Archaeology Magazine - June 1965 - 56

Sin Cabezas, should be sufficient evidence for the actual presence of Olmec people.
On the basis of what evidence we have, we may
Cabezas sculptures were apparently being re-used in
make two assumptions: first, it is probable that at an
front of a Late Classicmound.
Are the three classes of boulder sculpture at Monte early period there was intensive cultural flow between
Alto- colossal head, jaguar monster and spheroid hu- the Gulf Coast of Mexico and the southern Pacific
man effigy- later, earlier or contemporary but mar- Coast of Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador across
ginal to Olmec art ? We may also ask : were the three the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. This region, composed
types of sculpture even carved at the same time ? As a of continuous lowland tropical rainforest and savanna,
point of departure in solving these problems, we have is a single unit geographically and environmentally.
established that at least one of the monuments (num- Second, some sort of developmental relationship exber 3, the jaguar monster) is stylistically Olmecoid isted between boulder sculptures such as those found
and therefore post-Olmec. The grouping of the sculp- at Monte Alto and monumental Olmec sculpture.
tures at the site implies their general contemporaneity. What we do not know- and what can only be solved
We are tentatively taking the position, therefore, that by more excavation- is the place of origin, the seall six Monte Alto sculptures are slightly post-Olmec quence of development and the direction of diffusion
in time (transition Middle to Late Pre-Classic) and, of these art styles. In this connection, any serious
like the Olmecoid jaguar monster, stylistically derived search for evidence of Asiatic stimuli for Olmec civilifrom Olmec. From the standpoint of typology, how- zation might profit by an investigation of sites with
ever, one might not expect the three types of sculpture "archaic" stone monuments on the Pacific Coast of
to be contemporary. The jaguar monster, to be sure, Middle America. Monte Alto, in Guatemala, is a key
seems relatively late, while the colossal heads and ro- site for the resolution of these problems ; a Milwaukee
tund boulder sculptures, which are stylisticallyclose to Public Museum expedition plans to return soon to
one another, seem extremely archaic. It has been pro- conduct a thorough excavation of its mounds and
posed, in fact, that much of the boulder sculpture in monuments.
this area is pre-Olmec, if not the earliest stone sculpture in Middle America (see Reading List) . This of
LIST:
course would imply that the Pacific Coast had a sig- READING
Covarrubias,
Miguel. Indian Art of Mexico and Central
nificant creative role in the development of Olmec
America[New York 1957]. (Excellentgeneral synthesis
and
The
civilization.
stylistic continuity
conceptual
of MiddleAmericanarchaeology,
profuselyillustrated.)
between the Monte Alto colossal heads and the Olmec Drucker, Philip. "La Venta, Tabasco.A Study of Olmec
Ceramicsand Art," Bureau of AmericanEthnology153
colossal heads on the Gulf Coast is clear (see Figures
[Washington1952].(Authoritativeanalysisof Olmecart;
1, 3-6) . Nevertheless, it is impossible to ascertain on
plates 59-61show Olmecseatedfiguresthat resemblethe
Sin Cabezassculptures.)
typological grounds alone whether any of the boulder
S. W. "Sculptureof the Guatemala-Chiapas
HighMiles,
or
derived
so
this
are
Olmec;
sculptures
proto-Olmec
lands and PacificSlopes,"Handbookof MiddleAmerican
awaits
of
Robert
edited
Wauchope[in press].(Detailed
important problem evolutionary development
Indians,
by
further evidence in the form of excavation and radiostylisticanalysisof stone sculpture;this author proposes
that the bouldersculpturepre-datesthe Olmecs.)
carbon dates. Finally, the possibility that the Monte
Stirling,Matthew. StoneMonumentsof SouthernMexico,
Alto sculptures are a contemporary but provincial exBureau of AmericanEthnology138 [Washington1943].
(Basic descriptionsand illustrationsof stone sculpture
pression of Olmec art cannot be overlooked. On the
from
Tres Zapotes,Cerro de las Mesas,La Venta and
other hand, the suggested presence of pure Olmec
Izapa.)
sculpture at other sites on the Pacific Coast argues
against this. Further investigation might even reveal
Olmec-stylesculpture at Monte Alto.
A basic problem is whether true Olmec settlements LEE A. PARSONSis AssociateCurator of Anthropology,
MilwaukeePublic Museum.He receivedthe Ph.D. degree
ever existed on the Pacific Coast of Mexico and Gua- in anthropologyfrom Harvard Universityin 1964.
The
temala, partly because the region is still one of the present article is a by-productof field researchin Guatesponsoredby the MilwaukeePublic Museumand the
least known archaeologically. It is frequently argued, malaPaul
ScienceMuseum,with financialsupport by the
St.
with some justification, that portable Olmec stone NationalScienceFoundation.
Peter S. Jenson has an M.A. in anthropologyfrom the
carvings such as the fragment from El Baul, which
of Minnesota.For five years he was Curatorof
University
may have been traded through "middlemen" and even Archaeologyat the ScienceMuseumin St. Paul, and in
for the Milwaukee
as an archaeologist
preserved as heirlooms, do not necessarily represent 1962and 1963served
Museum
field
Science
Paul
Museum-St.
Public
projecton the
But
and
culture.
the direct diffusion of Olmec people
PacificCoast of Guatemala.Mr. Jenson is at presentwith
the existence of non-portable Olmec sculpture, as at the PeaceCorpsin Huánuco,Peru.
BOULDER

144

SCULPTURE

continued

Archaeology Magazine - June 1965

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - June 1965