Barbara L. Stark, Philip J. Arnold III, eds.. Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1997. x + 383 pp. $50.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8165-1689-6.

Reviewed by Charles C. Kolb

Published on H-LatAm (September, 1998)

This review is divided into three components: urban center encompassed an area of 22.5 square 1) background and general analysis of the vol‐ kilometers, had a major ceremonial center, over ume, 2) specifc chapter-by-chapter summaries 2,000 apartment complexes, and a population in and analyses, and 3) overall assessment of this excess of 125,000 (some believe up to 200,000). book as a contribution to Mesoamerican studies. The subsequent Postclassic period saw the rise Background and General Analysis: and decline of the Toltecs, centered at Tula, Hidal‐ go, and from ca. A.D. 1200-1520, Aztec civilization. Geographically, includes most The Aztec city-state with its urban center at of present-day Mexico south of the Panuco-Lerma Tenochtitlan (present-day Mexico City) had a pop‐ drainage system, as well as the Yucatan Peninsu‐ ulation more than 200,000. The in‐ la, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, western Hon‐ cluded nearly two dozen allied, subject, and con‐ duras, and a portion of Nicaragua. This environ‐ quered polities located in central Mexico and ex‐ mentally and culturally complex area witnessed tending from the Pacifc to the Gulf coasts. the rise of many New World civilizations. In the southeastern portion of Mesoamerica, the High‐ However, before these "high cultures" arose, land and Lowland Classic Maya and, later, the unusual cultural developments had begun previ‐ Postclassic Maya resided, while in Mexico north ously in the Gulf of Mexico lowlands at locales and northwest of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec such as La Venta and San Lorenzo--sites of the were the highland civilizations of the Valley of Preclassic Olmec culture, what Yale archaeologist Oaxaca and the Meseta Central, including the Michael Coe once termed "America's frst civiliza‐ Basin of Mexico. The latter was the location of the tion." The volume being reviewed focuses upon a rise of Classic period Teotihuacan culture, a pan- portion of the Gulf lowlands that, after the Olmec, Mesoamerican city-state polity dating A.D. 50-750 has sometimes been thought to be peripheral to that was centered at Teotihuacan, situated north‐ the mainstream of Mesoamerican archaeology. east of present-day Mexico City. At its apogee, the Both the highland Classic Teotihuacan and Post‐ H-Net Reviews classic Aztec city-states are believed to have exer‐ ern Tabasco rather than the entire Gulf of Mexico cised signifcant infuence on the peoples of the lowlands, which also includes portions of the Gulf lowlands. In Olmec to Aztec a dozen authors states of Tamaulipas to the north and Yucatan to relate the results of the latest archaeological re‐ the east. The chronological coverage is holistic, connaissance and some of the excavations recent‐ from the earliest known human occupation (ca. ly conducted in this important region and chal‐ 7,600 B.C.), but details particularly the periods lenge some ideas held regarding highland-low‐ from the Preclassic and Gulf Coast Olmec (ca. 1700 land interactions. B.C.) through the Late Postclassic Aztec polity and Mesoamerican archaeologists recognize Bar‐ empire (A.D. 1519), prior to European incursions. bara Stark and Philip Arnold as respected scholar- Stark points out that interest and research on the colleagues, meticulous feld archaeologists, and Olmec has "virtually hypnotized researchers with anthropologists who have a cultural ecological the result that elites [rather than commoners] orientation. As the editors of Olmec to Aztec, have been the chief object of investigation" (p. Stark and Arnold have assembled ten topical pa‐ 307). The editors seek to balance this art historical pers on the region. They have also prepared a interest in elite architecture and sculpture by ex‐ compelling synthesis of the prehistoric settlement amining the archaeological evidence of the farm‐ patterns of a portion of the Gulf of Mexico coastal ers and craftspersons who inhabited hamlets and lowlands for the archaeological periods from the villages and formed the rural "backbone" of Gulf Archaic through the Late Postclassic, the latter the Coast societies. era of Aztec hegemony. Their goal is to explicate Barbara Stark, who earned her doctorate what anthropologists call "settlement patterns," from Yale University and is Professor and Chair‐ that is, how peoples distributed themselves across man of the Department of Anthropology at Ari‐ the natural and cultural landscape at given points zona State University, has a research focus on the in time and through time (a synchronic and di‐ archaeology and complex societies of Mesoameri‐ achronic perspective). Settlement pattern studies ca with emphasis on the Gulf lowlands. Her feld were pioneered in Peru by Gordon R. Willey; see research in the lower Papaloapan Basin, La Mixte‐ his seminal work Prehistoric Settlement Patterns quilla area, and at the sites of Patarata and Cerro in the Viru Valley, Peru (Washington, D.C.: Smith‐ de las Mesas, , is esteemed by her peers. sonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Stark is the author of Prehistoric Ecology at Bulletin 155, 1953)--and then by Willey's student, Patarata 52, Veracruz, Mexico (Nashville: Vander‐ William T. Sanders, frst in the Gulf lowlands and bilt University Publications in Anthropology 18, beginning in the 1960s in central Mexico. The lat‐ 1977) and Patarata Pottery: Classic Period Ce‐ ter research is exemplifed in a volume entitled ramics of the South-central Gulf Coast, Veracruz, The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Mexico (Tucson: University of Arizona Anthropo‐ Evolution of a Civilization by William T. Sanders, logical Paper 51, 1987). She is also the editor of the Jefrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley (New volume entitled Settlement Archaeology of Cerro York: Academic Press, 1979). The ecological ap‐ de las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico (Los Angeles: Uni‐ proach to Mesoamerican anthropology is seen in versity of California at Los Angeles Institute of Ar‐ broad context in Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a chaeology Monograph 34, 1991). Philip (Flip) Civilization (New York: Random House, 1968) by Arnold, has a Ph.D. from the University of New Sanders and Barbara J. Price. Mexico, and is Associate Professor of Anthropolo‐ Olmec to Aztec emphasizes the region encom‐ gy at Loyola University of Chicago, where he spe‐ passing central and southern Veracruz and west‐ cializes in archaeology, complex societies, and craft production in Mesoamerica. A Research As‐

