives, it is useful to consider the influences which may

have had an impact on the development of those objectives.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39

Perhaps the fundamental influence upon the four National Geographic-

Smithsonian archaeologists was the over-arching archaeological theory to which they

had been exposed during their university training. The period 1939-46 fell within the

heyday of the “culture history” paradigm in American archaeology. According to this

theory, the prime focus of most archaeological work was to pin down the “who” and the

“when” of ancient societies-to establish a time span and to frame a chronology of the

culture under investigation. Stirling’s efforts to confirm an early time period for the

archaeological sites he was investigating; Weiant and Dnicker’s attempts to establish a

cultural chronology through ceramics, and Wedel’s emphasis on careful stratigraphic

excavations-all these actions were consistent with the culture history emphasis, to

which I will refer later in this paper. The attention to chronology was, of course,

appropriate, since there was a need for basic chronological data before other aspects of

the Gulf Coast sites could be addressed.

In addition to a shared belief in the culture history paradigm, three of the four

archaeologists shared something else-their archaeological training at the University of

California a t Berkeley. Ronald Olson, a prominent American anthropologist, described

the 1920s as “the golden age of anthropology at Berkeley” (Drucker 1981b:605). A

major figure in U.S. anthropology, Alfred Kroeber, had been on the Berkeley faculty

since 1906, and his influence will be discussed later.

Although the Berkeley graduate program was not large, it included among its

student body a number of men who would go on to significant anthropological careers.

Several, such as Julian Steward, William Duncan Strong, Philip Drucker and Waldo

Wedel, would eventually join the staff of the Smithsonian Institution.

Matthew Stirling received his undergraduate degree from the University of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

California/Berkeley in 192 0. Philip Drucker and Waldo Wedel both received Ph.D.

degrees from Berkeley in 1936.

Although Stirling was 15 years older than Drucker, and ten years older than

Wedel, their shared educational background, and their formative experiences in the

West, constituted a bond among the three men. On this score, Clarence Weiant was an

outsider. An easterner (bom in New York state), a Doctor of Chiropractic and a student

at Columbia University, his experience differed quite significantly from those of his

National Geographic and Smithsonian colleagues. Even in his case, however, there was

some Berkeley influence. One of his professors at Columbia was the Berkeley-educated

William Duncan Strong, who had joined the Columbia faculty after having conducted the

first phase of the Smithsonian’s Maya-perimeter investigations in Honduras. Strong

knew Weiant, and it was Strong who recommended Weiant to Matthew Stirling when

Stirling was looking for a student to participate in the 1939 expedition (Marion Stirling

Pugh, personal communication 1996).

It should be noted that there was a fundamental difference in the educational

backgrounds of Stirling, Drucker, Wedel, and Weiant, despite their shared Berkeley

connections. That difference was the terminal degree. Matthew Stirling never pursued a

Ph.D., opting instead to accept a position with the Bureau of American Ethnology when he

was in his early twenties. While working in Washington, Stirling obtained an M.A. In

anthropology from George Washington University, and he was later awarded an honorary

Sci.D. From Tampa University. Despite his significant accomplishments as a field

archaeologist and his proven track record within the Bureau of American Ethnology, his

lack of academic credentials and the absence of a strong background in Middle American

archaeology may have initially diminished his credibility with Maya luminaries such as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41

J. Eric Thompson and others. The eminent U.S. archaeologist Gordon Willey, recalling

some people’s reaction to Stirling’s discovery of Stela C at Tres Zapotes, later wrote:

Stirling was not a Maya scholar nor a hieroglyphic expert nor, at that time, even a recognized authority of any aspect of Middle American archaeology. How dare he meddle in such sacred matters as Maya calendrics and epigraphy (Willey 1 9 8 8 :2 5 5 ).

Role of Personal Characteristics

Among the most salient influences upon the National Geographic-Smithsonian

expeditions were the personalities of the archaeologists. Stirling was a man with a

preference for action over academics, a man described posthumously by a former BAE

colleague as “one of those restless individuals who disliked office routine and indoor life.

His preference is for wild places and wild people" (Judd 1967:31). While this

quotation might be an overstatement in describing a man who mixed easily in Washington

society, it is arguable that Stirling’s curiosity, his sense of adventure and his

willingness to take risks led him to initiate the National Geographic-Smithsonian

expeditions and to carry them out successfully (George Stuart, personal communication

1996). Stirling had an open, unpretentious personality and good political skills which

enabled him to forge close relationships with a variety of people, ranging from

important funders, such as Grosvenor of the National Geographic Society, to young

students seeking his counsel, with whom he corresponded during his years a t the Bureau

of American Ethnology. This same talent for interpersonal relations enabled Stirling to

win the trust and respect of Mexican archaeologists and artists, such as Alfonso Caso and

Miguel Covarrubias, and these contacts facilitated his ability to plan and carry out the

expeditions. According to Gordon Willey (who worked at the Smithsonian and saw

Stirling daily from 1943-50):

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42

I cannot think of another colleague-at least none who had the kind of position that Matt did-who displayed [a ] less formal “side” than Matt. Any weightiness of manner, any hint of pomposity, were completely foreign to his nature The fact that he combined this casualness with a truly deep modesty led some people in the field to underrate him. The fact of the matter was, he had an absolutely first-class brain (Willey 1988:245-246).

Philip Drucker shared some of Stirling’s traits. He was a restless outdoors man

with an ability to thrive in a field situation requiring endurance, flexibility, and humor.

His skills as a bronco-busting cowboy and rodeo performer, honed during childhood

years in Colorado, won Drucker considerable admiration from Mexicans working at or

near the archaeological sites (Stirling 1947:171).

The personal characteristics of Clarence Weiant and Waldo Wedel undoubtedly

influenced their accomplishments in the field, although there is less documentation on

this score. While they may have been satisfied with their field work, neither man

pursued over the long term the questions about the Olmec which the expeditions had

raised.

Impact of Other Individuals

Several outside individuals, whose roles may be somewhat underestimated, had a

major impact on the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions. Alexander Wetmore,

assistant secretary of the Smithsonian, was one such individual. Wetmore was

instrumental in arranging initial support from the National Geographic Society, and he

played an important role in ensuring that the support continued during the entire

1939-1946 period.

The Stirlings themselves acknowledged Wetmore’s contribution. On June 15,

1974, two years before Matthew Stirling’s death, Marion Stirling wrote the following

handwritten note to the man she affectionately called “Alejandro”:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43

We treasure your friendship and the many happy memories of our days together in the field. Aside from friendship, you have been responsible for Matt’s making a success of his career in anthropology-by first appointing him Chief of the B.A.E., then getting us started with N.G.S. financing Olmec work, and later putting him on Research Committee [of the Geographic]. I want you to know we appreciate it and remember (M. Stirling to A. Wetmore, letter, 15 June 1974, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

Ten years older than Matthew Stirling, Wetmore included the U.S. National

Museum among his responsibilities. A distinguished ornithologist who served as a

trustee or board member of several scientific organizations, Wetmore was consistently

supportive of Matthew Stirling’s interest in Southern Mexico. In an era where conflict

of interest was not as apparent as it is today, Wetmore served simultaneously as

assistant secretary of the Smithsonian-and Stirling’s boss-and as vice chairman of

the Committee on Research of the National Geographic Society, the very same decision

making body which approved requests for archaeological funding. While the Stirlings

had their own contacts at the Geographic, Wetmore was frequently a go-between with

respect to the two organizations.

Wetmore was not only an intermediary between Stirling and his funders, but he

was also a participant in the first expedition. During the 1939 field season, Wetmore

travelled to Tres Zapotes to collect bird specimens for his research. Observing the

excavations first-hand undoubtedly strengthened his positive attitude toward the

archaeological program.

Wetmore frequently was the correspondent with the National Geographic Society

when it came to securing financial backing. Immediately after the successful first field

season at Tres Zapotes, on May 4,1939, Wetmore wrote to Stirling that he should:

. . . take up immediately the question of the necessary permits with the Mexican authorities, particularly since we wish to extend the area for our investigation somewhat this year. It will be much appreciated if you will keep me advised of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44

progress of these matters, since the National Geographic Society looks to me for general supervision in these investigations (A. Wetmore to M. Stirling, letter, 4 May 1939, National Anthropological Archives, Washington, D.C.).

One interesting role that Wetmore was able and willing to perform was to act as

intermediary between Stirling and other members of the archaeological establishment,

when Stirling was out of the country. In a letter dated January 31,1939, Wetmore

wrote to A.V. Kidder of the Carnegie Institution about an important discovery:

Dear Kidder: Stirling, in the archaeological work that he has undertaken in Vera Cruz, has made a ten strike and has what he believes a seventh cycle date in a type of inscription corresponding to that found in the Tuxtla Statuette. His work is just beginning and no doubt there will be other things later on. His other discoveries include a huge head of peculiar physiognomy resting on a flagstone base. Naturally all these matters are highly interesting and Stirling has written me asking if Morley would care to come over a little later on to see the dig. We would like especially to arrange this in order to get Morley’s counsel on the date first mentioned (A. Wetmore to A. Kidder, letter, 31 January 1939, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

The association with Wetmore benefitted Stirling in ways other than funding. It

gave him additional credibility with the academicians and scientists whom Wetmore

knew from his own work.

Clarence Weiant had several important contacts who contributed to his

involvement with the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions and thus indirectly

played a role in the archaeological excavations in Southern Mexico. One of these was a

leading Mexicanist, George Vaillant, of the American Museum of Natural History, a

specialist in ceramics. While a student in New York, Weiant became acquainted with

Vaillant, and he acknowledged Vaillant’s influence in his Bureau of American Ethnology

report:

I am especially grateful to Dr. George Vaillant of the American Museum of Natural History, who has been my constant mentor throughout the investigation. In many a conference, he has given unsparingly of his tim e and brought the full richness of his

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45

experience in Middle American Archaeology to bear upon the problems at hand (Weiant 1943:XIII).

Included in the same BAE publication are Weiant’s words of appreciation to

William Duncan Strong, about whom Weiant wrote: ul am also indebted to Dr. W.D.

Strong for invaluable advice on problems arising in the course of this investigation"

(Weiant 1943: XII). Although the problems are unspecified, they may refer to a dispute

(to be discussed later) between Weiant and Philip Drucker over the interpretation of

ceramic data. The fact that Weiant, despite his limited archaeological credentials, had

such strong backers and good connections, must have added to his viability as assistant to

Stirling during the 1939 field season.

Relationships with Mexicans

Another influence on the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions was the

collegial and supportive attitude demonstrated by leading Mexican scholars toward the

excavations and explorations in Southern Mexico.

Approval from the Mexican Government was required before foreign

archaeologists could excavate, and assistance from other Mexican officials and colleagues

was often necessary to facilitate the shipment and/or storage of artifacts. Stirling and

Drucker, in particular, established close personal and professional ties with Mexican

officials, ties which greatly enhanced their ability to carry out their work.

Actually, the potential importance of the Mexican archaeological community was

recognized by the Smithsonian Institution several years before the expeditions got

underway. In a letter dated November 7, 1933, Alexander Wetmore wrote to Matthew

Stirling about the visit to Washington by a Dr. Borbollas from the (Mexican) National

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Museum of Archaeology. Wetmore asked Stirling to send Borbollas some BAE

publications, adding, “The matter is of some importance as Dr. Borbollas seems to be

disposed in a friendly manner toward us so that there is probability of cooperation that

will be of mutual advantage” (A. Wetmore to M. Stirling, letter, 7 November 1933,

Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.). Such early contacts between the

Smithsonian and the National Museum of Archaeology undoubtedly paved the way for

Mexican approval of the 1939 field season. After the first months at Tres Zapotes,

matters having gone well, Stirling was able to say in a May 3, 1939 letter to Alexander

Wetmore that, “The Mexican authorities have already indicated to me verbally their

willingness to grant a continuation of the project if submitted” (M. Stirling to A.

Wetmore, letter, 3 May 1939, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian

Institution, Washington, D.C.). The support continued throughout the period of the

expeditions.

Two Mexicans who were favorably disposed toward the National Geographic-

Smithsonian program were especially important in legitimizing the expeditions and in

enhancing their acceptability within the Mexican archaeological establishment: Alfonso

Caso, head of INAH, the Institute Nacional de Antropoiogia e Historia (“National Institute

of Anthropology and History”) and Miguel Covarrubias, Mexican artist, collector, and

avocational archaeologist Both Caso and Covarrubias had a long-time interest in the art

style we now call “Olmec,” and they were eager to learn more about the culture which

produced it.

Matthew Stirling was adept at keeping Alfonso Caso, Miguel Covarrubias, and

other Mexican archaeologists updated on the progress of the expeditions, and he took

pains to express publicly his appreciation for their support and that of other

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47

individuals. As Stirling wrote in Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico:

Most of all, acknowledgement is due to Alfonso Caso. . . and to Arquitecto Ignacio Marquina, Director of the Departamento de Monumentos Prehispanicos. Not only in their official positions have they done everything possible to encourage and facilitate the work, but by giving freely of their personal knowledge of Mexican archaeology have contributed many ideas which have added to the value of this report. The same might be said for all of the staff of the Instituto Nacional, whose cooperation has been a source of great personal pleasure to this writer, in particular Eduardo Noguera and Juan Valenzuela have willingly given their time and advice (Stirling 1943b:4).

During the seven year period of the expeditions, Mexican scholars occasionally

visited the Stirlings in camp and shared ideas and information about the excavations. As

Stirling reported to Alexander Wetmore in a letter dated January 29, 1941:

This past week, Miguel Covarrubias, the Mexican artist, has been with us as a visitor and has made excellent drawings for us of all the monuments. This is a fine break because no one else knows as much as aboriginal Mexican art styles. In addition to this he is a fine camp companion (M. Stirling to A. Wetmore, letter, 29 January 1941, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

The National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions were impacted not only by

individual Mexicans but also by the renewed focus on Mexico’s indigenous roots. The

period 1920-1940 was a period of “cultural naturalism focusing on the Indian,” in

which Mexican intellectuals, including artists and anthropologists played a prominent

role (Meyer and Sherman 1979:614-621). Men like Miguel Covarrubias employed the

medium of art to bring attention to the pre-historic and pre-hispanic past and to the

importance of the Indian in contemporary society (Meyer and Sherman 1979:614-

621). Anthropologists called for greater attention to social and economic development

among the marginalized native population. Archaeologists looked to the glories of past

civilizations and their contribution to the Mexican heritage. A resurgence of the ethnic

pride which had colored many aspects of the 20th century Mexican revolution resulted

in the 1936 establishment of INAH as an institution to guard the nation’s archaeological,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48

historical, and anthropological patrimony. The influence of this movement led men such

as the archaeologist Alfonso Caso and the artist Covarrubias to emphasize the

accomplishments of pre-Columbian populations, and both men developed a particular

interest in the little-known cultural accomplishments of the Gulf Coast people known as

the “Olmec.”

U.S. Government and Smithsonian officials had some awareness of this

indigenista (“indigenist") movement and were ready to align themselves with it where

there was mutual advantage. In a letter dated February 24,1940, Alexander Wetmore

wrote to Matthew Stirling at Tres Zapotes:

Also I want to tell you of another matter, a Congress to be convened in Patzcuaro from April 14 to 24, 1940. This is an official Congress, sponsored by the Mexican Government and is to be known as the First Inter-American Congress on Indian Life, according to the translation of the title that has come to us. The State Department attaches considerable importance to this Congress and has asked us to make the usual recommendation of those who might represent the Government They are trying to get an appropriation to cover expenses. Whether this will be successful or not, I do not know. We have recommended you, Hrdlicka, Kidder, Valliant [sic] and Strong as representatives. The Congress comes just about the time when you will be closing your work and I believe that it is highly desirable that you arrange to go whether there is any extra money available for expenses or not. I hope that you can arrange to do this (A. Wetmore to M. Stirling, letter, 24 February 1940, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.)

In the end, Stirling did attend the Congress.

The National Geographic/Smithsonian expeditions also meshed well with the

interest common to both the Smithsonian and the U.S. Government in maintaining cordial

relationships with the leadership of influential Mexican institutions. Alexander

Wetmore wrote to the Selective Service on December 23, 1942, informing them that

Waldo Wedel (registered with Selective Service) was being sent to Mexico for

archaeological research and that:

The trip is an official one and is planned in connection with the present program for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

the promotion of better relations with scientific institutes in the American Republics (A. Wetmore to Chairman, Selective Service, D.C., letter, 23 December 1942, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

And on December 11,1943, Wetmore wrote to Gilbert Grosvenor at the National

Geographic Society:

In view of the success that has attended the Society’s archaeological work in Mexico, I beg to suggest for your consideration a future research project in that field for the coming year. While it is not practical to continue extensive operations during the present state of the war, at the same time it appears to be important to continue our contacts with the Mexican authorities in view of their presently highly favorable situation (A. Wetmore to G. Grosvenor, letter, 11 December 1943, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

Clearly, the expeditions were seen as a way of furthering friendly relations with

Mexico as a political entity-even more important now that the United States was on a

war footing-as well as promoting archaeological knowledge.

From the very beginning, the National Geographic-Smithsonian excavations

fueled debate within the Mexican archaeological community about the nature of the Gulf

Coast cultures whose sites were being unearthed, and about their relationship with the

Maya. It was with much anticipation that the Mexicans organized an anthropological

conference focusing on the Olmec which was set for April 27-30, 1942. Alexander

Wetmore provided some general information about the conference in a letter to M. L.

Leap of the State Department:

Under funds transferred to the Smithsonian Institution from the State Department, for Cooperation with Scientific Institutions, the Smithsonian Institution plans to send Mr. Matthew Williams Stirling, Chief of the Bureau of American Ethnology of our institution to Mexico leaving Washington during the early part of April. It is desired that Mr. Stirling go to Mexico City to visit the National Museum there, the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, and various officials in the Department of Education interested in archeology and anthropology in connection with matter of common interest in this field.

The Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia is holding an anthropological conference at Tuxtla Gutierrez in the State of Chiapas from April 27-30 inclusive which will be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

attended by all of the leading Mexican anthropologists. The subject of the conference is to be the so-called “Olmec” civilization, the earliest known culture of southern Mexico. A large part of the present knowledge of this culture has resulted from Mr. Stirling’s recent field work in Mexico.

Mr. Stirling is in receipt of an urgent invitation from Dr. Alfonso Caso, Director of the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia of the Mexican Federal Government. As indicated, Mr. Stirling is one of the leading authorities on the subject of this conference so that it is definitely important for the promotion of cultural relations that he be present (A. Wetmore to M. L Leap, letter, 16 March 1942, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

In addition to Matthew Stirling, Philip Drucker also recognized the value of

maintaining good relations with Mexican colleagues. Drucker established numerous

contacts during the several field seasons he spent in Mexico. A fte r finishing his work in

the field, he sometimes stayed in Mexico City for a time, working with Mexican

archaeologists on the collections from the Gulf Coast sites. In the breezy, informal style

that pervaded so much of his correspondence, Drucker was able to reassure Stirling in

May 1942:

It is probably no news to you how steamed up Caso is over La Venta and that he wants to see it dig [sic]more-l’m glad to say that he was pretty explicit about considering it definitely your baby if you want it—I don’t think he’d let anybody else move in on it-o r at least that was what he gave me to understand (P. Drucker to M. Stirling, letter, rcvd. Washington, 25 May, 1942, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

In the same letter, Drucker added further information which he knew would be of

great interest:

Caso is all for fixing up the tomb etc. as a preservation job-says that now he’s given up the idea of the headhunting-l mean, moving the heads up here to the Mus.-thinks La Venta should be preserved as for example Chichen, Monte Alban, etc. I’m going to draw him a diagram of the trench indicating the best place for a drainage ditch etc.(P. Drucker to M. Stirling, letter, rcvd. Washington, 25 May, 1942, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.)

At the local level, good relations between the U.S. archaeologists and the Mexican

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. communities had a positive influence on the results of the National Geographic-

Smithsonian expeditions. The Stirlings’ warm and gregarious personalities-plus the

fair wage which they paid to the workers hired at each site to assist with the

excavations-enabled them to attract and retain a capable crew and to overcome the

bureaucratic obstacles which were occasionally thrown up by local authorities. The

interpersonal and photographic talents of Richard Stewart, and Philip Drucker’s

prowess as a cowboy, further enhanced the expeditions’ reputation. In some sites,

positive memories of the archaeologists lingered for years. Archaeologist Michael Coe,

in his obituary of Matthew Stirling, recalled that he had identified himself as Stirling’s

godson when excavating at San Lorenzo about 20 years after Stirling’s departure (Coe

1976:7). The identification with Stirling was enough to win him an enthusiastic

welcome from the local populace.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 6

METHODOLOGY

An exhaustive look at the methodologies employed by members of the National

Geographic-Smithsonian archaeological expeditions is beyond the scope of this thesis.

However, in the following pages, I will examine in general terms the field methods which

were most frequently employed by the four archaeologists. My intention is to consider

which aspects of their training and/or experience led the archaeologists to use

particular methods and why. I will also explore how the choice of methodologies may

have affected the results of the research. In at least one instance, two archaeologists

used contradictory methods at the same site, leading to disputes about the results

achieved, and I will consider this controversy in greater detail.

Culture History and Methodology

The decisions about methodology which were made by the National Geographic-

Smithsonian archaeologists were strongly influenced by the culture history paradigm

which was then current in U.S. archaeological circles.

As noted by G. R. Willey and J. Sabloff in A History American Archaeology

(1994), the work of U.S. archaeologists between 1914-1940 was an effort to bring

“some kind of typological, spatial and temporal order” to prehistory (Willey and Sabloff

1994:164). Little or no emphasis was placed on the interpretation of function and

context. Instead, the focus was on “the plotting of culture in time and space,” a focus

which led to the use of stratigraphic excavations and to seriation as means of establishing

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

chronology (Willey and Sabloff 1994:96). Known by the broadly descriptive term

“culture history,” the approach was pragmatic, dependent upon the collection of “facts”

rather than on theory.

Culture history, as described by Willey and Sabloff, included the following

elements: carefully recorded description, use of typologies, geographical distribution of

data, integrative concept of a specific culture and the concept of horizon style (Willey

and Sabloff 1994). Fundamental to culture history was the attention paid to

determining cultural sequences and to understanding culture change through time.

By the early 1940s, several critics began to challenge this culture history

paradigm. One of the earliest critiques was Walter W. Taylor, Jr.’s A Study of

Archaeology. Written in the early 1940s (although not published until 1948), this

work argued that archaeologists needed more than chronology-they needed “the

conjunctive approach”:

.. . (the) drawing together, or the conjunction, of all possible lines of investigation on a specified archaeological problem. To chronicle and intersite relationships would be added close contextual intrasite study, with attention given to both the artifacts and features in themselves and to their relationships with all other artifacts and features. Such relationships would be sought not only in spatial or physical associationai dimensions but in possible functional and systematic ties (Willey and Sabloff 1994:163).

At approximately the same time, a noted U.S. anthropologist, Clyde Kluckhohn,

was specifically criticizing the way that archaeologists were working in Middle America.

Writing in The Maya and Their Neighbors (1940), and speaking primarily of

archaeologists who had conducted research a t Maya sites, Kluckhohn argued that

archaeologists should not be interested merely in facts for their own sake, but only

insofar as “all this industry can be viewed as contributing, however indirectly, toward

our understanding of human behavior in human history” (Kluckhohn 1940:42).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54

Kluckhohn viewed many of those involved in Middle American archaeology as “but

slightly reformed antiquarians,” who did a lot of “wallowing in detail of and for itself”

(Kluckhohn 1940:42). He was disturbed by what he regarded as the absence of theory

in Middle American research. Although admiring the industry and technical proficiency

of archaeologists working in Middle America, he charged that they were lacking in

methodological and theoretical development. Kluckhohn admitted that some prominent

archaeologists, e.g., Alfred Kidder of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, had urged

that facts be interpreted as well as collected. However, he argued that even Kidder’s

concerns had not resulted in the development of an “explicit and consistent logical

scheme for attaining these ends” (Kluckhohn 1940:45).

It was against this backdrop-a traditional emphasis on factual knowledge and on

the establishment of chronology—that the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions

got underway in 1939. In a sense, these expeditions took place in a period a transition

from one era to another. It is fair to say that Stirling and his fellow archaeologists did

have some interest in issues that went beyond chronology-e.g., they were interested in

understanding the relationships among the various Olmec sites, and in the relationships

between those sites and Maya sites or sites in the Valley of Mexico. However, despite

occasional attempts to diversify the agenda, the National Geographic-Smithsonian

archaeologists operated primarily in the culture history mode. It is not surprising that

this was the approach they favored. As students in the Anthropology Department of the

University of California/Berkeley, which was heavily influenced by the noted

anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, three of the archaeologists (Stirling, Drucker, Wedel)

had absorbed Kroeber’s ideas about culture, theory, and archaeology. Even Clarence

Weiant had been indirectly affected by Kroeber through the teaching of Kroeber’s pupil,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55

William Duncan Strong. Kroeber, according to his biographer, anthropologist Julian

Steward, was more interested in “distinguishing characteristics of culture” than in a

“search for causes”(Steward 1973:vi). Steward continued:

Having chosen anthropology as a profession, the empirical approach to language and culture taught by Boas was highly congenial to him. Scientific or explanatory formulations found no place in Boas’ comparative approach (Steward 1973:viii).

As Department chair at Berkeley, Kroeber de-emphasized academic archaeology:

he did not add an archaeologist to his staff until the late 1930s. Julian Steward later

recalled:

W.D. Strong and I, who had both made a mess of our first archaeological field work, had pleaded with him to provide training in the basic techniques of archaeology. He did not respond, apparently on the assumption, which also applied to linguistic work, that both pre-history and language are parts of culture and that one can learn about them through first-hand experience and reading (Steward 1973:40).

Most o f the Ph.D’s students at Berkeley during this period-even Philip

Drucker and Waldo Wedel-wrote dissertations with an anthropological focus, due to

Kroeber’s influence.

Despite (or perhaps because of) his attitude toward academic training in

archaeology, Kroeber was an advocate of experiential learning in the field. In addition to

carrying out highly regarded U.S. field research in anthropology during his career, he

also did significant field work in archaeology—particularly in the area of seriation.

Working in Mexico and Peru, Kroeber came to focus more on ceramic styles and

sequences than on other aspects o f culture (Steward 19 7 3 :4 1 ). As Gordon Willey

recalled:

Kroeber’s outlook was.. .resolutely historical and evolutionary.. . . The important thing was the necessity for considering the data of American archaeology in a framework of time (Willey 1968:39-40).

It is reasonable to conclude that several of Kroeber’s ideas-particularly his

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56

strong advocacy of sedation as a means of categorizing and sequencing cultures, his

emphasis on chronology, and his attitudes toward theory-including his rejection of the

scientific method in the study of cultural phenomena-left their mark on students being

formed in the Anthropology Department at Berkeley.

Summary of Methodologies Employed

It can be seen that the National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists fit rather

well into the prevailing “culture history” paradigm of archaeology. In the rest of this

chapter, I look at some of the methods they employed, within that culture history

framework-particularly (1) reconnaissance and site selection; (2) site survey and

mapping; (3) surface collecting and excavation of stone monuments; (4) structural and

non-structural excavation, and (5) ceramic analysis. My information comes primarily

from the reports which the archaeologists wrote after completing their fieldwork. I also

from time to time use material drawn from secondary sources written subsequent to the

1939-1946 period.

(1) Reconnaissance and Site Selection

As the late U.S. archaeologist Robert Heizer has observed:

The reasons governing the selection of a particular site for excavation will depend upon the specific objectives of the field investigation, combined with the practical considerations of technical resources, time, and funds available for the work.. . . Excavations which contribute most to the advancement of archaeological knowledge are “problem-oriented.” Such excavations initially may be directed toward historical problems of a fundamental nature, e.g., the definition of basic cultural successions in an archaeologically unknown region (Heizer 1967:29).

The archaeologists who worked in Southern Mexico were seeking to develop a

basic outline of the civilization which had produced the artifacts labeled “Olmec” and to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

establish its chronology. They were drawn to sites which gave evidence of major pre

historic occupation by virtue of their extent, layout, number and size of their earthen

mounds, and presence of stone monuments or other artifacts of likely antiquity.

Reconnaissance

Fundamental among the various archaeological methods employed by Matthew

Stirling between 1939-1946 was reconnaissance. Beginning with his vacation visit to

Tres Zapotes in 1938, when he talked a local campesino into showing him monuments in

the nearby jungle, Stirling spent a considerable amount of his time in the field looking

for potential archaeological sites. As leader of the National Geographic-Smithsonian

expeditions, Stirling was the principal explorer-the individual whose role it was to

conduct systematic searches and to decide where excavation should take place. Part of

each field season was spent on planned or unplanned reconnaissance-e.g., in 1939,

when Stirling paid a brief visit to the Rio Blanco and identified Cenro de las Mesas as a

site for future excavation; in 1940, when Stirling took ten days off from the season at

Tres Zapotes to explore and excavate at La Venta; in 1941, when he went to Izapa for

seven days on the recommendation of Miguel Covarrubias; in 1942, when he visited sites

in Chiapas following the archaeological conference at Tuxtla Gutierrez; in 1944, when

he travelled to Tabasco and Campeche, and in 1945 when he discovered San Lorenzo at

the conclusion of the field season (Stirling 1941:279).

Matthew Stirling’s proclivity for reconnaissance and exploration intensified

during the years he was in the field. As the outline of a Gulf Coast Olmec civilization

became clearer, he became anxious to define the geographical extent of Olmec culture and

to clarify the connection between Gulf sites and other possibly Olmec sites elsewhere in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

Southern Mexico (Drucker 1947:2). For this reason, Stirling identified, and then

carried out excavations at, places such as Piedra Parada and Izapa in Chiapas. He also

located additional sites which had possibilities, but where he was unable to excavate, due

to time constraints.

Stirling’s reconnaissance was facilitated by his own keen eyes, by his increasing

understanding of the regional topography, and by an uncanny archaeological intuition. He

was, of course, assisted by the information he had gleaned from the writings of earlier

explorers, such as Jose Melgar y Serrano, Frans Blom, Oliver La Farge, and Albert

Weyerstall. Additionally, he continually sought and received information from Mexican

contacts, including campesinos with first-hand knowledge of the local terrain.

For several reasons, the other National Geographic/Smithsonian archaeologists

were not often involved in reconnaissance. One reason was that Weiant, Drucker and

Wedel were Stirling’s subordinates, and he assigned them other tasks. They were often

charged with carrying out excavations at the primary site while Stirling was involved in

exploration elsewhere. As Stirling wrote about what had happened at Cenro de las Mesas

while he had been on a side visit to Izapa in 1941, “In our absence Phil had continued

excavation of the trench back of the monument plaza, and also had begun excavations in a

mound near the northern edge of the site” (Stirling 1941:289). In any case, their lack

of familiarity with Middle America (and in the case of Wedel, lack of Spanish language

skills), would have made the other archaeologists unlikely candidates for this aspect of

the expeditions.

Site Selection

As with reconnaissance, Matthew Stirling was the sole decision-maker when it

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59

came to recommending sites for excavation, although he sometimes solicited and acted

upon suggestions from other individuals. The sites which he selected were sizeable, had

visible stone monuments, and had earthen mounds, with the exception of San Lorenzo,

where the mounds were insignificant (Stirling 1943b:22). Unfortunately, although

most of the sites were located near the drainage of a river system-the Papaloapan, for

Tres Zapotes; the Coatzacoalcos, for La Venta; and the Rio Chiquito for San Lorenzo-

many of them were extremely difficult to reach. Access was sometimes by muleback.

Since many of the sites were virtually flooded during the rainy season, the

archaeologists were limited to fieldwork in the dry season, from January to April.

Because of the remote location of the archaeological sites, the archaeologists were

not in a position to benefit from modem technology. There was no electricity at the

camps, and evening activities were carried out by light of Coleman lanterns.

Correspondence and field notes were written long hand or typed by Marion Stirling on a

manual typewriter (Marion Stirling Pugh, personal communication 1996).

(2) Site Survey and Mapping

According to Robert Heizer.

A systematic site survey is the logical start to the archaeological investigation of a given region. It attempts to locate as many of the area’s sites as possible, to assess their nature and importance through surface examination and the collection of associated artifacts, and to produce an archaeological record of the survey’s work for future consultation (Heizer 1967:14).

Heizer goes on to add, “The surveying techniques required for the preparation of

an archaeological record do not ordinarily demand the expensive equipment employed by

the professional engaged in topographic surveying” (Heizer 1967:31). Minimally

required are the following: “a topographic map of the area of archaeological interest, a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60

systematic method for measuring and referring to the locus of ‘finds,’ and a series of

stratigraphic drawings representing profiles of the vertical exposures of the excavated

deposits” (Heizer 1967:31).

These “requirements” were partially, but not fully, met by the archaeologists

participating in the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions. Surveys were

carried out at each site. However, with the exception of 1939, the surveys were not

detailed in the sense that they would be in contemporary archaeological practice-where

an overall datum point would be established, precise measurements determined, and,

very likely, a grid drawn up for the entire site. During the first season of the

expedition, a Mexican surveyor was employed to map Tres Zapotes. However, his work

was strenuously criticized by Clarence Weiant, who complained:

The incompetence shown by the local surveyor employed to map the site has made it necessary to resort to rough approximations in giving the heights of mounds and the distance between them (Weiant 1943:XII).

In subsequent seasons, the surveying was done by Matthew Stirling (and

occasionally Philip Drucker) who drew up informal maps of the sites. The record shows

that some surveying equipment was available. In a letter dated February 3, 1940, a

Mexican agent named Jose A. Montemayor sends Stirling a receipt for two boxes

containing an alidade instrument, a steel surveyor’s chain, and a stadia rod being

forwarded by the Bureau of American Ethnology (J. Montemayor to M. Stirling, letter, 3

February 1940, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C.). However, some of Stirling’s surveys were done on foot or on

horseback, without the use of sophisticated instruments. His objective was to estimate

overall site dimensions and to indicate the locations of mounds and other features

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61

(including stone monuments). He also made judgements about the directional orientation

of the site. (Marion Stirling Pugh, personal communication 1996).

Comprehensive topographic maps of the kind that might seem essential to an

archaeologists today were not drawn up by the members of the National Geographic-

Smithsonian expeditions. Even if the archaeologists had given such maps high priority,

the archaeological sites of Southern Mexico were isolated and covered with jungle

growth. Writing in An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico

(1943), Clarence Weiant admits that “Even within the confines indicated by the map,

particularly in wooded areas, there are undoubtedly mounds which escaped observation”

(Weiant 1943:5). Such factors would have made it difficult or impossible for the

archaeologists to do a precise survey of the terrain. Aerial mapping, which might have

been useful, was not employed, and many other techniques for penetrating heavy ground

cover were not then available.

As seen above, one of Robert Heizeris points is the importance of a “systematic

method for measuring and referring to the locus of ‘finds’ at an archaeological site”

(Heizer 1967:31). However, there is no indication of an attempt to fix an overall datum

point at the National Geographic-Smithsonian sites (with the exception of Waldo Wedel’s

designation of a datum point in the Ceremonial Court, near Area A-1 of La Venta), or to

draw up grid maps of the sites in Southern Mexico. It is true that maps were drawn up

for selected excavations-eg., for certain trenches-but the emphasis was more on the

measurement of those specific units, than on their relationship to the site as a whole.

