Article analysis

The President and Fellows of Harvard College Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology

Olmec Colossal Heads as Recarved Thrones: "Mutilation," Revolution, and Recarving Author(s): James B. Porter Source: RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 17/18 (Spring - Autumn, 1989), pp. 22-29 Published by: The President and Fellows of Harvard College acting through the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20166812 . Accessed: 29/06/2014 14:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The President and Fellows of Harvard College and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22 RES 17/18 SPRING/AUTUMN 89

Figure 1. a, San Lorenzo Colossal Head 7, front; b, San Lorenzo Colossal Head 7, right; c, San Lorenzo

Colossal Head 7, right detail.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Olmec colossal heads as recarved thrones

"Mutilation," revolution, and recarving

JAMES B. PORTER

It was in 1862 while visiting the region of San Andre's

Tuxtla, a town of the state of Veracruz, in Mexico; and

during some excursions I made, that I heard of a colossal

head which had been disinterred a few years before in the following manner. At something like one and a half

leagues from a cane plantation in the western foothills of

the San Martin range, while making a clearing to farm, a

laborer of the aforesaid plantation discovered at ground

level what appeared to be the bottom of a great iron cauldron with its mouth buried and notified the master of the plantation. At his order they began the excavation and,

in place of the cauldron, they found the aforementioned

head. They left it in the hole they made to discover it but did not think of moving it because (it seemed to be of

granite being two yards high and the other proportions corresponding) they tried without effect. The thing remains in the same state. They talked of the discovery, but without

giving it much importance. As I have mentioned already, on one of my outings in search of antiquities, I arrived at

the aforesaid plantation and entreated the proprietor to

guide me to see it. We went and I was left amazed. As

a work of art it is, without exaggeration, a magnificent

sculpture; as we can judge from the accompanying

photograph. But that which impressed me the most was

the Ethiopian type which it represented. Melgar 1869: 292, author's trans.

When Jos? Mar?a Melgar y Serrano stood amazed

before the first of the famous Olmec colossal heads more than 120 years ago, he could not have known the

bitter archaeological debates his discovery would fuel

and continues to feed to the present day. Various

authors have subsequently noted that sculptures such as

Melgar's colossal head are a primary defining feature of

the archaeological Olmec culture (de la Fuente 1973,

1975; Graham et al. 1979). This situation subjects to

often acrimonious debate such fundamentals as the

origin of the style; the historical relationships of Olmec

sculpture to other Mesoamerican sculpture traditions; and the ethnic identity, linguistic stock, and social

organization of the producers of Olmec sculpture. Even

the name Olmec ? Aztec for "rubber people" ? is

borrowed from an unrelated people who occupied the

Gulf region during the sixteenth century. All that is

certain about the archaeological "Olmec" is that they

occupied parts of southern Mexico and Guatemala

during the last few millennia b.c. (map). Despite these

problems, there are a number of different facets of

Olmec sculpture that may be profitably examined. One

of these appears in a group of Olmec colossal heads

and "altars" that bear evidence of a set of

modifications, some of which also appear on other

Olmec sculpture types (Grove 1981). Although the

purpose of Olmec sculptural modification remains

unknown, direct examination of specific monuments

suggests that such modifications may shed light on a

complex pattern of Olmec sculpture reuse.

For several years I had been puzzled by two

modifications in the form of "arcs" carved above, and

partly through, the right ear of San Lorenzo Head 2

(Monument 2). During November 1988 I visited the

Museo de Antropolog?a in Jalapa, Veracruz, Mexico, and noted two similar carved "arcs" above the

diminutive right ear of San Lorenzo Head 7 (Monument

53) (fig. 1). These "arcs" were clearly not natural

f \ GULF OF MEXICO /

Cerro de_^ras^ ^ ̂ ^ ^d?^% las MesasTjfPy^ *V^ jC"*f~l^M^ ^JT Tres

ZapotesV)# <2>V ^^-?r y* 'fry \ /^Ci7 \ _., ? . . ? ? ̂ k^rf W La Venta ?J'-^* Sfc> ̂