2 H-Net Reviews sociate at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural His‐ exhibition catalogs-- although they serve that tory, Arnold is also the author of a landmark anal‐ function--but also convey the results of the latest ysis of Gulf Coast pottery manufacture, Domestic archaeological thought about the Olmec. Michael Ceramic Production and Spatial Organization: A D. Coe and Richard A. Diehl were among the con‐ Mexican Case Study in Ethnoarchaeology (Cam‐ tributors to The Olmec World: Ritual and Ruler‐ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). He is ship (Princeton, N.J.: Art Museum of Princeton well-known for his research at Matacapan and University [distributed by Abrams], 1995), the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz. publication associated with an exhibition with the Therefore, the editors have the appropriate same name. This exhibit was initially at Princeton credentials to prepare a synthesis and interpreta‐ (December 15, 1995-February 25, 1996) and then tion of Gulf lowlands archaeology. Stark and in Houston (April 14-June 9, 1996). A major sym‐ Arnold's compendium is the frst attempt since posium on the Olmec was held in Princeton at the two Mexican archaeologists, Ignacio Bernal and opening of the exhibition. A volume entitled Eusebio Davalos Hurtado, collaborated in the edit‐ Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Elizabeth ing of a single volume entitled Huastecos, Totona‐ P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente (Washington, cos, y sus vecinos (Mexico, D.F.: Sociedad Mexi‐ D.C.: National Gallery of Art [distributed by cana de Antropologia, Revista Mexicana de Estu‐ Abrams], 1996), accompanied the NGA's exhibi‐ dios Antropologicos 13[2-3], 1953). There have tion of Olmec sculpture and artifacts (June 30-Oc‐ been only two more recent (but rather limited) tober 20, 1996). There were scholarly papers pre‐ syntheses, one by Jose Garcia Payon, "Archaeology sented at this inaugural as well. Only a few ob‐ of Central Veracruz," and the other by Guy Stress‐ jects appeared in both exhibits, therefore making er-Pean, "Ancient Sources on the Huasteca." Both 1996 a "year of the Olmec" for Mesoamerican ar‐ of these contributions appear in the Handbook of chaeologists and art historians. Because the arti‐ Middle American Indians, Volume 11: Archaeolo‐ facts and sculptures were selected from private gy of Northern Mesoamerica, Part 2 (edited by collections and from museums around the world, Gordon F. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal; Austin: Uni‐ it is plausible that we shall not see an assemblage versity of Texas Press, 1971) and were the most of unique objects like this ever again. recent summaries until Olmec to Aztec. A signifcant amount of high-quality archaeo‐ The Gulf Coast Olmec dating to the Preclassic logical research has been conducted in the Gulf period are best known for their spectacular lithic lowlands during the past several decades. Because sculpture, especially for creating and transporting of the new investigations and due to the develop‐ massive carved stone heads and for constructing ment of new analytical techniques and para‐ elaborate ceremonial centers--including artifcial digms, the landmark Bernal and Davalos volume mountain-pyramids and ceremonial precincts--at and the two Handbook contributions are now rel‐ sites such as La Venta and San Lorenzo Tenochtit‐ egated to the status of historic documents rather lan. Interest in the Olmec was enhanced in recent than state-of-the-art syntheses. A number of site years by two major museum exhibitions and ac‐ reports and interpretive articles have appeared in companying catalogues which contain essays on the journal Ancient Mesoamerica during the past topics in archaeology and art history. Curiously fve years, for example, a series of papers by neither of these exhibitions or the volumes are Arnold, Grove, Gillespie, Santley, and Stark and mentioned or referenced by Stark and Arnold or Curet--organized by Philip Arnold--(Ancient their colleagues. I believe that these publications Mesoamerica 5[2]:213-287, 1994). However, a should not be regarded as primarily "art history" holistic, book-length synthesis has been needed

