API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
jonstond2

Olmec Art (Art History)

jonstond2
Mar 15th, 2018
135
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 67.23 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Introduction
  2. The Olmec art style was the major prestige style of Ancient Mesoamerica between c. 1,500 BCE and 400 BCE, or much of the Mesoamerican Formative (Preclassic) period (or c. 1500–400 BCE calibrated). Scholars have successfully defined the stylistic elements of Olmec art, the most important of which is the tendency to exhibit a monumentality of form in objects of all sizes, including small portable objects. This monumentality is accomplished largely through a focus on essential forms and smooth surfaces. Olmec artists were interested mainly in the general human form and certain supernatural creatures. Humans and supernaturals were represented in assured and highly conventionalized forms, with a great interest in general naturalism but little interest in the small detail. What details there are tend to define specific supernatural traits, specific elements of elite costume, and at times gender. There is little interest in a setting or background; the surrounding urban space seems to have provided the context understood by the audience, at least in the case of monumental art. Olmec art style was not defined until the mid-20th century. In addition to an art style, the term “Olmec” is often used to define a civilization. This has led to some confusion surrounding the term, as noted by numerous scholars. In many sources, Olmec is shorthand for the civilization that arose in the lowlands of southern Veracruz and Tabasco during the Formative period. These sites, the first urban capitals in Ancient Mesoamerica, produced a rich corpus of monumental and portable art that serves as the basis for the definition of the art style. The art style is not limited to this “heartland” area, however, and its appearance elsewhere has sparked vigorous debate on the nature of the heartland Olmec relation with other Mesoamerican peoples.
  3.  
  4. General Overview
  5. An enormous number of works treat Olmec art, but few of these focus solely on the art. Instead, most overviews conflate the art style and the iconography found in the urban capitals to say something about the rise of civilization in the Ancient Americas. While Olmec art found in the early urban capitals may be used as evidence for theories of the advent of complex civilization, a significant amount of Olmec art seems to have been found outside these cities, and it is doubtful that provincial objects should be used as evidence for the rise of urbanity without significant corollary relations (see San Lorenzo Fine Ceramics and Mesoamerica for a key case where these matters are tested). Caso 1942 first attempts a synthesis of the known corpus of art objects, followed by Covarrubias 1946 and Covarrubias 1957. Milbrath 1979 is unusual in its exclusive focus on formal traits. A key work for Olmec style as a discrete object of study is Coe 1965, which synthesizes information from archaeology and art history in what is still an important statement. De la Fuente 1994, de la Fuente 1996, and de la Fuente 2008 explore basic themes and diagnostic characteristics. Pye 2012 follows on these publications with a succinct update of basic themes and characteristics. Clewlow 1967 is a detailed look at one of the most important and striking formats for Olmec art. Grove 2010 is a concise introduction to art outside the heartland.
  6.  
  7. Caso, Alfonso. “Definición y extensión del complejo ‘Olmeca.’” In Mayas y Olmecas: Segunda reunión de Mesa Redonda sobre Promblemas Antropológicos de México y Centro América. 43–46. Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, 1942.
  8.  
  9. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  10.  
  11. Fundamental early definition of Olmec style.
  12.  
  13. Find this resource:
  14.  
  15. Clewlow, C. William, ed. Colossal Heads of the Olmec Culture. Contributions, No. 4. Berkeley: University of California, Archaeological Research Facility, 1967.
  16.  
  17. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  18.  
  19. Detailed study of the twelve Colossal Heads then known.
  20.  
  21. Find this resource:
  22.  
  23. Coe, Michael D. “The Olmec Style and Its Distributions.” In Handbook of Middle American Indians. Edited by Gordon R. Willey, 739–775. Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica 3. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1965.
  24.  
  25. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  26.  
  27. A succinct historiography of the study of Olmec art to 1960 combined with an important early summary statement on the general nature of Olmec style and its place in Mesoamerican prehistory.
  28.  
  29. Find this resource:
  30.  
  31. Covarrubias, Miguel. Mexico South: The Isthmus of Tehuantepec. New York: Knopf, 1946.
  32.  
  33. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  34.  
  35. Author’s first attempt at a synthetic statement on Olmec art. Focuses on what he views as a “were-jaguar” as the chief deity in the Olmec pantheon.
  36.  
  37. Find this resource:
  38.  
  39. Covarrubias, Miguel. Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. New York: Knopf, 1957.
  40.  
  41. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  42.  
  43. Opulently illustrated section on Olmec art with a hypothesis on the meaning of the ubiquitous supernatural as a “were-jaguar” rain deity. His tendency to see a cultural evolution out of Olmec civilization to later Mesoamerican peoples is the genesis of the “mother culture” hypothesis.
  44.  
  45. Find this resource:
  46.  
  47. de la Fuente, Beatríz. Escultura monumental Olmeca: Catálogo. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma de México, 1973.
  48.  
  49. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  50.  
  51. Exhaustive catalogue of Olmec sculpture known to that time.
  52.  
  53. Find this resource:
  54.  
  55. de la Fuente, Beatríz. “Arte monumental Olmeca.” In Los Olmecas en Mesoamérica. Edited by John E. Clark and Rafael Doniz, 203–221. Mexico City: Citibank, 1994.
  56.  
  57. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  58.  
  59. Synthesizes over twenty years of work on the characteristics of Olmec style.
  60.  
  61. Find this resource:
  62.  
  63. de la Fuente, Beatríz. “Homocentrism in Olmec Monumental Art.” In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, 41–51. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1996.
  64.  
  65. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  66.  
  67. Defines several themes in Olmec monumental sculpture: Supernaturals, Single Human Figures, Twins, and Colossal Heads.
  68.  
  69. Find this resource:
  70.  
  71. de la Fuente, Beatríz. “Puede un estilo definir una cultura?” In Olmeca: Balance y perspectivas: Memoria de la Primera Mesa Redonda. Edited by María Teresa Uriarte and Rebecca B. González Lauck, 25–38. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2008.
  72.  
  73. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  74.  
  75. Treats the relationship of Olmec art style and Olmec culture.
  76.  
  77. Find this resource:
  78.  
  79. Grove, David C. “Olmec-Style Art outside Olman.” In Olmec: Colossal Masterworks of Ancient Mexico. Edited by Kathleen Berrin and Virginia Fields, 68–75. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.
  80.  
  81. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  82.  
  83. Useful brief essay on the appearance of Olmec style outside the heartland of southern Veracruz and Tabasco.
  84.  
  85. Find this resource:
  86.  
  87. Milbrath, Susan. A Study of Olmec Sculptural Chronology. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 23. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, 1979.
  88.  
  89. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  90.  
  91. Attempts a seriation of the monumental art through largely formal criteria.
  92.  
  93. Find this resource:
  94.  
  95. Pye, Mary E. “Themes in the Art of the Preclassic Period.” In The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology. Edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Christopher A. Pool, 795–806. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  96.  
  97. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390933.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  98.  
  99. Broad overview of Formative-period art that focuses on the Olmec and synthesizes many of the important themes in recent scholarship.
  100.  
  101. Find this resource:
  102.  
  103. Reference Works
  104. There are no major reference works solely devoted to Olmec art, but significant portions of Ancient Mesoamerican reference works are given over to the subject and included here. Reference works fall into two major categories: those that focus on themes and broad overviews, and those that give concise information on sites. The relevant articles in Carrasco 2001 and Nichols and Pool 2012 are broad in scope, while Evans and Webster 2001 provides more site-specific information.
  105.  
  106. Carrasco, David, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  107.  
  108. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  109.  
  110. Information on Olmec art and civilization found throughout the three volumes. Contains a useful index.
  111.  
