Born out of an international round table at Dumbarton Oaks, this book explores Olmec style ceramics across Mesoamerica during the Early Formative period (c. 1200–1000/900 bc [uncalibrated]). In their introduction, the editors note that, more than a century after the first Olmec Colossal head was published, the wide distribution of Early Formative Olmec style artefacts across Mesoamerica remains a point of contention for archaeologists. This debate has centred on whether the San Lorenzo Olmec represented a ‘mother culture’ for later Mesoamerican civilizations (e.g. Diehl & Coe Reference Diehl and Coe1995) or one of a number of ‘sister cultures’ located across Mesoamerica that were engaged in a complex network of interactions (e.g. Grove Reference Grove, Sharer and Grove1989). Olmec style has been seen as either an entirely Olmec invention that was spread widely through San Lorenzo's interactions with other groups, or the result of multiple contributions from several ‘sisters’ throughout Mesoamerica. Blomster and Cheetham argue that discussions of the Early Olmec style have been hampered by adherence to these interpretive models (p. 2). Further complicating these discussions is the variable use of ‘Olmec style’ in describing these artefacts. To disentangle the concept of Early Olmec style from these interpretive frameworks, the contributors to this volume focus on the formal and technical style of Early Olmec style ceramics, and downplay interpretation. The results are largely descriptive discussions that present important technical comparative data on Olmec style ceramics throughout Mesoamerica.
In the first chapter, Cheetham and Blomster set the stage by situating the Early Formative period Olmec culture in time and space. The authors provide an overview of archaeological investigations at the large Olmec centre, San Lorenzo, from the late 1960s through to the present. This summary includes discussions of the site's chronology and organization, as well as material culture, subsistence and sociopolitical organization.
Chapter 2 presents the methodological foundation for the remaining chapters of the book. The goal of this chapter is to provide a uniform vocabulary for discussing Olmec style. Blomster et al. situate their discussion within the theoretical framework of ‘communities of practice’. Thus, the focus in discussing ‘Olmec style’ is on the patterned techniques used by potters to achieve specific results. This approach also allows archaeologists to recognize variations in the ways that visually similar motifs were produced (e.g. different techniques of incision or excision), allowing for more precise comparisons of similar vessels or motifs from different regions. The first section of the chapter provides uniform definitions of vessels forms, as well as discussions of vessel surface colour, surface treatment and finishes and firing techniques. Next, the authors discuss plastic decorative techniques, including grooving, incision and excision. The discussion of excision techniques is particularly useful, as the Calzadas Carved ceramics are a hallmark of the Early Formative Olmec style.
In the second half of the chapter, the authors turn to Olmec style motifs. In keeping with the book's theme, the point of emphasis is on the identification of motifs rather than their meanings. Using ceramics from Early Formative contexts at San Lorenzo, the authors identify 12 basic motif categories. In some cases, multiple motifs were combined on a single vessel into more elaborate compositions. However, detailed discussion of these more complicated designs is outside the theme of this book. The terminology developed in this motif inventory is used throughout the subsequent book chapters.
The next two chapters focus on the Early Formative Olmec style within the Gulf lowlands. In chapter 3, Carl J. Wendt explores the variation of Olmec ceramics within the San Lorenzo polity. His presentation of the Early Formative ceramics from El Remolino, a cluster of non-elite residences located along the Río Chiquito some 5 km from the San Lorenzo Plateau, shows that while similar forms were in use within the large centre as well as its periphery, incised carved designs were infrequent at El Remolino. He suggests that the use of such decoration may not have been necessary as El Remolino was a part of the San Lorenzo polity and thus did not need to display its affiliation.