3 H-Net Reviews for some time and this is precisely what the con‐ tal of eleven, with fve in Chapter Seven) and ta‐ tributors to Olmec to Aztec set out to accomplish. bles (12, half of which are in Chapter Six). There Stark and Arnold and eleven colleagues from are a total of 79 illustrations with only Chapter universities and research centers in Mexico, the Eleven having none. United States, and Belgium have collaborated in Chapter-by-Chapter Analyses: preparing Olmec to Aztec. Early in this decade, The editors begin with a synthesis and over‐ two symposia were devoted to bringing together view entitled "Introduction to the Archaeology of colleagues to synthesize current archaeological the Gulf Lowlands" (pp. 3-32) in which they sum‐ research and interpretations in the Gulf lowlands. marize the ecology of the region, the chronologi‐ The initial symposium, at which Stark and her re‐ cal periods, the history of research, "developmen‐ search associates summarized their archaeologi‐ tal highlights," and observe dominant, recurring cal results, was held at the Congreso Internacional themes in Gulf archaeology. This chapter is ex‐ de Antropologia e Historia in August 1992, hosted tremely useful for purposes of orienting the read‐ by the state and city of Veracruz and by the Uni‐ er and for its pedagogical value, and I shall eluci‐ versidad Veracruzana. A second symposium, held date several components from their essay. In a at the 58th annual meeting of the Society for section titled appropriately "Dividing the Land‐ American Archaeology in St. Louis, Missouri, in scape," Stark and Arnold discuss the physical ge‐ April 1993, was co-organized by Stark and Arnold. ography, ecological and cultural divisions, and re‐ The current volume is an outgrowth of these ses‐ sources. This section is brief but adequate and is sions, although, as the editors note, not all of the based upon data from the 1960s. For the Gulf presenters from these symposia were able to con‐ Coast and other regions of Mesoamerica as well, tribute their papers to the book. there has been a lack of adequate or detailed as‐ The editors provide an appropriate introduc‐ sessments of the geology, lithography, and soils for tory chapter and organize the contributions into more than three decades. Apparently Jorge L. two major groups, each with a prefactory essay: 1) Tamayo's Geografa General de Mexico, 2nd ed., 4 local scales (four chapters), and 2) regional scales vols. (Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Mexicana de Investi‐ (six chapters). The chapters document various gaciones Economicas, 1962) was not consulted. In specialized topics--domestic residences, rituals, "Dividing Time," the editors review chronological "urban" community architecture, cotton produc‐ terminology and subdivisions of the Formative or tion, paleodemography, settlement systems, and Preclassic (synonymous terms), Classic, and Post‐ ceramics. The fnal chapter, co-authored by the classic periods. The analysis of the history of past editors, provides a compelling summary and anal‐ research begins with a review of institutions and ysis, rather than a synthesis of the presentations. I individual scholars, settlement pattern studies, have found that edited publications often omit subsistence activities, and cultural ecology. They this important contribution, so that Stark and note that early research emphasized the invento‐ Arnold are to be applauded for their efort. ries of cultural traits and neglected to synthesize Therefore, this volume begins with the valu‐ sociopolitical perspectives, and they place empha‐ able introductory essay and ends with a useful sis on the need to interpret political and economic subject and proper noun index. Structurally, the organization. The editors point out that "highland- book is divided into eleven chapters (varying in lowland interactions constitute an important is‐ length from 19 to 46 pages) and has a common sue, because resource complementarity and geo‐ "References Cited" (634 entries in 43 pages). Most graphic positioning made the Gulf lowlands an at‐ of the essays are accompanied by endnotes (a to‐ tractive, relatively accessible target for Central

4 H-Net Reviews

Mexican states desirous of tropical products" (p. pher A. Pool (Department of Anthropology, Uni‐ 15). Stark and Arnold also note that "one oddity of versity of Kentucky), concerns household archae‐ Veracruz research is the tenacious adherence, on ology at Bezuapan, a site comprising 8.5 hectares, the part of some UV [Universidad Veracruzana] located in west-central Veracruz, and dated to the scholars, to the idea that Preclassic Olmec re‐ Late Formative. From his excavation of three mains date to the Classic period ... its persistence houselots, Pool infers household and community in some quarters can only be viewed as quixotic" structures (wattle-and-daub construction and (p. 23). earth foors), storage pits, refuse disposal, and In "Developmental Highlights," Stark and horticultural activities. Obsidian tools were ob‐ Arnold assess six chronological units which taken tained by inter-regional exchange but pottery was together span the period 7600 B.C. to A.D. 1519. produced in the households. Household activities For each unit, they mention major sites, review were undertaken in cleared open-air "patio" areas subsistence and settlement patterns, and com‐ as well as roofed-over space, the locus of work in ment upon research problems and questions. The domestic residences in temperate and hot cli‐ Paleoindian and Archaic periods (there is no evi‐ mates. It is not known if the Bezuapan residences dence of the former in the Gulf region) and the are "typical" so that the author calls for the collec‐ Initial period are poorly represented in the Gulf tion of comparative data. A good starting point for Lowlands. The Early and Middle Preclassic peri‐ the analysis of roofed and unroofed domestic ods--the time of Olmec chiefdoms, the "epi-Olmec" space is an uncited article by C. C. Kolb, "Demo‐ Late and Terminal Preclassic periods, and the graphic Estimates in Archaeology: Contributions resurgent Classic period, and fnally the Postclas‐ from Ethnoarchaeology on Mesoamerican Peas‐ sic period are also characterized. Lastly, the edi‐ ants" (Current Anthropology 26: 581-599, 1985), tors point out that problems of discerning ethnici‐ which includes Gulf Coast data collected by ethno‐ ty, migrations or population movements, and graphers Philip L. Kilbride and John Warner. Not space-time systematics as major research con‐ assessed is the potential use of lofts for sleeping cerns. Overall, the leitmotifs of the Gulf lowlands and for storage that mitigates "foor" area and, are the synchronic and diachronic interrelation‐ therefore, demographic calculations. Pool's house‐ ships of environmental and cultural diversity, hold study is another example of the resurgence "Maya" characteristics of settlements and political of interest in domestic residential archaeology, relations, and intense external contacts that did witness Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western not result in a loss of political diversity. Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Com‐ pound, and Residence, edited by Robert S. Santley Each of the ten remaining chapters is a study and Kenneth G. Hirth (Boca Raton, F.L.: CRC Press, worthy of a detailed assessment, but I shall ab‐ 1993). stract the major points made by each contribution and comment briefy upon each essay. "Part One: In Chapter Three, entitled "Olmec Ritual and Local Scales --Residence, Shrine, and Community," Sacred Geography at Manati," authors Maria del contains an introduction by Stark, and includes Carmen Rodriguez (Centro Regional de Veracruz, four chapters. These contributions emphasize eth‐ Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Ver‐ noarchaeological models, including the "house‐ acruz) and Ponciano Ortiz Ceballos (Instituto de hold" level of analysis emphasized by a Canadian Antropologia, Universidad Veracruzana, Xala‐ archaeologist, Michael Deal, in 1985. pa,Veracruz), discuss the results of feldwork be‐ gun in 1988 at a Formative site where unique or‐ Chapter Two, "The Spatial Structure of Forma‐ ganic artifacts have been preserved. The authors tive Houselots at Bezuapan," written by Christo‐ describe Macayal, a freshwater spring at Manati,