The mapping and archaeological drawing done by the archaeologists participating

in the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions ranged from rudimentary to

complex. Notable among their practices were that (1) they sometimes used the same

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62

maps, but labeled them differently, and (2) they frequently relied on sketch maps of

mounds and trenches, rather than on maps drawn to scale.

In Stone Monuments o f Southern Mexico (1943), Matthew Stirling provided a

map of Southern Mexico and a map entitled “Map of the Tres Zapotes Archaeological Site”

(Stirling 1943b:9). In the very same year, Philip Drucker used the identical map of

Tres Zapotes, but gave it a different title: “Site and Distribution of 1940 Trenches”

(Drucker 1943a:6).

Both Clarence Weiant and Philip Drucker feature in their reports on Tres

Zapotes virtually identical sketch maps of Southern Mexico, to which they give separate

titles: Weiant, “The Tuxtla Region,” and Drucker, “Map of Southern Mexico Showing

Location of Tres Zapotes” (Weiant 1943:4 and Drucker 1943a:2).

The archaeologists of the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions were not

consistent in their use of scale drawings versus sketches in archaeological publications.

The Stirling/Drucker map mentioned above was drawn to scale. However, the maps

shared by Weiant and Drucker, also mentioned above, were sketch maps without precise

measurements. Clarence Weiant uses free-hand drawings (not drawn to scale) of the

principal mound groups, sections, and stratifications in his report on Tres Zapotes,.

However, he includes in the same publication several illustrations with measurements

given in feet, e.g.,“Map 7, Details of the Excavation of Mound D, Ranchito Group”

(Weiant 1943:11). Philip Drucker includes very general sketches of mounds and

trenches in his report on Tres Zapotes. However, in his “figure 4, Trench 1, profile

(north wall), he does provide measurements (Drucker, 1943a:l 4).

By the tim e he wrote up the results of his 1941 season a t Cerro de las Mesas,

Philip Drucker may have concluded that he should at least provide a detailed site map,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

since he begins his report with a comprehensive map identifying the location of various

mound groups, trenches, and areas such as the monumental plaza (Drucker 1943a: 141,

facing 1). However, despite his specificity with regard to the location of certain

features, Drucker does not provide measurements for his Cerro de las Mesas trench

profiles-even though he did so at Tres Zapotes.

When writing about La Venta, Drucker emphasized sketch maps to a greater

extent than maps drawn to scale. It is true that his La Venta report does include a map

which shows the (approximate) relationships among the various structures, and that

this map is even scaled in kilometers. However, Drucker then downplays the importance

of measurement by saying “This and the following sketch maps are to approximate scale

only” (Drucker 1952:7).

In contrast, Waldo Wedel’s plans and profiles from La Venta, which are included

in Drucker’s BAE report #153 (1952), appear to be based on firmer measurements.

All of his 12 plans are drawn to scale, with only one indicating that the measurements

are “approximate.”

It can be seen that there were considerable differences in the approaches taken by

the National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists with regard to mapping (especially

regarding the preparation of sketch maps versus maps drawn to scale). Not only did

these differences mean variation in the way maps were drawn from one site to another-

the same archaeologists sometimes used different approaches within the same site. In

general, the maps, plans, and profiles contained in reports written by National

Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists offer some sense of site layout and stratigraphy,

but many are limited in the detail they provide.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

(3) Surface Collecting and Excavation of Stone Monuments

As Matthew Stirling observed:

The practice of carving and erecting large stone monuments was one of the most conspicuous achievements of the aborigines of tropical America, from northwestern South America to and including a considerable area of southern Mexico (Stirling 1 9 4 3 b :l).

Whether he was making a first-time site visit, or beginning a field season,

surface collecting and the excavation of stone monuments were high on Stirling’s list of

priorities. He explored each site carefully, on fo o t or on horseback, looking for stones

which might prove to be carved monuments when turned over or fully exposed. Stirling

was often given tips by local farmers, who remembered having come across such

interesting stones while they were tilling the soil. The farmers’ memories were often

accurate, and they enabled Stirling to find portions of stelae or anthropomorphic

carvings located at surface level or just beneath the surface (Marion Stirling Pugh,

personal communication 1996).

Several of the biggest monuments-colossal heads from Tres Zapotes, La Venta,

and San Lorenzo—were protruding above ground when they were first seen by the

archaeologists. However, even surface or “close to the surface” monuments could be a

challenge to excavate. Referring to San Lorenzo, Stirling wrote:

Locating and clearing these stones was not easy. Many were almost completely buried. All were hidden in dense jungle and some were gripped in the roots of enormous trees. Most were on the sides or bottoms of the steep ravines which here and there cut through the site (Stirling 1947:171).

Excavation of the colossal heads could be “tedious” and require a considerable

expenditure of human labor, as in the case of Monument 3 of San Lorenzo, where the head

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65

was lying “in a spring, and it was difficult to keep the excavation free from water”

(Stirling 1955:11).

Matthew Stirling had a strong personal interest in monumental sculpture, and it

is no accident that two reports based on the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions

are entitled Stone Monuments o f Southern Mexico (1943) and Stone Monuments o f the

Rio Chiquito. (1955). In these reports, which also contain photographs of the

monuments he discovered, Stirling describes, and gives dimensions for, the various

stelae and monuments he encountered at the major sites he explored. He also itemizes

features, such as platforms, stairways, columns, and a possible covered aqueduct

(Stirling 1955:17).

In addition to emphasizing surface collecting and the excavation of stone

monuments for the insights they could provide into Olmec culture, Matthew Stirling

pursued this methodology because of his keen appreciation of the Olmec art style. His

first encounter with this style had taken place during a 1920 visit to Europe where he

had seen a “crying-baby” jade masquette in the Berlin Museum (Stirling 1968:3).

Stirling was intrigued by the traits which gradually came to be called “Olmec,” and over

time he was able to use his knowledge of these characteristics to establish tentative

chronologies among and within the sites he was exploring.

In contrast to Stirling’s active role in surface collecting and in the excavation of

monuments, Clarence Weiants work on stone monuments at Tres Zapotes was secondary

to his focus on ceramics. Philip Drucker’s emphasis a t Tres Zapotes, Cenro de Las

Mesas, La Venta, and San Lorenzo, was also on ceramics, although as a more experienced

archaeologist than Weiant, he carried out a broader range of activities (Marion Stirling,

personal communication 1996). In 1942, Drucker was charged with various aspects of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

the excavation at La Venta, including some exploration of structures, since Matthew

Stirling was able to spend only a short time at the site before leaving to attend the

Olmec-focused conference at Tuxtla Gutierrez (Drucker 1952:1). Waldo Wedel, whom

Stirling referred to in a National Geographic article as “My fellow archeologist,” also

had acquired broader archaeological experience-probably broader than Drucker’s -

before going to Mexico, and in 1943 he worked on several aspects of the excavation at La

Venta (Stirling 1943a:321). However, neither Wedel, nor Weiant, nor Drucker, seem

to have matched Stirling in the time and attention he devoted to surface collecting and to

the excavation of stone monuments.

Despite the success achieved by the expeditions in identifying, excavating, and

photographing stone monuments, the work of the archaeologists was not beyond

criticism. Commenting on the La Venta excavations several decades later, Robert Heizer

was to express regrets that:

The La Venta monumental stone sculpture is not dated or dateable with reference to stratigraphy or radiocarbon. This is due in part to a failure of the earlier excavators to examine the stratigraphy and ceramic associations of the large altars, stelae and colossal heads (Heizer 1971:52).

(4) Structural/Non-Structural Excavation

In the following pages, I look at the structural and non-structural excavation

carried out by the National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists in Southern Mexico,

the degree to which the four archaeologists participated actively in the excavations, and

the extent to which they employed the principles of stratigraphy in their work. At the

end of this section, I discuss the measuring systems they employed, and their tools and

procedures.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67

When using the term “structural excavation,” I mean the excavation of a man-

made edifice, feature, or enclosure. By “non-structural excavation," I mean the

excavation of tests pits or trenches. Both categories of excavation-structural and non-

structural-can be done stratigraphically or non-stratigraphically. Stratigraphic

excavation is excavation which employs the principles of stratigraphy-excavation by

level.

Generally speaking, the National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists carried

out structural excavation to obtain information about the construction of the

“structure” and its former function(s). In addition to shedding light on the mound's

construction history, structural excavation sometimes produced an added bonus, such as

a cache of jade ornaments, or a burial accompanied by grave offerings. The

archaeologists’ procedure was to probe the mound by means of “mound cuts”-trenches

cut into the mound itself, sometimes, but not always, dug according to stratigraphic

levels. (Since they were often constructed from mixed layers of rubble, or churned

“fill,” mounds often did not provide the same kind of stratigraphic information as did

undisturbed deposits.)

Most of the “structures” that were excavated at Tres Zapotes, Cerro de las

Mesas, La Venta, and San Lorenzo were man-made earthen mounds which varied in

number and in size. At Tres Zapotes, approximately 50 mounds, “nucleated in irregular

groups with no real orientation” were discovered, spread out over a distance of about

three kilometers near the flood plain of the Arroyo de Hueyapan (Coe 1965a:682). Two

of the Tres Zapotes mounds were over 12 meters high, with the others generally ranging

between 3 and 4.5 meters in height. One mound, Mound G, is “faced with cut stone and is

fronted by storm drains and flat sandstone slabs” (Coe 1965a:695-696).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

At Cerro de las Mesas, the archaeologists identified several dozen mounds, some of

them arranged in groups. One member of a cluster called the Central Mound Group was

between 15-18 meters high (Coe 1965a: 682).

Although La Venta had “no elaborate complexes consisting o f numerous mounds,

as for example at Tres Zapotes,” one of the “few earth mounds” at La Venta was the

largest yet found by the National Geographic-Smithsonian Institution expedition—a

mound 32.3 meters high in the “Central Group" (Drucker 1952:8). In contrast, the

mounds at San Lorenzo proper were “insignificant,” although in the nearby community

of Tenochtitlan, the archaeologists encountered “impressive” mounds (Stirling

1 9 5 5 :2 2 ).

In addition to excavating earthen mounds, the archaeologists excavated other

structures that they found above ground or below the soil level. Among the most notable

were a fence or “corral” made up of upright basalt columns, which bordered a

rectangular plaza near Complex A at La Venta, and a below-ground clay filled tomb made

of basalt columns, which was found at the same site. Also at La Venta, the archaeologists

discovered and excavated several mosaic pavements set in a “design” which some

scholars believe represents a highly stylized jaguar mask. At Rio Chiquito (as Stirling

preferred to call the archaeological site at San Lorenzo’s neighboring community of

Tenochtitlan) the archaeologists encountered two buried granite columns, “similar both

in material and dimensions to the stone column on the south end o f the large mound a t La

Venta” (Stirling 1955:7).

Non-structural excavation at the National Geographic-Smithsonian sites usually

meant the excavation of test pits or trenches. As a first step, the archaeologists made

exploratory probes in areas which they thought might reveal signs of heavy occupation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

Frequently these were refuse piles or “middens." If the test pit were especially

productive or indicated that there might be structures or other features below the

surface, the archaeologist might excavate the area more intensively by sinking a larger

unit, a trench, in the productive location. The majority of non-structural excavations

were dug without reference to stratigraphy, but a small number of trenches at each site

were dug stratigraphically.

Individual Approaches to Excavation

All four archaeologists with the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions

helped carry out excavations, but their involvement differed. Matthew Stirling, as

principal investigator, determined where excavations should be carried out. He

exercised general supervision in each instance, and on many occasions, he participated

actively in structural and stratigraphic excavations. For instance, at Cerro de las

Mesas, he directed nine structural excavations, which Drucker covered in his BAE

report. However, Stirling himself did not write detailed commentaries on these

excavations, assigning this responsibility to Philip Drucker. Judging by the nature of

his own publications about the expeditions to Southern Mexico, it appears that Stirling’s

fundamental orientation was much more toward the excavation of stone monuments than

toward the excavation of structures, test pits or trenches.

Stirling’s assistant archaeologists had varying degrees of interest and expertise

in excavation, and this affected their roles. Waldo Wedel, who had acquired considerable

experience at sites in the United States, was charged with carrying out structural

excavations during the field season at La Venta, and his chapter in the BAE bulletin

concentrates exclusively on this topic. According to Drucker:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

In 1943, Drs. Stirling and Wedel carried out excavations, chiefly of structural features of the site, and added considerably to the series of art objects as well as assembling important data on the construction” (Drucker 1952:1).

In his own section of bulletin 153, Wedel summarized his responsibilities as

follows:

Our excavations in 1943 consisted of a series of connected trenches directed basically at further study of features on and near the north-south axis line bisecting Complex A. From the base of the Great Mound, this main trench system ran northward about 150 m. to end in Drucker’s 1942 cuts in Mound A-2. Our cut varied greatly in width and depth, depending on what it disclosed here and there in the way of subsurface features that seemed to call for further investigation. From south to north, it bisected Mound A-3, the Ceremonial Court, and the south half of Mound A-2. In addition, we made smaller cuts at each end of the Court, in search of further information on the construction of the columned enclosure; briefly investigated certain structural features at the southeast comer of the Court; cleared the small columned platform near the southeast comer of the Court; and test trenched the north end of the east embankment, A-4. Such was the size and complexity of the area and its various subsurface features that, despite the employment of a labor force substantially larger than was at Drucker’s disposal in 1942, we left unanswered far more problems than we finally settled (Wedel 1 9 5 2 :3 6 ).

In addition to being the archaeologist most focused on structural excavation,

Wedel may have been the archaeologist who was most aware of changes in soil color and

texture. There is no evidence that routine soil tests were being carried out by the

National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists, but Wedel comments frequently on the

composition of the soil and the implication which soil changes might have for his

analysis. Ironically, Wedel had to correlate his 1943 soil descriptions with those of

Philip Drucker, who had used different terminology when he worked at the site in 1942.

In the Bureau of American Ethnology publication which contained both his report and

Drucker’s, Wedel tries to reconcile the differences, writing at one point:

It is gratifying to note that our profile through the west edge of the clay platform complex... seems to correlate at all major points with the views presented by Drucker on the basis of a test pit into the heart of the structures. I did not see

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

Drucker’s manuscript or notes before i went into the field, and our terminologies differ somewhat. In certain particulars, too, Drucker presents more detail, perhaps in part because of the location of his test in the heart of the platform complex. Nevertheless, the two sets of independent observations, can be satisfactorily harmonized The “soft gray sand” of my profile is, of course, the somewhat thinner “medium brown sandy soil (d rift)” observed by Drucker, and his “orange - red clay formation . . . is my “reddish clay, variable”. . .. (Wedel 1952:43).

Clarence Weiant’s participation in structural and non-structural excavation was

the opposite of Wedel’s. This is not to say that Weiant never took part in structural

excavation. During the first season at Tres Zapotes, Weiant, as Stirling’s assistant,

worked with the National Geographic-Smithsonian crew as they made cuts through many

of the most promising mounds. His Bureau o f American Ethnology report includes

several cross-sections of mound constructions, and he provides structural details, such

as the following description of Mound E, Cabeza Group:

The structure of this mound is revealed in the longitudinal section shown by map 4. Five steps, slightly curved from side to side, formed a stairway almost 8 m. In width, leading up the west slope of what must have been the primary mound. The top of the primary mound is indicated by a floor of red clay, which is extended as a ramp as far as the top step of the stainway. The sandstone slabs shown in the excavation over the stainway apparently were part of the facing of a secondary mound, to which was added still another layer, bringing the mound nearly to its present height (Weiant 1943:6).

Nonetheless, despite evidence that Weiant knew the details of mound excavation

and was aware of its significance, it is clear that he saw the excavations primarily as a

source of ceramic material for his analysis. In each instance, after giving a brief

description of the mound, he immediately proceeds to discuss the sherds or figurines

which were uncovered.

Philip Drucker’s involvement in structural and non-structural excavation, is

more complex, and his responsibilities appear to have broadened over time. Unlike

Waldo Wedel, who focused primarily on structural excavation, and Clarence Weiant, who

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

was mainly interested in excavation as a source o f ceramics, Philip Drucker was

increasingly active in all of these pursuits. Drucker was especially aware of the

principles of stratigraphy, and how stratigraphy could be employed in excavation.

When writing about Tres Zapotes, Philip Drucker refers to the special kind of

stratigraphic challenges posed by the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions on

the Gulf Coast:

It scarcely seems necessary to point out that the first step in stratigraphic excavation-and in its exposition-must be the determination of the physical nature of the deposits. Stratigraphy derived from a series of superimposed pyramids or temples, such as are found in the Maya area proper, and that obtained from earth mounds (which someone has called “Indians’ backdirt piles”), from burial association sequences, and from refuse deposits are alike only in general aim; the field methods by which they are worked out and the interpretations of data from them must be completely different (Drucker 1943a:9-10).

Although Philip Drucker’s greatest emphasis at Tres Zapotes was, like Clarence

Weiant’s, on ceramic analysis, he was also interested in aspects of excavation that went

beyond ceramics. Drucker says that Weiant had concentrated in 1939 on:

. . . finding and clearing stone monuments, and testing the site for undisturbed deposit. Most of the trenches were mound explorations, which, though they yielded data on these structures and provided a rich body of artifact material for typological analysis, naturally could give no insight into the history of the culture (Drucker 1 9 4 3 a :3 ).

Contrasting himself to Weiant, Drucker says that his own 1940 assignment had

been to “make a careful stratigraphic excavation in the locality where the maximum

deposit had been found” and that a total of four stratigraphic trenches had been dug

(Drucker 1943a:3). Although Drucker emphasizes four stratigraphic trenches in his

report, he also provides information on the 17 test pits, and 6 mound sections from Tres

Zapotes which constituted the balance of the 1940 field work (for a total of 27

excavations). When summarizing these various excavations in his BAE report, Drucker,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

like Wedel, pays attention to the meaning of soil changes in site formation (Drucker

1943a:27). For example, speaking of trench 22 at Tres Zapotes, Drucker noted:

The results of the investigation were not as clean-cut as might have been desired, owing to the mixed and nondescript nature of much of the fill, but there was conclusive evidence of at least two and perhaps more building periods involved in the construction of the mound (Drucker 1943a:21).

