Chalcatzingo:Abrief Introduction Special DAVID C

ThePARIJournal A quarterly publication of the Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Volume IX, No. 1, Summer 2008 Chalcatzingo:ABrief Introduction Special DAVID C. GROVE Chalcatzingo Issue University of Florida containing: In 1934 archaeologist Eulalia Guzmán trav- bas-relief carvings. The largest of them Chalcatzingo: A eled to the remote hamlet of Chalcatzingo (Monument 1), nicknamed “El Rey” by Brief Introduction near Jonacatepec in the Amatzinac valley the villagers, depicts a personage seated of eastern Morelos state to investigate re- in a cave-like niche above which are rain by ports of “stones with reliefs.” The village clouds and falling raindrops (Guzmán David Grove sits near two conjoined granodiorite hills 1934:Fig. 3) (Figure 2). In addition, in a PAGES 1-7 or cerros—the Cerro Delgado and the larg- small barranca that cuts through the site er Cerro Chalcatzingo (also known as the Guzmán was shown a unique three di- • Cerro de la Cantera)—that jut out starkly mensional sculpture—a “mutilated stat- against the relatively flat landscape of the ue” of a seated personage, minus its head. Chalcatzingo valley (Figure 1). The archaeological site Guzmán also found pot sherds dating to Monument 34: A that Guzmán viewed is situated just at both the “Archaic” (Preclassic or Forma- Formative Period the base of those cerros where they meet tive) and “Teotihuacan” (Classic) periods, “Southern Style” to form a V-shaped cleft. The ancient oc- leaving her uncertain as to the date of the Stela in the Central cupation extended across a series of ter- carvings (Grove 1987c:1). Mexican Highlands races below the twin cerros. From there, in At the time of Guzmán’s explorations by the distance, the magnificent Popocatepetl the Formative period Olmec of the Gulf Susan D. Gillespie volcano can be seen. coast were very little known. Thus it was PAGES 8-16 On the rock face of the Cerro nearly another decade before the rock Chalcatzingo Guzmán recorded four carvings at Chalcatzingo were recognized Joel Skidmore Editor [email protected] The PARI Journal 202 Edgewood Avenue San Francisco, CA 94117 415-664-8889 [email protected] Electronic version available at: www.mesoweb.com/ pari/journal/0901 The PARI Journal is made possible by a grant from Precolumbia Mesoweb Press ISSN 1531-5398 Figure 1. The twin cerros of Chalcatzingo, Cerro Delgado (left) and Cerro Chalcatzingo (right). From an infrared aerial photograph by David Grove. The PARI Journal 9(1):1-7. 1 Grove Figure 2. Chalcatzingo Monument 1, “El Rey.” This photograph was taken in 1978. The condition of the monument is now threatened by exposure to acid rain. Photo: David Grove. 2 Chalcatzingo: A Brief Introduction by artist Miguel Covarrubias as having iconographic similarities to some stone monuments at the Olmec site of La Venta, Tabasco (Covarrubias 1946). Archaeologist Román Piña Chan excavated test pits at Chalcatzingo in 1953 (Piña Chan 1955) and recovered sherds similar to those found at Zacatenco and Tlatilco in the Valley of Mexico, confirming that there had been a Formative settlement at Chalcatzingo. However, nearly four decades after Guzmán’s explorations, a significant question remained unan- swered: What type of settlement was Formative period Chalcatzingo? To answer that question, in 1972 archae- ologists Jorge Angulo, Rául Arana, and I began the Chalcatzingo Archaeological Project (CAP). We carried out extensive excavations at the site from 1972 through 1974, and again briefly in 1976 (Grove 1984; Grove, ed. 1987; Grove and Angulo 1973; Grove et al. 1976). That research determined three significant phases of occupa- tion at Chalcatzingo during the Formative Period: the late Early Formative Amate phase (1500-1100 bc, uncali- brated radiocarbon years), the early Middle Formative Barranca phase (1100-700 bc), and the late Middle For- mative Cantera Phase (700-500 bc) (Cyphers and Grove 1987). Evidence of minor Late Formative, Classic, and Postclassic occupations was also found (Arana 1987). Most of the information recovered by the CAP excavations pertains to the Cantera phase and indicates Figure 3. Monument 17, a decapitated statue head recovered from that the Cantera phase village was a dispersed settle- Burial 3. Photo: David Grove. ment with one large domestic structure on each terrace Formative Amate phase, Chalcatzingo had at least two (Grove 1987b:421; Prindiville and Grove 1987:79-80). The stone-faced platform mounds, apparently unique for primary project goal was “household archaeology,” that the central Mexican highlands at that time. Further- is, to locate and excavate houses to help understand the more, at the start of the Barranca phase the inhabitants lifeways of the people who had lived at Chalcatzingo. of Chalcatzingo modified the natural hillside into a se- This goal was enabled by the fact that the modern land ries of long terraces, the landform that still exists today surface is very