' 7 \^y? Laguna de los Cerros t^ J r ? r-?&C ^ ? S? * C

\ '/ Sanj^6070 ^ Potrero^NueW ? \

<f\ JwH

~ A^ 112000

OCEAN \W.?? K >tf Takalik

To Professors Richard Adams, Beatriz de la Fuente, Munro

Edmonson, David Grove, and John Rowe, and to Rebecca Gonzalez

Lauck, Jan McHargue, Mary Porter, J. C. Staneko, Thomas Wakke,

and Harold Young, I offer my heartfelt gratitude for their advice,

encouragement, suggestions, and assistance.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24 RES 17/18 SPRING/AUTUMN 89

features of the boulders from which all colossal heads

were believed to be carved since they were quite smooth and regular. They also did not fit any of the

previously identified standard modifications of Olmec

sculpture, such as coffering (the cutting of cubical

cavities, often misleadingly termed "slotting"), the

removal of surfaces, cupping (the grinding of circular

depressions, also termed "dimpling"), and grooving (the grinding of trough-shaped depressions). Nor did

these "arcs" contribute in any way to the definition of

the heads themselves. Indeed, the paired "arcs" of both

monuments appear where the tops of the right ears

should be, if the ears had been carved in normal

proportions. Furthermore, the upper "arc" on Head 7

actually cuts the pinna of the right ear! These two

features suggest that the "arcs" were carved first and

that the diminutive proportions of the ears result from a

conscious, although not entirely successful, effort to

avoid the preexisting "arcs." If these "arcs" represent an earlier phase of carving, then it is likely that both

San Lorenzo heads are recarvings of the same original monument type.

To identify the original monument type represented

by "arcs" above the ears of these monuments, the

heads must be turned 90 degrees onto their backs.

When this is done, the carved "arcs" are seen to be the

upper edge of a niche framing the shoulders and armpit creases of an effaced human figure. The upper edge of

the niche is interrupted by the remnants of the head

of the figure that once projected in high relief or half

round from the niche. The distance from the niche

figure's shoulders to the colossal head's flat back is

sufficient for the body of a complete niche figure. Large flake scars on the right side of San Lorenzo Head 7

show where the niche figure's head, forearms, legs, and

lower body were broken away prior to recarving. The

niche figure's upper torso and the top of the niche

survived recarving because they were deeply carved in

sunken relief, which is harder to efface than raised

relief or sculpture in the round.

Niche figures such as these, while common in

Olmec art, are most prominent as the central feature of

the front of subcubical Olmec "altars." The sunken

relief shoulders and upper torso of these niche figures are usually framed by an arched niche, while the head

projects from the niche in high relief or full round

carving. The presence of effaced niche figures centered

on one of the long sides of San Lorenzo Heads 1, 2, and 7 reveals these sculptures to be "altars" that were

later recarved as colossal heads, whose previously

puzzling flat backs are now clearly seen to have been

the flat underside of the former "altars." The sculptural

stratigraphy represented by sequent phases of carving on these three colossal heads reveals a pattern

suggesting the fascinating probability that many colossal

heads are also recarved "altars." Only Tres Zapotes Head 2, Cobata Head 1, San Lorenzo Head 8, and

Abaj Takalik Head 1 (Monument 23) do not show the

rounded subcubical shapes that are consistent with

recarving from "altars."

Virtually every student of Olmec art has noted that

there are two forms of colossal heads: "round or

spherical" and "elongated." There are also two basic

forms of "altars": "square or cubical" and "elongated

rectangular." The "round or spherical" head derives

naturally from the "square or cubical" "altar," and the

"elongated" head from the "elongated rectangular" "altar." The significance of this observation becomes

clear when it is noted that La Venta "altars" are

cubical, apart from the rectangular profile of La Venta

Altar 4, as are La Venta heads 1 and 4, while San

Lorenzo "altars" are elongated ? as are the San

Lorenzo colossal heads. The shape of Tres Zapotes

region heads was attributed by Howell Williams to

locally occurring spherical boulders. Tres Zapotes Head

2 and Cobata Head 1 do not have flat backs and they may not be recarved "altars." Both these heads have

flat bottoms, however, suggesting the possibility that the heads could have been carved from "altars" that were

not turned on their axes. Also, it should be noted that Tres Zapotes Head 1 has the characteristic flat back, which suggests a recarved "altar."