With respect to Cerro de las Mesas, his second site in Southern Mexico, Drucker

commented (perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek) th at

. . . the tasks of clearing and studying the stone monuments and of excavating the mounds and other structures were under the direct change of Stirling; the stratigraphic excavations in the refuse deposits were entrusted to the writer (Drucker 1943b:1).

Giving the reader an interesting look into his methodology and objectives,

Drucker notes that:

The mound and structural investigations were put down without regard to levels, either natural or arbitrary. The aim of these excavations was to recover information as to the aboriginal constructions, and to assemble ceramic data particularly in the form of cache associations. Both goals were amply fulfilled. Indeed, our knowledge of Cerro de las Mesas ceramics would be woefully incomplete were it not for the mound material, for not only were there recovered many complete and restorable vessels whose forms could not have been reconstructed from the test and stratitrench fragments, but certain ware, presumably ceremonial varieties, were found only in the mounds (Drucker 1943b:6).

Drucker also comments on aspects of structural excavation of mounds which can

yield temporal information. At one point, he remarks that:

. . . (the) use of stucco is another trait that has temporal significance, although according to quantity rather than mere presence. In Lower II mounds, occasional floors, etc. are faced with this material, but most of the floors, stairways, and other features were faced with clay. It is in the latest structures, those of Upper II, that this material is most abundant (Drucker 1943b:80).

The experience in excavation which Philip Drucker gained a t Cerro de las Mesas

was put to good use during the following field season when he preceded the Stirlings to La

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74

Venta and was made responsible for conducting some of the structural (as well as the

non-structural) excavation, with the assistance of the local crew. In a Bureau of

American Ethnology report, published a decade after he conducted the La Venta

excavations, he describes them as follows:

The investigations carried out in 1942 can be described best by grouping them according to type and purpose of the excavations, that is to say, test trenches, stratigraphic sections, and structural explorations. The test trenches were dug in order to locate and probe refuse beds containing pottery, and to collect information on occupancy of the site, and therefore form a unit-group both in method and in purpose. The stratigraphic sections were laid out on the basis of information from the test trenches, and designed to collect controlled lots of ceramic material. The structural investigations were aimed at recovering data bearing on the ceremonial, and it was hoped, artistic aspects of the culture (Drucker 1952:10).

Among the principal structural excavations which Drucker supervised in 1942

were a trench in Mound A-2, 4.5 m. wide by 9 m. long, “with its northern end inside a

row of five inclined colpmns that showed just above the surface of the ground” (Drucker

1952:23). This trench, in fact, revealed a tomb with horizontal columns of basalt

supported by a wall of vertical columns. This structure had been intentionally filled

with bright orange-red clay. Although little remained of the “acid leached bones,” the

burials-probably of elite juveniles-were accompanied by several outstanding jade

artifacts, including a tiny carving of a seated female with a hematite mirror (Drucker

1952:25-26).

Of all the structural/non-structural excavations conducted by the National

Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists in Southern Mexico, the excavations carried out

by Matthew Stirling and Philip Drucker at San Lorenzo during the final season are most

difficult to assess. Stirling reported on this season—1946-both in Stone Monuments

o f the Rio Chiquito (1955), and in The National Geographic Magazine ( 1 9 4 7 ).

However, Stone Monuments focuses on just that-monuments—and gives little

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75

information about structural/stratigraphic excavation. Speaking of San Lorenzo,

Stirling does note that “Trenches in the plaza revealed an occupational deposit of about 4

feet Below this are three or four floor levels close together... ."(Stirling 1955:9).

The National Geographic article, directed at a general audience, does not contain

the kind of detail that would be necessary to give the reader a firm grasp on the kind of

excavation which took place. Philip Drucker’s existing field journal unfortunately

offers little insight into his conclusions. Although it does contain jottings about

archaeology, it is also replete with poetry and non-archaeological sketches, which

predominate over the hard archaeological data.

With regard to an important aspect of archaeological excavation-measurement-

-It is interesting to note that the four archaeologists on the expeditions to Southern

Mexico did not follow a common system of measurement. Matthew Stirling employed the

U.S. system of inches and fe e t in most of his excavations. Clarence Weiant, in his report

on Tres Zapotes, uses both the U.S. system and the metric system. In his descriptions of

the archaeological zone, he gives the height of the mounds in feet, but he uses “meters”

for his discussion of mound excavations-with the exception of “Map 7, details of

excavation, Mound D, Ranchito Group,” which features a scale given in inches (Weiant

1943:11). Philip Drucker used inches/feet exclusively at Tres Zapotes (1940) and at

Cerro de las Mesas (1941), both with regard to the mounds and to the

structural/stratigraphic excavations. However, by the time he reported on the 194Z

season at La Venta, Drucker had switched to the metric system, a system likewise

employed by Waldo Wedel at La Venta in 1943 (although Wedel usually gives both feet

and meters on his plan maps). Ironically, while Drucker’s report indeed gives La Venta

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

measurements in meters, his text acknowledges that he actually excavated in inches.

Referring to his stratigraphic sections, Drucker remarked:

These were put down in cuts approximately 30 cm. thick (due to the fact that the only steel rules that I had were marked in the United States system of feet and inches, the levels were dug in 1 -foot (actually 30.48 cm.) cuts), all the sherds and other cultural materials from each level of each trench being carefully segregated (Drucker 1952:20).

It is unclear why there was no standardization in the measuring systems used by

the expedition archaeologists. Perhaps the archaeologists’ decision to use one system

rather than another was based on comfort ievel-at least initially. Stirling, as the

oldest of the four archaeologists, may have been most familiar with the U.S. system of

measurement Drucker and Wedel, younger men and more recent graduate students, may

have had greater exposure through their studies to the metric system and to the

principles of excavating by metric stratigraphy. On the other hand, Drucker began with

inches/feet and changed to meters over the eight year period.

Perhaps Drucker had concluded that metric measurement was the system of

choice in archaeology. Drucker may also have been following the lead of Waldo Wedel.

Since both their reports were published in the same Bureau of American Ethnology

report it made sense for them to use the same scale of measurement (Drucker and Wedel

1 9 4 3 ).

With regard to the hardware employed in the structural and stratigraphic

excavations in Southern Mexico, it may not be surprising that the National Geographic-

Smithsonian archaeologists brought many of their tools and supplies with them from the

United States. Among the tools in common use in the field were picks and shovels, which

were the tools used to begin an excavation or to dig through rubble. Of course, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

archaeologists used trowels, which enabled them to work with greater care, when

excavating ceramics, or jade.

Whatever supplies the archaeologists did not bring with them from the United

States they had to locate in the nearest city or large town in Mexico upon their arrival-

a sometimes complicated process. In 1943 Matthew Stirling urged that Waldo Wedel buy

everything he needed before going to La Venta. However, Wedel found upon arrival that

his supplies were inadequate. Not being able to obtain them locally, he was forced to

spend considerable time and effort returning to Coatzacoalcos to purchase the missing

items (Marion Stirling Pugh, personal communication 1996).

Upon occasion, the archaeologists in Southern Mexico did not have access to items

that contemporary archaeologists would consider basic. For example, during the first

year at Tres Zapotes, there were no wheelbarrows, and the workers had to use five

gallon barrels to take away the dirt (Marion Stirling Pugh, personal communication

1996). Finding containers in which to store the artifacts was often a problem. Although

the archaeologists preferred cloth bags, and were sometimes successful in having them

made up for the excavations, such bags could not always be obtained. Marion Stirling

recalls that they had to come up with substitutes on a number of occasions. Among the

substitutes were flour/sugar sacks and the wooden cartons in which liquor was sold in

that region of Mexico (Marion Stirling Pugh, personal communication 1996). In later

years, the archaeologists used paper bags, but they found them inferior to cloth in the

damp, tropical climate. However, while paper may not have been preferable for storing

artifacts, it was an essential item when it came to packing artifacts at the season’s end.

Expedition members were careful to save all scraps of paper to cushion the articles for

shipment (Marion Stirling Pugh, personal communication 1996).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78

At contemporary excavation sites, considerable attention is paid to filtering out

artifacts by sifting the soil through a metal hardware screen. While this was done to

some extent in Southern Mexico, screening was problematic in the humid climate. Many

of the artifacts were damp and fragile when found below the surface, and they had to be

allowed to dry before they could be handled. Some artifacts were visible in the soil and

could be retrieved without screening. How many artifacts were separated out to be

retained, and which ones, varied from site to site and from archaeologist to

archaeologist. Obviously, artifacts of jade or other minerals were retained (and

eventually sent to Mexico City). When it came to less conspicuously important artifacts,

however, the situation varied. In some cases, the archaeologists would count and keep

most of the artifacts found in the test pits and trenches. In other instances, they would

keep only rim sherds, decorated sherds and figurines. In still other instances they

would merely weigh the ceramics to gauge the most productive areas of the site. No

matter what kind of ceramics were obtained from the excavations, Marion Stirling was

in charge of washing them (or instructing others in washing techniques) and seeing that

they were properly stored (Marion Stirling Pugh, personal communication 1996).

Since the artifacts were often highly fragile, it was critical that these tasks be

performed well.

At the conclusion of every field season, the National Geographic-Smithsonian

archaeologists were faced with a task that is common to archaeologists worid-wide-

backfiiling their excavations. Since the test pits and trenches were often located near

small communities, adjacent to areas where cattle grazed, it was essential that the

excavation units be filled with dirt to prevent injuries to humans or animals.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79

(5) Ceramic Analysis

The study of ceramics was a very important aspect of the National Geographic-

Smithsonian expeditions to Southern Mexico. Ceramic analysis was seen by the

archaeologists as a way to obtain information about art styles, to determine cultural

sequences, and to assess relationships between Gulf Coast sites and other sites in Middle

America. As has been stated previously, understanding chronology, a concern very much

in keeping with the archaeologists’ background in culture history, was one of their

fundamental objectives.

In their study of ceramics, the principle which the National Geographic-

Smithsonian archaeologists followed-in different degrees, depending upon the

individual-was that of seriation-a technique which seeks to order artifacts in a series

in order to establish chronology (Sharer and Ashmore 1993:307). This technique had

been championed by the leading anthropologist on the Berkeley faculty, A. L Kroeber,

whose ideas had strongly influenced the archaeologists in his department. The

archaeologists on the expeditions to Southern Mexico employed both stylistic sedation

(where artifacts and attributes are ordered according to similarity in style) and

frequency seriation (where the relative frequency of artifacts is considered). To some

extent, they also used sequence comparison, in which artifacts are compared with those

from other sites-are “placed in a temporal order corresponding to those already

established” (Sharer and Ashmore 1993:313).

When studying ceramics from the various sites, the archaeologists established

categories against which they compared the recovered sherds (or intact pots when they

were lucky enough to find them). Categories were also drawn up for the study of

figurines and miscellaneous clay objects. Among the basic categories used for pottery

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80

were paste, surface features, decoration, and occurrence. Sub-categories were

established within each category. For instance, paste could be examined for color, for

texture, and for its tempering material (if any). Surface features might be subdivided

into such characteristics as the presence, and color, o f a wash or a slip. Decoration

might include treatments such as incising, rocker stamping, punctation. or painting—or

the absence of decoration. Each of these treatments could be further sub-divided as

necessary.

Another important category was the form of the original vessel (e.g., jars,

spouted vessels, etc.) and of its components (e.g., size and shape of rim, neck, base etc.)

A strong proponent of stratigraphic excavation, Philip Drucker was careful to note the

number of sherds from each stratigraphic trench and the levels at which the sherds were

found. This kind of information, which he depicted in chart form in his publications,

enabled him to address various research questions.

Of the four archaeologists working at Gulf Coast sites under National Geographic-

Smithsonian auspices, it was Clarence Weiant whose role was largely ceramic analysis.

As has been noted, his paper about the ceramics from the 1939 excavations at Tres

Zapotes—An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes (1943)~served as his

doctoral dissertation, as well as a Bureau of American Ethnology publication. Also

working closely with ceramics was Philip Drucker, who analyzed ceramics at each of the

four sites where he was assistant archaeologist-Tres Zapotes, Cerro de la Mesa, La

Venta, and San Lorenzo. In contrast, Waldo Wedel does not appear to have engaged in

ceramic analysis to any substantial degree, nor does the literature indicate that hands-

on ceramic analysis was a principal concern of Matthew Stirling (except that Stirling,

as leader, had ultimate authority for all aspects of the expeditions). However, we do

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

know that at least in one instance (at Tres Zapotes), Stirling worked up a typology of

hand-made, ceramic figurine heads, which Drucker found to be useful (Drucker

19 4 3 a :7 8 ).

One of the most striking aspects of the expeditions to Southern Mexico was the

dispute between Clarence W eiant and Philip Drucker which developed out of the first two

field seasons at Tres Zapotes.

In the preface to his BAE report on Tres Zapotes, Clarence Weiant stated his

objectives very clearly:

The present study seeks to analyze and interpret the ceramic material obtained during the first season’s work of the National Geographic Society-Smithsonian Institution joint archeological expedition to Tres Zapotes, State of Veracruz, Mexico. The work of this season was primarily exploratory in nature. Refined stratigraphic investigation was not attem pted. It was fe lt more desirable, as a beginning, to perform as many sampling operations as possible in order to learn fully the character of the site, leaving for a second season the task of determining whether more precise field methods might yield significant results (Weiant 1943:XI).

It is interesting to speculate whether this ex post facto justification for the

absence of “refined stratigraphic investigation” was a true reflection of Weiant’s

intentions at the start of the field season, or whether it was a justification made in

retrospect. Whatever the answer, Weiant was clearly more concerned with obtaining

specimens for his analysis, than he was with understanding the context from which those

specimens were derived. He admits that the interpretations he makes in his book, which

is comprised of 144 pages of text and appendices plus 78 plates, were ultimately “based

more upon typological than upon stratigraphic considerations” (Weiant 1943:XI).

When he succeeded Weiant as assistant archaeologist a t Tres Zapotes in 1940,

Philip Drucker strongly contested both Weiant’s methodology and his conclusions.

Drucker’s concern was the very lack of refined stratigraphy which Weiant himself had

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

acknowledged. In his own BAE report. Cultural Sequences at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz,

Mexico (1943), Drucker argued that Weiant had obtained much of his 1939 ceramic

material from moundfill, which very likely contained a churned mixture of soil from

other periods, and from burials. As Drucker commented later, Weiant had not

distinguished “between grave-lots and materials accidentally included in the pitfall”

(Drucker 1952b:259). Furthermore, Drucker claimed, Weiant had saved only certain

of the ceramic sherds-rims, handles, lugs, supports etc., but not body sherds or

undecorated pieces—giving him a skewed view of the ceramics (Drucker 1952b:259).

Contrasting his methods with those of Weiant, Drucker characterized his own

work as “careful stratigraphic excavation in the locality where the maximum deposit

had been found” (Drucker 1943a:3). Describing these as “occupation areas with an

accumulation of pottery and occupational debris,” Drucker states that he will put

forward in his report a typological discussion of local wares followed by “a presentation

of the vertical distribution of these wares in the stratigraphic trenches” (Drucker

1943a:4). The fact that his conclusions are based on stratigraphy forms the heart of

Drucker’s claims about the validity o f his work and his conclusions.

Clarence Weiant and Philip Drucker both reported on the ceramics of Tres

Zapotes in publications of the Bureau of American Ethnology issued in 1943. However,

they reached different conclusions. During his time in the field, Weiant had concluded

that there were three ceramic periods at Tres Zapotes: Lower, Middle, and Upper Tres

Zapotes. However, Philip Drucker had subsequently located a “Lower” phase which

differed from Weiant’s, in addition to a Middle and an Upper phase. To avoid confusion,

Matthew Stirling suggested that the two archaeologists correlate their terminology.

Accordingly, Weiant changed his Lower and Middle phases to Middle A and Middle B

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

(saying that he had found a break in the chronology between A and B), while retaining

the term “Upper Tres Zapotes.” In explaining his grounds for distinguishing between

Middle B and Upper Tres Zapotes materials, Weiant said that “Middle B” and “Upper”

are associated with distinct types of burials occurring at different vertical levels in the

same excavations. However, he acknowledges that the distinction between Middle A and

Middle B does not rest upon direct stratification, but rather upon cross-cultural time

markers-especially the associated figurines (Weiant 1943:16).

This change of terminology did not entirely satisfy Drucker, whose analysis of

the material he excavated in 1940, and his attention to stratigraphy, led him to conclude

th a t there had been no sharp break in Middle Tres Zapotes ceramics, as he believed was

being suggested by Weiant. Drucker believed, instead, that “the Middle phase at Tres

Zapotes was a continuum, with gradual development and change in ceramics, but no break

whatsoever" (Drucker, 1952b:260). Most of the evidence at hand, he believed, spoke

for a “ceramic and inferentially, a cultural continuum” (Drucker 1943a:4).

In Ceramic Sequences at Tres Zapotes (1943), Philip Drucker comments on the

gap between his views and those of Weiant by saying that

. . our respective views as to relationships with other Middle American regions, based on typological similarities are not very close, but these are matters of opinion and depend in the last analysis on the degree of likenesses that one demands for a “similarity.” Likely neither of us is altogether wrong-or altogether right. Many yards of dirt will have to be dug in the area—and dug carefully—before we can prove or disprove any hypothesis based on long range comparison” (Drucker 1943a: 5). A few years later, when his views had hardened somewhat, Drucker commented

that:

. . . (he) should have stated forthrightly that the evidence from the second season’s work was in sharp disagreement with [Weiant’s] conclusions as to the division of the Middle phase into two parts, and that Weiant’s definition of the culture horizons was, from my evidence, wrong” (Drucker 1952b:259).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84

Clarence Weiant and Philip Drucker had differences about matters other than the

labeling of cultural phases: they were also far apart in their objectives and their

conclusions. One of Weiant’s primary interests was in using ceramics to explore the

relationships between Tres Zapotes and other cultures of Middle America. Drucker, on

the other hand, was interested first of all in using ceramics to demonstrate cultural

development at the site of Tres Zapotes and only secondarily in exploring external

influences from elsewhere in Middle America (Drucker 1952b:258).