  112. Find this resource:
  113.  
  114. Evans, Susan Toby, and David L. Webster, eds. Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland, 2001.
  115.  
  116. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  117.  
  118. Especially helpful for the site-specific entries for many Olmec centers. Concise bibliographies follow each entry.
  119.  
  120. Find this resource:
  121.  
  122. Nichols, Deborah L., and Christopher A. Pool, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  123.  
  124. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390933.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  125.  
  126. Thematic entries with sophisticated approaches to social processes.
  127.  
  128. Find this resource:
  129.  
  130. Exhibition and Collection Catalogs
  131. Sometimes derided as superficial, exhibitions and their catalogs have nevertheless produced some of the most durable and often-consulted publications on Olmec art. The amount of portable art in all materials brought together by these publications is unique. Easby and Scott 1970 introduced Olmec style to the larger public. Guthrie 1995 is the most detailed treatment of iconography, while Benson and de la Fuente 1996 contains more robust archaeological chapters. Castro-Leal 1996 details the most important public collection. Berrin and Fields 2010 was written for the most general museum audience by significant experts, and thus is a good place to start. Taube 2004 is a masterwork of careful and detailed research on a single important collection.
  132.  
  133. Benson, Elizabeth P., and Beatriz de la Fuente, eds. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1996.
  134.  
  135. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  136.  
  137. A highly useful group of detailed synthetic essays on several key Olmec sites and artistic themes.
  138.  
  139. Find this resource:
  140.  
  141. Berrin, Kathleen, and Virginia Fields, eds. Olmec: Colossal Masterworks of Ancient Mexico. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.
  142.  
  143. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  144.  
  145. A highly synthetic catalogue with succinct overview articles focusing on Olmec style in the heartland of Veracruz and Tabasco.
  146.  
  147. Find this resource:
  148.  
  149. Castro-Leal, Marcia. “The Olmec Collections of the National Museum of Anthropology.” In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, 139–144. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1996.
  150.  
  151. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  152.  
  153. Useful ordered list of Olmec archaeological projects that have produced materials for the National Museum.
  154.  
  155. Find this resource:
  156.  
  157. Easby, Elizabeth Kennedy, and John F. Scott, eds. Before Cortés, Sculpture of Middle America: A Centennial Exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art from September 30, 1970 through January 3, 1971. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1970.
  158.  
  159. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  160.  
  161. Major early exhibition of Mesoamerican art that placed Olmec art in a prominent position.
  162.  
  163. Find this resource:
  164.  
  165. Guthrie, Jill, ed. The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. Princeton, NJ: Art Museum, Princeton University, 1995.
  166.  
  167. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  168.  
  169. Lavishly illustrated volume with detailed iconographic arguments and a strong sense of the legacy of Olmec symbolism for later Mesoamerican image systems.
  170.  
  171. Find this resource:
  172.  
  173. Taube, Karl A. Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2004.
  174.  
  175. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  176.  
  177. An exhaustive account of one of the most important collections of small-scale Olmec sculpture.
  178.  
  179. Find this resource:
  180.  
  181. Conference Proceedings
  182. Some of the most important scholarship on the Olmec has been distributed during conference proceedings. Especially important are the activities of Dumbarton Oaks, a research center with a special interest in the Olmec, stemming from their significant holdings of Olmec art. Benson 1968 and Benson 1981 helped define the field of Olmec studies, especially for North American scholars. Uriarte and González Lauck 2008 brings the scholarship up to date, especially from a Mexican perspective. Mayas y Olmecas: Segunda reunión de Mesa Redonda sobre Problemas Antropológicos de México y Centro América is interesting primarily for its historiographic value.
  183.  
  184. Benson, Elizabeth P., ed. Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1968.
  185.  
  186. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  187.  
  188. This volume synthesizes the data and debates around the rise of Olmec civilization just as the San Lorenzo material was coming to light.
  189.  
  190. Find this resource:
  191.  
  192. Benson, Elizabeth P., ed. The Olmec & Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, 1981.
  193.  
  194. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  195.  
  196. Follow-up to the critical 1968 Dumbarton Oaks conference on the Olmec. This book extends coverage to areas not treated in the initial volume.
  197.  
  198. Find this resource:
  199.  
  200. Mayas y Olmecas: Segunda reunión de Mesa Redonda sobre Problemas Antropológicos de México y Centro América. Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, 1942.
  201.  
  202. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  203.  
  204. The round table that established the Olmec phenomenon in the scholarly world. The Olmec as “mother culture” of Mesoamerica was here first expounded at length.
  205.  
  206. Find this resource:
  207.  
  208. Uriarte, María Teresa, and Rebecca B. González Lauck, eds. Olmeca: Balance y perspectivas: Memoria de la Primera Mesa Redonda. 1st ed. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2008.
  209.  
  210. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  211.  
  212. Recent work by archaeologists and art historians in Mexico.
  213.  
  214. Find this resource:
  215.  
  216. Bibliographies
  217. Bibliographies of Mesoamerican studies contain the full range of Olmec materials. Bernal 1962 is encyclopedic and has been the standard source for earlier works. Winfield Capitaine 1997 updates that source and is especially strong in materials by Veracruz scholars. Kendall 1977 contains helpful annotations and Jones 1963 is the most focused bibliography available.
  218.  
  219. Bernal, Ignacio. Bibliografia de arqueología y etnografía: Mesoamérica y Norte de México, 1514–1960. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia Memorias 7. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 1962.
  220.  
  221. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  222.  
  223. Best bibliographic source for all materials before 1960.
  224.  
  225. Find this resource:
  226.  
  227. Jones, Julie. Bibliography for Olmec Sculpture. Primitive Art Bibliographies 2. New York: Library, Museum of Primitive Art, 1963.
  228.  
  229. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  230.  
  231. Small work that has the advantage of focusing exclusively on Olmec art.
  232.  
  233. Find this resource:
  234.  
  235. Kendall, Aubyn. The Art and Archaeology of Pre-Columbian Middle America: An Annotated Bibliography of Works in English. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1977.
  236.  
  237. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  238.  
  239. Limited to English-language works and now somewhat out of date, but useful for the annotations to each work.
  240.  
  241. Find this resource:
  242.  
  243. Winfield Capitaine, Fernando. Bibliografia arqueologica de Veracruz. 1st ed. Xalapa, Mexico: Universidad Veracruzana, 1997.
  244.  
  245. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  246.  
  247. Especially strong in materials published in Mexico. Here you will find references to rare works coming out of the important Anthropology Department of the University of Veracruz.
  248.  
  249. Find this resource:
  250.  
  251. Journals
  252. Research on the Olmec may be found in most important journals of archaeology, but Olmec art is treated mainly in the sole journal targeted to Mesoamerican art historians and archaeologists, Ancient Mesoamerica.
  253.  
  254. Ancient Mesoamerica. 1990–.
  255.  
  256. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  257.  
  258. A journal dedicated exclusively to scholarly work on the Olmec, Maya, and other Ancient Mesoamerican cultures.
  259.  
  260. Find this resource:
  261.  
  262. The Olmec Civilization
  263. These works include the art in larger discussions of Olmec civilization. Diehl 2004 is written for the general reader and is exceptionally useful, while Pool 2007 and Diehl 2000 are more detailed syntheses. Clark focuses on the social configuration of Olmec society and what role art played in that configuration. Piña Chan 1989 is well illustrated. Grove 1981 is a concise and efficient introduction.
  264.  
  265. Clark, J. E. “The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica.” Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1997): 211–234.
  266.  
  267. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.211Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  268.  
  269. Important description of the social role of monumental art and iconography in the rise of sacred kingship.
  270.  
  271. Find this resource:
  272.  