5 H-Net Reviews located on the Coatzalcoalcos River southeast of twenty of about 200 low mounds, she also ob‐ San Lorenzo, Veracruz, where twenty uniquely- serves that a majority of the mounds are not Pre‐ carved wood anthropomorphic busts, interpreted classic. These are very signifcant results of feld as magico-religious oferings associated with an research and necessitate a rethinking of the na‐ ancestor cult, were recovered. Unfortunately, ture of the San Lorenzo site, paleodemography, "specialist studies of associated organic materials and the sequence of monumental construction. are not yet available" (p. 84); these include rubber The subsequent contribution, Chapter Five, balls, wooden artifacts, and reeds, as well as shifts to the Classic period but the analysis and re‐ neonatal human skeletal remains. Ground stone sults have implications for the entire Gulf Coast objects and seventeen pottery types are described, and for Mesoamerican studies in general. In her the latter based on the "type-variety system and contribution entitled "Spindle Whorls and Cotton modes or attributes." Although the nature of the Production at Middle Classic Matacapan and in oferings changed through time (1760-1040 B.C. the Gulf Lowlands," Barbara Ann Hall (Depart‐ radiocarbon dates), the busts share a common in ment of Behavioral Sciences, Riverside Communi‐ situ burial orientation and other attributes. ty College, Riverside, C.A.) employs a variety of re‐ Mesoamerican archaeologists and art historians search methods. Hall uses archaeological re‐ anticipate the completion of the specialized stud‐ search, Late Postclassic ethnohistoric sources, and ies and the full publication of the data and inter‐ archival data in her analysis of cotton cloth pro‐ pretations regarding this unique, important ar‐ duction at Matacapan, a site known to have Clas‐ chaeological site and its organic artifacts. sic period Teotihuacan highland infuence. She as‐ Ann Cyphers (Instituto de Investigaciones sesses the artifactual evidence for cloth produc‐ Antropologicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma tion (maguey, cotton, etc.) and presents an analy‐ de Mexico, Mexico, D.F.) has prepared Chapter sis of seventy-fve spindle whorls (devices used to Four, "Olmec Architecture at San Lorenzo," in spin fbers into thread) recovered at Matacapan. which she considers construction materials (ben‐ Weights, hole diameters, types, decoration, distri‐ tonite, clay, wood, and volcanic stone), landscape bution in domestic residences and other att‐ modifcation, and monument architecture for the tributes are assessed, and she hypothesizes that Early and Middle Preclassic Olmec (1200-900 and the ideology of the elite inhabitants of Matacapan 800-400 B.C.). Cyphers evaluates an hypothesis involved the used exotic fabrics or textiles in ba‐ suggested by Michael D. Coe and Richard A. Diehl sic exchange but also for political motives and regarding the modifcation of the landscape in or‐ economic gain, especially in inter-regional com‐ der to create a 1200 x 700 meter raised plateau modity commerce. Archaeologists have published within the 52.9 hectare San Lorenzo site. The full very few studies of perishable material culture explanation appears in Coe and Diehl's In the from any locale in Mesoamerica, therefore Hall's Land of the , Vol. 1: The Archaeology of compelling analysis is important to our knowl‐ San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan and Vol. 2: People of the edge and understanding of craft specialization River (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1980). So‐ and cultural ecology. cial complexity and labor investment are also ex‐ "Part 2: Regional Scales--Patterns in Settle‐ amined. Cyphers's major contribution is her as‐ ment and Style," begins with an illuminating in‐ sessment of lagunas (reservoirs) and causeways troductory essay by Arnold in which he traces (also used as dikes and docks) from which she briefy the early history of regional scale ap‐ concludes that several of the lagunas are not Pre‐ proaches--for example, the pioneering eforts by classic in construction chronology but date to the Willey, Sanders, and Drucker. He summarizes the colonial or modern eras. Based on the testing of