much the same as that during the Forma- (unfortunately destroying most of the Amate phase oc- tive period, such that artifacts and even some structural cupation in the process). This type of monumentality— foundations were visible on the surface. The unfortu- land reshaping at a massive scale, providing evidence of nate corollary of this fact is that many Formative period well organized communal labor—more often goes unre- house floors had been destroyed by plowing and similar marked compared to the presence of sculptures and plat- disturbances over the centuries. Nevertheless, our large- form architecture. One of the earthen platform mounds, scale excavations revealed the remains of ten partial or on the largest and highest terrace, was enlarged during complete Cantera phase domestic structures whose the Barranca and subsequent Cantera phases and mea- walls had been of adobe or wattle and daub (Prindiville sures 70 meters long. In fact, until the CAP excavations, and Grove 1987). Virtually all of them had subfloor buri- the mound had been thought to be a natural promon- als, and 143 Formative burials were recovered at the site tory. Several smaller stone-faced platform mounds were (Merry de Morales 1987). One of the burials, in what we situated on some of the nearby terraces downslope believe to have been the village’s elite residence, includ- (Grove 1984:57-65, 1989:128-129; Prindiville and Grove ed a stone head (Monument 17) severed from a sculp- 1987:63-66). ture, providing one of the first clues that some Olmec- Although the 1970s excavations emphasized house- style “monument mutilation” may have taken place at a hold archaeology, the CAP added greatly to the num- leader’s death (Grove 1981) (Figure 3). ber of known monumental stone carvings at the site, all Despite its relatively small population, Chalcatzingo of which appear to date to the Cantera phase. During was a major regional center. This is shown by the pres- that two-century period the settlement grew to its larg- ence of monumental architecture, the many stone carv- est extent and experienced contacts with the Gulf coast ings, and evidence for elite status held by a minority of Olmec as well as with peoples of Guerrero, the Valley of residents (Grove and Gillespie 1992). Even in the Early Mexico, Puebla, and Oaxaca (Grove 1987a; Prindiville 3 Grove and Grove 1987:78-80). At the start of the CAP in 1972, eleven bas-relief carvings and one statue had been recorded at Chalcatzingo (Gay 1972:37-71; Grove 1968). An additional eighteen monuments were discovered during the CAP (Grove and Angulo 1987) (Figures 4 and 5). Several more carvings came to light in our research there in 1995 and 1998 (Grove 2005), one of which is discussed by Susan Gillespie in an article in this issue. The quantity of Middle Formative monuments at Chal- catzingo is surpassed in Mexico only by the Olmec centers of San Lorenzo and La Venta. It may also surprise Maya scholars to learn that Chalcatzingo’s monuments include the earliest known pairing of a carved stela with a round altar in Mesoamerica (Grove 2005) (Figure 6). Figure 4. Project co-director Jorge Angulo cleaning Monument 12 The placement of the major sculptures in relation to at the time of its discovery in 1972. Photo: David Grove. their natural and cultural surroundings and relative to Figure 5. Monument 12, “The Flying Olmec,” in 1972. The condition of this carving is substantially worse today. Photo: David Grove. 4 Chalcatzingo: A Brief Introduction Figure 6. Monuments 25 (round altar) and 26 (associated stela base) after being moved to a prepared platform for their protection. Photo: David Grove. one another is a critical factor in understanding their function and meaning. Carvings were located in two general areas: six are carved on the rock face of the Cerro Chalcatzingo and another six on large boulders on the talus slopes of the cerro, while stelae were found on several site terraces in association with monumental architecture (Grove 1999; Grove and Angulo 1987). Almost all of the stelae depict individual human personages (Fig- ure 7). CAP co-director Jorge Angulo (1987:133) noted the linear arrangement of the bas-reliefs on the Cerro Chalcatzingo and suggested that they formed purpose- ful pictorial sequences. Because they are spaced several meters apart, they cannot be viewed simultaneously as a group. To see them, a viewer must walk from carving to carving. The same kind of “processional arrangement” applies to at least some of the stelae as well. The ideological and technological roots of Chalcatzingo’s monuments seem to derive from the Gulf coast Olmec—most likely La Venta, Tabasco. The Chalcatzingo sculptures even suffered the same fate of defacement, mutilation, and decapitation common at Olmec centers (Grove 1981). Nevertheless, Chalcatzingo was not an Olmec site. It was already an important regional center by 1100 bc, long before the arrival of vari- ous Gulf coast traits in the Cantera phase.

Load more