In an effort to differentiate himself from Weiant, Drucker wrote in the beginning

of his BAE report that:

The present paper makes no pretense at outlining the culture history of the former inhabitants of Tres Zapotes. Artifactual remains, other than pottery, are so few and scattered that a functional interpretation of the culture is well-nigh impossible to make. Instead, the aim is to work out the history of the pottery complex only. The result will be to establish not a culture column, but a ceramic column covering the entire period or periods of occupation of the site. We should be able to place the ceramic column in time, approximately at least, on the basis of local evidence and comparison with the better known Maya area and the Highlands. This should give us a serviceable yardstick for placing other sites in the region and thus open the way for orderly scientific research there. The definition of a Tres Zapotes ceramic column is thus the main goal of this report (Drucker 1943a:3).

In an article in American Antiquity, written a decade after the conclusion of

Weiant’s fieldwork, Drucker charged that Weiant’s ceramic analysis involved “an a

priori assumption” that “the culture of the site being investigated could not have been

an integrated manifestation in its own right” but “was simply a hodgepodge of traits”

from other centers" (Drucker 1952b:258). In contrast, Drucker believed that his own

analysis confirmed “that the Tres Zapotes deposits contain remains of a single culture,

whose human bearers occupied the site over a period of time” (Drucker 1943a: 100).

Several months after Philip Drucker’s comments were published, Clarence

Weiant’s rebuttal appeared in the same journal (Weiant 1952). Weiant begins by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85

waxing indignant at not having been consulted by Drucker about the earlier article.

Defending his own research conclusions, Weiant contends that Drucker seems to

“imagine differences between us which do not in fact exist” (Weiant 1952:57). He

asserts that he agrees with Drucker’s position that there was no cultural break in the

Middle Tres Zapotes continuum and implies that Drucker had apparently misinterpreted

his (Weiant’s) views. However, Weiant goes on to credit Drucker with having had

greater archaeological experience, admitting that “there can be no question of the

superiority of Drucker’s field experience with archaeological techniques over mine”

(Weiant 1952:57). Not giving up entirely, however, he adds: “I herewith register my

objection to being accused of errors which I did not make” (Weiant 1952:59).

Interestingly, he concludes by accepting the verdict of another archaeologist (Gordon

Ekholm, who had written about the Drucker/Weiant controversy in a book review) that

“Drucker’s report is based on the more comprehensive body of evidence and gives us the

more accurate and detailed outline of Tres Zapotes history” (Weiant 1952:59).

Unfortunately, the diversity of views expressed by Weiant and Drucker and the

controversy provoked by their differences hampered the development of a consensus

about the chronology and typology of Tres Zapotes ceramics, and the archaeologists left

considerable confusion in their wake.

In 1941, Philip Drucker turned his attention to a ceramic analysis of Cerro de

las Mesas, where, as the only archaeologist working primarily with ceramics, he faced

no sharp disagreements with colleagues. During the 1941 field season, Drucker

supervised 27 archaeological cuts, including 24 test pits and mound sections dug without

regard to level, and three stratigraphic trenches (Drucker 1943b:6). Decorated

sherds, rims, bases, restorable vessels, figurines and miscellaneous objects of clay

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86

[e.g., whistles, spindle whorls] were the only artifacts saved from the mounds, while

all proceeds from the stratigraphic trenches were carefully counted and recorded

(Drucker 1943b:5).

Philip Drucker identified as an important goal of his work a t Cerro de las Mesas

“to place the site on the basis of ceramics both in relation to neighboring and better-

known cultures and in time” (Drucker 1943b:81). The study of ceramics from the

stratigraphic excavations in the refuse deposits at Cerro de las Mesas was critical in

demonstrating that site’s relationship with other sites excavated by the National

Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists in Southern Mexico. Although dividing the

ceramics into an Upper I and II, preceded by a Lower I and II, as determined by

stratigraphic excavations in refuse deposits, Drucker notes that:

. . . (the) differentiation into periods and subperiods has no connotation of populational change or success of culture... we have to do with a single culture and presumably population, in which patterns changed owing to normal process of internal culture growth and absorption of external influences (Drucker 1943b:81).

When he looked back at the 1941 season, Drucker saw that the Cerro de las Mesas

explorations did not contribute much to the knowledge of Veracruz archaeology,

commenting, “It is scarcely to be expected that the diagnostic features of its ceramics

will be found to be widespread in the State. Rather we have to do with an enclave of

Highland culture, transplanted to the coast” (Drucker 1943b:85). In order to arrive at

th at conclusion, Drucker had relied on both sedation and sequence comparison. As he

explained:

Fortunately, there are a series of traits which are not just resemblances but are identical to diagnostic features of established sequences elsewhere. It can be shown that the order of appearance of these imported traits at Cerro de las Mesas conforms quite well to their sequences in their presumed centers of origin, a fact which justified their use as time markers (Drucker 1943b:83).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

There were few indications of direct contact between Cerro de las Mesas and Tres

Zapotes, less than 100 miles away in an air line (Drucker 1943b: 86). Rather, the

contact had been with cultures from the highlands. In his report, Drucker is very

specific in identifying characteristics of Cerro de las Mesas ware which come from, or

were influenced by, other cultures. He concluded that there had been a “continuous

ceramic column extending back from the fifteenth century to that of the beginning of

Teotihuacan III culture” (which he places around 500 A.D., and with which he equates

Middle Tres Zapotes) (Drucker 1943b:85).

Despite his protestations about his work adding little to our knowledge of

Veracruz archaeology, Drucker’s analysis of ceramics from Cerro de las Mesas was

actually important for that very reason: it demonstrated (along with evidence from

monumental sculpture) that the site was not “Olmec," in the sense that its artifacts did

not resemble the ceramics previously found at Tres Zapotes, and, in fact, shared

resemblances with known objects from other regions.

Philip Drucker went to La Venta in 1942 for his third consecutive field season on

a National Geographic-Smithsonian expedition. He later reported that this site had been

investigated for the express purpose of obtaining “stratigraphic samples of the ceramics

and to test the ceremonial structures” (Drucker 1947:2). Due to limitations stemming

from U.S. involvement in World War II, the National Geographic Society-Smithsonian

Institution did not sponsor a full-scale archaeological program in 1942, but sent

Drucker on ahead, to be joined briefly by Matthew Stirling toward the end of the field

season.

In the BAE publication which summarizes his 1942 activities at La Venta,

Drucker reported that:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88

Most of the excavations that season consisted of test-pits to locate refuse beds containing pottery, and stratigraphic trenches to collect adequate samples of the local wares for placing the site chronologically in relation to other Mesoamerican cultures (Drucker 1952a:1).

Under Drucker’s supervision 40 test trenches were dug in various parts of the

site where there were a large number of surface sherds. In digging the trenches,

Drucker saved only figurines. Otherwise, he made a rough count of the sherds he

discovered as well as other objects such as m etate fragments. The soil type and the

presence of charcoal was also noted (Drucker 1952a:11).

Based on positive results of the test trenches, three stratitrenches were dug,

from which “all the sherds and other cultural materials from each level was carefully

segregated” (Drucker 1952a:20). Two of the stratitrenches were rich in layers of

refuse which contained over 24,000 sherds of pottery {Drucker 1947:3).

After investigating the two highest yielding stratitrenches, Drucker reached the

conclusion that they were not contemporary but, rather, had succeeded each other in

time. As he reported in Some Impressions o f the Ceramic Complex o f La Venta (1 9 4 7 ):

The deposits of stratitrench 1, with an average depth of about 4 feet, succeed those of stratitrench 3, which had a thickness of about 5 feet, with little if any overlap. Ceramically speaking, there is no major break between the two deposits, indicating that they represent a continuum (Drucker 1947:4).

Drucker found that La Venta pottery was generally undistinguished, due in part to

the poor preservation in the acidic soil. As he noted:

Because of the fragmentary nature of the pottery, and its consistently poor state of preservation, it has been necessary to group it into several rather large and clumsy classes. In general, however, the taxonomy of the La Venta wares is rather like the one set up for the Tres Zapotes material, in spite of all efforts to establish as refined and precise a classification as possible. In part this is due to the very apparent fact that the local pottery is not only drab but poorly standardized (Drucker 1952a:80).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89

The majority of the wares were monochromatic, very simple, with few signs of

painted decoration or incising (Drucker 194 7 :3 ). As Drucker noted, “Even the pieces

which must have served ceremonial ends. . . were of the same rudely made types as the

pots in daily use in the occupation areas” (Drucker 1947:3). Figurines were ‘archaic’

in form, with handmade, usually solid, bodies and ‘features’ indicated by incising or

applique or both” (Drucker 1947:3).

Drucker appears to have been rather surprised by the quality of the ceramics

from La Venta, commenting:

One would scarcely anticipate finding so drab a lot of wares among the remains of the makers of the great sculptured monuments and the carved jades It would seem that the people of La Venta had but slight interest in ceramics as a field for artistic expression (Drucker 1947:3).

As at Cerro de las Mesas, establishing chronology at La Venta, or at least placing

the site in relationship to known cultures, were among Drucker’s objectives. Although

unable to date the ceramics with certainty, Drucker postulates on the basis of his

ceramic analysis that La Venta was a one horizon site with an overall ceramic pattern

compatible with that of the Middle period of Tres Zapotes (Drucker 1947:5).

Although Matthew Stirling and Waldo Wedel spent the 1943 field season at La

Venta and were responsible for notable structural excavations there, neither of them

was specifically focused on ceramics. Stirling certainly examined ceramics during the

subsequent 1944 and 1945 field seasons, when he explored sites in Chiapas, Tabasco,

and Campeche, but he did not prepare a scholarly report on the results of his ceramic

investigations.

During the m id-1940s, Philip Drucker was on active duty with the Navy. When

he returned to Washington and accompanied the Stirlings to San Lorenzo in 1946, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

investigation of ceramics once again became a major aspect of the National Geographic-

Smithsonian expeditions. Since Philip Drucker never wrote up the results of his work

at San Lorenzo, however, we are limited in our understanding of what Stirling and

Drucker learned about San Lorenzo ceramics to a few tantalizing comments by Matthew

Stirling. W riting in The National Geographic Magazine, Stirling reported:

From the excavations we recovered large quantities of pottery, clay figures, and other artifacts of the ancient inhabitants and were able to trace the changes in style and form with the passage o f time as revealed in our trenches In our big stratigraphic trenches by the river we found an earty occupation site of the monument carvers, buried under 20 feet of soil. Above this and 10 feet beneath the surface was another occupation level with a different style of pottery and different clay figures, showing that after the site had been abandoned by its original builders another people had arrived and occupied it (Stirling 1947:170-171).

Further knowledge of San Lorenzo ceramics had to await excavations conducted by

archaeologists Michael Coe and Richard Diehl in the 1960s.

Observations about Methodology

This chapter has explored the principal methods employed by the four members

of the National Geographic-Smithsonian Institution expeditions to Southern Mexico and

provided some insight into their reasons for stressing certain methods above others.

While all four men were working to answer questions of chronology, as befitted their

training in culture history, differences in their personal objectives, interests, and

expertise led them to emphasize different aspects of the excavations and to stress

different methodology. In one instance, their differences led to sharp public controversy

about the archaeologists’ procedures and results.

The archaeologists on the 1939-1946 expeditions were more focused on

answering factual questions about the sites and on excavating artifacts than they were in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. investigating the processes which had led the sites to develop or in looking at issues of

contemporary interest, such as settlement patterns. The criticism which Clyde

Kluckhohn had made in 1940 about archaeologists working in Middle America—that

they were lacking in methodological and theoretical development, and that they tended to

collect facts more than interpret them-was probably applicable to much of the

archaeology done by members of the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions

(Kluckhohn 1940:45). However, there were a number of mitigating factors. Few of the

scientific and technological applications now available to archaeologists had yet been

developed. Most importantly, it must be kept in mind that the archaeologists were

excavating sites about which little or nothing was known. No previous archaeological

investigations had been conducted to provide a benchmark for their work. They were

taking the first steps-confirming the existence of a culture which until then had been

known largely from unprovenienced artifacts. In fact, they were archaeological

pioneers, and they needed to obtain basic data before they attempted to answer processual

questions about the region and its ancient peoples.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 7

PUBLICATIONS

It was demonstrated in earlier chapters that differences in interests, influences,

objectives, and methodology affected the way that the four National Geographic-

Smithsonian archaeologists participated in the expeditions to Southern Mexico. These

same differences helped to determine the content and format of the reports they wrote

about the expeditions, the artifacts they selected for shipment to the Smithsonian, and

the way they interpreted their findings. In this chapter, I take a comparative look at the

way these differences manifested themselves with respect to publications.

The written output of the four National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists

varied considerably from one individual to another. Their publications ranged from

non-technical magazine articles written for a general readership, to detailed reports

published by the Bureau of American Ethnology for a technically-inclined audience.

Some of this material was issued in a timely manner. Other reports were published

years after the excavations had taken place. Still other pieces were written

retrospectively at a later date. The number of publications that directly stemmed from

the expeditions ranged from Clarence Weiant’s one publication to Matthew Stirling’s

nine. The impact of the publications was immediate in some cases, long-term in others.

■Matthew Stirling

Expedition leader Matthew Stirling was the most prolific of the four

9 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93

archaeologists in terms of numbers of individual pieces published. Since Stirling was

expected to report periodically on the expeditions in the pages of The National Geographic

Magazine, he wrote articles which covered each field season, sometimes collapsing two

field seasons into one. in addition to magazine articles, Stirling published two scholarly

reports, which were issued as bulletins of the Bureau of American Ethnology, as well as

a technical paper on Mexican archaeology issued by the National Geographic Society.

Stirling’s National Geographic Magazine articles, which generally ran between

2 5 -3 5 pages in length, were intended for a general audience which had an interest in

adventure and explorations. Accordingly, it was that aspect of the expeditions-the

adventure—that he stressed in his writing: the challenge of exploring little-known sites

where new, and perhaps startling, discoveries could be made. The articles, informal and

often humorous, were very much the product of Stirling’s own pen, Marion Stirling

recalls (Marion Stirling personal communication, 1996). Considerable space is given

to human interest stories (for instance, how difficult it was to reach the site, the

occasional problems the expedition experienced with local officials, how the

archaeologists survived without modem conveniences, what they ate, where they lived,

etc.). Words and descriptions which sound today somewhat condescending (e.g., “the

natives”) and tactless (for one of the colossal heads:“This happy buck toothed warrior..

.represents a physical type found in southern Mexico during ancient times, and even

today”) occasionally show up, particularly in the captions (Stirling 1939:193 and

Stirling 1940a:331). Wording which might bring charges of ethnocentricism in the

late 20th century was not unusual in articles published in The National Geographic

Magazine during the decade under consideration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94

One of the great benefits of The National Geographic Magazine articles is that

they show aspects of the expeditions which would not usually be covered by a scholarly

publication. An example is the close relationship which the Stirling’s had with their

Mexican employees. The articles often describe the input of Mexicans such as “Miguel”

and “Pedro,” whom the Stirlings met in Tres Zapotes and who later worked for them at

other archaeological sites, and the women who served as camp cooks. In this sense, the

accounts provide important ethnological information about the Gulf Coast of Mexico in

the 1930s and 1940s. Thanks to the talents of Richard Stewart, the articles feature

photographs which further document various aspects of the expeditions, social, as well

as archaeological.

Where the National Geographic Magazine articles specifically address questions

of archaeology, they tend to focus on what was special, exciting, valuable about the

expeditions-the “finds,” such as Stela C at Tres Zapotes, jade from Cerro de las Mesas,

jaguar masks from La Venta, and colossal heads from San Lorenzo. Clearly this kind of

emphasis was for the magazine a “marketing tool,” a way of meeting its readers’ desire

for vicarious adventure. The titles of the articles are obvious attention-getters:

“Discovering the New World’s Oldest Dated Work of Man” (1939); “Great Stone Faces

of the Mexican Jungle” (1940); “Expedition Unearth Buried Masterpieces of Carved

Jade” (1941); “Finding Jewels of Jade in a Mexican Swamp” (1942), and “La Venta’s

Green Stone Tigers” (1943).

Stirling’s articles in The National Geographic Magazine followed in the tradition

of other material on archaeology which the National Geographic Society had published in

its magazine during the preceding decade, such as reports on Maya excavations conducted

by Sylvanus Moriey (1931 and 1936) and on Alfonso Caso’s research at Monte Alban

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95

(1932). Without a doubt, the articles helped to make Middle American archaeology

accessible to readers with little archaeological background. What they do less well is to

convey in a systematic way an understanding of the archaeological process.

In addition to magazine articles, Matthew Stirling wrote two scholarly reports on

stone monuments which were of lasting importance: Stone Monuments of Southern

Mexico (1S43b) and Stone Monuments o f the RioChiquito, Veracruz, Mexico (1 9 5 5 ).

In each instance, he takes a descriptive approach to his subject, delineating the

characteristics of the monuments and providing illustrations and/or photographs. While

Stirling made some effort to place the monuments in the context of Middle American

archaeology, interpretation is secondary to description in these reports.