6 H-Net Reviews thrust of the six chapters comprising Part Two, established in the northern area at Ahuatepec. A and notes the increased appreciation of occupa‐ demographic resurgence, changes in social com‐ tion outside of the ceremonial centers, concern plexity, and a new settlement system are dis‐ with sociopolitical correlates of settlement sys‐ cerned at the same time river courses also altered. tems, and "environmental dynamics" (p. 142) (the To identify Classic period occupation, the authors latter should not be inferred by the reader as en‐ used the presence of Thin Orange ceramics, an vironmental determinism). imported highland ware, as a diagnostic (p. 162). In Chapter Six, "Settlement System and Popu‐ However, the reader should not assume that "... lation Development at San Lorenzo," co-authored Thin Orange from the Basin of Mexico ..." neces‐ by Stacey C. Symonds (Instituto de Investigaciones sarily connotes fabrication in the Basin rather Antropologicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma than the control of Thin Orange distribution from de Mexico, Mexico, D.F.) and Roberto Lunagomez the urban center of the pan-Mesoamerican polity (Facultad de Antropologia, Universidad Ver‐ of Teotihuacan (A.D. 50-750). For clarifcation acruzana, Xalapa, Veracruz), the reader fnds ma‐ about the production and distribution of this im‐ terials complementing Cyphers's study (Chapter portant ceramic, used by Mesoamericanists as a Four). Symonds and Lunagomez summarize ar‐ "Classic period marker," the reader is directed to chaeological research in the Olmec area since two publications: a book chapter by C. C. Kolb en‐ 1939 prior to their presentation of the results of titled "Commercial Aspects of Classic Teotihuacan the frst systematic regional survey conducted in Period 'Thin Orange' Wares" which appears in Re‐ the Olmec heartland. The "San Lorenzo Regional search in Economic Anthropology: Economic As‐ Survey" covered four ecological zones in an area pects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico (edited by of 403 square kilometers, identifying 271 sites that Barry L. Isaac; Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. were categorized within twelve site types. A ma‐ 155-205, 1985), and an article "New Findings on jority of the sites were multicomponent (that is, the Origin of Thin Orange Ceramics," by E. C. Rat‐ were occupied during two or more major periods tray (Ancient Mesoamerica 1:181-195, 1990). or chronological phases within the Preclassic, The subsequent contribution, Chapter Seven, Classic, and Postclassic periods). Early Preclassic "Formative Period Settlement Patterns in the phase sites (1500-900 B.C.) clustered in the vicinity Tuxtla Mountains," written by Robert S. Santley of the ritual center at San Lorenzo, a time when (Department of Anthropology, University of New land modifcation and the exploitation of diferent Mexico), Philip J. Arnold III, and Thomas P. Barrett microenvironments were notable features of so‐ (Department of Anthropology, University of New ciopolitical and subsistence organization. The Mexico), complements Cyphers's essay (Chapter Middle Preclassic (900-600 B.C.) witnessed a dra‐ Four). Santley and his colleagues observe that For‐ matic decrease in the numbers of sites, and only mative period archaeological evidence confrms two sites were identifed for the subsequent Late the rise of more complex sociopolitical systems, Preclassic (600 B.C.-A.D. 200). In the Classic period art styles, and iconography, but that the Tuxtla re‐ (A.D. 200-1000; divided into Early, Middle, Late, gion was dissimilar in level of complexity in com‐ and Terminal phases), there was a change in the parison with the La Venta site which they com‐ settlement of the region and a gradual increase in ment is "the exception rather than the rule." The the numbers of sites, with a total of 44 by the Ter‐ archaeological survey begun in 1979 produced ev‐ minal Classic phase. There was no evidence that idence on 182 sites (577 components), of which any regional center evolved in the survey area 119 of these sites date to the Formative and incipi‐ during the Classic period, but during the Early ent Early Classic periods. In a detailed presenta‐ Postclassic (A.D. 1000-1200) a regional center was tion, the authors characterize four phases: Early