The side views of several "elongated" colossal

heads from San Lorenzo exhibit a distinctly trapezoidal

profile, with greater height to the front (facial) side than

to the back side. The recurrence of this head form has

been puzzling, since it is inappropriate for setting the

sculptures upright. If the head form, on the other hand,

merely results from the failure to completely remove a

broad projecting molding around the top of the "altars"

from which these heads were carved, it becomes

entirely understandable.

The subcubical shape of flat-backed colossal heads

suggests that "altars" were recarved into colossal heads

and the broken condition of extant niche figure "altars"

corroborates this suggestion (fig. 2). Virtually all

surviving niche figure "altars" were found with corners

and other angular edges broken off. Such removal of

corners and sharp edges is exactly what would be

expected if these monuments had undergone

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Porter: Olmec colossal heads as recarved thrones 25

L?&aV&A

Figure 2. a, La Venta Altar 4, front; b, La Venta Altar 5, front; c, San Lorenzo Monument 20, front; d, San Lorenzo Colossal Head 2, right.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

26 RES 17/18 SPRING/AUTUMN 89

preliminary rounding and preparation for recarving as

colossal heads. La Venta Altars 1, which has no niche

figure, and 7, which has an atypical niche head, also

have corners and sharp edges removed. The broken corner of an "altar," Monument 57, was found at Abaj Takalik and suggests that "altars" were also recarved at

that site. Only Potrero Nuevo Monument 4, which has

no niche, has been found in an unbroken condition.

The evidence that the two small cubical "altars"

from Laguna de los Cerros were being recarved suggests an interesting regional variation on the re-use pattern. Colossal heads as such have not been found at Laguna de los Cerros, although two large cubical grotesque heads are known from the site. It is possible that these

two grotesques are the local equivalent of colossal

heads at other Olmec sites and were recarved from

small cubical "altars" similar to the two found at the

site. A similar situation may also exist at Cerro de las

Mesas (Monument 2) and Tres Zapotes (Monument 25),

where, although no "altars" are known, flat-backed

abstracted and masklike colossal heads have been

found. Indeed, the Tres Zapotes colossal head is clearly unfinished and bears traces of a niche on its back

(Porter 1989: 135-137). If the grotesques at Laguna de

los Cerros and the Cerro de las Mesas and Tres Zapotes heads were also recarved "altars," then the conception of colossal heads as large, portraitlike human heads

does not strictly correspond to the actual Olmec

functional monument type. Therefore, a more accurate

designation of these sculptures might focus on recarving from "altars" rather than on colossal size or portraitlike naturalism.

Patterns in the appearance of standard sculpture modifications also illuminate the recarving of "altars"

into colossal heads. Coffering appears on "altars" (La Venta "Stela 1," La Venta Altar 4, and San Lorenzo

Monument 14) and on San Lorenzo Head 2, which was

once an "altar," suggesting that coffering was confined

to "altars." The half-effaced coffers on the curve of the

back of San Lorenzo Head 2, in what was the original "altar's" bottom and front edges, further suggest that

coffering was added after obsolescence and before

"altars" were recarved as colossal heads. Also, a

lowered surface on the back of this head "may have

been purposefully carved, since in Monument 14 from

San Lorenzo [coffers] were carved in a new surface of

the head created after carefully chipping away earlier

decoration" (Clewlow et al. 1967: 79). However, the

presence of a small coffer on the otherwise unmodified

front of La Venta Altar 4 suggests that coffering may have preceded the chipping away of earlier decoration.

Also, these modifications are clearly not "mutilation" in

the sense of defacement, since significant elements of

relief on both the La Venta and San Lorenzo "altars"

survive intact. Cupping is the most common

modification to the colossal heads and may have been

the final stage in surface modification. Grooving appears on every kind of Olmec sculpture and is

therefore difficult to place within any consistent carving sequence. Including coffering and other modifications, evidence of six sequent stages of carving survives on

San Lorenzo Head 2: Stage 1 is the effaced niche figure on the right side, Stage 2 is the coffering on the back

and right sides, Stage 3 is a lowered surface on the

back side, Stage 4 is the head itself, Stage 5 is grooving on the right cheek and forehead, and Stage 6 is

cupping on the face (one cupping cuts into the groove on the right cheek).

