Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2007 Formative Period Ceramic Figurines from the Lower Río Verde Valley, Coastal Oaxaca, Mexico Guy David Hepp Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES FORMATIVE PERIOD CERAMIC FIGURINES FROM THE LOWER RÍO VERDE VALLEY, COASTAL OAXACA, MEXICO By GUY DAVID HEPP A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Guy David Hepp All Rights Reserved The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Guy David Hepp defended on 10/17/2007. ___________________________ Mary Pohl Professor Directing Thesis __________________________ William Parkinson Committee Member __________________________ Michael Uzendoski Committee Member Approved: _________________________ Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A thesis about the archaeology of an ancient people requires that the combined efforts of many individuals found a way to coalesce into a single document. I would first like to thank the Formative era people of the Oaxacan coast for leaving behind their artifacts, whatever their use may have been. At the risk of sounding sentimental, I hope that the arguments I make here about artistic expression and the sociocultural role of figurines do not do the ancients any disservice. I would like to thank the various professors and students who helped me to find this project, and who aided in my training along the way. Most pertinent among these, for the purposes of this thesis, are Dr. Arthur Joyce of the University of Colorado, Dr. Marcus Winter at the Oaxacan department of the INAH, and my committee at Florida State University, including Dr. Mary Pohl, Dr. Michael Uzendoski, and Dr. William Parkinson. Over the last few years, the classes and conversations I have had with these individuals have helped shape the way I think about the past. I should also thank the University of Colorado’s doctoral candidate Marc Levine for giving me the opportunity to excavate on his dissertation research project on the Oaxacan coast for five months. Without that initial experience, it would never have occurred to me to return to the region the following year for the research I now present. The other team members on Marc’s excavation, especially Marco ‘Oso’ Ortega, also introduced me to life as a graduate student, so that I hit the ground running when I arrived at FSU. On a personal note, my family members and friends each had their own role to play in the making of this thesis. My brother Simon, for example, traveled to Oaxaca City to join me in the summer of 2006. He ended up, whether he liked it or not, helping me record Munsel colors of the two hundred and twenty-nine artifacts, perhaps a harsh introduction to archaeological research for a high school student. My grandmother, Mrs. Josephine Knight, utilized her skills as a long-time high school language teacher to serve as a helpful critical eye when it came time to edit this thesis. Other friends and family members helped me along the way, whether it was a little bit of aid to get myself to Oaxaca, or just listening to my ramblings over the telephone, as I tried to wrap my head around a collection of figurines and related artifacts old enough that no one is left to tell us how they were used. Thanks. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...v List of Illustrations………………………………………………………………………..vi List of Figures…………………………………………………….…………………...…vii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………..….ix 1. Introduction…………………………………………………..............................……..1 2. Methodology…............................................................................................................15 3. Evaluating the Literature..……………………………………………………………29 4. Results of Quantitative Analysis……………………………………………………..67 5. Results of Qualitative Analysis………………………………………………………81 6. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..105 7. Conclusion……………..………...............................................................................124 8. Epilogue…………………………………………………………………………….130 Appendix A, Figurine Variables………………………………………………………..134 Appendix B, Images………………………………………………………………….…137 Appendix C, Illustrations……………………………………………………………….148 Appendix D, Artifact Catalogue…...…………………………………………………...169 References……………………………………………………………………………....245 Biographical Sketch…………………………………………………………………….254 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Within-site artifact context…………………………………………………….4 Table 4.1: Frequency of artifact types…………………..…………………...………..…68 Table 4.2: Biological sex in total collection……..