PhD doctorate

The Archaic and Formative Periods of Mesoamerica Michael Love

Note: this piece is an article that I’m preparing for the Cambridge Encyclopedia of World

Prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn. It presents a very different perspective on

domestication, agriculture, and sedentism than the scenario found in your textbook. I, of course,

think that my synthesis of the data is much better, but your textbook gives the generally accepted

viewpoint. You can also note my points of disagreement with Jared Diamond. The dates in the

article are all calibrated radiocarbon dates; the presentation and your textbook both use

uncalibrated dates, so there are bound to be differences. The Cambridge Encyclopedia uses BCE

(before common era) and CE (common era) instead of BC/AD. I haven’t inserted the images into

this article, but most of the referenced items are found in the Powerpoint presentation.

Mesoamerica is one of the six or seven areas of the world where independent

domestication of plants and animals lead to the emergence of food production, and subsequently

civilization (Bellwood 2005; Smith 1998). Mesoamerica was once considered to have lagged

behind other regions of the world in agricultural origins, but evidence now places the beginnings

of food production soon after the onset of Holocene conditions. Similarly, the origins of

urbanism and state formation are now placed much earlier than would have been the case a

decade ago. Once thought to be hallmarks of the Classic Period (AD 250-900), both urban

settlements and state-level polities are now well attested before the end of the first millennium

BCE.

The time of first domestication and the development of social complexity are called the

Archaic and Formative periods. The Archaic begins with the onset of Holocene conditions about

10,000 years ago and continued up to the time of the adoption of pottery, ca 2000 BCE. The

Formative period (also called the Preclassic) succeeds the Archaic and ends at 250 CE. The

criteria for defining both periods have shifted in recent times, and the divisions have become

blurred. It was once thought that the joint appearance of agriculture, sedentism and pottery

defined the beginning of the Formative, but earlier placement of first domestication and

sedentism leaves only early pottery as the sole criterion. The end of the Formative period is also

very arbitrarily placed at 250 CE, as many traits previously used to define the succeeding Classic

period, including writing, calendrics and urbanism, were well attested in the Late Formative (400

BCE-250 CE).

The Archaic Period

The Archaic period was the time during which domestication, food production, and

sedentism developed from the preceding Paleo-Indian Period (Stark 1981). In contrast to the Old

World and South America, domesticated animals placed only a minor role in the development of

food production in Mesoamerica. Although domesticated mammals and birds including dogs,

ducks, and turkeys were very important at certain times and places as food sources, they were not

critical in the early development of food production during the Archaic period.

The beginning of the Holocene period brought generally warmer and wetter conditions to

much of Mesoamerica (Flannery 1986a; Piperno and Pearsall 1998), causing foraging peoples to

broaden their diet but also to experiment with new techniques for harvesting and preparing

foods. Many sources of data suggest that human modification of plant genomes began early in

the Holocene period soon after 8000 BCE and that cultivated domesticates were significant

contributors to their the diet throughout the Archaic period.

The experiments by Archaic peoples throughout the Americas included considerable

variety and were not limited to food plants. Many experiments failed or were abandoned in favor

of species that were more responsive or rewarding. The successful experiments spread

throughout the continent, contradicting the postulate that the north/south axis of the American

continents was an impediment (Diamond 1997). Maize spread throughout the Americas, while

Mesoamerican peoples adopted the South American domesticate manioc and may have received

domesticated sunflower from North America. Some species of domesticated chiles may have

been imported from South America to Mesoamerica (Piperno and Pearsall 1998: 154), and at

least one species of domesticated squash (Curcurbita moschata) was introduced from Central

America. The spread of domesticates, combined with evidence of the long-distance exchange of

resources such as obsidian, demonstrates that the interactions across ethnic and linguistic lines

characteristic of Mesoamerica developed early in the Archaic Period.

Evidence for early domestication and cultivation comes from three sources:1) genetic

analysis of domesticated plants and their wild ancestors; 2) microfossils such as phytoliths,

pollen, and starch grains; and 3) macro-botanical remains that include seeds, stems, and

peduncles. There are differing opinions as to the strength and reliability of these three classes of

data, and sufficient vagaries exist to make a definitive judgement difficult. Smith (1998, 2005)

and Blake (2006) cast doubt on the dating of micro-botanical remains from sediment cores,

which are usually indirectly dated, and prefer directly dated specimens from controlled

archaeological contexts. That standard, however, limits the data to dry cave sites in the highlands

and ignores the remarkable agreement among dates derived from cores. The internal consistency

of dates from sediment cores and micro-botanical specimens and the agreement of those dates

with genetic evidence suggests that such dates are reliable.

Genetic and micro-fossil data support a scenario in which many important plants were

domesticated in lowland and mid-elevation ranges in the early Archaic period. By the Middle

Archaic period domesticates of both the lowlands and highlands were widely shared. It is mostly

assumed that diffusion took place via exchanges among foraging groups, largely because

linguistic evidence suggests separation among the major Mesoamerican linguistic groups early in

the Archaic period. However, the spread of agricultural groups within limited ranges after the

adoption of agriculture is a possibility.

Plants domesticated in the early to middle Archaic (8000-4000 BCE) include maize,

multiple species of cucurbita, and beans (both runner beans and the common bean), and

avocados. Maize, beans, and squash were domesticated along the coast of Central Mexico during

8000-6000 BCE (Matuoka et al 2002, Piperno et al. 2009; Smith 1998), although beans and

various squashes may have been domesticated more than once in different locations.

Early domesticates in Mesoamerica included not only foods, but utilitarian plants as well. The

earliest securely identified domesticate in Mesoamerica may be a species of squash (Cucurbita

pepo) derived from wild bottle gourds that were used as containers in Oaxaca ca 8000 BCE

(Smith 2006). Cotton (gossypium hirsutum) may also have been a plant exploited early in the

Holocene (Piperno and Pearsall 1998: 163), although its date of domestication is not firmly

established.

The use of cultigens supplemented what were fundamentally foraging economies

throughout much of the Early and Middle Archaic (Flannery 1986a; Smith 2001). Despite the

continued importance of foraging, however, large scale modification of the environment,

especially the clearing and burning of forests, accompanied the adoption of horticulture,

according to data from lowland pollen cores.

The Domestication of Maize

Despite the importance of variety to the Archaic Period diet, maize (Zea mays mays) was

the single most important plant in that period, as well as later periods, in Mesoamerica. The

increasing importance of maize to the Archaic Period diet was due mostly to its genetic

malleability, which permitted human selection to increase its productivity dramatically and

develop new varieties that expanded its growing range.

It is now firmly established that the wild predecessor of domesticated maize was a variety

of teosinte, Zea mays ssp. Parvuglumis (also known as Balsas teosinte), whose modern center of

distribution lies in the mid-range elevations (400-1800 m) of the Rio Balsas drainage of

Guerrero, Mexico (Doebley et al. 1985; Matsuoka et al. 2002). Genetic evidence indicates a

single domestication event at around 7200 BCE (Matsuoka et al. 2002). Although domesticated

maize shows signs of subsequent introgression from highland teosinte (Zea mays spp. mexicana),

anything other than Balsas teosinte has been eliminated as a direct ancestor.