  273. Diehl, Richard A. “The Precolumbian Cultures of the Gulf Coast.” In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Edited by Richard E. W. Adams and Murdo MacLeod, 156–196. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  274.  
  275. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  276.  
  277. Concise synthesis of Olmec historical development by an archaeologist with long-term experience. Includes a bibliographic essay.
  278.  
  279. Find this resource:
  280.  
  281. Diehl, Richard A. The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004.
  282.  
  283. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  284.  
  285. Best synthetic overview of the monuments, their history, and the archaeological context.
  286.  
  287. Find this resource:
  288.  
  289. Grove, David C. “The Formative Period and the Evolution of Complex Culture.” In The Handbook of Middle American Indians. Supplement 1. Edited by Victoria Reifler Bricker, 373–391. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.
  290.  
  291. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  292.  
  293. Complete synthetic view of the Olmec and other Formative cultures by a major figure in the discovery and explanation of highland Formative cultures.
  294.  
  295. Find this resource:
  296.  
  297. Piña Chan, Román. The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica. New York: Rizzoli, 1989.
  298.  
  299. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  300.  
  301. Excellent source of illustrations of Olmec artworks; the text is celebratory and somewhat outdated.
  302.  
  303. Find this resource:
  304.  
  305. Pool, Christopher A. Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  306.  
  307. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139167147Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  308.  
  309. Nuanced, balanced treatment of the Olmec heartland and relations with other areas of Mesoamerica.
  310.  
  311. Find this resource:
  312.  
  313. Historiography
  314. Scholars have always been interested in the genesis of Olmec scholarship and the early scholarly personalities who first gave the field its shape. Beverido 1987 and Benson 1996 are indispensable guides to the entire range of early scholarly activities. Diehl 1989 is a more specific look at the history of certain intellectual and archaeological issues raised by Olmec studies. Stirling 1968 is an engaging personal reminiscence from one of the original eyewitnesses.
  315.  
  316. Benson, Elizabeth P. “History of Olmec Investigations.” In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, 17–28. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1996.
  317.  
  318. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  319.  
  320. Clear, concise history of publications on Olmec objects from the discovery of the first Olmec head in the mid-19th century to the publication of the chapter in the mid-1990s.
  321.  
  322. Find this resource:
  323.  
  324. Beverido, Francisco. “Breve historia de la arqueología Olmeca.” La Palabra y El Hombre 64 (1987): 161–194.
  325.  
  326. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  327.  
  328. Detailed guide to archaeological projects and information on monuments, including poorly published regional projects.
  329.  
  330. Find this resource:
  331.  
  332. Diehl, Richard A. “Olmec Archaeology: What We Know and What We Wish We Knew.” In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. Edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove, 17–32. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
  333.  
  334. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  335.  
  336. Account of evidence for the rise of Olmec civilization, and how the inferences from that evidence have been used in various scholarly arguments.
  337.  
  338. Find this resource:
  339.  
  340. Stirling, Matthew W. “Early History of the Olmec Problem.” In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Edited by Elizabeth P Benson, 1–8. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1968.
  341.  
  342. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  343.  
  344. First-person account of the early Smithsonian work in the Olmec heartland of southern Veracruz and Tabasco.
  345.  
  346. Find this resource:
  347.  
  348. Early Notices
  349. While Olmec art studies could be said to begin with the discovery of the first Colossal Head in the mid-19th century, modern Olmec studies find their genesis in the Tulane expedition of the mid-1920s, headed by Blom and La Farge (see Blom and La Farge 1926). Saville was an earlier commentator, and Saville 1929 synthesized many of his insights, including the idea that the major Olmec supernatural was based on a jaguar, at least in the area of the mouth. The Olmec “were-jaguar” was to have a long life in Olmec iconographic studies. Matthew Stirling followed in the footsteps of Blom and La Farge and greatly expanded the record of the heartland area (see Stirling 1943 and Stirling 1955).
  350.  
  351. Blom, Frans Ferdinand, and Oliver La Farge. Tribes and Temples: A Record of the Expedition to Middle America. New Orleans: Tulane University of Louisiana, 1926.
  352.  
  353. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  354.  
  355. First extended treatment of Olmec materials at La Venta, including a Colossal Head, several other monuments, and a rough plan of the site. The authors did not use the term “Olmec” for these materials, for the term would become current only later that decade with the work of Marshall Saville.
  356.  
  357. Find this resource:
  358.  
  359. Saville, Marshall H. Votive Axes from Ancient Mexico. New York: Museum of the American Indian, 1929.
  360.  
  361. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  362.  
  363. One of the earliest works to use the term “Olmec” for the group of objects we now recognize as Olmec in style. Discusses the famous Kunz Axe and related objects. Saville identifies a cleft-headed Olmec supernatural seen throughout the Olmec corpus. He then associates this figure with a tiger, the first instance of what will become the “were-jaguar” iconographic identification of this figure.
  364.  
  365. Find this resource:
  366.  
  367. Stirling, Matthew Williams. Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1943.
  368.  
  369. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  370.  
  371. Initial description of Tres Zapotes and La Venta; also contains Classic-period material.
  372.  
  373. Find this resource:
  374.  
  375. Stirling, Matthew W. Stone Monuments of Rio Chiquito, Veracruz, Mexico. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1955.
  376.  
  377. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  378.  
  379. An early description of the San Lorenzo area with five Colossal Heads and fifteen other monuments.
  380.  
  381. Find this resource:
  382.  
  383. San Lorenzo
  384. The site of San Lorenzo and its associated outliers was a latecomer to Olmec studies but is foundational for the study of Olmec art. San Lorenzo is the earliest Olmec capital yet found, and the development of several key Olmec art traits seems to have developed first here. Coe 1968 sets the stage for all later studies, and Coe and Diehl 1980 is one of the most important site reports in all Mesoamerican archaeology. Coe, et al. 1967 is an excellent summary of the dating issues at the site. Ann Cyphers Guillén has done much recent work (see Cyphers Guillén 2004) and has systematized study of Olmec sculptural placement (see also her work in the section Process and Meaning in Olmec Sculpture). Ortiz Ceballos and Rodríguez 2000 describes a key hinterland cache.
  385.  
  386. Coe, Michael D. “San Lorenzo and the Olmec Civilization.” In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Edited by Elizabeth P Benson, 41–78. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1968.
  387.  
  388. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  389.  
  390. Clear and efficient synthesis of the first two seasons at San Lorenzo, with most of the major monuments and many of the radiocarbon dates described. Argues that San Lorenzo was a state-level society.
  391.  
  392. Find this resource:
  393.  
  394. Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl. In the Land of the Olmec. 2 vols. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980.
  395.  
  396. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  397.  
  398. Extensive site report on the earliest of the Olmec heartland capitals.
  399.  
  400. Find this resource:
  401.  
  402. Coe, Michael D., Richard A. Diehl, and Minze Stuiver. “Olmec Civilization, Veracruz, Mexico: Dating of the San Lorenzo Phase.” Science 155 (1967): 1399–1401.
  403.  
  404. DOI: 10.1126/science.155.3768.1399Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  405.  
  406. Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates for the early developments at San Lorenzo.
  407.  
  408. Find this resource:
  409.  
  410. Cyphers Guillén, Ann. Escultura Olmeca de San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2004.
  411.  
  412. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  413.  
  414. Examines over 150 stone sculptures from San Lorenzo and the surrounding area, providing much basic information on provenience and physical form.
  415.  
  416. Find this resource:
  417.  
  418. Ortiz Ceballos, Ponciano, and María del Carmen Rodriguez. “The Sacred Hill of Manatí: A Preliminary Discussion of the Site’s Ritual Paraphernalia.” In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Edited by John Clark and Mary E. Pye, 75–93. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2000.
