Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, eds. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. 343 pp.
Reviewed by Jenna Wallace Coplin
Since
Matthew Sterling investigated reports of a great eye staring up from
the floor of the jungle, Olmec art has enthralled researchers,
curators, and museum visitors alike. Sterling’s work built interest in,
and sparked exploration of, the material components of that, which
decades later, is still a poorly understood archaeological culture.
Titled “Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica: Social Complexity in
the Formative Period,” a 1996 symposium held in Washington, D.C. was
designed to stimulate research and debate. Although not all papers
presented at this event are included in this publication, the book
retains the spirit of the conference and its papers cover a variety of
debated topics. Considering research issues such as frontiers, the
environment, and Olmec-produced versus Olmec-style art, researchers,
directly and indirectly, address many of the most long-standing debates
in Mesoamerican archaeology by adding new data and fresh perspectives
to the literature.
The
volume was produced in conjunction with an exhibit at the National
Gallery of Art, which was on view from June to October 1996. It is
divided into three sections: “Archaeology in the Heartland,”
“Archaeology in the Hinterland,” and “Topics in Olmec Art.” Its
association with specific objects on display during the original
exhibit is unclear, but its relationship with readers is intentionally
transparent. In an intelligible summary of the region and its history
of works, the volume’s editors, John E. Clarke and Mary E. Pye, clarify
terminology and introduce the subsequent articles. Considering average
museum-goers and outside professionals alike, the authors make
chronological, regional, and disciplinary differences accessible.
Opposed
by a plate of Sterling measuring the eye of a colossal head from Tres
Zapotes decades earlier, Richard L. Diehl’s article furthers this
introduction. Asking clear questions about what stared him in the face,
Diehl addresses the still substantial gaps in knowledge about the
ever-silent Olmec. Were researchers any closer to understanding this
region now than in decades past? Although far from answering
long-standing questions, Diehl suggests researchers not be “deter(ed)
from asking more and better questions” (p. 25).
In
their effort to ask better questions, one clear impediment acknowledged
by authors is a paucity of data. Archaeology is driven by the value of
context. The devastation of looting and loss to development in the
region is particularly evident in the Early Formative. Uncommon finds
like those described in Ponciano Ortiz and María Del Carmen Rodríguez’s
report from El Manatí offer researchers rare opportunities. Deposits of
in-situ wooden busts, rubber
balls, and jadite and greenstone axes suggest “elaborate rituals” and
multi-“community participation” (p. 91). Intact deposits at Merced
(also documented here by Rodríguez and Ortiz) also reinforce the
importance of data from sacred locations within the heartland (p. 155).
The archaeological record is not now unintelligible, but researchers
still lack a greater body of data for comparison.
How
did the Gulf Olmec form? Are they the source of the iconographic
representation so often associated with them or are they just one among
many? Most participants put forth ideas; many used these dialogs to
broaden discussion of other topics such as complexity, social
inequality, participation, trade, and transference of ideas and
ideology. Stark’s discussion of degrees of openness present in Olmec
communities acknowledges, “(w)e are still far from any resolution about
how to account for the development of Gulf Olmec society…”(p. 45). If
we consider, as she suggests, a more culturally open society, then
“early centers faced prevailing conditions different from most of later
prehistory” (p. 34).
Barbara
L. Starke, Stacey Symonds, Philip J. Arnold, Christine Niederberger,
Ortiz and Rodríguez, and others encourage a broader understanding of
the expansive Olmec environment and its impact on the people of the
region. Starke laments how “poorly aware the profession has remained
about the environmental context of the Gulf Olmec…” (p. 34). Ortiz and
Rodríguez discuss misinterpretation of the Olmec relationship with
available water and its impact on interpretation of symbolic, ritual
behavior. At El Manatí, “the most critical thing may have been too much
water, with its attendant dangers…”, not a dearth warranting solicitous
offerings (p. 91). Arnold challenges “the degree to which the available
evidence indicates that corn farming was the dominant component of
Early Formative Gulf lowlands subsistence” (p. 118) as agriculture has
often been assumed the necessary base for social complexity, and for
the Olmec this meant corn. Arnold feels that complexity may involve a
multiplicity of
stimuli and that subsistence practices are questionable as a causative
factor when discussing formative complexity in the region (p. 120).
Consideration
of the environment is not strictly physical but also social. Arnold
points out that so much of what is known about the Olmec relates
specifically to the cores of the two most well-known sites (p. 121).
Explorations of the hinterlands of these sites as well as regions
outside these two foci are presented with expansive results. Work at
sites from outside the Olmec heartland include the Basin of Mexico and
the Pacific coast including Mazatán. Niederberger’s work in the Basin
of Mexico suggests trade needs to be considered from the more complex
lattice-like perspective of those such as Arthur Demarest who
emphasizes multidirectional paths (p. 187). Richard G. Leisure’s work
in Mazatan additionally suggests the “ideologies of social
inequalities” developing in the Formative period was not solely an
import (p. 245).
Research
on Formative period Olmec requires consideration of art, style, and
iconographic representation. Although the writing styles of individual
authors are starkly different, the goals of the original symposium make
their inclusion seem essential for a broader understanding of what
Beatriz De La Fuente called the first Mesoamerican art (p. 253). As
David C. Grove suggests, to better understand what is Olmec about
Olmec-style art, one must understand what is not Olmec and look to
sites outside the heartland to help make that definition clear (p. 292).
If
you are looking for answers to questions such as, Who were the Olmec?,
What were the boundaries of their realm?, How did they define social
complexity?, or even, What meaning underlay the intricacies of their
artwork?, look elsewhere. If you are looking for the posing of
complicated questions, examinations of a wide variety of Olmec-focused
topics, and a lot of compelling arguments, then you may find this
volume more to your liking. Although the collection runs the gamut on
academic topics, it still provides valuable access points for
interested readers.
Jenna
Wallace Coplin teaches in the Department of Anthropology at Hofstra
University. Her research has focused on pre-contact and contact Native
Americans in the southeast, as well as, more recently, historic
archaeology in the northeast. Among her research topics are the
workings of antiquities markets, especially the trade in archaeological
objects.