The genetically derived date for maize domestication matches remarkably well with a

date of 7100 BC for archaeologically recovered starches and phytoliths from domesticated maize

and squash (possibly C. argyrosperma) at the Xihuatoxtla rock shelter, located in the Rio Balsas

drainage (Piperno et al. 2009). Data from Xihuatoxtla also indicate that the cobs of early maize

were processed, not the stalks, undercutting the proposition that teosinte and maize were initially

cultivated only for the sugar of their stalks (Iltis 2000; Smalley and Blake 2003).

Controversy still surrounds the climatic zone in which the domestication event took

place. Some data support a scenario of highland domestication (Matsuoka et al. 2002) followed

by diversification, although that conclusion may be due to sampling methods (Benz 2004). The

model of highland domestication would imply either that the ancient range of Balsa teosinte

extended beyond that known today, or that ancient foragers transported it from its wild setting to

the highlands, domesticating it in the process. However that may be, the data from Xihuatoxtla

shelter support a mid-range elevation site for domestication (under 1800 m), in concordance with

the general model for the neo-tropical lowland origins of agriculture (Piperno and Pearsall 1998).

The locus of domestication is highly significant, because it impacts how we interpret the maize

remains in the semi-arid Mexican highlands, where the earliest macro-botanical specimens have

been recovered and directly dated by AMS to 3400 BCE (Piperno and Flannery 2001).

Microfossil data consistently support the model of early Archaic domestication, followed

by the spread of the cultigen throughout Mesoamerica. Zea pollen consistent with domesticated

maize is found at 5100 BCE at San Andrés, Tabasco, on Mexico’s Gulf coast, concurrent with

evidence of forest clearance (Pope et al 2001). Pollen cores from Lake Quilisimate show

domesticated maize in the Central Guatemalan highlands by 4000 BCE (Freidel et al 2001),

while microbotanical studies carried out in northern Belize (Pohl et al 1996) show that maize and

other cultigens, including manioc, were used by 3400 BCE. Land clearance and maize

agriculture are documented for the Mirador Basin of northern lowland Guatemala by 2600 BC

(Wahl et al. 2006).

Some of the strongest data come from the Pacific coast, where a series of cores found

evidence of maize as well as other presumed cultigens, squash and arrowroot prior to 3500 BCE

(Neff et al. 2006a). This date is supported by archaeologically recovered Zea phytoliths from a

clay floor at the Tlacuachero site, dating to 3500 BCE (Jones and Voorhies 2004). The cores

evidence significant increases in the levels of charcoal after 3500 BCE, and continued high levels

through multiple episodes of forest burning up to 2600 BCE. Between 2500 BCE and 1000

BCE there was a decrease in agricultural activity and forest disturbance, possibly caused by

dessication. The dry period lead to the abandonment of some areas of the coast prior to 2000

BCE (Neff et al., 2006b).

On the Pacific coast, the cultivation of maize and other domesticates probably took place

at permanent inland base camps such as Vuelta Limón with seasonal foraging trips to estuary and

and lagoon sites to fish and to collect shellfish and mollusks (Voorhies 2004). The central

settlements were occupied year-round, although perhaps not for a large number of years. The

difficulty in locating and excavating lowland Archaic Period sites outside of the estuaries may

indicate continued mobility over the long term.

Sedentism and Mobility in the Archaic Period

The model of “Central Place Foraging” developed for the Pacific Coast may also apply to

other regions of Mesoamerica, with widespread sedentism by the Middle Archaic. A key point is

how to interpret the data from the highlands.

If maize was indeed domesticated in mid-altitude ranges, then the highland-focused

models proposed by Flannery (1986) and MacNeish (1981) require significant revision, not only

for where and when domestication took place, but also in regard to the relationship between

seasonal mobility and increasing dependence on cultivated foods. The original Tehuacan and

Oaxaca models portrayed the Archaic Period as a time of gradual transition and co-evolution of

domestication, cultivation, and sedentism. As cultivated foodstuffs became more productive

through human selection, their role in human diet increased, and people spent longer periods of

time in the camps where cultivated fields were maintained. The models posited that eventually

the productivity of cultivated plants, particularly maize, exceeded the caloric rewards of

collected foods and people committed fully to horticulture and remained year-round in their

settlements.

A key aspect of the co-evolution model was that people in the semi-arid highlands were

collecting wild maize in slope locations and transferring it to camps in bottomland zones. In the

process, they selected for the traits that characterized domesticated maize: a non-enclosed seed,

larger cob size, multiple rows, and a single infloresence. The putative dispersal of maize from the

locations where it grew wild was part of the yearly round of a mobile foraging economy, and

conceivably could have been an unintentional product of human subsistence practices.

If, however, maize were domesticated in lower elevations before its initial appearance in

Tehuacan and Oaxaca, two conclusions follow: 1) maize was brought to the highlands by

intentional human action, either by exchange or by the expansion of lowland horticultural groups.

2) The cultivation of maize in the highlands began as an event rather than being a gradual

process.

The latter conclusion casts doubt on the model of seasonal mobility emphasized for the

highlands. If Archaic peoples adopted already domesticated maize from the lowlands and were

clearing land to cultivate the crop, scheduling makes it unlikely that they would continue to be

mobile (Bellwood 2005). There is a fair amount of evidence to support that conclusion. Faunal

data from Zohapilco, in the Basin of Mexico, could indicate year-round occupation of the site

(Niederberger 1979). Further, the seasonality data for Tehuacan can be interpreted in such a way

that year-round sedentism occurred earlier than posited by MacNeish (Stark 1981: 354-355).

Stark noted that several occupation surfaces with indicators of multiple seasons were somewhat

arbitrarily divided into separate seasonal occupations. Moreover, some seasonal indicators were

not interpreted in a customary manner, with mesquite pods, grasses, and amaranth taken as spring

indicators, when most scholars judge them to show late summer to fall occupations (Stark 1981:

372, footnote 8).

The Late Archaic

A very important tenet of the highland model remains true: that up until about 2000 BC

maize and other cultigens were supplements to the foraging diet. Human experimentation with

maize continued after its initial domestication and adoption, and its productivity increased

through time. A threshold of sorts was crossed at about 2000 BCE when continued selection for

cob size increased its productivity to such an extent that it surpassed other contributors to the

diet. Flannery (1986b: 27) very effectively demonstrates how this productive threshold induced

foragers to forsake the collection of many wild plants, such as mesquite seeds and acorns in the

highlands, to commit fully to the cultivation of maize and other domesticates.

