The Early Olmec horizon of approximately 1400 to 1000 cal BC was the first style horizon of the Formative period to extend across much of Mesoamerica. Early Olmec style is most widely recognized in ceramic vessels and figurines. Characteristic attributes can be readily identified at sites hundreds of kilometers apart, providing clear evidence of long-distance contacts. The evidence for the southern Gulf Coast, and specifically the site of San Lorenzo, as the location of synthesis of the Early Olmec style has become difficult to dismiss. We are ready to move past several decades of rather simplistic debate and to develop more sophisticated understandings of social processes and long-distance contact in early Mesoamerica. Yet the available data are in many cases not published in a way that will allow the development and interrogation of more nuanced models.

It is specifically that problem that The Early Olmec and Mesoamerica aims to address. If we are to understand the different ways that societies across Mesoamerica copied, adapted, and manipulated the Early Olmec style, then we need to have a more detailed understanding of the material record of San Lorenzo than has been available until now. We also need more of a shared descriptive vocabulary concerning vessel forms, decorative techniques, and motifs. Toward that end, the editors propose to “focus primarily on data, with interpretation downplayed” (p. 1). Overall, the book makes significant strides toward its general goals. The chapters all provide extensive empirical description—in some cases of rather small sets of materials (for instance, a couple hundred sherds). Passion for descriptive detail is particularly evident in chapters authored by one or both of the editors.

The book consists of 10 chapters. David Cheetham and Jeffrey Blomster (chapter 1) summarize the archaeological record of San Lorenzo based on published materials. In chapter 2, Blomster and Cheetham, along with Rosemary Joyce and Christopher Pool, propose “a common lexicon for technological and stylistic aspects of Early Olmec pottery” (p. 37). This chapter is really the heart of the book. The authors provide clear definitions (for instance, of grooving versus excising) and describe 12 motifs present in the pottery of San Lorenzo. Subsequent chapters reference those consistently by name and/or number. Chapters 3 and 4 deal with assemblages from the Gulf Coast region. Carl Wendt describes a residential assemblage from El Remolino, 5 km from San Lorenzo. Characteristic elements of the Early Olmec style are rare in what looks like a peasant community. Christopher Pool and five colleagues describe pottery and figurines of the Early Olmec era from Tres Zapotes.

Five chapters focus on collections outside the Gulf Coast. In one of the highlights of the volume, Louise Paradis reviews what is known of Early Olmec materials from Central Mexico—and what can be discovered with a little sleuthing (chapter 5). Her efforts to distinguish between “local” and “Early Olmec style” motifs are quite helpful. Blomster describes the decorated ceramics of Etlatongo in the Mixteca Alta (chapter 6), while Marcus Winter, Victor Zapien López, and Alma Montiel Ángeles examine material from the southern Isthmus of Tehuantepec, on the Pacific coast but just 135 km from San Lorenzo (chapter 7). Rosemary Joyce and John Henderson present Early Olmec style materials from Honduras, particularly the site of Puerto Escondido (chapter 9).

Cheetham and Michael Coe, in chapter 8, compare the vessel form assemblage of San Lorenzo to that of Canton Corralito, located 400 km away on the Pacific coast of Chiapas. This is the latest in a series of articles by Cheetham comparing different aspects of the two assemblages. The degree of similarity is astounding. The nature of the relations between these two sites deserves extended discussion and debate. There was clearly close, active contact between the two centers for 150 to 200 years. One of Barbara Stark's subspecialties is to serve as fair-minded commentator on everything Olmec, a task she performs nicely here (chapter 10).

One surprising aspect of this volume, especially given its just-the-facts-please premise, is its casual treatment of absolute chronology. Most chapters date phases in uncalibrated radiocarbon “years,” with only passing reference to calibrated equivalents. Translation from radiocarbon to calendar years is a difficult interpretive problem, especially when one is trying to compare sites from different regions. At the empirical level, that task is just as important as distinguishing systematically between grooving and excising. There is a theoretical dimension as well. We need to start thinking more seriously about time as experienced by Formative era villagers. Transition to calendar years can have significant implications for understanding social process. The early Olmec era is 200–300 radiocarbon “years” long (1200–1000/900 BC), but it expands to about 400 years when dates are calibrated. The Chicharras phase at San Lorenzo is cited here without commentary (p. 38) as 1300–1200 BC (radiocarbon) but 1450–1400 cal BC. In other words, calibration shrinks the phase by half, from five human generations (100 “years”) to two or three generations (50 years).

There are other issues that might be put down as work for the future. Ongoing problems with the term “Olmec” are not resolved here (consider the incompatible definitions used in chapters 4 versus 5). The book does not engage in any serious statistical analysis (of, for instance, associations of motifs) despite the appropriateness of the data presented in some chapters. Variability in renderings of individual motifs is also a potential arena for local innovation that has not yet been given attention at the level of empirical detail envisioned here.

Overall, though, the very specialized audience to which this book is directed—most immediately, archaeologists actually working on Early Olmec material—will find it timely and important. For such scholars, The Early Olmec and Mesoamerica should become a valuable reference work.