7 H-Net Reviews

Formative (1400-1000 B.C., 24 sites and 1700 in‐ (2600 B.C.), Preclassic and Protoclassic (1200 B.C.- habitants), Middle Formative (1000-400 B.C., 42 A.D. 100), Classic (A.D. 100-900), and Postclassic sites and 3200 people), Late Formative (400 B.C.- (900-1519) periods. A riverine and farming subsis‐ A.D. 100, 43 sites and 3200+ persons), and Early tence pattern and the absence of monumental ar‐ Classic (A.D. 100 f., with only 10 sites). The chitecture and sculpture characterizes the Cotaxt‐ method for estimating Tuxtla tropical lowland de‐ la region through A.D. 100. The Classic period is mography is a "potsherds to people" approach de‐ delineated by the introduction of obsidian pris‐ veloped by William Sanders (Santley's mentor) for matic blade production, ceramic types that devel‐ the arid Basin of Mexico, and is based upon site op from earlier local ones, and major sites that size and the density of surface occupation. I am dominate resource areas. This may be an example uneasy about employing this method of demo‐ of the Central Place paradigm, but Daneels does graphic assessment in regions with heavy vegeta‐ not suggest this possibility. Cultural contact from tion. Small villages are found in each phase but a Cotaxtla to the highlands was through the "Teoti‐ Regional Center developed by the Late Formative. huacan Corridor" into Tlaxcala to the Basin of Because of the quality of their data, the authors Mexico and the urban metropolis and pan- discuss convincingly social diferentiation, eco‐ Mesoamerican polity of Teotihuacan. The number nomic specialization, and craft activities (ground- of archaeological sites changes through time, ini‐ stone tool, chipped-stone obsidian, pottery, and tially increasing and then dropping precipitously, salt making). During the Formative period the so‐ the latter accompanied by a decline in the quality cioeconomic scene varies diachronically only by of pottery manufacture. Strikingly, the reduction degree. The authors consider the lack of Olmec in numbers of sites, the demographic decline, and evidence in the Tuxtlas and hypothesize that the the dissolution of the ceramic quality parallel term "Olmec" encompasses a wide range of socio‐ Teotihuacan itself ca. A.D. 700-750. Following a cultural variability. David Braun's North Ameri‐ hiatus, a major break in the settlement system can Hopewellian stylistic model (1986), Santley and material culture production is thought to cor‐ and his colleagues suggest, is a paradigm that par‐ relate with the immigration of Nahua peoples allels the Gulf Coast Olmec. from the highlands after A.D. 900 and again dur‐ It is gratifying to see the inclusion of a prelim‐ ing the Late Postclassic. Thirty-three sites, includ‐ inary report from the Belgian research project, ing newly built settlements in defensible loca‐ "Exploraciones en el Centro de Veracruz," funded tions, characterize the Toltec-Aztec era. The au‐ by the Belgian National Foundation for Scientifc thor reviews data and comments on the need for Research. In Chapter Eight, "Settlement History in future research; in particular stressing the need the Lower Cotaxtla Basin," Annick Daneels (Bel‐ to map a 300 square kilometer region situated to gian Archaeological Mission, El Tejar, Veracruz), the south of Cotaxtla which leads to Mixtequilla states that for the Basin of Veracruz "Prehispanic and Cerro de las Mesas. settlement was defnitely infuenced by the char‐ Chapter Nine, "The Geoarchaeology of Settle‐ acter of the natural habitat, with some surprising ment in the Grijalva Delta," prepared by Christo‐ exceptions ..." (p. 209). The intent of Daneels's es‐ pher von Nagy (Department of Anthropology, Tu‐ say is to show the "crucial link between geomor‐ lane University), links geomorphological environ‐ phological process, landscape change, and settle‐ mental change and settlement location. Shifting ment" (p. 254). Project methods and initial results riverine and delta landforms, coastal modifca‐ (a total of 374 sites in a 1,470 square kilometer re‐ tions, and occasional volcanic activity are consid‐ gion) are considered from 1981-1995. Data and in‐ ered for the 11,600 square kilometer coastal plain terpretations are presented for the Preceramic of the State of Tabasco. Von Nagy's "Pajonal

8 H-Net Reviews

Project" documents archaeologically a 275 square ing eleven design motifs) are employed to expli‐ kilometer region and 180 sites located by ground cate four eras: 1) Initial, Early Preclassic and Mid‐ survey, aerial photogrammetry, and Landsat dle Preclassic (collectively 2000-600 B.C.), 2) Late imaging. Prior Olmec research is reviewed and 83 (600-100 B.C.) and Terminal Preclassic (100 B.C.- Early and Middle Preclassic sites are documented, A.D. 300), 3) Classic period (300-900), and 4) Post‐ but the author notes that there is "almost a 50 per classic (900-1519). Olmec infuences are seen in cent chance of missing a site due to burial" by al‐ design motifs dating to 1200 B.C. but further eval‐ luviation, landform subsidence, or channel mean‐ uations, she believes, are "premature" given the dering (p. 269). Classic and Postclassic sites in the quality of the data. However, there was a reduc‐ dynamic landscape are also considered. This is a tion in numbers of stylistic regions during the very difcult environment in which to conduct ar‐ Late Formative, probably due to demographic and chaeological reconnaissance, so that von Nagy's political changes, and minute incision style disap‐ eforts are to be applauded. However, the reader peared by the Terminal Formative. For the Classic, may wish to know more about the results of the despite a paucity of published motifs, the Patarata analysis of the core samples that he made in the and Matacapan site areas are well defned. Stylis‐ river channel sediments and have an assessment tic patterns and products from the Gulf Coast of the efcacy of this feld technique, have been recovered in the city of Teotihuacan, Barbara Stark contributes a unique analysis while Teotihuacan-style ceramics (copas, foreros, of local pottery motifs in Chapter Ten, entitled and candeleros) were imitated by local artisans in "Gulf Lowland Ceramic Styles and Political Geog‐ the Gulf area. Notably, only a dozen rim sherds of raphy in Ancient Veracruz." She defnes political Thin Orange ware were noted among 100,000 Gulf geography as "the disposition and characteristics lowlands specimens analyzed, suggesting to Stark of polities on the landscape," and observes that that highland peoples at Teotihuacan and in the sources for archaeological information can be de‐ Meseta Central were importers of Gulf Coast rived from ecology, settlement patterns, epigra‐ wares rather than exporters of Basin of Mexico phy, or style zones. Stark employs ceramic decora‐ ceramics to the lowlands. In the Postclassic period tive motif data derived from her own research stylistic and political fragmentation are discerned area located on the west side of the lower Pa‐ until the advent of the Aztec Triple Alliance ca. paloapan Basin, the locus of her "Proyecto Arque‐ A.D. 1300, when highland Aztec III pottery styles ologico La Mixtequilla" (PALM). She seeks to de‐ were introduced into the Gulf resulting in a Late fne diachronically ceramic style zones that Postclassic stylistic constriction. While Stark's em‐ through time may expand, contract, be restricted, phasis is on political geography and stylistic anal‐ or crosscut other zones. In addition, she desires to ysis, she also recognizes the role of ecological fac‐ test the postulate proposed in 1971 by William tors and the interactions between the lowlands Sanders that the Gulf lowlands were "organized and the highlands (the "vertical ties" suggested by into small states." To do so she borrows an analyt‐ Sanders in 1956). A number of chapters in a book ical stylistic paradigm developed by David Braun entitled The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cul‐ and Steven Plog in 1982 for the Midwestern and tural Approaches, edited by Deborah L. Nichols Southwestern United States. Nonetheless, her and Thomas H. Charlton (Washington, D.C.: Smith‐ analysis concerns interactions among the general sonian Institution Press, 1997), document this population (e.g. the "non-elite") in terms of ex‐ phenomenon in regions both inside and outside change systems that she contends are molded by of Latin America. political parameters. Over twenty pages of data The fnal contribution, Chapter Eleven, "Gulf (including fve fgures and a six-page table detail‐ Lowland Settlement in Perspective," is co-au‐