Early Formative 1 (2000-1200 BC)

As in other parts of the world, the full commitment to horticulture and sedentism brought

about both a significant increase in population and the development of economic surpluses that

enabled social inequality to be manifested as differences in wealth. By 1700 BCE there are signs

of differentiation among villages, with hierarchies linked to trade, politics, and religious life. The

best evidence for the early emergence of inequality and centralization during the Early Formative

comes from the Pacific coast, and the Mazatán region of Chiapas, Mexico. Regional settlement

data support the presence of several two-tiered settlement systems suggestive of simple

chiefdoms soon after 1700 BCE (Clark, 2004; Clark and Hodgson 2004). By 1650 BCE Paso de

la Amada was laid out as a planned center, with buildings spaced along a central plaza using

units of measurement derived from Mesoamerican cosmology and calendrical cycles of 260 and

365 days, indicating a sacred basis for the site plan. The site had communal features, including

the earliest documented ballcourt in Mesoamerica (Hill et al. 1998). A considerable amount of

communal labor was invested the construction of the ballcourt and other central buildings, which

may be either elite residences or public buildings (Figure 2). Paso de la Amada was both a

sacred place and a political center, and is at present “the earliest known ceremonial center in

Mesoamerica” (Clark 2004: 45).

Although Paso de la Amada is for the moment unique in Mesoamerica, it is likely that

other similar settlements existed and may eventually be discovered. Most importantly, however,

the data from the Mazatan region illustrate the impact of agriculture and sedentism on

Mesoamerican societies early in the Formative period. A course of increasing socio-political

complexity had begun and the speed of change increased once again as the second half of the

Early Formative began.

The Olmec Phenomenon

The continued intensification of economic production created large surpluses, and elite

sectors of society were able to channel those surpluses into public works and prestige goods that

carried a strong ideological message justifying centralized power. Regional exchanges of both

goods and ideas intensified in a complex web of interaction between the largest sites across

Mesoamerica. The twin themes of increasing complexity and regional interaction are intertwined

with the Olmec phenomenon, which begins in the Early Formative 2 period (1300-1000 BCE),

but endures well into the Middle Formative.

The term 'Olmec' is used in many ways. First, it is used frequently to denote a group of

people and a culture of the Gulf Coast region of Tabasco and Veracruz, Mexico. Secondly, it is

used to refer to any material culture product made by those people, such as “Olmec art.” Third, it

is used to refer to a system of iconography that includes of symbols, motifs, and figures, that

occur on a variety of material culture forms and in locations outside the Gulf Coast region. The

variable usage of the term can be confusing, and the confusion is compounded by the fact that the

Olmec phenomenon was complex and long-lived.

Objects that are stylistically Olmec or that have Olmec iconography appear throughout

much of Mesoamerica, cutting across ethnic and linguistic boundaries. Many have seen this

distribution of the Olmec style to represent the diffusion of ideas and cultural practices, or even

the movement of people, from the Gulf Coast 'heartland' to the rest of Mesoamerica. Thus, there

are many who place the Gulf Coast region of Mexico in a central role for both the Early and

Middle Formative, defining successive San Lorenzo and the La Venta horizons, named after the

largest sites of the Gulf Coast region during each period. In these interpretations the 'Olmec' (the

people of the Gulf Coast), are seen as the 'Mother Culture' of Mesoamerica. That is, that they

were the first complex society of Mesoamerica and invented many of the cultural traits that are

considered typical of later Mesoamerica: sculpture, architecture, writing, and a formal religion

based on the worship of specific deities. In this view, the Olmec people then stimulated the rest

of Mesoamerica to develop more complex social forms.

An alternative perspective sees Formative Mesoamerica as composed of a number of

“Sister Cultures” that developed more or less in parallel, with constant economic and intellectual

interaction among them (Flannery and Marcus 2000). In this view, the societies of the Gulf

Coast were not in any way precocious and were not exclusively responsible for creating the many

traits that comprise the “Olmec style.” Rather, in this view Mesoamerica should be viewed as a

developing interaction sphere, without a single center and with multiple sources for development

of the shared style of material culture.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes. During the Early

Formative 2 (1300-1000 BCE) the site of San Lorenzo, Veracruz was certainly far larger than its

contemporaries, but in the Middle Preclassic 1 (1000-600 BCE) regional parity was much

greater. Whether all traits commonly called “Olmec” originated in the Gulf Coast region is

uncertain, as is the structure of regional relationships, but some forms of material culture with

Olmec iconography, especially sculpture, appear first or have their greatest concentration in the

Gulf Coast region. However, many other traits often called “Olmec” have origins outside the

Gulf Coast, or may not even appear in the Gulf Coast.

Complex Societies in the Early Preclassic 2

The scale and scope of complexity expanded greatly throughout Mesoamerica in the Early

Formative 2, 1300-1000 BCE. Populations grew significantly and regional polities with two to

three levels of administration, classified as chiefdoms in neo-evolutionary typologies, appeared

in many regions.

The largest settlement of the Early Preclassic 2 period was the site of San Lorenzo,

located in the modern state of Veracruz, Mexico. At its peak, just before 1000 BC, San Lorenzo

covered approximately 500 hectares, centered on an elevated plateau of 60 ha that was of largely

artificial construction (Symonds et al. 2002). Although lacking the monumental pyramids and

plazas of later Mesoamerican cities, San Lorenzo did have many elaborately adorned

constructions, such as the “Red Palace”, a building with red gravel floor and clay walls

containing red sand, with an entry-way formed by large basalt columns. Although described as a

“royal compound” (Diehl 2004: 36), the domestic nature of the Red Palace is not firmly

established, in part because it is extremely difficult to establish archaeological criteria to

unambiguously distinguish public from private during this time period in Mesoamerica.

In addition to the massive plateau, the most impressive feature of San Lorenzo may be its

sculpture. Monumental sculpture is one of the hallmarks of the Olmec style, and San Lorenzo

has over 120 pieces, including 10 colossal heads. The colossal heads are thought to be portraits

of Olmec rulers, because each has individualistic features, including distinctive headdresses. The

largest of the colossal heads weighs over 5 tons. Carved of columnar basalt transported over 80

km from quarries in the Tuxtla Mountains north of San Lorenzo, each head represents an

enormous investment of labor and skilled craftsmanship. Other classes of sculpture were also

carved at San Lorenzo, including table-top altars, which may in fact have served as thrones. The

altars were often even larger than the heads, reaching weights of over 28 tons. A common theme

of the altars is that of a male figure seated with in a niche formed by the mouth of a supernatural

creature, usually a feline or serpent. Such niches are symbols of cave mouths, symbolic portals to

the underworld. The images thus invoke either an ancestor within the underworld or perhaps a

ruler or lineage head with the ability to communicate with underworld spirits. The perceived

ability to communicate with the supernatural and to divine the future was a prominent feature of

elite claims to power throughout Mesoamerica.

Other themes of San Lorenzo’s monumental art include supernatural creatures, that

probably include deities, and hybrid creatures that combine human and animal characteristics.