Another scholarly report which Stirling prepared during the years of the

National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions was a piece he wrote for the National

Geographic Society about Stela C of Tres Zapotes, in which he explains and defends his

reading of the early date. Entitled An Initial Series from Tres Zapotes, Vera Cruz,

Mexico, the article was the first, and last, of a Mexican archaeology series which the

National Geographic Society intended to support, but which they ultimately did not

pursue for internal administrative reasons.

In the years following the expeditions, Matthew Stirling would write other

articles about the explorations in Southern Mexico, such as “The Olmec, Artists in

Jade,” (1964) and “Monumental Sculpture of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco,”

(1965) which would be included in edited volumes. By then, Stirling had acquired

considerable expertise in interpreting the complex of traits which characterized Olmec

art. His focus in these later pieces, as in much o f his earlier work, was on Olmec a rt as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96

manifestation of culture-a stress very much in keeping with the proclivities he

manifested in the field.

Philip Drucker

Philip Drucker wrote four scholarly pieces on the sites in Southern Mexico, all

of which were issued by the Smithsonian Institution either as bulletins of the Bureau of

American Ethnology or as one of the Smithsonian’s Miscellaneous Reports. Three of the

pub\ications--Ceramic Sequences at Tres Zapotes (19 4 3 a ), Ceramic Stratigraphy at

Cerro de las Mesas (1943b) and Some implications o f the Ceramic Complex o f La Venta

(1947)-focus heavily on ceramics, while the BAE bulletin on La Venta —La Venta,

Tabasco: A Study o f Olmec Ceramics and Art (1952a)—is broader in scope and includes

both Drucker’s commentary on sculpture and Wedel’s material on structural

excavations. In keeping with his background and training, the Drucker reports are

technical in nature, consisting of dense paragraphs about the excavations and detailed

analyses of the ceramics. Even in these publications, however, Drucker’s sense of

humor occasionally comes through, as when he describes a plumbate whistling jar at

Cerro de las Mesas as “absolutely intact until ‘found’ by a workmen’s pick...

(Drucker 1943b:7).

Philip Drucker’s reports generally offer something by way of analysis-often to

a greater degree than do Stirling’s-and they are key to understanding the first

systematic archaeological probes at the Southern Mexico sites. Drucker’s reports on

Tres Zapotes and Cerro de las Mesas were written while his field experiences were still

recent and fresh in his mind. However, the tim etable which he followed in writing his

La Venta reports was more lengthy. Drucker was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

several periods during and after the war, and his absence from the Smithsonian-plus

the necessity of catching up with other work when he returned to civilian life-caused

him to fall behind in getting out the material on La Venta. Although he issued an interim

report on La Venta ceramics in 1947, it was a full decade after the field season-1942

to 1952-before he published his La Venta findings in the form of BAE bulletin 153

(1952a). Drucker must have initiated work on the report in 1948 or earlier, since

Stirling wrote him on June 16, 1948:

I have also looked over the La Venta report in some detail and hope that we will be able to get it out without much delay. I think it is the one that will be most sought after of all the Mexican accounts. Wedel, as you probably know, is in the field, and while he is due back for this weekend, he is also due to return to the Missouri right away. We’ll have to nail him down when he gets back this fall (M. Stirling to P. Drucker, letter, 16 June 1948, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

Drucker found that obtaining additional input from the two other individuals

(Waldo Wedel and ceramicist Anna Shepard) who would write for bulletin 153 was time

consuming and frustrating. When he was away from Washington, Drucker was also

frustrated by the difficulty of communicating with the Smithsonian Institution. On April

23, 1951, he wrote to Waldo Wedel:

I haven’t heard from anyone around the SI for a coon’s age. I expect they’re all mad at me on account of my continually writing to ask them for the scoop on my Nootkan and La Venta mss. Periodically I get kind of annoyed about the desultory way of handling publication back there, but suppose that it can’t really be helped. Incidentally, at one time, quite a while back, Miss Palmer (I believe it was) wrote that she was having trouble locating the line-drawings and pics for the La Venta report-do you happen to know if she ever found them? That would be the super- unpleasant climax, if they lost them .. . .(P. Drucker to W. Wedel, letter, 23 April 1951, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

Some information remained misplaced until it was too late to include it in the

bulletin. In a December 5, 1958 letter to Robert Heizer, Waldo Wedel wrote that he was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

sending Heizer some drawings (the profile diagram made of a trench wall in the North

Mound, A-2, of La Venta) which had been referred to on page 61 of the BAE bulletin 153

(Wedel 1952:61). Wedel says that the drawings had been “discovered" a few days after

the bulletin had been issued (W. Wedel to R. Heizer, letter, 5 December 1958, National

Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.)

Even when material or artifacts were not lost, there was an element of tension in

the relationship between Drucker and the Smithsonian as pertained to the La Venta

manuscript. In a June 25, 1952 letter to Waldo Wedel, Drucker complained:

The La Venta report is in page proof, but we’re going tc get a revise on it, for it’s fouled up like the proverbial Chinese fire drill. They went to more pains to get figs. and plates upside down-. Aside from that it’s not bad except that on the page leads, where it says “LA VENTA, TABASCO” they put “TOBASCO” every dam time (P. Drucker to W. Wedel, letter, 15 June 1952, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

However, Drucker knew that he needed considerable help from Washington if the

La Venta report were ever to get out in final form. When bulletin 153 was finally

published, Drucker paid tribute to Helen Palmer in its pages, crediting her with having

“pulled the report together” while he was gone (Drucker 1952a:IX).

Following the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions, Philip Drucker

published several other articles about Olmec sites, including a report on a 1955

excavation at La Venta which he conducted with Robert Heizer and Robert Squier under

the auspices of the University of California. Certainly, Drucker’s most atypical

publication to have its roots in the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions was a

kind of ethnography which he published in 1968 under the pseudonym Paul Record.

Issued as Tropical Frontier (1968), the book is a fictionalized account of rural life in

Southern Mexico which is based on Drucker’s first-hand knowledge and experience.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

Interestingly, while the work implies that its author ended up in Mexico because he was

tired of a desk job, it never hints at his archaeological background or mentions the

Olmec.

In 1981, Drucker, by now back in the United States and teaching anthropology,

presented a paper entitled “On the Nature of Olmec Polity” at a conference organized by

Dumbarton Oaks (Drucker 1981a). This constituted his final formal comments on

Olmec archaeology and the expeditions to Southern Mexico.

Clarence Weiant

Based on his one field season with the National Geographic-Smithsonian

expeditions, Clarence Weiant wrote An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes,

Veracruz, Mexico (1943)—the BAE report on Tres Zapotes which would be submitted

as his Ph.D. dissertation. Like Drucker, Weiant had considerable interaction with Helen

Palmer, editor at the Smithsonian. Weiant’s goal was to get the Tres Zapotes report

published as quickly as possible so that he could use it to fulfill his Ph.D. requirements

at Columbia University. However, Palmer was more concerned about getting the report

into the proper format, which meant including such niceties as an index. When Palmer

suggested to Weiant that a full index was needed, and asked him to do a skeleton outline,

he insisted that “The only sort of index which, in my opinion, is really needed for the

bulletin is one giving the geographic and tribal names and the chronological period” (C.

Weiant to H. Palmer, letter, 23 June 1943, National Anthropological Archives,

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.). Matthew Stirling, on the other hand,

thought an orthodox index was needed, and Weiant was eventually persuaded to provide

the detailed information which Miss Palmer needed in order to produce one.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100

It is interesting to note the role which Alexander Wetmore played in getting the

two BAE publications about Tres Zapotes (the Weiant and Drucker bulletins) to press.

Wetmore analyzed the two manuscripts in Stirling’s absence and sent him a letter on

February 24, 1941 saying:

Saturday being a holiday I had opportunity to examine critically the two reports by Drucker and W eiant. . . Dr. Weiant in his introduction has gone into the history of the area and of the work to a considerable extent This is all right for his purposes in preparing a doctor’s thesis b u t in our publication, in my opinion, you should restrict this to w hat is necessary to merely locate his studies His account is very well prepared though I have the feeling that Drucker’s is the more scientific... In looking over these papers there are certain discrepancies in interpretation on the part of the two authors, individual thinking is all right but I do not believe that we should publish two reports more or less simultaneously in which points of view are too strikingly divergent This is hardly logical and would be confusing. This is a matter that you will have to take up yourself so that the two papers can be correlated to some extent I am giving you this memorandum now with the suggestion that you keep it for consideration when you return to Washington (A. Wetmore to M. Stirling, letter, 24 February 1941, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

As we have seen, Stirling’s attempt at correlating the two works was only

partially successful. Weiant and Drucker continued to espouse different views about the

cultural/ceramic periods of Tres Zapotes. Despite the controversy, there is no evidence

that Weiant continued to speak publicly on the issue after 1952. Although he did for a

time pursue an interest in archaeology and in Middle America, teaching a t Hunter College

in Manhattan and presenting a paper a t a conference in Jaiapa, Mexico in 1951, much o f

his career was spent in the fields of chiropractic and parapsychology. He was dean of the

Chiropractic Institute of New York for more than 20 years, and he also served as an

affiliate of the New York-based Parapsychology Institute (NevadaAppeal, 26 October

19 8 6 :A 3 ).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Waldo Wedel

Waldo Wedel was one of the two National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists

whose experience in Southern Mexico was limited to a single season. The amount of

writing he did about his time at La Venta was similarly limited. In his one published

report stemming from the expeditions-a section on structural excavation that was

included in Philip Drucker’s BAE bulletin 153—Wedel gives a detailed, descriptive

report on his work at La Venta. The report is very careful in its conclusions. Not being

a Middle American archaeologist, Wedel appears to yield to Drucker as far as

interpretation is concerned, and he makes virtually no effort to discuss the significance

of his excavations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 8

INTERPRETATION

“Interpretation” in this chapter refers to two separate but related points: (1)

the principal conclusions which National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists drew

about the Olmec as a result of the excavations in Southern Mexico, and (2) the way in

which those conclusions were influenced by factors extrinsic to their archaeological

research. This chapter focuses on the dual meaning of “interpretation” as it pertains to

the 1939-46 archaeological expeditions.

Principal Findings

In the following pages, I summarize the National Geographic-Smithsonian

archaeologists’ basic conclusions under four headings:

(1) Olmec Art as a Manifestation of Culture

(2) Identity of Olmec Sites and Their Chronology

(3) Relationship Between Olmec Sites and Other Areas of Middle America

(4) Nature of Olmec Civilization

(1) Olmec Art as a Manifestation of Culture

By 1946, archaeologists with the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions

clearly were in agreement that a cultural complex with shared characteristics, which

we now call “Olmec," existed in antiquity in the Gulf Coastal states of Veracruz and

Tabasco, and to some extent elsewhere in Mexico. The archaeologists, particularly

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103

Stilling, Drucker, and Weiant, confirmed the existence of this complex by locating,

recording, and photographing stone monuments, jade/serpentine carvings, and ceramics,

which appeared to be representative of a particular ‘‘Olmec” art style. Among the most

diagnostic “Olmec” characteristics, many of which were identified and illustrated by

Miguel Covarrubias during the Mexican Roundtable held at Tuxtla Gutierrez in April

1942, were flame eyebrows; a snarling, were-jaguar mouth; slanted eyes; the use of

symbols such as the St. Andrew’s cross and the u-motif, and snake and toad iconography

(Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia 1942:49). The archaeologists postulated that the

presence at multiple sites of artifacts possessing similar characteristics was

confirmation of a coherent cultural pattern.

(2) Identity of Olmec Sites and Their Chronology

On the basis of their excavations, the National Geographic-Smithsonian

archaeologists concluded that three sites which they had investigated—Tres Zapotes, La

Venta, and San Lorenzo-had been inhabited by people who had formed part of an

“Olmec” culture. The archaeologists also determined that the fourth major site which

they had excavated-Cerro de las Mesas—was the product of a later, non-Olmec

occupation. Drucker observed that Cerro de las Mesas had “the very slightest contact

with the Olmec region, and was essentially a transplanted Highland pattern with a base of

presumably old unspecialized coastal traits” (Drucker 1952a:215).

To determine which sites were Olmec, the archaeologists used as criteria the

presence of certain art forms (for instance, colossal heads) and similar themes (e.g.,

the half-man, half-jaguar known as the “were-jaguar”). Matthew Stirling based his

interpretations largely on the style, condition, and location of stone monuments. Philip

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104

Drucker’s assessments were often based on similarities among ceramics. For instance,

Drucker commented:

The discussion of the principal ceramic types-wares and figurines-has noted time after time the strong resemblances between the La Venta materials and those from the Middle Period of the Tres Zapotes occupation. By and large there can be little doubt that the two strata... represent two local manifestations of the same ceramic pattern, and not only that but the same developmental or evolutionary phase of that pattern (Drucker 1952a:147).

In addition to determining which sites were Olmec, the National Geographic-

Smithsonian archaeologists sought to answer several questions about chronology. One

question concerned relative chronology: how old were the sites relative to each other? A

second, corollary question asked: how old were the various sub-phases of the sites? Yet

a third question was: what were the dates of the sites in absolute terms?

Despite the fact that chronology was the most fundamental concern of the

archaeologists, it was the most difficult issue for them to deal with, especially in the

absence of radiocarbon dating. Their primary technique for answering questions of

chronology was, again, to use Olmec art and ceramics as a guide. They were able to see

that shared patterns at different sites might indicate contemporaneity, and to

hypothesize that cruder work might precede more sophisticated artistic expression. As

their familiarity with the monuments and other artifacts increased, the archaeologists

formed opinions about the evolution of stylistic traits and their implications for

chronology. For instance, referring to the stone monuments of Tres Zapotes, Matthew

Stirling wrote:

Because of their condition and location and because of the art style employed, it is the w riter’s impression that most if not all of the larger monuments belong to the early middle period of occupation of the site (Stirling 1943b:l 1).

He also used artistic criteria to discuss chronology with respect to Cerro de las

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105

Mesas, explaining:

On stylistic grounds, it is possible to suggest a relative chronology for the stone monuments of Cerro de las Mesas. Monument 5 seems to be the earliest in style. The low, flat, median crest, the outpointing feet, and the simple yet confident handling of the subject matter suggest an early but developed art style (Stirling 1 9 4 3 b :4 7 ).

Stirling later employed the same kind of artistic evidence to comment on relative

chronology in the Rio Chiquito area:

As of the present date, 10 typical Colossal Heads are known. Five from San Lorenzo, four from La Venta, and one from Tres Zapotes. Stylistically the heads are so similar, and parallels in detail are such, as to force the conclusion that no very great time interval could have elapsed during which they were made The table-top altars also connect the Rio Chiquito area with La Venta. The parallels between Monument 14 of San Lorenzo and Altar 4 of La Venta have already been pointed out (Stirling 1955:21).

In Stirling’s view, stratigraphy and ceramic analysis were two important

grounds for making judgments about chronology. Speaking about Philip Drucker’s work

at La Venta, Stirling remarked:

La Venta is an important and interesting site. It appears to represent a single occupation. It is hoped that the ceramic studies which we are now conducting at the site will result in definitely placing the heroic type of “Olmec” sculpture in its proper ceramic horizon (Stirling 1943b:60).

However, the study of ceramics did not always produce the answers which the

archaeologists were seeking. The fact that ceramics were very poorly preserved in the

acidic Gulf Coast soil meant that it was difficult to find large numbers of good examples

for comparative analysis. Recent observers have also suggested that another problem

existed: that Clarence Weiant and Philip Drucker’s limited training in stratigraphy and

ceramic analysis hampered their performance, and that “the net result was that the

Olmec occupation in the heartland was almost impossible to fix within the total culture

history of Mesoamerica” (Diehl and Coe 1995:21).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106

During and after the 1939-46 expeditions, the National Geographic-Smithsonian

archaeologists had great difficulty in determining even a relative chronology. Writing in

1943, Philip Drucker speculated that Lower Tres Zapotes dated to the time of Christ (or

perhaps somewhat earlier-around 250 B.C), and that the Middle and Upper Phases of

Tres Zapotes ranged from approximately 750 A.D. to 1000 A.D. He estimated that Lower

Cerro de las Mesas began after 500 A.D. and continued until about 1400 A.D. (Drucker

1943b:87). Drucker believed that La Venta was linked temporally to the Middle horizon

of Tres Zapotes and contemporaneously with the Tzakol Period of the Maya Region.

According to noted Olmec scholar Michael Coe, “Drucker’s 1952a report [about La

Venta] was an objective study of the style but was hampered by a faulty placement of

Olmec culture in time, the author still insisting on an Early Classic date” (Coe

1965b:741).

With the advent of radiocarbon dating, it became evident that Drucker had been

very conservative in his interpretations, and that his dates for the Olmec sites were far

too late. Further archaeological work in Southern Mexico has made it clear that the

florescence of San Lorenzo came during the Initial Olmec Period, which is considered to

have been from 1200-900 B.C., while La Venta’s most prominent stage followed in the

Middle Olmec Period, from 9 0 0 -4 0 0 B.C. (Diehl and Coe 1995:12). Knowledge about

Tres Zapotes and how it fit these early phases is sketchy. According to Olmec

archaeologist Richard Diehl, “Ironically, although Tres Zapotes was the first Olmec site

known, the nature of its Olmec occupation remains an unresolved mystery” (Diehl and

Coe 1 9 9 5 :1 2 ).

Matthew Stirling appears to have been somewhat skeptical about Philip

Drucker’s dates, but he chose not to challenge them publicly. However, in a letter

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107

written to archaeologist Robert Wauchope of the Middle American Research Institute,

Tulane University, on June 14, 1954, Stirling commented:

I was always inclined to put Tres Zapotes and Cerro de las Mesas farther back in time than Drucker has done, but since this was unpopular at the time I turned timid, and strung along with the conservatives, particularly since it was more difficult around 1940 to tie onto anything by way of datum points. The depth of the deposits and the physiographic evidence at both sites was always a little difficult for me to reconcile with the time period given (M. Stirling to R. Wauchope, letter, 14 June, 1954, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.).