  419.  
  420. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  421.  
  422. Description of an enormous cache of precious jades, preserved wood objects, and rubber balls, all found in a spring near San Lorenzo.
  423.  
  424. Find this resource:
  425.  
  426. San Lorenzo Fine Ceramics and Mesoamerica
  427. San Lorenzo produced fine white-slipped ceramics that were traded and emulated throughout Mesoamerica. How other Mesoamerican societies received this ware and the symbolism that went with it are still under debate. Blomster, et al. 2005; Blomster 2010; Cheetham 2010; Neff 2011; and Neff, et al. 2006 argue the primacy of San Lorenzo in Early Formative Mesoamerica, while Stoltman, et al. 2005 and Sharer, et al. 2006 view the San Lorenzo Olmec as one important player among many. This debate should be seen against the backdrop of the scholarship described in the section on the Olmec and Mesoamerica).
  428.  
  429. Blomster, Jeffrey P. “Complexity, Interaction, and Epistemology: Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Olmecs in Early Formative Mesoamerica.” Ancient Mesoamerica 21 (2010): 135–149.
  430.  
  431. DOI: 10.1017/S0956536110000039Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  432.  
  433. Synthesizes the debate on the presence and use of Olmec-style pottery in Oaxaca from the vantage of San Lorenzo. Argues that the early Olmec were at a higher level of sociocultural complexity than their trading partners in Oaxaca. Olmec ceramics were viewed as prestige wares by the Formative peoples of Oaxaca, while the reverse was not the case.
  434.  
  435. Find this resource:
  436.  
  437. Blomster, Jeffrey P., Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock. “Olmec Pottery Production and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined through Elemental Analysis.” Science 307 (2005): 1068–1072.
  438.  
  439. DOI: 10.1126/science.1107599Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  440.  
  441. Argues that San Lorenzo was the major producer of a fine white paste ceramic ware that was traded throughout Mesoamerica, while the site did not receive fine ceramics in return. Uses neutron activation to source the provenience of the carved-incised and white fine ceramics found throughout Mesoamerica. The authors find that most if not all these wares were made in San Lorenzo.
  442.  
  443. Find this resource:
  444.  
  445. Cheetham, David. “Cultural Imperatives in Clay: Early Olmec Carved Pottery from San Lorenzo and Cantón Corralito.” Ancient Mesoamerica 21 (2010): 165–185.
  446.  
  447. DOI: 10.1017/S0956536110000040Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  448.  
  449. Compares fine ceramics from San Lorenzo and Cantón Corralito, the latter far across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Canton Corralito fineware is found to be almost identical to San Lorenzo products, in ways that go beyond simple foreign emulation.
  450.  
  451. Find this resource:
  452.  
  453. Neff, Hector. “Evolution of the Mesoamerican Mother Culture.” Ancient Mesoamerica 22 (2011): 107–122.
  454.  
  455. DOI: 10.1017/S0956536111000150Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  456.  
  457. Uses costly signaling theory to discuss the rise of prestige art styles in the Olmec heartland. Explains the transition from prestige ceramics at San Lorenzo to prestige jade objects at La Venta via this theory.
  458.  
  459. Find this resource:
  460.  
  461. Neff, Hector, Jeffrey Blomster, Michael D. Glascock, et al. “Methodological Issues in the Provenance Investigation of Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics.” Latin American Antiquity 17 (2006): 54–76.
  462.  
  463. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  464.  
  465. Defends the methodology found in Blomster, et al. 2005 that allows the researchers to identify San Lorenzo as a major producer of fine ceramics.
  466.  
  467. Find this resource:
  468.  
  469. Sharer, Robert J., Andrew K. Balkansky, James H. Burton, et al. “On the Logic of Archaeological Inference: Early Formative Pottery and the Evolution of Mesoamerican Societies.” Latin American Antiquity 17 (2006): 90–103.
  470.  
  471. DOI: 10.2307/25063038Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  472.  
  473. Attempts to tease out the role of chemical signature data in the debate on the place of San Lorenzo in early Mesoamerica. Authors do not agree that Blomster, et al. 2005 was able to prove that San Lorenzo imported little fineware at the same time that it became Mesoamerica’s major fine ceramic exporter.
  474.  
  475. Find this resource:
  476.  
  477. Stoltman, James B., Joyce Marcus, Kent V. Flannery, James H. Burton, and Robert G. Moyle. “Petrographic Evidence Shows That Pottery Exchange between the Olmec and Their Neighbors Was Two-Way.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (2005): 11213–11218.
  478.  
  479. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0505117102Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  480.  
  481. Pits petrography versus neutron activation in the analysis of Early Formative trade patterns. The authors argue that the ceramic production of San Lorenzo lacks primacy.
  482.  
  483. Find this resource:
  484.  
  485. La Venta
  486. La Venta was the most important Olmec settlement during the Middle Formative period. Jade production rose dramatically here after its first appearance in San Lorenzo. Drucker 1952 is an initial statement, but Drucker, et al. 1959 is fundamental for understanding the site. That latter report needs the commentary found in Coe 1960 to be fully understood. González Lauck 1988 and González Lauck 2007 bring more specific data to the form and dating of the central pyramid and surrounding area. Gillespie 2008 focuses on the long construction period and the many possible transformations in meaning that could have gone into La Venta’s Complex A. Magaloni Kerpel and Filloy Nadal 2013 is an exemplary close reading by several scholars of one of the most enigmatic and important Olmec jade caches.
  487.  
  488. Coe, Michael D. “Review of Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955 by Philip Drucker; Robert F. Heizer; Robert J. Squier.” American Journal of Archaeology 64 (1960): 119–120.
  489.  
  490. DOI: 10.2307/502455Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  491.  
  492. Remarkably prescient short statement on the role of La Venta in Olmec civilization and the research questions that remain at the end of the extensive archaeological project by Robert Heizer and colleagues. Emphatically states the primacy of Olmec civilization in Mesoamerican prehistory.
  493.  
  494. Find this resource:
  495.  
  496. Drucker, Philip. La Venta, Tabasco: A Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art, with a Chapter on Structural Investigations in 1943. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 153. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1952.
  497.  
  498. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  499.  
  500. An early statement on a key site and its art.
  501.  
  502. Find this resource:
  503.  
  504. Drucker, Philip, Robert F. Heizer, and Robert J. Squier. Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1959.
  505.  
  506. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  507.  
  508. A report on the major season of excavation, when many of the more important caches and objects were found.
  509.  
  510. Find this resource:
  511.  
  512. Gillespie, Susan D. “History in Practice: Ritual Deposition at La Venta Complex A.” In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices. Edited by Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker, 109–136. School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research, 2008.
  513.  
  514. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  515.  
  516. Reviews the evidence for the sequence of building at La Venta, focusing on Complex A. Notes that many readings of the complex do not take into account the long time frame of construction or the possible transformations of the message over the long period. Argues that La Venta Complex A has been presented as a unified “image” by archaeologists, instead of a long series of events.
  517.  
  518. Find this resource:
  519.  
  520. González Lauck, Rebecca B. “Proyecto arqueológico La Venta.” Arqueología 4 (1988): 121–165.
  521.  
  522. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  523.  
  524. Provides a new map of the site and describes new monuments found at the center.
  525.  
  526. Find this resource:
  527.  
  528. González Lauck, Rebecca B. “El complejo a La Venta.” Arqueología Mexicana 15.87 (2007): 49–54.
  529.  
  530. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  531.  
  532. Briefly reviews the enormous system of caches under Complex A and discusses the large investment in the platform.
  533.  
  534. Find this resource:
  535.  