However, the most common theme in Olmec art is the human body (de la Fuente 1984). Many of

the supernatural creatures known from early Olmec sculpture also appear as incised or excised

designs on pottery, often in an abbreviated form. Carved or incised pottery plays a key role in the

contentious debate over San Lorenzo’s influence in the rest of Mesoamerica.

A large settlement for any period in Mesoamerica, San Lorenzo was enormous by Early

Formative standards. Although the overall density of occupation has yet to be determined, the

sheer size of the site is impressive. Population within San Lorenzo’s sustaining hinterland was

large and distributed in a hierarchy of sites, which is interpreted as evidence of a regional

political system. At least three large secondary centers, with significant sculptural corpuses of

their own, lie near San Lorenzo, while villages and hamlets form a more dispersed outer

hinterland.

The type of political system represented by this settlement hierarchy has been disputed.

Some see San Lorenzo itself as urban and its regional system a state-level society, but others see

nothing more complex than a chiefdom (Flannery and Marcus 2000; Spencer and Redmond

2007). San Lorenzo is certainly an expansive settlement but its population was dispersed. Its

regional system is very top-heavy with secondary centers of moderate size. Significant political

centralization is thus suggested, but this may be an instance where neo-evolutionary typologies

fail us, and attempting to fit San Lorenzo into a category defined by ethnographic examples

simply does not work. San Lorenzo’s rulers had wealth to sponsor craft specialists and the ability

to organize large amounts of labor exceeding that of ethnographically known chiefdoms, but it

seems a stretch to suggest that San Lorenzo had the type of bureaucratic governmental structures

normally associated with a state.

Other complex societies of the Early Preclassic 2 period

Large settlements that were the paramount centers of complex regional polities became

widespread throughout Mesoamerica in the the Early Formative 2 period. Within the Gulf Coast

region, Laguna de los Cerros may have covered over 300 ha. (Pool 2006) Farther afield,

settlements of over 50 ha in size, associated with at least a two-tiered regional hierarchy, appear

in many regions of Mesoamerica. The data are uneven across regions; some areas lack intensive

surveys, while other sites lack household-level data. The differences in the quantity and quality

of data make comparisons difficult and definitive answers about regional relationships almost

impossible to achieve.

Preclassic Oaxaca

At the beginning of the Early Preclassic 2 period (Tierras Largas phase) there were more

than twenty sites known from survey within the Valley of Oaxaca. Most of these sites were small

villages of under 3 ha, with the exception of San Jose Mogote which is estimated to cover 7.8 ha.

In addition to being twice the size of most settlements, San Jose Mogote was distinctive for the

period in having what is thought to be a public building.

In the latter part of the Early Preclassic 2, the San Jose Phase (ca. 1200-900 BC), the

main residential area of San Jose Mogote may have covered up to 70 ha. and several different

types of public buildings were found at the site. San Jose Mogote was the paramount settlement

in a regional system that included at least 40 sites, with a 2-3 tiered settlement hierarchy. In

addition to being a religious center, San Jose Mogote was a regional economic center that

redistributed goods within the Valley of Oaxaca and also operated as a node in pan-

Mesoamerican exchange systems. Most significantly, San Jose Mogote mediated the production

and exchange of iron-ore mirrors which found their way to many regions of Mesoamerica.

Household data suggest that during the San Jose phase status differences form a

continuum from relatively high to relatively low, without a rigid division into social classes.

What may be the highest status residence at San Jose Mogote was built one a 1 m high platform

and was finished with lime plaster. A less prestigious house had a foundation of field stones and

a layer of whitewash over the daub. Features associated with this type of house have larger

quantities of marine shell ornaments, shell debris, mica, and chert, which suggest privileged

access to prestige goods. A third type of house lacked foundation stones, but did have

whitewashed walls and a series of outbuildings. The simplest kind of residence at San Jose

Mogote was about 4x5 m in size, with a clay floor and walls of wattle and daub house.

Burial data of the San Jose phase also show a continuum from simple burials to more

prestigious. What are judged to be the lowest ranking individuals received no offerings, while

high ranking people were buried with jade jewelry, pottery, and shell or magnetite ornaments. A

San Jose phase cemetery at the site of Tomaltepec contained more than 60 burials, with the

remains of 80 individuals. Most of the burials were extended, but some males were buried in a

flexed positon. Although there were only 10 males in the flexed position, they received 50

percent of the burial vessels with carved 'fire-serpent' (often considered to be an “Olmec” motif)

designs and 88 percent of the jade beads.

The Basin of Mexico

Several large settlements may have emerged in the Basin of Mexico during the Early

Formative 2 period. Tlatilco, Tlapacoya, and Coapexco all covered 40-50 ha in size, although the

site of Tlatilco may in fact be several small villages in close proximity. Regional survey data for

the time period are incomplete, as later pre-hispanic and modern settlements obscure smaller

villages.

More than 500 burials have been excavated at Tlatilco and they reflect the emergence of

social inequality by the Early Formative. Both Tlatilco and Tlapacoya show the development of

distinctively local variants of an “Olmec” style, using motifs also seen elsewhere in

Mesoamerica, but with regional vessel forms, slips, and other decorative techniques.

Although the data for the Basin of Mexico are frustratingly incomplete, they suggest the

development of social complexity and the participation by local peoples in exchange networks

with the rest of Mesoamerica.

The Pacific Coast In Early Formative 2

The chiefdoms established in the Mazatan region during the Early Preclassic 1 period

endured for several hundred years but pronounced shifts occur at 1300 BC, when there were

movements in settlement location and the appearance of new material cultural forms. Some

crucial data are lacking, but the major sites of Canton Corralito and Ojo de Agua appear to

represent successive capitals of regional polities.

Canton Corralito emerged as a major settlement and regional center at about 1300 BC and

shows strong connections with San Lorenzo, Verazcruz indicated by similarities in vessel forms,

vessel sizes, and decorative motifs. It may be that a colony of people from San Lorenzo resided

at Cantón Corralito, but undetermined is the nature of the colony, its extent, and its impact upon

the local population. Individual households were not excavated at Cantón Corralito, so that we

cannot assess whether these “Olmec” objects were used only by the elite, or by the populace in

general. It is possible that craftspeople from the Gulf Coast were contracted by local rulers, or

that a colony was established by groups fleeing San Lorenzo rather than representing it.

At about 1200-1000 BC Ojo de Agua replaced Cantón Corralito as the Soconusco’s

largest site. The extent of the site is uncertain, but it certainly exceeds 100 ha. There are elevated

mounds, apparently prototypes of the pyramidal form common in Mesoamerica, around a central

plaza (Clark and Hodgson, 2004). Important sculptures known from site, as well as the

surrounding region, forming the only significant corpus of Olmec style sculpture outside of the

Gulf Coast for this time period.