At Abaj Takalik and possibly at Izapa there are

notable contrasts to the foregoing sequence of

recarving from "

'altar' to head." Abaj Takalik Head 1

(Monument 23), as noted previously, is almost certainly not recarved from an "altar." It provides, instead, an

example of a colossal head (with cupping on the left

side) where the original head's facial features were

recarved into a seated niche figure. The recarving of this head is quite clear, despite the claim in a recent

publication that the ears of the colossal head are

actually the "eyes" of an "open-jawed monster"

(Parsons 1986: 10, 19). Izapa Miscellaneous Monument

2 may also represent a flat-backed colossal head with

its facial features recarved into a squatting niche figure. Grove provides a reasonable basis for explanations

of colossal heads as recarved "altars," in the only

plausible interpretation of Olmec "altars" yet proposed,

by suggesting that "altars" were actually thrones (Grove

1973). If his interpretation is correct, it is likely that

such thrones played a role in the careers of Olmec

leaders commensurate with their impressive appearance as sculptures. Obsolescence following the inauguration,

jubilee, or other events for which the thrones were

carved would have made it possible to convert

these impressive monuments into another kind of

commemorative sculpture, such as the colossal heads.

Possibly these colossal heads are portraits or effigies of

the leaders for whom the thrones were carved, and they may have been converted into mortuary monuments

following the leader's death. However, from the

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Porter: Olmec colossal heads as recarved thrones 27

existing archaeological and sculptural record it is

not possible to determine whether throne recarving occurred before or after the leader's death.

The relative distributions of thrones and colossal

heads may also prove significant in this context. Two

thrones have been found at Laguna de los Cerros, three

at San Lorenzo, and as many as nine from the environs

of La Venta, all with features removed to commence

the process of recycling. This suggests the possibility that more than one throne may have been used at one

time, or perhaps that multiple authorities were entitled

to official thrones. In-group change could also have

provided a motivation for recycling the thrones of

previous regimes. Only at La Venta do thrones

outnumber colossal heads. There is a scarcity of

surviving thrones at San Lorenzo, Laguna de los Cerros, and Abaj Takalik, as well as an absence of thrones in

the existing sculptural corpus at Tres Zapotes. All of

these factors suggest that thrones may not have had a

long use life. Furthermore, comparison of the large ratio of thrones (Altars 1-8 and "Stelae" 1 and 4)1 to

colossal heads (1-4) from the environs of La Venta with

the small ratio of thrones (Potrero Nuevo Monument 2, San Lorenzo Monuments 14, 18, and 20) to colossal

heads (1-9) from the environs of San Lorenzo implies that San Lorenzo's officials often endured long enough to recycle their altars into colossal heads, while

La Venta's officials did not. Finally, differences in

sculptural practices at different times and sites, as well

as accidents of preservation and discovery along with

unusual historical events, may all have skewed the extant monument sample.

Final resolution of all issues raised by the

observations and proposals presented here must await

further documentation of Olmec sites and sculptures. Until such thorough records are available, only

preliminary hypotheses may be proposed to explain the

recarving of Olmec thrones as colossal heads, and a

broad perspective of alternative possibilities should be

kept in mind before embracing any single and simple scenario for explaining the variety of Olmec sculptural

practices.

Previous examinations of Olmec sculpture have

been marked by an anthropological emphasis upon economic and technological aspects of the

archaeological record, often to the exclusion of other

relevant factors. This theoretical bias frequently results in a cavalier treatment of artistic issues in

anthropological studies of the Olmec and other

indigenous Mesoamerican civilizations.2 Indeed, without accepting his diffusionism, I must agree with

Paul Schau's plaint that "visual illiteracy or, at best, visual insensitivity [characterizes] the field of Olmec

archaeology" (Schau 1983: 337). Mesoamericanists have traditionally treated flat

backed colossal heads and broken thrones as separate

problems. Flat-backed colossal heads have mostly been

treated as an aesthetic or as a technologically artistic

issue, while broken and "mutilated" thrones have

always been treated as a social-political issue. Stirling (1955: 20) originally explained the flat-backed colossal

heads as resulting from the aesthetics of placement

against some structure. Clewlow (et al. 1967: 66-67),

however, noted the absence of such structures in the

archaeology of colossal heads and attributed the

flattened backs to unspecified "stylistic" motives.