In chapter 4, Pool and his colleagues discuss Early Formative period figurines and ceramic vessels at Tres Zapotes, located in the western portion of Olman, the ‘Olmec Heartland’. Excavations conducted in 2003 (a project in which this reviewer participated) identified in situ deposits dating to the Early Formative period. Analyses of ceramics and figurines suggest that, while there are similarities in form and plastic decoration, most of the ceramics from Tres Zapotes were manufactured locally, including all Límon Incised and Calzadas Carved examples. Moreover, the authors note that the percentages of these types are more similar to distant sites, such as San Jose Mogote and Zohapilco, than to San Lorenzo. While some San Lorenzo style figurines were identified, the most common types are more stylistically related to figurines from Central Veracruz than to San Lorenzo. The authors conclude that these patterns reflect Tres Zapotes’ location near a cultural frontier. The variation in influences evident at the site is an important reminder that Olmec should not be construed as monolithic or homogeneous.
The discussion moves outside Olman to other regions of Mesoamerica in chapters 5–8. Chapter 5 presents a summary of Early Olmec style in the Basin of Mexico, Puebla, Morelos and Guerrero by Louise I. Paradi. The bulk of the chapter focuses on the better documented sites of Tlatilco, Coapexco and Tlapacoya, all located in the Basin of Mexico. Shorter discussions are provided for sites in Puebla, Morelos and Guerrero. Paradis argues that Olmec style objects occur in this area alongside well-established local ceramic and figurine styles. Given the use of Olmec style in ‘non-Olmec’ contexts (e.g. burials), she suggests that the style was appropriated by local groups for local use rather than adopted.
In chapter 6, the theme of co-existing local and non-local styles is also explored by Blomster in his discussion of the Olmec style at Etlatongo, Oaxaca. Analyses of ceramic types, forms and decoration suggest that at Etlatongo Olmec style motifs were primarily associated with open vessel forms and dark surface colours. In contrast, local decorative styles were more closely associated with vessels with restricted orifices. Comparisons of motifs and compositions suggest that the Olmec style as manifested at Etlatongo was more similar to San Lorenzo than to closer sites, such as San José Mogote in the Valley of Oaxaca, highlighting the variable nature of contacts between San Lorenzo with groups outside Olman.
Chapter 7 focuses on the Early Olmec style in the southern isthmus of Tehuantepec. Winters and his colleagues discuss Olmec style ceramics from the site of Barrio Tepalcate, arguing that they are more similar to San Lorenzo than to Olmec style ceramics from sites in the Oaxacan highlands. The authors note that both the southern isthmus and the San Lorenzo Olmec are considered to have been Mixe-Zoque speakers, and suggest that this linguistic similarity suggests greater contact between the two areas than to the non Mixe-Zoque speakers in the highlands.
In chapter 8, Cheetham and Coe discuss ceramics from the site of Canton Corralito, Chiapas. Detailed comparisons of the Canton Corralito materials with a reanalysis of ceramics from San Lorenzo suggest that the ceramics made and used in the two areas are nearly indistinguishable, and were produced using the same technical style. Moreover, they argue that this similarity suggests not contact between the two sites, but the presence of a colony of San Lorenzo Olmec at Canton Corralito.
Rosemary Joyce and John S. Henderson discuss the Early Olmec style in Honduras in chapter 9. Their presentation suggests that the Early Formative period material culture was largely a local manifestation. Olmec style decoration does appear at some sites and in specific contexts. However, it is incorporated into the local ceramic styles for local use.
In her summary chapter, Stark contextualizes the research presented in the book as providing a good foundation for assessing the impact of San Lorenzo and the Early Olmec style during the Early Formative period. She encourages the use of these data to open our interpretive frameworks beyond the current models of prestige good exchange also to consider more horizontal models of social process.
This volume is a unique and welcome addition to Olmec and Early Formative period studies. The focus on style at the expense of interpretation allows for the degree of similarity between assemblages to be evaluated without the interference of rigid interpretive frameworks. The result is the recognition that the distribution of Early Olmec style was variable both within Olman and across Early Formative period Mesoamerica. These variations suggest a mosaic of types and intensities of interaction with the San Lorenzo Olmec. The data presented here, as well as the methods used, will be important to constructing and refining new models of Early Formative period interactions, as well as reevaluating older models. Beyond Mesoamerica, the methods of technical style analysis advocated in this volume can easily be adapted for use by archaeologists working on similar issues in other regions or other times.