9 H-Net Reviews thored by Arnold and Stark. They state that "we with the Maya may have more to do with the his‐ eschew the role of synthesizers" (p. 311) and in‐ tory of archaeological research in Mesoamerica stead chose to emphasize three themes in Gulf than with the Maya as proprietors [of cultural Coast archaeology: 1) the historical context, 2) the traits]" (p. 323). Each major settlement study pre‐ formation processes (using ethnoarchaeology and sented in Olmec to Aztec is reviewed by Arnold taphonomy), and, 3) the region as pivotal--rather and Stark who conclude that the lower Coxcatla than peripheral--in location between the Mexican (Daneels's chapter) and La Mixtequilla (Stark's re‐ highlands and the Maya lowlands. Next, the edi‐ search) areas are closely related. Likewise, the tors review the history of settlement pattern re‐ Tuxtla Mountain region (presentations by Santley, search, noting the diferences between arid high‐ Arnold, Pool, Hall, and colleagues) and the land and tropical lowland archaeological survey Coatzalcoalcos River Basin (Rodriguez and Ortiz, strategies. They suggest that Gulf lowland settle‐ Cyphers, and von Nagy's contributions) have ment archaeological research combines the marked cultural afnities. Nonetheless, intrare‐ strengths of both approaches: full-coverage sur‐ gional variation is a characteristic of settlement veys, a site-based and architectural approach, the organization in the central and south Gulf low‐ use of aerial photography and remote sensing, lands and diferent spheres of sociopolitical inter‐ and demographic reconstruction. Arnold and action are suggested. Lastly, the authors place Stark also review the basic parameters diferenti‐ Gulf lowland settlement pattern studies in per‐ ating local-scale and regional-scale studies. spective, noting diferences in lowland feld re‐ Michael Deal's important "Coxoh Ethnoarchaeolo‐ search approaches versus highland Mexican stud‐ gy Project" in the Maya area is noted, but Deal's ies (e.g., the Basin of Mexico and Valley of Oaxa‐ most recent publication, Pottery Ethnoarchaeolo‐ ca). Unlike the Meseta Central, there is, they ob‐ gy in the Central Maya Highlands (Salt Lake City: serve, "no unifed consensus or long-term plan University of Utah Press, 1998) [published in June that drives Gulf lowland settlement studies" (p. 1998] can now be added to local-scale analyses. 328); individual researchers employ diverse feld An excellent synthesis of three intraregional methods tailored to diferent conditions (in the settlement patterns found in the Gulf lowlands is main, ecological and fnancial), and have diferent presented using cultural, geographic, and chrono‐ objectives. Lastly, Arnold and Stark call for Gulf logical data. To the north (the Huasteca), Late lowland settlement studies that are comparable at Postclassic archaeological sites (Cempoala and basic levels of analysis. Castillo de Teayo) dominate the region, while in Overall Assessment: the central lowlands (the area), Classic I have commented on each of the eleven sites (such as Cerro de las Mesas, El Tajin, and El chapters and, therefore, will not reiterate those Zopotol) are signifcant. In the southern lowlands points. Overall, each of the presentations has uni‐ (the Olmec area), Preclassic settlements (San form excellence in terms of presentation of back‐ Lorenzo and La Venta) dominate the scene. ground information, data, analysis, and interpre‐ Arnold and Stark develop a compelling assess‐ tation--quite an achievement given several na‐ ment to demonstrate that in-situ development tionalities, varied research agendas, and diferent rather than extraregional infuence or contact lies theoretical orientations, feld methods, etc. This at the foundation of Gulf Coast societies. Rather excellence is testimony to the diligence and goals than being a Teotihuacan "outpost" or colony, for of Stark and Arnold as the editors of this volume example, Matacapan has an apparent indigenous and to the University of Arizona Press's editors. prehistory prior to highland contact. The authors The book also seems to have no typographical er‐ also state that "the association of certain styles