  536. Magaloni Kerpel, Diana, and Laura Filloy Nadal, eds. La Ofrenda 4 de La Venta: Un tesoro Olmeca reunido en el Museo Nacional de Antropología: Estudios y catálogo razonado. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 2013.
  537.  
  538. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  539.  
  540. A detailed examination of one of the most complex and mysterious Olmec jade caches.
  541.  
  542. Find this resource:
  543.  
  544. The Olmec and Mesoamerica
  545. Much work on Olmec art is driven by the desire to understand the role of the Olmec in the development of Mesoamerican civilization, both during the Formative period and after. Included here are general or particularly broad works that may serve as introduction to the question of the Olmec role in Mesoamerican civilization. More focused works may be found under the particular regional headings. Sharer and Grove 1989 provides the argument against the primacy of the heartland Olmec (San Lorenzo and La Venta) in Mesoamerican historical development. Diehl 2000 provides a useful, balanced assessment of that argument just before a new round of debate with new data (see San Lorenzo Fine Ceramics and Mesoamerica). Diehl 2010 provides a much wider lens to view the Olmec impact across Mesoamerican time and space, complemented by Ladrón de Guevara 2010. Schele 1995, Taube 1995, and Taube 2000 explore specific iconographical complexes from Olmec art to later Mesoamerican visual systems. Pasztory 2000 does the same, but for a particular structure of representation.
  546.  
  547. Diehl, Richard A. “Olmec Archaeology after Regional Perspectives: An Assessment of Recent Research.” In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatrice de la Fuente, 19–29. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2000.
  548.  
  549. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  550.  
  551. Reviews the arguments in Sharer and Grove 1989 and how they have held up in more recent scholarship on the Olmec. Finds that less emphasis on the primacy of the Olmec heartland was invigorating, but that there were specific, highly developed heartland phenomena that should not be ignored.
  552.  
  553. Find this resource:
  554.  
  555. Diehl, Richard A. “The Olmec Legacy in Stone: A Mesoamerican Alpha and Omega.” In Olmec: Colossal Masterworks of Ancient Mexico. Edited by Kathleen Berrin and Virginia Fields, 76–85. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.
  556.  
  557. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  558.  
  559. An eminent Olmec archaeologist’s consideration of the legacy of Olmec art in later Mesoamerican traditions, focusing on the use of Olmec heirlooms and the continuity in iconographic themes.
  560.  
  561. Find this resource:
  562.  
  563. Ladrón de Guevara, Sara. “Olmec Art: Essence, Presence, Influence, and Transcendence.” In Olmec: Colossal Masterworks of Ancient Mexico. Edited by Kathleen Berrin and Virginia Fields, 24–33. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.
  564.  
  565. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  566.  
  567. Updates the hypothesis that much Mesoamerican iconography may be traced to Olmec roots, following Covarrubias.
  568.  
  569. Find this resource:
  570.  
  571. Pasztory, Esther. “The Portrait and the Mask: Invention and Translation.” In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Edited by John Clark and Mary E. Pye, 265–275. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2000.
  572.  
  573. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  574.  
  575. Unusual in its broad, synthetic view of two genres over the long term of Mesoamerican history, but based in an examination of Olmec art.
  576.  
  577. Find this resource:
  578.  
  579. Schele, Linda. “The Olmec Mountain and Tree of Creation in Mesoamerican Cosmology.” In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. Edited by Jill Guthrie, 105–117. Princeton, NJ: Art Museum, Princeton University, 1995.
  580.  
  581. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  582.  
  583. Follows Olmec tree imagery through Mesoamerican history; proposes a certain continuity of meaning in the Tree of Creation. A look at Olmec iconography from a master of the later Maya iconographic system.
  584.  
  585. Find this resource:
  586.  
  587. Sharer, Robert J., and David C. Grove, eds. Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
  588.  
  589. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  590.  
  591. This volume was critical in arguing for non-Olmec contributions to Formative-period cultural development in Mesoamerica. In general, argues that the heartland Olmec were not a mother culture, but an important part of much larger developments occurring throughout Formative Mesoamerica. Diehl 2000 is a look back on the fundamental arguments contained here.
  592.  
  593. Find this resource:
  594.  
  595. Taube, Karl A. “The Rainmakers: The Olmec and Their Contribution to Mesoamerican Belief and Ritual.” In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. Edited by Jill Guthrie, 83–103. Princeton, NJ: Art Museum, Princeton University, 1995.
  596.  
  597. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  598.  
  599. Argues that the Olmec iconographic system set important templates in rain and fecundity symbolism for later Mesaomericans.
  600.  
  601. Find this resource:
  602.  
  603. Taube, Karl A. “Lightning Celts and Corn Fetishes: The Formative Olmec and the Development of Maize Symbolism in Mesoamerica and the American Southwest.” In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, 297–337. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2000.
  604.  
  605. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  606.  
  607. One of a series of articles investigating the foundational place of Olmec imagery and symbolism in Ancient Mesoamerica, here extended to the American Southwest.
  608.  
  609. Find this resource:
  610.  
  611. Eastern Mesoamerica
  612. The Maya and the Isthmian peoples of Southern Veracruz and adjacent regions drew deeply on Olmec imagery during and after the apogee of Olmec civilization. Gillespie 2000 reports on a heartland site that has drawn little notice. Stirling 1940, Winfield 1988, and Pool 2000 all discuss the transition from Olmec to Post-Olmec in the heartland area. Drucker 1955 discusses the largest collection of heirloom Olmec objects yet discovered in the heartland. Proskouriakoff 1968 discusses the general debt that Maya art owed to the Olmec, while Saturno, et al. 2005 shows the specifics of that transfer.
  613.  
  614. Drucker, Philip. The Cerro de Las Mesas Offering of Jade and Other Materials. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 157. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1955.
  615.  
  616. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  617.  
  618. Enormous Classic-period cache of jades in what was the Olmec heartland. Includes many heirloom Olmec jades.
  619.  
  620. Find this resource:
  621.  
  622. Gillespie, Susan D. “The Monuments of Laguna de Los Cerros and Its Hinterland.” In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, 95–115. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2000.
  623.  
  624. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  625.  
  626. Documents a little-discussed set of Olmec heartland monuments.
  627.  
  628. Find this resource:
  629.  
  630. Pool, Christopher A. “From Olmec to Epi-Olmec at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico.” In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Edited by John Clark and Mary E. Pye, 137–153. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2000.
  631.  
  632. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  633.  
  634. Examines the transition from Middle Formative Olmec style to Late Formative Post-Olmec in a key region of the heartland.
  635.  
  636. Find this resource:
  637.  
  638. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana. “Olmec and Maya Art: Problems of Their Stylistic Relation.” In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 119–134. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1968.
  639.  
  640. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  641.  
  642. Surveys the earliest art then known from the Maya region and compares it to the chronology and style of the Olmec heartland works.
  643.  
  644. Find this resource:
  645.  
  646. Saturno, William, Karl A. Taube, and David Stuart. The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petén, Guatemala, Part I: The North Wall. Barnardsville, NC: Center for Ancient American Studies, 2005.
  647.  
  648. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  649.  
  650. Earliest Maya mural painting reveals a direct debt to Olmec iconography in the form of the Olmec Maize God.
  651.  
  652. Find this resource:
  653.  
  654. Stirling, Matthew Williams. An Initial Series from Tres Zapotes, Vera Cruz, Mexico. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 1940.
  655.  
  656. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  657.  
  658. Describes the Post-Olmec style of Tres Zapotes Stela C and its relation to Olmec style, and hypothesizes a cycle 7 date (c. 31 BCE) for the broken initial series inscription. This hypothesis was later proven true when the remaining portion of the monument was found with the requisite 7 baktun date.