Regional Relationships in the Early Preclassic 2

The relationship between early complex societies throughout Mesoamerica is the subject

of intense debate (Blomster et al., 2005; Flannery et al., 2005). The discussion is actually much

more nuanced that the “Mother Culture-Sister Culture” positions and the available data are not

sufficient to choose between them.

The debate over the origins and spread of the Olmec style often hides a more important

conclusion, which is that during the period of 1300-500 BC Mesoamerica witnessed the birth of

high culture, associated with the rise of a privileged elite whose power was based upon a political

interpretation of religious maxims. Perhaps most importantly, by 1300 BC this tradition of high

culture, as well as elite identities, cut across ethnic and linguistic divisions and spread throughout

much of Mesoameria.

Evidence of and unbalanced exchange of decorated ceramics has been used by some as

support for the “Mother Culture” hypothesis (Blomster et al. 2005). San Lorenzo exported

ceramics with carved to other regions of Mesoamerica but those regions did not export such

ceramics to San Lorenzo. We know, however, that the overall balance of trade during the Early

Preclassic 2 period was not one-sided. San Lorenzo imported commodities such as obsidian, iron

mirrors, and hematite ore in varying forms and often in large quantities (Pires-Ferreira 1975; Di

Castron Stringher 1997), so that while ceramics may not have been entered San Lorenzo in

exchange for pottery, other items did.

We also know that throughout much of Mesoamerica, there was a broad transformation in

material culture at about 1300 B.C. that goes well beyond pottery. Such a widespread

transformation indicates social and ideological changes so broad that they cannot be reasonably

attributed to any single site. Moreover, in the midst of this widespread transformation, there are

signs of increasing regionalization in some forms of material culture, most notably architectural

layouts, which would not be expected if the similar traits were spreading as a unitary

phenomenon.

The Middle Formative (1000-400 BCE)

The Middle Formative period in Mesoamerica was a time of incipient urbanism, with

denser populations as well as larger overall settlement size, driven by a significant population

boom. There were population loses in some areas at the end of the Early Formative, such as in

the San Lorenzo and Mazatan regions, but those reflect the political fortunes of specific sites and

were highly localized. Even in regions lacking intensive surveys, such as the Maya lowlands, the

higher visibility of Middle Formative sites is notable.

While settlements over 50 ha were rare in the Early Formative, there are many Middle

Formative centers over 1 km . The area of monumental architecture at La Venta covers 2 km at2 2

its peak, and with areas of habitation included, may well be over 4 km . La Blanca, on the Pacific2

coast of Guatemala, covered just under 3 km . Teopantecuanitlan, Guerrero, Chalcatzingo,2

Morelos and Tres Zapotes, Veracruz were all well over 1 km (Pool 2004). These settlements2

were cities and most had monumental architecture. It was at this time that they archetypal temple

pyramid became widespread (Figure 3).

Socio-political complexity in the Middle Formative

In Middle Formative times many political systems are on the verge of becoming states.

By the norms of neo-evoutionary typologies, the largest polities would probably be called

complex chiefdoms, but they have many state-like attributes, including urbanism, the presence of

administrative bureaucracies, and rigid social distinctions between elites and commoners. The

best examples may be La Venta, Tabasco in the Gulf Coast region of Mexico and La Blanca,

Guatemala on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala.

La Blanca

La Blanca development following the collapse of the Ojo de Agua polity in Mazatan, at

1000 BCE. It was the largest settlement of a complex regional system covering nearly 300 km ,2

and incorporating more than 80 other settlements (Love 2002).

La Blanca’s core was a 100 ha area of terrain raised and leveled by over 2m of fill. A

large acropolis east the main plaza was raised an additional 2m. The main ceremonial buildings

in the core shared a common orientation and the central axis of the site aligned with the tallest

peak in Central America, the Tajumulco Volcano. The largest construction at the site, Mound 1,

was a temple pyramid over 25 m in height, measuring 100 by 150 m at its base (Figure 4a).

Constructed soon after 1000 BC, it was one of the earliest monumental temple pyramids in

Mesoamerica. The total area of occupation at La Blanca covered approximately 280 ha, with

dense occupation at the site core and more dispersed occupation at the outskirts. Few stone

sculptures have been discovered at the site, but a unique quatrefoil-shaped altar was discovered

in association with an elite residence (Figure 5).

The regional system has at least three and perhaps as many as four levels with secondary

centers also marked by large temple pyramids. A settlement hierarchy of this nature would be

viewed by most as indicative of something less than a state, but many factors, including the scale

of monumental construction, make it seem more complex than the common definition of a

chiefdom.

La Venta

La Venta has a long history of occupation, stretching from approximately 1300 to 400

BCE. Its peak size was probably reached at approximately 800 BC, but major constructions date

as late the the 400 BCE terminus (González 1996).

La Venta’s core is a ceremonial complex covering approximately 125 ha, but major

constructions cover over 200 ha and areas of habitation may expand to the total size to nearly 3

km . The largest structure at the site was a temple pyramid of approximately 30 m in height,2

Mound C-1 (Figure 4b). North of C-1 was a courtyard enclosed by basalt columns and occupied

by numerous small mounds. In the plazas between these mounds five monumental offerings,

including a mosaic pavement representing a supernatural often called an “Earth Monster”, were

placed in deep pits. Numerous smaller offerings including sculpted jade and other green stones

were placed within the complex. Evidence of burials was also found within Complex A, raising

the possibility that the complex was designed as a funerary precinct for La Venta’s elite. At the

very least, Complex A appears to be focused on concepts of the supernatural underworld.

One of the most distinctive aspects of Middle Formative La Venta is the large sculptural

corpus. At the present, there are 73 sculpted monuments and 27 plain stone monuments

documented for the site. Many of the sculptural forms, such as colossal heads and table-top

altars, closely resemble the monuments of San Lorenzo. As at San Lorenzo, many of La Venta’s

monuments represent supernatural creatures, possibly deities, but the majority represent the

human figure. Most of the people represented were probably rulers, and they are shown in elite

reglia and in positions of power, often associated with supernatural figures whose presence

indicates the power of rulers to communicate with and control the supernatural.

As was the case with San Lorenzo, the source of basalt from which most of the

monuments were carved was the Tuxtla Mountains to the northwest. The movement of stones up

to 20 tons undoubtedly involved huge amounts of labor, organizational acumen, and

sophisticated technology. However, many of La Venta’s monuments were carved from local

sandstone or other sedimentary rocks.

The monumental constructions, stone monuments, and ceremonial offerings of jade and

other precious stones all mark La Venta as a center of tremendous wealth and its rulers as very

powerful, an elite very distinct from the social stratum of commoners. Their wealth enabled

them to support the craft specialists who sculpted their monuments and smaller sculptures. The

regional system in La Venta’s immediate environments shows a 3 level hierarchy, but none of the

sites identified as secondary centers has monumental architecture. The secondary centers cover

no more than 10 ha and the largest mound recorded at any of them is 3m in height. Indeed, these

mound may have been residential, rather than public. The remarkably small size of these

documented secondary centers seems inconsistent with the large scale of La Venta itself and the

wealth and power reflect in its monuments. It may be that La Venta’s polity stretched beyond the

area so far surveyed and that larger settlements await documentation.