10 H-Net Reviews rors or misprints (an exception being in author- Regional Classifcation and Analysis, edited by prepared illustrations in which the term "baston" John S. Henderson and Marilyn Beaudry-Corbett is used for "baton," p. 86). It appears that the (Los Angeles: University of California at Los Ange‐ chapter manuscripts were submitted in late 1996 les Institute of Archaeology Monograph 35, 1993), since there are no references to publications after is seminal to highland and lowland Honduran ar‐ that date (some entries for 1996 are listed as "in chaeology. There are very similar problems and press" but have not yet appeared). methodological concerns shared by archaeologists Nonetheless, I have two major caveats. The working in the Gulf lowlands and in Honduras. frst is that there is only one general map of the Some of the "solutions" proposed by the Hon‐ entire Gulf lowlands; additional, more focussed duran researchers might beneft the Gulf lowland cartographic renderings would be benefcial to investigators, and vice versa. the reader's comprehension of cultural and envi‐ In terms of feld methods, I am concerned ronmental characteristics. Similarly, the chrono‐ about the use of transect surveys (Chapters Six logical concordance (Fig. 7.2, p. 180) presented by and Eight) rather than full-scale coverage, but I Santley and his co-authors was unique among the am keenly aware of difculties of working in contributions; the editors might have provided an dense tropical forest environments as well as "f‐ overall concordance that included the areas and nancial concerns" often dictate feld methods. chronologies for each of the essays. I wondered (Yes, I myself have conducted both types of recon‐ why several authors used older editions of impor‐ naissance.) Archaeological site typologies and cri‐ tant works rather than the more recent, revised teria for inferring sociocultural and political publications. Gordon R. Willey and Jeremy structure vary from one research project to an‐ Sablof's frst edition of A History of American Ar‐ other (see Chapters Four, Seven, Eight, and Nine). chaeology (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1974) is The lack of consistency in terminology should be cited rather than the emended third edition addressed; for example "small village" connotes (1994). Likewise, Elman R. Service's Primitive So‐ diferent parameters. Arnold and Stark might cial Organization (New York: Random House, have correlated descriptively or in tabular form 1962) is referenced rather than the revised second the various site typologies or terms and the defni‐ edition (1971) in which Service acknowledges the tions of these terms that were used in these con‐ use that scholars such as Sanders and Price (1968) tributions. Nonetheless, I am in complete agree‐ have made using the chiefdom and state para‐ ment with the editors who stress the need to have digms in archaeological contexts (p. 135). Indeed, comparable survey methods from area to area many of the methodologies employed and the in‐ within the Gulf lowlands so that the results of terpretations rendered by the authors of these es‐ each reconnaissance can be assessed from a com‐ says refect the concept of cultural ecology and mon baseline, such as is found in the Basin of settlement pattern analyses used by Sanders and Mexico. The lack of a long-term plan that address‐ his colleagues. Bob Santley is a student of William es this issue is a salient issue; a meeting similar to Sanders, while Flip Arnold and Chris Pool, among the Basin of Mexico research conference held in others, are proteges of Santley. 1960 to resolve diferences in terminology and Curiously, no contributor to Olmec to Aztec methods is needed. Stark and Arnold are precisely cited any of the studies from another volume that the dynamic scholars who should convene such is also concerned with the material culture and an assembly. settlement pattern from a similar region. This pio‐ Because of the new data and reinterpreta‐ neering work, Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: tions that appear in Olmec to Aztec, even the most

11 H-Net Reviews recent textbooks will require revision; for exam‐ torians, scholars whose research focus is on soci‐ ple, see Muriel Porter Weaver's The Aztecs, Maya eties residing in lowland or coastal regions soci‐ and Their Predecessors, 3rd ed. (San Diego: Aca‐ eties will fnd useful materials in Olmec to Aztec. demic Press, 1993). Stark and Arnold's Olmec to This is because the contributions and the editors' Aztec stands along side the volume that has be‐ essays have value well beyond the Gulf of Mexico come a benchmark for the Mexican highlands, lowlands as a geocultural region. Archaeologists The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the working in tropical contexts in any area of the Evolution of a Civilization by William T. Sanders, globe would beneft from reading these valuable Jefrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley (New and enlightening essays. York: Academic Press, 1979). Similarly, a volume Copyright (c) 1998 by H-Net, all rights re‐ entitled The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cul‐ served. This work may be copied for non-proft tural Approaches, edited by Deborah L. Nichols educational use if proper credit is given to the au‐ and Thomas H. Charlton (Washington, DC: Smith‐ thor and the list. For other permission, please con‐ sonian Institution Press, 1997), exemplifes the tact [email protected]. ecological approach. Two contributions from the latter are relevant to the interrelations between the Gulf lowlands and Mexican highlands: Charl‐ ton and Nichols's Chapter Eleven, "Diachronic Studies of City-States: Permutations on a Theme: Central Mexico from 1700 B.C. to A.D .1600" and the late Mary Hodge's Chapter Tweleve, "When is a City-State?: Archaeological Measures of Aztec City States and Aztec City-State Systems." Olmec to Aztec is an essential resource assem‐ bled by able editors and a distinguished group of international scholars and will serve as the pri‐ mary resource on Gulf lowland prehistory for some time to come. The contributors demonstrate that in situ cultural development continued be‐ yond the Preclassic into the Classic and Postclassic periods with less infuence from the highland Mesoamerican and Maya regions than some scholars have assumed previously. The contribu‐ tors sometimes borrow models from other culture areas, test old hypotheses, present new research results, and revise prior perspectives. There are compelling assessments and thought provoking, sometimes provocative, essays worthy of the at‐ tention of Mesoamericanists and students of pre‐ historic and contemporary Latin American cul‐ ture. In addition to anthropologists who are orient‐ ed to coastal regions and to Mesoamerican prehis‐

12 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-latam

Citation: Charles C. Kolb. Review of Stark, Barbara L.; III, Philip J. Arnold, eds. Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands. H-LatAm, H-Net Reviews. September, 1998.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2302

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

13