  659.  
  660. Find this resource:
  661.  
  662. Winfield Capitaine, Fernando. La Estela 1 de la Mojarra, Veracruz, México. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research, 1988.
  663.  
  664. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  665.  
  666. Complete description of a critical monument for Epi-Olmec developments in the heartland.
  667.  
  668. Find this resource:
  669.  
  670. Highland Central Mexico
  671. Grove 1968 and Grove 2000 as well as Tolstoy 1979 present synthetic, data-driven summations of the relationship between heartland Olmec and highland Central Mexico. Niederberger 1976 and Tolstoy and Paradis 1970 also contain much archaeological data for evaluating that relationship, including radiocarbon dates. Coe 1965 has numerous important illustrations and serves as an initial statement of the relationship of the art styles of the two areas. Covarrubias 1943 and Porter 1953 focus on Tlatilco, a large site with large amounts of both excavated and unexcavated materials that may now be dated to the apogee of San Lorenzo.
  672.  
  673. Coe, Michael D. The Jaguar’s Children: Pre-Classic Central Mexico. New York: Museum of Primitive Art, 1965.
  674.  
  675. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  676.  
  677. Important source of material for Formative period Central Mexico.
  678.  
  679. Find this resource:
  680.  
  681. Covarrubias, Miguel. “Tlatilco, Archaic Mexican Art and Culture.” Dyn 4–5 (1943): 40–46.
  682.  
  683. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  684.  
  685. Early assessment of an important Formative-period highland site.
  686.  
  687. Find this resource:
  688.  
  689. Grove, David C. “The Pre-Classic Olmec in Central Mexico: Site Distributions and Inferences.” In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 179–185. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1968.
  690.  
  691. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  692.  
  693. Synthesis of Olmec materials found in Morelos on the eve of the Chalcatzingo project.
  694.  
  695. Find this resource:
  696.  
  697. Grove, David C. “The Preclassic Societies of the Central Highlands of Mexico.” In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Edited by Richard E. W. Adams and Murdo MacLeod, 122–155. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  698.  
  699. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  700.  
  701. Synthesizes the data on the Olmec heartland-highlands interaction. Includes a supremely useful bibliographic essay.
  702.  
  703. Find this resource:
  704.  
  705. Niederberger, Christine. Zohapilco: Cinco milenios de ocupación humana en un sitio lacustre de La Cuenca de México. Colección Científica: Arqueología; 30. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 1976.
  706.  
  707. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  708.  
  709. Illustrates material from an important Formative site in Central Mexico.
  710.  
  711. Find this resource:
  712.  
  713. Porter, Muriel N. Tlatilco and the Pre-Classic Cultures of the New World. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 19. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation, 1953.
  714.  
  715. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  716.  
  717. Although some hypotheses on the relation and spread of figurine culture are now out of date, this work is still essential for Central Mexican visual culture contemporary to the Olmec site of San Lorenzo.
  718.  
  719. Find this resource:
  720.  
  721. Tolstoy, Paul. “The Olmec in the Central Highlands: A Non-Quintessential Approach.” American Antiquity 44 (1979): 333–337.
  722.  
  723. DOI: 10.2307/279087Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  724.  
  725. Synthesizes the chronological data on the Formative Central Highlands and thereby corrects Vaillant’s earlier suppositions. Compares the new paradigm with the Olmec sequence.
  726.  
  727. Find this resource:
  728.  
  729. Tolstoy, Paul, and Louise I. Paradis. “Early and Middle Preclassic Culture in the Basin of Mexico.” Science 167 (1970): 344–351.
  730.  
  731. DOI: 10.1126/science.167.3917.344Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  732.  
  733. Important corrective to earlier chronologies of the Formative period in central Mexico, and thus the relationship of that trajectory to the heartland Olmec.
  734.  
  735. Find this resource:
  736.  
  737. Chalcatzingo
  738. The most important Olmec-related site in the Central Highlands is Chalcatzingo, Morelos. The amount of Olmec-style rock art here is without peer. The site itself is a substantial Middle Formative settlement, and thus may be seen alongside La Venta. Grove 1984 is a synthesis for the general reader, while Grove 1987 is an extensive site report. Cyphers Guillén 1982 is a detailed analysis of monument dating.
  739.  
  740. Cyphers Guillén, Ann. “The Implications of Dated Monumental Art from Chalcatzingo, Morelos, Mexico.” World Archaeology 13 (1982): 382–393.
  741.  
  742. DOI: 10.1080/00438243.1982.9979841Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  743.  
  744. Close trait analysis of Chalcatzingo art in an attempt to date it more precisely.
  745.  
  746. Find this resource:
  747.  
  748. Grove, David C. Chalcatzingo: Excavations on the Olmec Frontier. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1984.
  749.  
  750. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  751.  
  752. More synthetic treatment of the Chalcatzingo rock art and the related archaeological excavations by the author.
  753.  
  754. Find this resource:
  755.  
  756. Grove, David C. Ancient Chalcatzingo. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987.
  757.  
  758. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  759.  
  760. Extensive site report of one of the most important Olmec-related highland sites.
  761.  
  762. Find this resource:
  763.  
  764. Western Mesoamerica and the Pacific Coast from Chiapas to El Salvador
  765. Olmec-style objects and even sites are found across Guerrero and down the Pacific coast to Oaxaca, Chiapas, and into Guatemala and El Salvador. Flannery 1968 sets important terms of debate with those who see the primacy of the heartland Olmec. Clark 2000 discusses very precocious developments on the Pacific side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec that could have influenced the earliest Olmec developments. Bachand 2013 firmly dates the emerging Zoque civilization of Chiapas to the Middle Formative, and thus partially coeval with La Venta. Marcus and Flannery 1996 is an extended discussion of comparative events in Formative Oaxaca, while Niederberger 1996 surveys nearby Guerrero. Martínez Donjuán 2010 describes the most important Olmec-style site in Guerrero. Gay 1967, Grove 1970, and Navarrete 1974 all discuss Olmec-style rock art and cave painting.
  766.  
  767. Bachand, Bruce R. “Las fases formativas de Chiapa de Corzo: Nueva evidencia e interpretaciones.” Estudios de Cultura Maya 42.2 (2013): 11–52.
  768.  
  769. DOI: 10.1016/S0185-2574(13)71385-6Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  770.  
  771. Shows that major architecture and a large quantity of finely crafted materials at Chiapa de Corzo may be dated to the Middle Formative. This site has previously been of interest due to its remarkable Late Formative materials, but these finds make it clear that this was a culture in touch with perhaps competitors with the Olmec. The culture here is not referred to as Olmec, but Zoque, and the Middle Formative Chiapa de Corzo materials are the first spectacular finds in what will be a long tradition.
  772.  
  773. Find this resource:
  774.  
  775. Clark, John E. “The Pacific Coast and the Olmec Question.” In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, 217–251. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2000.
  776.  
  777. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  778.  
  779. Discusses an important area directly across the isthmus to the heartland Olmec and the rise of monumental art and urban civilization.
  780.  
  781. Find this resource:
  782.  
  783. Flannery, Kent V. “The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-Regional Interaction in Formative Times.” In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 79–118. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1968.
  784.  
  785. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  786.  
  787. Fundamental early critique of the role of Olmec influence and the “mother culture” hypothesis in the formation of early Mesoamerican civilization. Argues that Formative Mesoamerican civilization was the product of multiple interactions and exchanges between the heartland Olmec and other Mesoamericans, especially those in the emerging complex societies of the highlands of Mexico. He dismisses any explanation of highland development that involves invasion or missionization by Olmec elite.
  788.  
  789. Find this resource:
  790.  