Michael Coe also believes that Stirling had better instincts than Drucker about

the dates of Olmec sites. Writing in 1965, Coe wrote:

Stirling (as opposed to Drucker), influenced by the Cycle 7 date on Stela C at Tres Zapotes, a monument in a derived Olmec style, believed that the peak of Olmec culture came in the Preclassic. He was backed in this by such Mexican archaeologists as Caso and Bernal, who had found Olmec-influenced carvings in the definitely Preclassic Monte Alban I, and by Covarrubias, who had collected purely Olmec figurines at the Preclassic site of Tlatilco, outside Mexico City (Coe 1965b:739).

It is clear, however, that Stirling himself was uncertain about the time line as

late as 1946. In June of that year, a press release from the National Geographic, which

presumably would have had Stirling’s approval, states that “The eight years of study in

southern Mexico indicate that the La Venta [term which the Tuxtla Gutierrez conference

had suggested be used instead of “Olmec”] culture at Tres Zapotes started at A.D. 300 and

lasted there until about A.D. 1,000. The La Venta and San Lorenzo sites apparently were

developed later and abandoned earlier” (National Geographic Press Release, 26 June

1946, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C).

(3) Relationship between Olmec sites and other areas of Middle America

Philip Drucker may have erred in his conclusions about chronology, but he made

some cogent observations about Olmec origins and about the relationship between Olmec

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108

peoples and those people in other regions of Mexico. His thinking in some respects

approximates the views of certain present day archaeologists who regard the Olmec as

one of a number of early civilizations in Middle America, rather than as the “Mother

Culture” (Diehl and Coe 1995:11). In his Bureau of American Ethnology publication

about La Venta (1952a), Drucker stated his belief that,“The Olmec culture was

developed locally out of basic elements inherited from some still unfound parent

Mesoamerican culture” (Drucker 1952:232). He added:

However, these manifestations in Oaxaca and highland Guatemala of objects reminiscent of Olmec art can be interpreted another way: the widespread occurrences on an early horizon may represent a strain of art (and of technology and religious concepts as well) present in the basic ancestral pattern of Mesoamerican culture, that persisted and was specialized and perfected with the Olmec art of the La Venta horizon. The resolution of the problem depends on the excavation and meticulous study of Middle Culture remains throughout the area, and of the still earlier remains that will eventually be found (Drucker 1952a:233).

Drucker presented the argument th at Olmec art had developed from a single

southern Mexican culture which was not a “byproduct or peripheral manifestation of

Mayan Civilization” (Drucker 1952a:230). According to this view, the Olmec were one

of several Middle American culture centers:

. . . each of which, on diverging from some ancient ancestral pattern or patterns, developed along Its own special lines. The achievements of each of these centers influenced and stimulated the others to varying degrees, but a fair share of their respective cultural developments were independently produced. In addition to its general interpretation, derived from an appraisal of art style, various points of contact between the Olmec and their neighbors have been noted. In addition to finds of obvious trade pieces, we have seen that Olmec motifs and stylistic traits appear here and there in specimens made outside the Olmec area (Drucker 1952a:230).

(4) Nature of Olmec Civilization

Prior to the expeditions to Southern Mexico, most people drew their limited

information about the Olmec from the descriptions, illustrations, and photographs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

published by explorers who had visited the Gulf Coast, and from the mysterious carvings

of jade and serpentine which could be found in several museums and private collections.

However, this information was out of context, and it did not offer much insight into the

population which had produced the a rt New data produced by the 1939-46 expeditions

finally enabled archaeologists to paint a broader picture of Olmec culture. On the basis

of the expeditions to Southern Mexico, the National Geographic-Smithsonian

archaeologists were able to confirm the existence of a Gulf Coast Olmec population which

had lived in numerous sites over an extended period of time and who had shared beliefs

and values which had found expression in a common art style. The fact that the

inhabitants of these sites had built enormous earthen mounds, brought basalt from long

distances, and obtained jade from outside the region led the archaeologists to conclude

that they were dealing with a culture which had a strong central, perhaps religious,

authority.

As has been shown elsewhere in this thesis, the National Geographic-Smithsonian

archaeologists seldom used the word “Olmec” in the reports on their first field seasons.

However, as they gradually concluded that they were studying the archaeological record

of a culture which was not only “non-Maya," but which might itself have had an impact

on later Maya civilization, they began to see their discoveries in a different light. Even

here, however, their ability to interpret results was hampered by confusion over

chronology. To the extent that the Olmec sites were considered, at least initially, as

contemporaneous with Maya sites, the influence of one culture on another was hard to

perceive. Certainly the first field seasons did not resolve the issue. Writing about his

1939 work at Tres Zapotes, Clarence Weiant concluded that “Relations with the Maya

were probably intimate throughout the entire history of that people. In the light of Stela

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110

C, it would appear that some of the early inhabitants of Tres Zapotes actually were

Mayas. . . (Weiant 1943:133). Even Matthew Stirling initially interpreted some of

his discoveries as evidence of widespread Maya, rather than Olmec, influence. However,

after several seasons excavating in Veracruz and Tabasco, Stirling had begun to regard

the Olmec as a distinct culture, noting that:

In light of present evidence, the general fact appears to stand out that there was an earty spread of a stela cult extending from the southeastern Mexico coast across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the Pacific coast region of southern Mexico, and possibly into Guatemala. The use of large earth mounds, including long mounds placed in a rather unsystematic manner, and the general absence of stonemasonry and architectural features were characteristic. It seems probable that in part, at least, this development preceded the conspicuous growth of the classic Maya culture which was to a considerable degree influenced by it (Stirling 1943b:73).

The artifacts discovered by the National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists

prompted several kinds of speculation about Olmec civilization. For instance, the fact

that the Gulf Coast sites featured imposing monuments carved from basalt prompted the

archaeologists to make inferences about the nature of the society which had produced

such monuments in an area where there was no local source of basalt. Writing in 1955,

Matthew Stirling observed:

The tedious operation of transporting these heavy stones, presumably by water, over such long distances, suggests that peaceable relations were maintained over the region and quite probably there was intercommunity cooperation and trade. Whether such center was an independent political entity or whether the entire area was subject to central control is a matter for speculation (Stirling 1955:22).

The archaeologists were also able to infer a hierarchical relationship among the

sites. Philip Drucker noted that there were differences in the way in which Olmec

culture was manifested at each site. Basing his views upon the evidence he had gathered

during his excavations, Drucker envisaged La Venta as a major ceremonial center with a

“highly developed and very stable sociopolitical organization, and a strongly centralized

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 111

authority, as well as an elaborate formulation of religious concepts and ritual”

(Drucker 1952:231). He believed that “the art of sculpture in the Olmec tradition

reached its zenith” during the La Venta period (Drucker 1952a:232). As an art derived

from sculpture in the round, rather than from painting or engraving, it was not based on

Mayan sources, which fact “corroborates the opinion as to the autonomy of Olmec

culture as a whole “ (Drucker 1952a:232).

Matthew Stirling shared with Drucker the belief that La Venta had played a

prominent role in the development of Olmec civilization. Noting that the rich burials of

La Venta are not found in San Lorenzo or Tres Zapotes, Stirling observed that La Venta

was very likely “the regional center of the classic Olmec area and the place of residence

of rich and probably powerful rulers” (Stirling 1955:23).

Despite the fact that he saw La Venta as having played a special role, Stirling

ultimately concluded that San Lorenzo had reached a higher level of expertise in the area

of large-scale stone carving:

The stone monuments from the region of the Rio Chiquito present an interesting addition to our gallery of Olmec art. Here, particularly at the site of San Lorenzo, the Olmec art of sculpture of large monuments in stone may be said to have reached its climax (Stirling 1955:22).

Influences upon Interpretation

To w hat extent were the basic conclusions of the archaeologists influenced by

factors other than the data obtained from the excavations?

As archaeologist Bruce Trigger noted in his essay “Writing the History of

Archaeology: A Survey of Trends”:

There can be no doubt that the findings of social historical studies of archeology pose a direct challenge to the positivist view that a growing corpus of archeological data and proper methods for analyzing these data can lead to an ever more thorough and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112

accurate understanding of human behavior and history. Increasingly familiarity with the development of archeology in different parts of the word indicates that social, political and cultural differences influence not only the questions archeologists ask but also the answers that they are prepared to accept as credible. It is also the case that such findings can be invoked as support for a currently growing trend in archeology to reject the notion that archeological interpretations can achieve validity that is independent of the societies that have produced them (Trigger 1985:231).

We have already seen how personality, training, prior experience, and individual

interests influenced the objectives and methods of the National Geographic-Smithsonian

archaeologists. It is reasonable to believe that such factors also influenced the way they

interpreted the excavations. The extrinsic factors which may have had an impact on the

archaeologists’ conclusions include the archaeological theory under which they were

operating; political, social, and economic influences; international relations, and the

agendas of participating organizations.

The culture history paradigm, for example, played a fundamental role in

influencing the archaeologists’ findings. Because of this orientation, which the

archaeologists had absorbed early in their academic training, they were intent on asking

questions about chronology. Accordingly, most of their interpretations revolve around

this issue.

Political and social currents in Mexico also played a role in determining the kind

of questions which the archaeologists asked and the way that they understood the answers

that they received. The National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions took place at a time

when Mexico was experiencing renewed interest in its roots and in the role that

indigenous people had played in the development of Mexican culture. Alfonso Caso,

director of INAH, and other prominent Mexicans (particularly the artist Miguel

Covarrubias) were proponents of the view that the Olmec represented the “mother

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113

culture” of Middle America, the culture which to some extent gave birth to later

cultural traditions. Caso and Covarrubias put this view forward with great vigor and

with considerable success at the 1942 Roundtable in Tuxtla Gutierrez. Both men were

highly regarded by Stirling, and their position undoubtedly reinforced and influenced the

National Geographic-Smithsonian archaeologists’ willingness to embrace some of their

ideas (although, as has been seen, Philip Drucker’s position was somewhat nuanced, and

he was less supportive of the “Mother Culture” position than was Stirling).

At least three U.S. organizations-the Smithsonian Institution, the National

Geographic Society, and the Carnegie Institution of Washington-can be said to have had

an impact on the direction of the research.

The Smithsonian already had a research agenda which was geared toward

determining the boundaries of the Maya world. Stirling began to investigate the sites in

Veracruz in part to explore this issue—and thus, many of his early questions revolved

around Olmec/Maya connections.

The National Geographic Society was undoubtedly looking for new and newsworthy

“finds" which it could bring to life in the pages of its magazine. The Society sponsored

challenging, “exploration” type expeditions which might lead to breakthroughs, rather

than dry archaeological research. The recovery of priceless artifacts and the possibility

of shedding light on an hitherto “unknown" culture—likely outcomes of Matthew

Stirling’s work—increased the prestige and influence of the National Geographic

Society. The expeditions fit well with the Society’s interests and thus suited its agenda.

The prominence of the Maya-focused Carnegie Institution of Washington may have

indirectly prompted Stirling and his Smithsonian colleagues to seek out their own turf

by investigating a non-Maya culture of Middle America. While the Carnegie Institution

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114

did not play a direct role in the expeditions (except for the problems caused by J. Eric

Thompson’s opposition to Matthew Stirling’s reading of Stela C), it very likely had an

indirect influence, motivating the National Geographic and Smithsonian archaeologists to

go their own way by trying to develop information about a non-Maya society.

Prevailing political and economic currents in the United States had an impact on

the conduct of the archaeological expeditions and may have influenced some outcomes

accordingly. More than half of the field seasons took place during the war years, which

meant that archaeologists had to deal with new regulations concerning travel, with

cutbacks on the availability of personnel, and with delays and restrictions on shipping-

all of which affected their work to some degree. For instance, the length of the 1942

field season was shortened, and wartime service kept Philip Drucker from participating

in the La Venta excavations of 1943.

When trying to understand archaeological expeditions and their consequences, it

is important to keep in mind factors such as the above.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSIONS

In the preceding chapters, 1 have examined from a comparative perspective the

participation of four archaeologists in the 1939-1946 National Geographic-

Smithsonian Institution expeditions to Mexico. I have shown that the expeditions were

multifaceted reflections of the individual personalities, interests, experiences, training,

and objectives of four very diverse men working at Olmec archaeological sites in

Southern Mexico, and that they were influenced by external factors, as well as by the

archaeological record. This is not to deny that there were commonalities among the

archaeologists-most importantly their allegiance to the paradigm of culture history.

However, there were more differences than there were shared purposes and goals.

Examining the way in which the four archaeologists were affected by differences, as well

as by similarities, makes possible a fuller understanding of the expeditions and their

discoveries.

Factors Influencing Archaeological Data

As Bruce Trigger has remarked:

This history of archeology must therefore be pursued on two fronts. On the one hand, there is a need for archeologists to understand how the continuous recovery of archeological data and the pioneering of new techniques for analysing it have influenced an understanding of prehistoric times. On the other hand, it is necessary to investigate all the factors influencing the interpretation of archeological data: the funding and organization of archeological research; scholarly traditions within archeology; the broader cultural traditions within which archeologists operate; social, political, and economic conditions; and the impact of foreign archeological

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116

studies, especially those carried out in countries with major research traditions (Trigger 1985:233).

The individual differences which this thesis has explored to date can be grouped

into several categories. In the following pages, I summarize five of these categories,

briefly recapitulating certain points made previously in this paper.

Personality

The adventurous, inquisitive, risk-taking personality possessed by Matthew

Stirling was well suited to the role he exercised during the National Geographic-

Smithsonian expeditions. Without a person at the helm who combined leadership skills

with great curiosity and archaeological expertise, the expeditions might not have

garnered and maintained adequate public and private support. Likewise, the personality

of Philip Drucker-his Western, “outdoors” orientation, and his ability to adapt to the

isolated, difficult conditions of Veracruz and Tabasco-were important elements in the

results that were achieved during the seven year period. Clarence Weiant and Waldo

Wedel played secondary roles. In fact, as Weiant later admitted, “I acted only as an

assistant, carrying out daily instructions” (Weiant 1952:57).

Education/T raining/Experience

The archaeologists differed considerably in the degree to which they were

familiar with the subject matter which was to be their focus in Mexico. By reading the

literature, studying museum pieces, and travelling to Veracruz, Matthew Stirling had

already acquired some knowledge of Olmec art prior to the start of the National

Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions. He was able to use this knowledge in his

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117

excavation of stone monuments, where his insights into the linkage between the

monuments and the culture which had produced them were of fundamental importance.

Philip Drucker shared Stirling’s artistic orientation to some extent, but his prior focus

had been on the Northwest Coast, and his knowledge of Middle America was limited.

However, Drucker had other skills that were of great value. One was his experience in

the use of stratigraphic excavation to develop information about chronology. This

background was to be a major contribution to the expeditions. Clarence Weiant was very

likely the archaeologist with the most specific focus. Strongly interested in Middle

American ceramics, he had become an informal pupil of George Vaillant during his years

of graduate study at Columbia University. Weiant was rather well informed about

comparative Middle American art styles, and he used this information in his study of

ceramics. As an advanced graduate student intending to write his dissertation about the

ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Weiant had perhaps the narrowest perspective of the four

archaeologist. He himself acknowledged his inexperience after the fact, writing “I. .

.though well-acquainted with the Mesoamerican field, went as a tyro in the art of

excavation" (Weiant 1952:57). Waldo Wedel brought with him to Southern Mexico no

particular knowledge of, or orientation toward, Middle America. However, his ability to

conduct structural excavations, gained during archaeological digs in the United States,

proved very useful during the 1943 field season at La Venta, when he replaced Philip

Drucker as assisting archaeologist.

Objectives

The four participating archaeologists had somewhat different objectives.

Matthew Stirling, in particular, voiced several reasons for mounting the expedition-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118

principal among them the desire to ascertain the boundaries of the Maya world, in

keeping with an ongoing Smithsonian program. He was definitely interested in exploring

a relatively unknown region which was the purported source of the Olmec art style

which fascinated him in both archaeological and aesthetic terms. However, Stirling did

not initially treat the expedition as a study of the Olmec, and he did not emphasize

“Olmec” at all during the first field season. The Olmec connection, while present from

the beginning, took center-stage only gradually as the expeditions progressed.

Philip Drucker and Clarence Weiant, Stirling’s assistants, echoed one of Matthew

Stirling’s explanations in their 1943 publication: that they were exploring the

boundaries of Mayan culture. However, Weiant and Drucker also had their own agenda.

Weiant went to Mexico to obtain data for his doctoral dissertation. Drucker was

concerned about developing expertise in Middle American archaeology which he clearly

saw as a possible future career path. Waldo Wedel gives no explanation in his “La

Venta” report for his participation in the expeditions. However, his objectives were

probably to do a creditable job as a Smithsonian employee working for a more senior

Smithsonian staff member who had a strong commitment to the project in Southern

Mexico.

Methodological Approaches

Differences in the archaeologists interests, objectives, and training meant

different choices in methodological focus when the archaeologists were in the field.

Stirling concentrated on the “big picture,” exploring and selecting sites, excavating

stone monuments, and overseeing the expeditions. Weiant and Drucker were oriented to

ceramic analysis, with Drucker utilizing stratigraphic excavation as a way of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119

understanding the context of his ceramic finds. Wedel was the solid field archaeologist

whose training and experience enabled him to do detailed structural excavation even

without any particular interest in the culture he was excavating.

Publications

Their publications provide use with glimpses of the different personalities and

interests of the four archaeologists. Matthew Stirling wrote articles which reflected his

interpersonal skills and his ability to make archaeology comprehensible and interesting

to people other than scholars of anthropology. His National Geographic Magazine

articles conveyed to a general readership the excitement of discovery, while touching

only lightly on the routine, repetitive nature of the work. His scholarly publications

likewise emphasized the general, or the descriptive, rather than the analytical.