Other Middle Formative Cities

Other large settlements of the Middle Formative include Chalcatzingo and

Teopantecuanitlan in Central Mexico, Tres Zapotes on the Gulf Coast, Chalchuapa in El

Salvador, Chiapa de Corzo in highland Chiapas and Naranjo in highland Guatemala. Each of

these is 100 ha or more in total extent and associated with a hierarchically structured regional

system. In any case, each of these Middle Formative centers controlled a polity that was larger

and more complex that what was seen in the region previously. Emerging complexity is also

evident in the Maya lowlands, at sites such as Nakbe in the Mirador Basin, Cival in the Northern

Peten, Yaxuna in Yucatan, and Ceibal in the Pasion River region. These Maya sites show large-

scale monumental construction and overall size that suggest emerging urbanism (Estrada-Belli

2010).

Economic intensification and Exchange Systems of the Middle Formative

Economic intensification provided the material base for the expansion of elite power and

the means to finance monumental public works during the Middle Formative. Pacific coast data

show that key elements of subsistence intensification were the increased consumption of maize

and the use of the domesticated dog as a protein source (Love 1999).

Continued human selection for increased productivity undoubtedly led to the growing

importance of maize to the economy. Maize provided the maximum return per unit of labor

invested while also allowing multiple crops to be grown within a year in some regions. The

increased focus on high-yield protein sources, such as dogs, also reflect a maximizing strategy by

minimizing labor expended in food procurement. The augmented yields from these foods not

only provided the resources to support larger populations, but yielded large surpluses that

supported the labor invested in public constructions and monumental art, as well prestige goods

consumption by the elite. That increased wealth, in turn, stimulated interregional exchange.

There was, by many accounts, a reorganization of regional social and economic

relationships at the beginning of the Middle Formative. Grove (1989) has proposed that

increased trade in, and competition for, elite prestige goods led to formal alliances among

centers. Demarest (1989) has proposed, in a similar vein, that the Middle Formative was an era of

greater interregional contact, reflected in trade in raw materials as well as shared iconography.

One of the most significant aspects of the Middle Formative is that monumental sculpture

in Olmec style is found in large quantities outside the Gulf coast. During the Middle Formative

we find Olmec style sculpture in the Central highlands of Mexico and all along the Pacific coast

as far south as El Salvador. At some sites, such as Chalcatzingo (Figure 6) and Takalik Abaj, the

bodies of Olmec sculpture are very large, with over 50 monuments at each site. Significantly,

however, monumental sculpture (in the Olmec style) is lacking from the Basin of Mexico,

Oaxaca, highland Guatemala, and the Maya lowlands.

Of particular interest is that while many of the sculptures in these regions may resemble

those of the Gulf coast, they aren’t simply copies. There are clear regional styles and entirely new

forms in each region that are not found elsewhere. This is true not only the sculptural forms, but

in the iconography, where we see symbols and meanings in disparate parts of Mesoamerica that

are not found in the Gulf coast sites. These regional manifestations indicate that people in

Mesoamerica outside of the Gulf Coast but were actively engaged in creating aspects of the

Olmec style.

Middle Formative Networks of Exchange and Interaction

It has long been noted that the largest sites with Olmec style objects, especially sculpture,

lie along the major trade routes. One clear difference in the Middle Formative is the expansion of

the trade networks along which goods and communication flowed. The most obvious example is

the Maya lowlands. There are no signs of sociopolitical complexity in the Maya Lowlands during

the Early Formative, but in the Middle Formative there evidence of emerging complexity. At the

same time the pottery of the region come to have the same design motifs as the rest of

Mesoamerica.

Just as important as the areas that do participate in the Middle Formative exchange long-

distance exchange systems are those that don’t. Those areas that lie outside the important trade

routes lack “Olmec” traits, but also lack signs of socio-political complexity. There are, for

example, Middle Formative sites in Guerrero that lack obviously “Olmec” traits and there are

similar cases in Guatemala, especially the western highlands.

Trade structured the regional relationships and networks of interaction, but also provided

the wealth by which elites defined themselves. While there is cause to debate the structure of

regional relationships in the Early Formative, there is little in the Middle Formative data to

support an assymmetrical model of interaction. Although there are undoubtedly differences in

size, wealth, and power among the regional centers, those differences cannot be reduced to a

simplistic models of core/periphery. The Gulf Coast region, and La Venta in particular, may have

been the most important node in this system and for that reason, the rulers of La Venta and

possibly some other Gulf sites had much greater wealth at their disposal than did the rulers of

other sites in other region. That wealth allowed them to commission beautiful art and monumental

constructions. But having greater wealth does not mean that they were the source of all things

bright and beautiful in Mesoamerica, or that the Gulf Coast region as a whole had cultural or

political dominance over the rest of Mesoamerica.

By the Middle Formative nearly many regions of Mesoamerica had well-developed

structures of inequality and integration and it appears unlikely that elites needed to emulate

foreign styles to enhance their prestige. Instead, what we see in the Middle Formative are

numerous stylistic, symbolic, and iconographic elements being used to mark membership in a

pan-Mesoamerican elite network. At the same time, a number of common symbolic and stylistic

elements served to mark social distance between the elite and the non-elite in each region. The

most important conclusion deduced from this pattern is that by the Middle Formative

Mesoamerican elites were fully conscious of themselves as a group of peers, albeit with strong

rivalries among themselves for prestige and power. The primary social identify of the elite now

lay with this peerage, rather than with the local populace.

The Late Formative

The trajectory of increasing urbanization and socio-politcial centralization climaxed in the

Late Formative period with the development of fully urban states in most regions of Mesoamerica.

Late Formative cities were both larger and more numerous than those of the Middle Formative,

and occur over a larger area, stretching from the Basin of Mexico to the north to El Salvador to

the south. The Late Formative period is also notable for the intensification of production using

irrigation or other water management systems, such as raised fields constructed on the margins of

lakes or swamps. These highly productive systems enabled larger overall populations, higher

population densities, and greater surpluses that were ultimately controlled by increasingly wealthy

and powerful elites. A consideration of four key regions will illustrate the trends.

Basin of Mexico in the Late Formative

Within the basin of Mexico, two major state-level polities centered on urban settlements

developed during the Late Formative period. Settlement patterns for this period indicated a very

rapid shift toward more complex regional organization between 200 BCE and 100 BCE. In the

southwestern part of the basin, there is good evidence for a four-tier regional hierarchy dominated

by Cuicuilco. Cuicuilco spread over 400 hectares and may have held as many as 20,000 people.