  791. Gay, Carlos. “Oldest Paintings of the New World.” Natural History 76.2 (1967): 28–35.
  792.  
  793. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  794.  
  795. Initial description of the Olmec cave painting in Juxtlahuaca Cave, Guerrero.
  796.  
  797. Find this resource:
  798.  
  799. Grove, David C. The Olmec Paintings of Oxtotitlan Cave, Guerrero, Mexico. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 6. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1970.
  800.  
  801. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  802.  
  803. Notice of cave painting in the Olmec style far from the heartland. Iconography includes a seated figure on a seat with jaguar imagery; the whole has been interpreted as an enthroned ruler and used to interpret the Olmec “altars” as thrones.
  804.  
  805. Find this resource:
  806.  
  807. Marcus, Joyce, and Kent V. Flannery. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. New Aspects of Antiquity. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1996.
  808.  
  809. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  810.  
  811. Extended discussion of the rise of social complexity and monumental art in the Valley of Oaxaca that minimizes Olmec heartland intrusion and focuses on in situ developments.
  812.  
  813. Find this resource:
  814.  
  815. Martínez Donjuán, Guadalupe. “Sculpture from Teopantecuanitlan, Guerrero.” In The Place of Stone Monuments: Context, Use, and Meaning in Mesoamerica’s Preclassic Transition. Edited by Julia Guernsey, John E. Clark, and Bárbara Arroyo, 55–76. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010.
  816.  
  817. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  818.  
  819. Examines the meaning of Teopantecuanitlan sculptures through a close analysis of the physical context of the pieces. Proposes that the Sunken Patio and associated sculptures served as a solar observatory during the site’s zenith and then were carefully interred at the end of the phase, around 700 BCE.
  820.  
  821. Find this resource:
  822.  
  823. Navarrete, Carlos. The Olmec Rock Carvings at Pijijiapan, Chiapas, Mexico and Other Olmec Pieces from Chiapas and Guatemala. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 35. Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University, 1974.
  824.  
  825. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  826.  
  827. Rock carving of Olmec figure far from the heartland; compares with other pieces from an area that may have been critical to Olmec trade routes.
  828.  
  829. Find this resource:
  830.  
  831. Niederberger, Christine. “Olmec Horizon Guerrero.” In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatríz de la Fuente, 95–104. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1996.
  832.  
  833. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  834.  
  835. Catalogues the characteristic elements and examples of Olmec style in an area that contains some of the most important material outside the heartland.
  836.  
  837. Find this resource:
  838.  
  839. Iconography and Incipient Writing
  840. Olmec iconography is the most important—and the most elusive—documentary evidence for the history of the Olmec. Systematic studies by Joralemon (Joralemon 1971, Joralemon 1976, Joralemon 1981) created a shared vocabulary of iconographic elements for future researchers. Detailed analyses of a more focused and holistic sort were practiced at the same time by the great Olmec curator Elizabeth Benson (Benson 1971). Reilly 1989 is attentive to performative content in Olmec iconography, and inside of this performative context also explores the Olmec cosmological template (see Cosmology and Imagery). The scholarly debate over when the iconographic system branched into a true writing system continues, with emphatic arguments for writing in Pohl, et al. 2002 and especially Del Carmen Rodríguez Martinez, et al. 2006. Freidel and Reilly 2010 argues that the material identified as early writing represents diagrams of important ritual implements. Taube 1996 and Tate 2012 have both opened new avenues with fundamental iconographic identifications of the Maize God and embryo-related imagery, respectively. Follensbee 2009 makes a strong case for the re-examination of the gender identity of Olmec figures, arguing that several important works previously identified as male are probably female.
  841.  
  842. Benson, Elizabeth P. An Olmec Figure at Dumbarton Oaks. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 8. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1971.
  843.  
  844. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  845.  
  846. Close examination of an Olmec jadeite figurine with particularly rich vestments. Said to be from the Arroyo Pesquero cache.
  847.  
  848. Find this resource:
  849.  
  850. Cyphers Guillén, Ann. “Women, Rituals, and Social Dynamics at Ancient Chalcatzingo.” Latin American Antiquity 4.3 (1993): 209–224.
  851.  
  852. DOI: 10.2307/971789Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  853.  
  854. Identifies a female life cycle in the figurines of Chalcatzingo and links the life cycle to the circulation of power.
  855.  
  856. Find this resource:
  857.  
  858. Del Carmen Rodríguez Martinez, Ma., Ponciano Ortiz Ceballos, Michael D. Coe, et al. “Oldest Writing in the New World.” Science 313.5793 (2006): 1610–1614.
  859.  
  860. DOI: 10.1126/science.1131492Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  861.  
  862. Discusses possible writing on the recently discovered Cascajal Block.
  863.  
  864. Find this resource:
  865.  
  866. Follensbee, Billie. “Formative Period Gulf Coast Ceramic Figurines: The Key to Identifying Sex, Gender, and Age Groups in Gulf Coast Olmec Imagery.” In Mesoamerican Figurines: Small-Scale Indices of Large-Scale Social Phenomena. Edited by Christina T. Halperin, Katherine A. Faust, Rhonda Taube, and Aurore Giguet, 77–118. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2009.
  867.  
  868. DOI: 10.5744/florida/9780813033303.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  869.  
  870. Foundational attempt to define the diagnostic characteristics of gender in the Olmec corpus. The author bases several important identifications on clearly discernable traits, while others seem based on less visual evidence.
  871.  
  872. Find this resource:
  873.  
  874. Freidel, David, and F. Kent Reilly III. “The Flesh of God: Cosmology, Food, and the Origins of Political Power in Ancient Southeastern Mesoamerica.” In Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by John Staller and Michael Carrasco, 635–680. New York: Springer, 2010.
  875.  
  876. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0471-3Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  877.  
  878. Proposes that the layout of the Cascajal Block is a diagrammatic representation of shaman’s paraphernalia in a bundle. Further proposes that these sorts of diagrams could have been one of the elements in the development of later hieroglyphic writing.
  879.  
  880. Find this resource:
  881.  
  882. Joralemon, Peter David. A Study of Olmec Iconography. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 7. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1971.
  883.  
  884. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  885.  
  886. Foundational study of the Olmec image system that isolates the major motifs and attempts a categorization of the deities indicated by those motifs.
  887.  
  888. Find this resource:
  889.  
  890. Joralemon, Peter David. “The Olmec Dragon: A Study in Pre-Columbian Iconography.” In Origins of Religious Art & Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica. UCLA Latin American Studies Series 31. Edited by H. B. Nicholson, 27–71. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, 1976.
  891.  
  892. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  893.  
  894. Detailed study of a single Olmec motif.
  895.  
  896. Find this resource:
  897.  
  898. Joralemon, Peter David. “The Old Woman and the Child: Themes in the Iconography of Pre-Classic Mesoamerica.” In The Olmec & Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling. Edited by Elizabeth P Benson, 163–180. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, 1981.
  899.  
  900. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  901.  
  902. Traces the iconographic relationship of two distinct types in Olmec imagery.
  903.  
  904. Find this resource:
  905.  
  906. Pohl, Mary E. D., Kevin O. Pope, and Christopher von Nagy. “Olmec Origins of Mesoamerican Writing.” Science 298.5600 (2002): 1984–1987.
  907.  
  908. DOI: 10.1126/science.1078474Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  909.  
  910. Examines groups of Olmec symbols in a seal and a group of jade fragments found near La Venta, Tabasco and dated to c. 650 BCE and proposes that these symbols are early examples of writing.
  911.  
  912. Find this resource:
  913.  
  914. Reilly, F. Kent III. “The Shaman in Transformation Pose: A Study of the Theme of Rulership in Olmec Art.” Record of the Art Museum Princeton University 48.2 (1989): 4–21.