Heizer explained the flattened backs of colossal heads as an anticipation of the use of rollers and other

technological aids for transporting the heavy sculptures (Heizer: personal communication). F?rst and F?rst

(1980) subsequently argued that the faces of colossal

heads were flattened to reduce breakage in transport. Coe and Diehl (1980) carry this kind of economic determinism to an extreme, asserting that the flat

"negroid" faces of Olmec colossal heads result from a desire to save the labor costs entailed in carving "

'typical' American Indian" portraits. Yet the laborious removal of what is calculated to be more than half the

mass of a subspherical natural boulder, to form first a

subcubical throne and finally again a subspherical head, shows clearly the ethnocentric and materialist

na?vet? of such a judgment. Furthermore, the flattened backs of Tres Zapotes Head 1 and Abaj Takalik Head 2

suggest they were also recarved "altars"; so recarving of altars was not confined to sites where stone was not

readily available, Tres Zapotes being very near a source 1. Gonzalez Lauck has identified Stirling's "Stela" 4 as an "altar"

form; she renames it "Altar 8" (Gonzalez Lauck 1988). Gonzalez

Lauck's "Stelae" 1 and 4 are equally blocky and altarlike, but

renaming the well-known "Stela" 1 would only create more

confusion. "Stela" 4, Stirling's "Stela" 5, has been renamed (to avoid

confusion with Gonzalez Lauck's recently discovered "Stela" 5) and

is still under study (Gonzalez Lauck, personal communication).

2. Ironically, many of these economic and technological

explanations revolve around misapprehensions of some of Marx's

social and economic theories, which are themselves based upon earlier anthropological misunderstandings of native American hunter

gatherers.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

28 RES 1 7/18 SPRING/AUTUMN 89

of workable stone while at Abaj Takalik workable stone

actually occurs within the ruins. In any case, among the most important motivations in the production of

monumental sculpture are the ostentatious display of

wealth, artistic ability, and religious/political power. Since recycling impressive monuments in which a great investment has already been made only decreases

the total inventory of monuments for display, it is

reasonable to look elsewhere for explanations.

Stirling, followed by Drucker et al., attributed broken

thrones to acts of iconoclasm by violent successors of

the Olmec (Stirling 1940: 334; Drucker, Heizer, and

Squire 1959: 230). Later, following Thompson's (1954)

interpretation of the Classic Maya Collapse as the result

of a class struggle, Heizer suggested violent revolution as an explanation for broken Olmec "altars" (Heizer 1960: 220). Coe subsequently embraced Heizer's and

Thompson's evocation of Marx's social theories: he

too explains broken Olmec monuments as a result of

violent revolution (Coe 1967: 25; 1968: 63). Coe's

claim that a violent revolution at San Lorenzo is

evidenced by the "mutilation" and "burial" of

sculptures in alignments, "in one great act of

destruction" (Coe and Diehl 1980: 387), has

been widely accepted in texts and syntheses of

Mesoafnerican culture history. Indeed, some writers

have used it as a point of departure for even wider

ranging interpretations. However, this "revolution

hypothesis" stems from a misunderstanding of what

constitutes mutilation. A careful examination of the

undefaced niche figures of broken San Lorenzo thrones

should have amply signalled that recycling, rather

than "mutilation," was the intent. Nor does careful

examination of the final San Lorenzo report sustain the

claim for the simultaneous "burial" of the "mutilated"

sculptures (Graham 1989: 240-242, 244-246). Also

contraindicated is the recurring claim that Olmec heads

were carved off site (Coe and Diehl 1980: 297; F?rst

and F?rst 1980: 14). Finally, the recycling of Olmec

sculptures, not only at San Lorenzo but at La Venta,

Laguna de los Cerros, Abaj Takalik, and other sites as well, clearly indicates a widespread tradition of

recarving through time.

Grove has criticized this "revolution hypothesis" in

the only previous study of broken Olmec monuments

that perceptively examines the monuments themselves.

He also departs from previous methodology by taking a social anthropologist's approach. Grove interprets broken monuments as protection from the supernatural

powers of dead rulers, through an ethnographic analogy "drawn from the belief systems of present-day Indian

groups of tropical-forest South America" (Grove 1981: 67-68). His use of ethnographic analogy is an

interesting departure from the purely theoretical

approaches of his predecessors.