However, they provided invaluable information about the stone monuments, and greatly

added to knowledge about Olmec art and culture. Philip Drucker, more technical in his

orientation, wrote reports that are dry and detailed in some respects, but which attempt

to put the Olmec in context. The fact that his La Venta report was so late reveal

something about Drucker’s breath of interests and his ability to become sidetracked. Not

only did he fall behind because of wartime service, but he was distracted by other

Smithsonian responsibilities and by a Northwest Coast manuscript for which he was also

responsible. It is easy to see how Clarence Weiant and Waldo Wedel’s publications were

direct reflections of their personalities and individual objectives. With his doctorate

almost in hand, Weiant’s goal was to obtain Smithsonian approval of his Tres Zapotes

report so that he could use it as a dissertation. He was less interested in understanding

the archaeological context of the ceramics than in comparing them with examples from

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120

other Middle American cultures. Waldo Wedel’s written output on La Venta was one

chapter in a report otherwise w ritten by Philip Drucker. Perhaps in keeping with his

lesser interest in Middle America, Wedel seems to have been a somewhat reluctant

author, needing reminders from Drucker to write up his notes on the important site of

La Venta. While his section of the report is highly detailed, it is the least speculative of

the publications emanating from the National Geographic-Smithsonian expeditions.

Wedel seems to have been content to concur with the opinion of his colleague (and

friend), Drucker, rather than to assess the significance of the excavations from his own

viewpoint.

Interpretation

The differing ways in which archaeologists interpreted the archaeological record

may have originated in their background. The strong impact of culture history,

especially on Philip Drucker and Clarence Weiant, the fairly new Ph.D.’s (1936) from

Berkeley, clearly led the archaeologists-especially Drucker—to pursue questions of

chronology. The views o f respected Mexican archaeologist Alfonso Caso and Mexican

artist Miguel Covarrubias undoubtedly had a strong impact on Matthew Stirling, whose

regard for the Olmec as the seed from which other Middle American cultures germinated,

approximated their own. Somewhat more removed from that influence, Philip Drucker

was less certain about the role of the Olmec in this regard.

Summary Conclusion

This thesis has attempted to demonstrate, by analyzing the 1939-1946 National

Geographic Society-Smithsonian Institution expeditions to Southern Mexico, that the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

production of archaeological information is a complex, and sometimes fragmented,

process, which involves far more than the excavation and analysis of material culture.

Archaeological excavations—whether carried out in one field season or over a period of

years-are affected by multiple factors such as the backgrounds, personality traits, and

personal agendas of principal investigators, the use of different methodologies, and the

goals of participating archaeologists. Numerous other elements may play a role in

determining the nature, and perhaps the result of, an excavation, including its

geographic location, the timeframe in which it is carried out, and the political and

economic context in which it is conducted. These factors were clearly important in the

expeditions to Southern Mexico, where the location of sites such as Tres Zapotes made

access difficult, where Gulf Coast environmental conditions (heat, humidity, insects

etc.) presented daily challenges, and where the “political” context, such as the

commitment of leading Mexican archaeologists to an interpretation of the Olmec as the

“mother culture” of Middle America, undoubtedly affected the expeditions in varying

degrees.

An appreciation of the many factors at work in these expeditions to Southern

Mexico can illuminate our understanding of the scientific process and can serve as an

example of the holistic way in which we should approach the study of other

archaeological investigations

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX I

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123

NOTES

1. During the first third of the 20th century, the designation “Olmec” was occasionally

employed by scholars to refer to the mysterious artifacts of stone carved in a peculiar,

unknown style, which were turning up in museums and private collections. Henry

Beyer, an archaeologist working in Mexico, used the term in his 1926 review of Tribes

and Temples, and Marshall Saville used it in his writings three years later. The term

itself was controversial. “Olmec” was the name of a population which had lived in the

Gulf Coast region in historic times, and the word was derived from an Aztec word, Olman,

meaning “land o f the rubber people.” There was no evidence th a t “Olmec” had been the

name of the ancient peoples of that region, nor was there any proof that the modem Gulf

Coast population was even descended from those who lived there in pre-historic times.

The term has gained in currency, however, and it appears likely to remain in general

use, despite the dissatisfaction of many archaeologists.

2. The Tuxtla Statuette is the name commonly applied to a 16.5-cm-high nephrite

sculpture discovered in 1902 in a field in the San Andres Tuxtla district of Veracruz,

Mexico. It may depict a priestly figure wearing a duck-billed mask. The figure is

incised with a script whose origin was unknown a t the time o f its discovery and whose

interpretation is still controversial. The Tuxtla Statuette forms part of the Pre-

Columbian collection of Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX II

1 2 4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125

MAP OF SOUTHERN MEXICO

'a G ut,

Bulletin 138

Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX III

1 2 6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127

PHOTOGRAPH OF COLOSSAL HEAD

Matthew Stirling with Colossal Head of Tres Zapotes

Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin 138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, R. E. W. 1991 Prehistoric Mesoamerica. Revised ed. University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Bach, C. 1996 Michael Coe: A Question for Every Answer. Americas. January/February: 14-21.

Baudez, C. and S. Picasso 1992 Lost Cities of the Maya. Translated by C. Palmer. Harry N. Abrams, New York.

Bernal, I. 1968 Views of Olmec Culture. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, October 28th and 29th, 1967, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 135-142. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Bernal, I. 1971 The Olmec Region-Oaxaca. In Observatbns on the Emergence o f Civilization in Mesoamerica, edited by R. F. Heizer and J. A. Graham, pp. 29-50. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, n o .ll, April 1971. University of California, Berkeley.

Bernal, I. 1 9 8 0 A History o f Mexican Archaeology: the Vanished Civilizations of Middle America. Thames and Hudson, London.

Blom, F. and 0 . La Farge 1926 Tribes and Temples. The Tulane University of Louisiana, New Orleans.

Brew, J. 0. 196 8 Introduction. InOne Hundred Years o f Anthropology, edited by J. 0. Brew, pp. 5-25. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

1 2 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129

Carnegie Institution of Washington 1 9 4 0 Descriptive Pamphlet Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Caso,A. 1932 Monte Alban, Richest Archeological Find in America. The National Geographic Magazine. October. 487-512.

Coe, M. D. 1965a Archaeological Synthesis of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco. In Archaeology o f Southern Mesoamerica, Part 2, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 679-715. Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3, R. Wauchope, general editor. The University of Texas, Austin.

Coe, M. D. 1965b The Olmec Style and its Distributions. In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 2, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 739-775. Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3, R. Wauchope, general editor. The University of Texas, Austin.

Coe, M. D. 1968 San Lorenzo and the Olmec Civilization. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, October 28th and 29th, 1967, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 41-78 . Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C

Coe, M. D. 1976 Matthew Stirling. American Antiquity 41(1 ):67-73.

Coe, M. D. 1981 San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. In Archeology, edited by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 117-145. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1, V. R. Bricker, general editor. The University of Texas, Austin.

Coe, M. D. and R. A. Diehl 1 9 8 0 In the Land o f the Olmec. Volume 1, The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan; Volume 2, The People of the River. The University of Texas, Austin.

Collins, H. 1976 Matthew Williams Stirling 1896-1975. American Anthropologist 7 8(4):886-888.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130

Covarrubias, M. 196 6 Indian Art o f Mexico and Central America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Covarrubias, M. 1962 [1946] Mexico South: The Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Daniel, G. 1976 A Hundred and Fifty Years o f Archaeology. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Diehl, R. A. and M. Coe 1995 Olmec Archaeology. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership, pp. 11 -26. Catalog of The Art Museum. Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.

Drucker, P. 1943a Ceramic Sequences at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 140. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Drucker, P. 1943b Ceramic Stratigraphy at Cerro de las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 141. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Drucker, P. 1947 Some Implications of the Ceramic Complex of La Venta. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, Volume 10 7 . Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Drucker, P. 1952a La Venta, Tabasco: A Study o f Olmec Ceramics and Art. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 153. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Drucker, P. 1952b Middle Tres Zapotes and the Pre-Classic Ceramic Sequence. American Antiquity XVII (3):258-260.

Drucker, P. 1955 The Cerro de las Mesas Offering o f Jade and Other Materials. In Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 157, pp. 25-68. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131

Drucker, P. (see Record, P.) 1968 Tropical Frontier. Knopf, New York.

Drucker, P. 1981 a On the Nature of Olmec Polity. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 29-48. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Drucker, P. 1981b Ronald Leroy Olson, 1895-1979. American Anthropologist, 83(3): 605-607.

Drucker, P., R. F. Heizer, and R. J. Squier 1959 Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 170. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Glenn, J. R. 1 99 2 Guide to the National Anthropological Archives. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Greene, K. 1983 Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Grosvenor, G. 1936 The National Geographic Society and Its Magazine. The National Geographic Magazine. January: 123-164.

Grove, D. C. 1981 The Formative Period and the Evolution of Complex Culture*. In Archaeology, edited by J. A. Sabioff, pp. 373-391. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1, V. R. Bricker, general editor. The University of Texas, Austin.

Heizer, R. F. 1968 New Observations on La Venta. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, October 28th and 29th, 1967, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 9-40. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132

Heizer, R. F. 1971 Commentary: The Olmec Region-Oaxaca. In Observations on the Emergence o f Civilization in Mesoamerica, edited by R. F. Heizer and J.A. Graham, pp. 51-69. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, no. 11, April 1971. University of California, Berkeley.

Heizer, R. F. and J. A. Graham 1967 A Guide to Field Methods in Archaeology. The National Press, Palo Alto, CA.

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 M atthew W. Stirling, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 109-147. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Hester, T. R. 1982 Robert Fleming Heizer, 1915-1979. American Antiquity 47(1 ):99-107.

Hodder, I. 1991 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation In Archaeology, 2nd ed. Cambridge University, Cambridge.

Judd, N. M. 196 7 The Bureau of American Ethnology. A Partial History. University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Kluckhohn, C. 1940 The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by Clarence Hay, Ralph Linton, Samuel Lothrop, Harry Shapiro and George Vaillant, pp. 41-51. D. Appleton-Century Company, New York.

Lantis, M. 1983 Philip Drucker, 1911-1982. American Anthropologist 84(4):897-902.

Library-Anthropology Resource Group (LARG) 1991 International Dictionary of Anthropologists. Garland, New York.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133

Luckert, K. W. 1976 Olmec Religion: A Key to Middle America and Beyond. University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Lutz, C. A. and J. L Collins 1993 Reading National Geographic. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Meyer, M. C. and W. L Sherman 1979 The Course of Mexican History. Oxford University Press, New York.

Milbrath, S. 1979 A Study o f Olmec Sculptural Chronology. Studies in Pre- Columbian Art and Archaeology, Number Twenty-Three. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Miller, M. E. 1986a The Art o f Mesoamerica from Olmec to Aztec. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London.

Miller, M. E. 1986b The Murals o f Bonampak. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Morley, S. G. 1931 Unearthing America’s Ancient History. The National Geographic Magazine. July:99-126.

Morley, S. G. 1936 Yucatan, Home of the Gifted Maya. The National Geographic Magazine. November591 -644.

NevadaAppeal 1986 “Obituary of Clarence Weiant.” 26 October.A3. Carson City, Nevada.

Pina Chan, R. 1989 The Olmec: Mother Culture o f Mesoamerica, edited by L. L. Minelli. Translated by W. McManus. Rizolli, New York.

Pinsky, V. and A. Wylie (editors) 198 9 Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134

Pugh, M. S. 1981 An Intimate View of Archaeological Exploration. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory o f Matthew W. S tirling, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 1-13. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Record, P. (See Drucker, P.) 196 8 Tropical Frontier. Knopf, New York.

Rust, W. F. and R. J. Sharer 1988 Olmec Settlement Data from La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico. Science, 7 October.102-104.

Santley, R. 1992 A Consideration of the Olmec Phenomenon in the Tuxtlas: Early Formative Settlement Patterns, Land Use, and Refuse Disposal at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico. In Gardens o f Prehistory, edited by T.W . Killion, pp. 1 5 0 -1 8 3 . The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley 1992 Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. Routledge, London.

Sharer, R. and W. Ashmore 1993 Archaeology: Discovering Our Past Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, California.

Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia 1942 Mayasy Olmecas. Segunda Reunion de Mesa Redonda Sobre Problemas Antropologicos de Mexico y Centro America, Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas, 27 de abril a lode mayo de 1942.

Steward, J. H. 1973 Alfred Kroeber. Columbia University Press, New York.

Soustelle, J. 1984 TheOlmecs. Translated by H. R. Lane. Doubleday, Garden City, New York.

Stirling, M. 1941 Jungle Housekeeping for a Geographic Expedition. The National Geographic Magazine. November 303-327.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135

Stirling, M. W. 1939 Discovering the New World’s Oldest Dated Work of Man. The National Geographic Magazine. August: 183-218.

Stirling, M. W. 1940a Great Stone Faces of the Mexican Jungle. The National GeograpNc Magazine. September.309-334.

Stirling, M. W. 1940b An Initial Series from Tres Zapotes, Vera Cruz, Mexico. Contributed technical papers, Mexican archaeology series, vol. 1, no. 1. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

Stirling, M. W. 1941 Expedition Unearths Buried Masterpieces of Carved Jade. The National Geographic Magazine. Septemben277-302.

Stirling, M. W. 1943a La Venta’s Green Stone Tigers. The National Geographic Magazine. September321-332.

Stirling, M. W. 1943b Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 138, pp. 1 -84, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C

Stirling, M. W. 1945 Notes and News. American Antiquity XL(2):137-138.

Stirling, M. W. 194 7 On the Trail of La Venta Man. The National Geographic Magazine. February:137-172.

Stirling, M. W. 1955 Stone Monuments of the Rio Chiquito, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau o f American Ethnology Bulletin 157, pp. 1-23, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Stirling, M. W. 1964 The Olmecs, Artists in Jade. In Essays in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, edited by S. K. Lothrop and others, pp. 43-59. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136

Stirling, M. W. 1965 Monumental Sculpture of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco. In Archaeology o f Southern Mesoamerica, Part 2, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 716-738. Handbook of Middle American Indians, R. Wauchope, general editor. The University of Texas, Austin.

Stirling, M. W. 1968 Early History of the Olmec Problem. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, October 28th and 29th, 1967, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 1 -8. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC

Stirling, M. W. and M. Stirling 1942 Finding Jewels of Jade in a Mexican Swamp. The National Geographic Magazine. Novemben635-661.

Thompson, J. Eric 1940 Archaeological Problems of the Lowland Maya. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by Clarence Hay, Ralph Linton Samuel Lothrop, Harry Shapiro, and George Vaillant, pp. 126-138. D. Appleton-Century Company, New York

Townsend, R. F. (General editor) 1992 The Ancient Americas: A rt from Sacred Landscapes. The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago.

Trigger, B. G. 1989 A History o f Archaeological Thought Cambridge University, Cambridge.

Trigger, B. G. 1985 Writing the History of Archaeology: A Survey of Trends. In Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, Vol. 1, History of Anthropology, edited by G. Stocking. The University of Wisconsin, Madison.

University of Chicago Press 1975 Fifth International Directory of Anthropologists. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Vaillant, G. C. 1 94 0 Patterns in Middle American Archaeology. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by Clarence Hay, Ralph Linton, Samuel Lothrop, Harry Shapiro, and George Vaillant, pp. 295-305. D. Appleton-Century Company, New York.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137

Wauchope, R. 1951 A Tentative Sequence of Pre-Classic Ceramics in Middle America. In Middle American Research Records, vol. 1, no. 14, edited by R. Wauchope, pp. 211 -250. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Wedel, W. 193 6 An Introduction to Pawnee Archeology. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 112. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Wedel, W. 1952 Structural Investigations in 1943. In La Venta, Tabasco: A Study o f Olmec Ceramics and Art by Philip Drucker, pp. 34-79. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 153. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Weiant, C. W. 194 3 An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 139. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Weiant, C.W. 1952 Reply to Middle Tres Zapotes and the Pre-Classic Ceramic Sequence. American Antiquity XVIII (1):57-59.

Weyerstall, A. 1 9 3 2 Some Observations on Indian Mounds, Idols and Pottery in the Lower Papaloapan Basin, State of Vera Cruz, Mexico. In Middle American Papers, publication no. 4, Middle American Research Series, Maurice Ries, editor of the series, pp.27-69. The Tulane University of Louisiana, New Orleans.

Who’s Who in America 1986-87 Waldo Rudolph Wedel. In Who’s Who in America, 44th edition, volume 2, page 2 9 2 3 . Marquis Who’s Who, Macmillan Directory Division, Wilmette, Illinois.

Who’s Who in America 1950 William Duncan Strong. In Who’s Who in America, volume 26, p. 2642. The A. N. Marquis Company, Chicago.

Who’s Who in America 1950 Alexander Wetmore. In Who’s Who in America, volume 26, p. 291 8 . The A. N. Marquis Company, Chicago.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138

Who’s Who in America 1942-43 Alfred L Kroeber. In Who’s Who in America, volume 22, p. 1287. The A. N. Marquis Company, Chicago.

Who’s Who in America 1942-43 Sylvanus Griswold Morley. In Who’s Who in America, volume 22, p. 1591. The A. N. Marquis Company, Chicago.

Wicke, C. R. 1971 Oimec: an Eariy Art Style of Precolumbian Mexico. The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Willey, G. R. 1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-Columbian Civilizations. American Anthropologist 64 (1):1-14.

Willey, G. R. 1968 One Hundred Years of American Archaeology. In One Hundred Years o f Anthropology, edited by J. 0 . Brew, pp. 2 9 -5 3 . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Willey, G. R. 1988 Portraits in American Archaeology. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Willey, G. and J. Sabloff 1994 A History o f American Archaeology, 3rd ed. Thames and Hudson, London.

Williams, A. 1 99 4 Covarrubias. The University of Texas, Austin.

Woodbury, R. B. 1973 Alfred V. Kidder. Columbia University Press, New York.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.