  915.  
  916. DOI: 10.2307/3774730Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  917.  
  918. Influential argument on a series of portable Olmec objects that could depict the transformation of a human into a human/animal hybrid. This process is analogized to later accounts of human transformation in several Mesoamerican cultures. At least one of the pieces used in this argument may not be authentic.
  919.  
  920. Find this resource:
  921.  
  922. Tate, Carolyn Elaine. Reconsidering Olmec Visual Culture: The Unborn, Women, and Creation. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012.
  923.  
  924. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  925.  
  926. Extended treatment of Olmec iconography that provides an alternative to the earlier jaguar/feline identity of the main Olmec supernatural. Tate identifies several features of the supernatural as identical to a human embryo at about six weeks. Tate identifies embryo imagery as a symbol of “life force.” Tate places the supernatural in the larger context of La Venta’s sacred landscape to argue that rulers would manipulate this force in public rites. Through an analysis of many of La Venta’s monuments and their relations (something rare in the literature), Tate is able to argue that a larger creation narrative (of the cosmos) undergirded the manipulation of the life force as contained in the Olmec supernatural.
  927.  
  928. Find this resource:
  929.  
  930. Taube, Karl. “The Olmec Maize God: The Face of Corn in Formative Mesoamerica.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 29–30 (1996): 39–81.
  931.  
  932. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  933.  
  934. Argues that the principal Olmec supernatural is not a jaguarian rain deity per Covarrubias, but a maize god. Notes that this deity becomes ubiquitous in the Middle Formative, in both the heartland and highlands.
  935.  
  936. Find this resource:
  937.  
  938. Cosmology and Imagery
  939. Several scholars have argued that one important function of Olmec art was to set a cosmic template. Grove 1999 compares the templates of three Olmec capitals. Joralemon 1996, Reilly 1994, Reilly 1995 and Reilly 1999 use iconography to identify Olmec cosmological thought.
  940.  
  941. Grove, David C. “Public Monuments and Sacred Mountains: Observations on Three Formative Period Sacred Landscapes.” In Social Pattern in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Edited by David C. Grove and Rosemary A. Joyce, 255–299. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1999.
  942.  
  943. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  944.  
  945. Compares the site layouts of La Venta, San Lorenzo, and Chalcatzingo, focusing on the latter and its important differences with heartland sites. Notes that there is no heartland analog to the placement and function of the rain imagery associated with El Rey (Chalcatzingo Monument 1).
  946.  
  947. Find this resource:
  948.  
  949. Joralemon, Peter David. “In Search of the Olmec Cosmos: Reconstructing the World View of Mexico’s First Civilization.” In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatríz de la Fuente, 151–160. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1996.
  950.  
  951. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  952.  
  953. Iconographic approach that privileges the reconstruction of the Olmec cosmos via iconographic themes.
  954.  
  955. Find this resource:
  956.  
  957. Reilly, F. Kent III. “Enclosed Ritual Spaces and the Watery Underworld in Formative Period Architecture: New Observations on the Function of La Venta Complex A.” In Seventh Palenque Round Table. Edited by M. G. Robertson and Virginia M. Fields, 125–135. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Research Institute, 1994.
  958.  
  959. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  960.  
  961. A now-classic treatment of the meaning of central urban space at La Venta. Examines the problematic deposits and other cached materials and proposes that the Olmec were creating a watery underworld over centuries of activity. Focuses on the area to the north of the central pyramid.
  962.  
  963. Find this resource:
  964.  
  965. Reilly, F. Kent III. “Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World.” In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. Edited by Jill Guthrie, 27–46. Princeton, NJ: Art Museum, Princeton University, 1995.
  966.  
  967. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  968.  
  969. Olmec art as setting the cosmic stage for the performance of rulership. Extensive, close iconographic readings support the hypothesis.
  970.  
  971. Find this resource:
  972.  
  973. Reilly, F. Kent. “Mountains of Creation and Underworld Portals: The Ritual Function of Olmec Architecture at La Venta, Tabasco.” In Mesoamerican Architecture as a Cultural Symbol. Edited by Jeff Karl Kowalski, 14–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  974.  
  975. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  976.  
  977. Extensive analysis of the center of La Venta as sacred space for Olmec ritual performance.
  978.  
  979. Find this resource:
  980.  
  981. Process and Meaning in Olmec Sculpture
  982. Many Olmec works in stone seem to have gone through an extensive life cycle of quarrying, initial carving, recarving, and replacement. Coe 1966 early on identified a case of Maya reuse, while Graham 1998 discusses reuse in Costa Rica. Grove 1981 began an important trend of interpreting mutilation not as casual but as full of meaning, and later Porter 1989 was able to identify the transformation of several Olmec altar/thrones into Colossal Heads. Cyphers Guillén and Botas 1994 and Cyphers Guillén 1999 discuss sculptural display and reuse in San Lorenzo. Jaime-Riverón 2010 discusses sculptural process as a technological breakthrough.
  983.  
  984. Coe, Michael D. An Early Stone Pectoral from Southeastern Mexico. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 1. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1966.
  985.  
  986. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  987.  
  988. Discusses the reuse of an Olmec-style jade by the Maya.
  989.  
  990. Find this resource:
  991.  
  992. Cyphers Guillén, Ann. “From Stone to Symbols: Olmec Art in Social Context at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán.” In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Edited by David C Grove and Rosemary A. Joyce, 155–181. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1999.
  993.  
  994. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  995.  
  996. Discusses the sculptural ensembles at San Lorenzo as scenic displays that were periodically transformed by Olmec elite.
  997.  
  998. Find this resource:
  999.  
  1000. Cyphers Guillén, Ann, and Fernando Botas. “An Olmec Feline Sculpture from El Azuzul, Southern Veracruz.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 138.2 (1994): 273–283.
  1001.  
  1002. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1003.  
  1004. Spectacular find of large feline sculpture in the round at a site near San Lorenzo. The authors find evidence that the feline was recarved from an earlier sculpture. The feline sculpture was associated with a pair of young ideal males of similar scale. All three works were probably set up as a tableau vivant.
  1005.  
  1006. Find this resource:
  1007.  
  1008. Graham, Mark Miller. “Mesoamerican Jade and Costa Rica.” In Jade in Ancient Costa Rica. Edited by Julie Jones, 59–91. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998.
  1009.  
  1010. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1011.  
  1012. Evidence of reuse of Olmec jade outside of Mesoamerica.
  1013.  
  1014. Find this resource:
  1015.  
  1016. Grove, David C. “Olmec Monuments: Mutilation as a Clue to Meaning.” In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling. Edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 49–68. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, 1981.
  1017.  
  1018. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1019.  
  1020. Brings together the evidence for extensive Olmec monument mutilation during the element Formative period.
  1021.  
  1022. Find this resource:
  1023.  
  1024. Jaime-Riverón, Olaf. “Olmec Greenstone in Early Formative Mesoamerica: Exchange and Process of Production.” Ancient Mesoamerica 21 (2010): 123–133.
  1025.  
  1026. DOI: 10.1017/S095653611000009XSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1027.  
  1028. Argues that the development of jade-carving skill by the heartland Olmec was an important technological advantage that created asymmetrical trade relations with the rest of Mesoamerica.
  1029.  
  1030. Find this resource:
  1031.  
  1032. Porter, James B. “Olmec Colossal Heads as Recarved Thrones: ‘Mutilation,’ Revolution and Recarving.” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 17–18 (1989): 23–29.
  1033.  
  1034. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  1035.  
  1036. Identifies several Olmec Colossal Heads that bear traces of having once been Olmec niche thrones of the type well known from La Venta.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!