………………………………………70 Table 4.3 Frequency of body parts present……………………………………………...73 Table 4.4 Artifact dimensions.………………………………………………………..…75 Table 4.5 Construction techniques……………………………………………………....80 Table 5.1 Within-site artifact context…………………………………………………...82 Table 5.2 Biological sex by within-site context…………………………………………85 Table 5.3 Within-site context by artifact type…..……………………………………….88 Table 5.4 Ceramic chronology…………………………………………………………..95 v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1: artifact #126……………………………………………………………...148 Illustration 2: artifact #68……………………………………………………………….149 Illustration 3: artifact #73……………………………………………...………………..150 Illustration 4: artifact #136…………………………………………………………...…151 Illustration 5: artifact #12……………………………………………………………….152 Illustration 6: artifact #147…………………………………………………………...…153 Illustration 7: artifact #5………………………………………………………………...154 Illustration 8: artifact #42……………………………………………………………….155 Illustration 9: artifact #140……………………………………………………………...155 Illustration 10: artifact #14……………………………………………………………...156 Illustration 11: artifact #70……………………………………………………………...157 Illustration 12: artifact #36……………………………………………………………...158 Illustration 13: artifact #124…………………………………………………………….159 Illustration 14: artifact #142…………………………………………………………….160 Illustration 15: artifact #63……………………………………………………………...161 Illustration 16: artifact #213…………………………………………………………….162 Illustration 17: artifact #190…………………………………………………………….163 Illustration 18: artifact #166…………………………………………………………….164 Illustration 19: artifact #164…………………………………………………………….165 Illustration 20: artifact #65……………………………………………………………...165 Illustration 21: artifact #165…………………………………………………………….166 Illustration 22: artifact #158…………………………………………………………….167 Illustration 23: artifact #35……………………………………………………………...168 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Map of Oaxaca’s archaeological sites……………………………………….14 Figure 2.1: Figurine measurement schematic……………………………………………21 Figure 3.1: Map of Río Verde region……………………………………........................31 Figure 4.1: Biological sex amongst anthropomorphs……………………………....……70 Figure 4.2 Possible acrobat figurine …………………………………………………....74 Figure 4.3 Whistles and vessel appliqués.....................................................................…79 Figure 5.1 Temporal patterns and variable key…………………………………………94 Figure 5.2 Geographic patterns………………………………………………………….96 Figure 5.3 Possibly Olmec-inspired figurine head.……………………………………..98 Figure 6.1 Probable female figurine…………………………………………………...109 Figure 6.2 Probable female figurine…………………………………………………...110 Figure 6.3 Female figurine fragment…………………………………………………..110 Figure 6.4 Image from Mimbres Pottery combining ‘male’ and ‘female’ attributes…..111 Figure 6.5 Possibly Olmec-inspired figurine…………………………………………..112 Figure 6.6 Possibly Olmec-inspired figurine………………………………………..…112 Figure 6.7 Possibly Olmec-inspired figurine………………………………………..…113 Figure 6.8 Possibly Olmec-inspired figurine………………………………………..…113 Figure 6.9 Possible cranial deformation……………..………………………………...117 Figure 6.10 Possible primary sexual characteristics…………………………………...118 Figure 7.1 Watercolor of artifact # 70…………………………………………………133 Figure A: Map of lower Río Verde from Joyce et al. 2001…………………….......…..137 Figure B: Figurine combining anthropomorphic and zoomorphic features………….…138 Figure C: Figurine combining anthropomorphic and zoomorphic features………….…138 Figure D: Figurine combining anthropomorphic and zoomorphic features……………139 Figure E: Unknown animal or transitional figurine ……………………………….…...140 Figure F: Animal effigy appliqué………………………………………………………140 Figure G : Turtle effigy whistle……………………………………………………...…141 Figure H: Complete bird effigy whistle……………………………………………...…142 Figure I: Dog effigy figurine……………………………………………………………142 vii Figure J: Anthropomorphic appliqué………………………………………………...…143 Figure K: Anthropomorphic appliqué…………….………………………………….…143 Figure L: Probable female figurine……………….…………………………...………..144 Figure M: Probable female figurine…………….……………………………...……….144 Figure N: Female figurine fragment…………….……………………………...……....145 Figure O: Mimbres pottery image………………………………………………………145 Figure P: Possibly Olmec-inspired figurine…………………………………………….146 Figure Q: Possibly Olmec-inspired figurine………………………………………...….146 Figure R: Possibly Olmec-inspired figurine…………………………………………....146 Figure S: El Exconvento de Cuilapan…………………………………………………..147 Figure T: Lab space at Cuilapan………………………………………………………..147 viii ABSTRACT This Master’s thesis analyzes two hundred and twenty-nine Formative period (1500 BC – 250 AD) ceramic figurines, whistles, and iconographic