At least ten very large platforms were constructed at Cuicuilco, one of which may be a palace. The

largest structure at the site was 20 m heigh and 80m in diameter. Intensive cultivation, in the form

of the lake-shore margin fields known as chinampas, may have help meet the food needs of the

growing city (See Manzanilla’s article for complete references).

In the northeastern portion the basin, Teotihuacan developed rapidly and by 100 BCE

covered 8 km . Although much of the occupation at Teotihuacan for this time period lies beneath2

Classic period construction there are suggestions of monumental architecture. Teotihuacan also

dominated a four-tiered settlement hierarchy and like Cuicuilco probably developed intensified

forms of cultivation during the final years before the common era. The site was located at the head

of a number of springs whose flow could have been used for irrigation.

Clusters of sites in the northwest and southeastern portions of the basin may also represent

complex polities, although not as large as Cuicuilco or Teotihuacan. In both the northwest and

southeast clusters, sites are located in defensive positions, suggesting that they were threatened by

the expansion of the two large polities. At the beginning of the common era, then, the Basin of

Mexico was divided into a minimum four polities, with two large state-level polities, Cuicuilco

and Teotihuacan. One hundred years later, there was only a single massive polity, dominated by

Teotihuacan. Soon after reaching its peak at the beginning of the common era, Cuicuilco was

decimated by a volcanic eruption and large portions of the city were covered by a lava flow 10 m

in depth. Approximately 100 years later, a second eruption destroyed what little remained of the

city.

After the destruction of Cuicuilco, Teotihuacan grew quickly, to rougly 20 km with a2

population reaching perhaps 80,000 people. Survey data suggest that over 80% of the population

of the Basin of Mexico moved into its environs. Large-scale monumental construction expanded

dramatically, with the two principal streets laid out on a cruciform. The largest of the major

streets, later called the Street of the Dead by the Aztecs, held the two largest constructions at the

site. The Temple of the Sun was raised almost entirely at this time and the Temple of the Moon,

which closes the northern end of the Street of the Dead, was begun. Over twenty additional

temples were construction along the northern portion of the Street of the Dead,

Teotihuacan’s economic influence began to spread as Formative period came to a close.

One of the major sources of Teotihuacan’s wealth appears to have been based on mining obsidian

and the production of obsidian tools. Evidence of the first specialized workshops producing such

tools appears as Teotihuacan consolidated its power within the Basin of Mexico.

Oaxaca in the Late Formative

Urbanism and state-level political institutions began in the Valley of Oaxaca between 500

BCE and 200 BCE. The transition is associated with the founding of a new settlement, Monte

Alban in the central portion of the valley, on a series of ridgetops, elevated above the valley floor

and hence removed from arable land. Once thought to have been to be an administrative center

resulting from a confederation of the rulers from the three different branches of the valley,

evidence now indicates that its power was achieved through conquest, although its domination of

the valley was incomplete. There is ample evidence of violence during this time period, and the

location of Monte Alban, as well as features associated with it, suggest that its location was

chosen because of its defensibility (Refer to Balkansky for complete references).

By 200 BCE Monte Alban covered over 4 km , with an estimated population of over2

17,000 people, roughly half of the valley's total population. The city itself was composed of three

distinct neighborhoods. Construction within the the Main Plaza, the heart of the later city, was

begun but the extent of monumental construction is uncertain. There are several fragments of

buildings that appear to date to this time period, but only one complete building has been

excavated, the so-called Gallery. The Gallery contains a series of low-relief sculpture, called the

Danzantes, that depict people in grotesque poses, often with signs of mutilation. These are most

commonly interpreted as sacrificial victims, possibly captives taken in war. The depictions are

often accompanied by what may be name glyphs (identifying the captives), which are some of the

earliest inscriptions known for Mesoamerica.

Monte Alban’s political realm at 200 BCE included much, but not all, of the Valley of

Oaxaca, with a four-tiered settlement hierachy. There are four identified secondary centers,

including San Jose Mogote, which were large cities themselves, with substantial public

architecture. Tertiary centers were smaller settlements with public architecture, and below this

were small villages without public architecture. The expansion of population and governmental

structures was underwritten by the cultivation of Oaxaca’s piedmont slopes via irrigation.

Although small in absolute scale, the irrigation works expanded production by allowing multiple

crops to be grown during the year.

In the second half of the Late Formative (200 BCE - 250 CE) the city of Monte Alban may

have suffered population loss, but its public buildings increased. The area of the Great Plaza was

leveled, and Building J was constructed at its south end. Building J contains a number of panels

with hieroglyphic inscriptions, which may include the names of cities conquered by Monte Alban.

If that interpretation is correct, the territory governed by Monte Alban extended beyond the

Valley of Oaxaca to the Canada de Cuicatlan, 100 km to the north.

Maya Lowlands

Although evidence for increasing urbanization and political centralization is found

throughout the Maya lowlands in the Late Formative period, the most significant events took

place in the Mirador Basin, located in the northern lowlands of modern Guatemala. Within the

Mirador Basin, several centers emerged in a competitive landscape during the Middle Formative

period, with Nakbe was the largest among them and probably the most important ritual center.

The Late Formative period saw the consolidation of the Mirador Basin into a single polity, with its

center at the site of El Mirador (Hansen 2001).

El Mirador has massive ceremonial core of over 2 km and contained two great acropoli.2

The 73 m-high Danta complex at the lay east end of the site, while at the west end of the site rose

the 53 m-high Tigre Complex. A smaller elevated complex, the Central Acropolis, lies between

those larger complexes. As many as 15 smaller complexes at El Mirador repeat the triadic

arrangement of temples typical of the Late Preclassic period. Hundreds of residential platforms lie

around the ceremonial core, and the overall extent of El Mirador may be as large as 16 km2

(Hansen 2001; Demarest 2006).

The area controlled by El Mirador probably included the entirety of the Mirador Basin,

over 2000 km , in what was probably a four-tiered settlement hierarchy. Five raised causeways,2

up to 24m wide and 4 m in height, connected El Mirador to secondary centers within the basin.

The largest causeway, which runs to the site of Tintal, is over 40 km in length.

The growth of El Mirador in population and wealth was based on intensive agriculture that

used artificial terraces filled with organic-rich mud harvested from seasonal swamps. Phytolith

analysis indicates that maize, gourds, palms, and undetermined fruit trees were planted both in

large fields and in smaller plots within the site center.

Other large lowland Maya centers with Late Preclassic monumental architecture include

Cerros and Lamanai in Northern Belize, Becan in southern Quintana Roo, San Bartolo and Cival

in northeastern Peten (Estrada-Belli 2010). Each of these sites has a Late Preclassic floresence

followed by permanent or temporary abandonment. Large-scale defensive moats and walls at

Cerros, Becan and Cival boasted large-scale defensive moats or stone walls, which highlight the

increasing militarism of the time. Other very large Late Formative occupations are now

recognized through the Maya lowlands, but they are often deeply buried at sites occupied during

the Classic period. In addition to the sites already mentioned, important Late Formative

occupations are known at Tikal, Ceibal, Altar de Sacrificios, Calakmul, Rio Azul, Yaxha,

Naranjo, Caracol and Cahal Pech.

The Southern Maya region In the Late Formative

During the Late Formative period the highlands and Pacific coast of Guatemala (known as

the Southern Maya Region) was filled by large settlements, the largest of which were true cities

and the capitals of small states. These city-states were linked by local and long-distance trade

systems and shared many elements of material culture. The early states of the Southern Region

(Kaminaljuyu, Takalik Abaj, El Ujuxte, and Izapa and possibly others) are best considered as city-

states, or micro-states, with sustaining hinterlands generally under 1000 km . Of these many state2

polities, the best documented are Kaminaljuyu and El Ujuxte.

Kaminaljuyu

Kaminaljuyu was the largest of the the Southern Maya city-states, both in terms of territory

governed and its overall influence with in the region. The core area of Kaminaljuyu was at least 8

km . Within the core zone monumental architecture was extensive during the Late Preclassic2

period, with the largest single structure being the 20 m tall E-III-3 pyramid (Shook and Kidder

1952).

The evidence of social stratification and rulership at Kaminaljuyu are impressive, with

dozens of representations of powerful individuals in art (Figure 7) and from the two royal tombs

excavated in Mound E-III-3 (Shook and Kidder 1952). Urbanization at Kaminaljuyu may have

been supported by intensive agricultural systems feed by an 8 Km long aqueduct known as the

Montículo de la Culebra (Ohi 1994). Other canals from Lake Miraflores fed small plots of

furrowed fields (Popenoe de Hatch 1997).

Kaminaljuyu’s political sphere included most of the Valley of Guatemala, encompassing

approximately 1200 km area. Settlements within this political sphere there was a five-tiered2

hierarchy, with the first four having some form of public architecture. The secondary centers

shared a common ground plan with multiple plazas and an orientation of the site axes at 21

degrees east of true north. Both the second and third-level centers have plain stone monuments,

but lack the portraits of rulers that are so abundant at Kaminaljuyu (Love 2010).

El Ujuxte

At the southwestern extreme of the Southern Maya Region the site of El Ujxute developed

after the decline of La Blanca at about 600 BC. El Ujuxte was built as a planned city, with most

buildings within the 4 km core zone conforming to a grid with an orientation of 39 degrees east2

of true north. At the heart of the city was a ceremonial acropolis with seven temples and another

monumental temple pyramid approximately 22 m in height. Beyond the core zone lie areas of

habitation covering at least another 3 km , but the site may be as large as 9 km . 2 2

The El Ujuxte polity included approximately 600 km , encompassing at least five, and2

possibly six, levels. The secondary centers of the polity have small-scale copies of El Ujuxte’s

ceremonial core, while the third and fourth-level sites have other forms of public architecture.

Interaction and High Culture in the Late Formative Period

Frequently described as a time of increased regionalization, the Late Formative period

actually shows continued intense interaction and trade all across Mesoamerica. Increasing

interaction is notable especially in the areas of high culture, including art, calendrics, writing, and

political ideologies.

Although there are regional styles, stone sculpture in Mesoamerica’s Late Formative

period emphasizes a number of shared themes wherever it is found, especially the representation

of myth, links of rulers to a myth of creation, and the performance of ritual. Late Preclassic

depictions of rulers share a distinctive visual system of communication that cut across ethnic and

linguistic boundaries (Guernsey 2010). The creation of public art displayed in formally arranged

civic centers formed by monumental buildings was widespread in the Late Preclassic period in all

regions of Mesoamerica outside of the Basin of Mexico. Other artistic media, such as the San

Bartolo murals shared the same vocabulary of images.

Visual imagery and oral performance were the principal means for the communication of

political ideology during the Formative period, but texts came to occupy an important role by the

Late Formative. Early forms of writing on monuments, especially in the use of calendrical dates,

names, and some icons, probably date to at least the latter part of the Middle Formative period,

but in the Late Formative the use notational systems linked to language begin to spread. At least

three phonetically based scripts develop by the Late Formative: the Zapotecan script in Oaxaca

(phonetic at least in part), the Isthmian Script (linked to the Mixe-Zoquean languages) in the Gulf

Coast, Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and Pacific Coast, and Mayan scripts in the Lowlands and

Highlands. Readings have been proposed for the Zapotec and Isthmian scripts, but are not

universally accepted. The Preclassic Mayan scripts have been generally attributed to a Cholan

language, but do not conform to the Classic period Mayan scripts; hence, they are not completely

deciphered, although some graphemes can be read and some limited phonetic reading can be

made.

Although these three scripts are each linked to a distinct spoken language, they share many

iconographic elements and in some respects show common elements of format (Macri 2010). It is

clear from these similarities that scribes and other intellectual elites in most of Mesoamerica knew

of one another and through some means shared ideas, just as artisans in the various regions shared

sculptural techniques and iconographic standards.

The use of calendrical notations on monuments also became widespread in the Late

Formative, although the calendars themselves may be much more ancient. The use of dots to

represent the number 1 and bars to represent the number 5 was nearly universal in Mesoamerica

and presumably goes back long before the time they first appear on stone. The 260 day sacred

almanac and 365 day solar calendar also undoubtedly antedate their first appearances on

monuments; together these formed the Calendar Round, which cycled every 52 years. Although

each region used its own language to name the days and months of these respective calendars, in

structure they were the same throughout Mesoamerica.

A Late Formative innovation was the Long Count, used in the Mayan and Isthmian

regions. The Long Count begins at a mythical date of creation, generally placed at August 13,

3114 BCE. From this date the Long Count literally counts the number of days since the creation,

using a largely vigesimal system of calculation. The earliest use of the Long Count is on a series

of monuments dating to the first century BCE, and occur in an arc stretching from the Gulf Coast

(Tres Zapotes) through the highlands of Chiapas (Chiapa de Corzo) and down the Pacific coastal

slope (Takalik Abaj and El Baul). Tres Zapotes Stela C is arguably an Epi-Olmec monument, but

the remaining examples are often described as Maya in style, although they occur in what was

likely a zone of intense ethnic interaction.

The purpose of the Long Count was probably two-fold. First, it served to link literate elites

to the act of creation. That link became a powerful ideological tool, as rulers claimed that their

actions in ritual were analogous to those of gods at the time of creation, as demonstrated by the

San Bartolo murals. Second, the Long Count provided a mathematical system by which to

calculate the number of days between events, something that was especially useful in determining

the intervals between astronomical phenomena. Astronomical knowledge, and the ability to

predict celestial phenomena became key tools of political power at this time.

List of Figures

1. Map

2. Building 6 at Paso de la Amada

3. Early temple pyramids a) La Blanca Mound 1 b) La Venta Mound C-1

4. La Blanca Monument 3

5. Chalcatzingo Monument 1

6. El Baul Stela 1.