Archaeological facts useful for the interpretation of art are scarce in Mesoamerican archaeology, and one

test of a significant discovery is the extent to which old

ideas, and even "facts," are rendered obsolete. The

foregoing discussions of flat-backed colossal heads and

broken thrones share an overreliance on economic and

technological interpretive approaches. They also rely on

superficial and incomplete visual examinations of the

Olmec sculptures themselves, despite the fact that some

of these have been available to study for more than fifty years. Surely more fruitful results can be achieved

by critically reconsidering the sacrosanct status of

established archaeological reconstructions and basing future explanations on the direct and detailed

observation of materials actually under examination.

The present study employs such a program in

identifying the flat backs of Olmec colossal heads as

the simple survival of a fundamental feature of the

original sculpted form from which the heads were

recarved. Broken thrones are similarly identified as

nothing more than corollary evidence of the actual

process of recarving itself. Future applications of the same program may engender a new generation of

exciting alternatives for understanding Mesoamerican remains.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clewlow, C. W.; Cowan, R. A.; O'Connell, J. F.; and

Benemann, C.

1967 Colossal Heads of the Olmec Culture. UCARF-C 4.

Coe, M. D.

1967 Solving a Monumental Mystery. Discovery 3, 1 :

21-26, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale

University.

1968 San Lorenzo and the Olmec Civilization. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, Elizabeth Benson, ed.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Porter: Olmec colossal heads as recarved thrones 29

Coe, M. D., and Diehl, R. A.

1980 In the Land of the Olmec, vol. 1, The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. University of Texas Press.

de la Fuente, B. 1973 Escultura monumental olmeca: cat?logo. Instituto de

Investigaciones Est?ticas, UNAM. 1975 Las cabezas colosales olmecas. Colecci?n

Testimonios del Fondo, 34. Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica.

Drucker, P., Heizer, R. F., and Squire, R. J.

1959 Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955. BAE-B 170.

F?rst, J. L., and F?rst, P. T.

1980 Precolumbian Art of Mexico. SUNY, Albany. Abbeville Press.

Gonzalez Lauck, R. B.

1988 Projecto arqueol?gico La Venta. Arqueolog?a 4, INAH.

Graham, J. A.

1981 Abaj Takalik: The Olmec Style and Its Antecedents in Pacific Guatemala. In Ancient Mesoamerica: 163-176. J. A. Graham, ed. Peek Publications.

1989 Olmec Diffusion: A Sculptural View from Pacific Guatemala. In The Olmec and the Development of Formative Mesoamerican Civilization: 227-246.

Cambridge University Press.

Graham, J. A., Heizer, R. F., and Shook, E. M.

1979 Abaj Takalik 1976: Exploratory Investigations. UCARF-C 36.

Grove, D. C.

1973 Olmec Altars and Myths. Archaeology 26. 2: 128-135.

1981 Olmec Monuments: Mutilation as a Clue to

Meaning. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: 49-68. E. P. Benson, ed. Dumbarton Oaks.

Heizer, R. F.

1960 Agriculture and the Theocratic State in Lowland Southeastern Mexico. American Antiquity 26, 2: 215-222.

Melgar, J. M.

1869 Antig?edades Mexicanas. Bol. Soc. Geog. y Estad?stica, 2 ep., Vol. 1: 292-297. Mexico D.F.

Parsons, L. A.

1986 The Origins of Maya Art: Monumental Stone

Sculpture of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, and the Southern Pacific Coast. Dumbarton Oaks Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 28.

Porter, J. B.

1989 The Monuments and Hieroglyphs of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Ph.D. thesis, University of

California, Berkeley.

Schau, P.

1983 The Origin of Ancient American Cultures. Iowa State

University Press.

Stirling, M. W.

1955 Stone Monuments of the Rio Chiquito, Veracruz, Mexico. BAE-B 157.

Thompson, J. E. S.

1954 The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. University of Oklahoma Press.

Williams, H., and Heizer, R. F.

1965 Sources of Rocks Used in Olmec Monuments in UCARF-C 1.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:23:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions