Product Code Database
The Olmecs () or Olmec were an early known major civilization, flourishing in the modern-day Mexican states of Veracruz and Tabasco from roughly 1200 to 400 BCE during Mesoamerica's formative period. They were initially centered at the site of their development in San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, but moved to La Venta in the 10th century BCE following the decline of San Lorenzo. The Olmecs disappeared mysteriously in the 4th century BCE, leaving the region sparsely populated until the 19th century.
Among other "firsts", the Olmec appeared to practice ritual bloodletting and played the Mesoamerican ballgame, hallmarks of nearly all subsequent Mesoamerican societies. The aspect of the Olmecs most familiar now is their artwork, particularly the colossal heads.See, as one example, Diehl, p. 11. The Olmec civilization was first defined through artifacts which collectors purchased on the pre-Columbian art market in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Olmec artworks are considered among ancient America's most striking.See Diehl, p. 108 for the "ancient America" superlatives. The artist and archaeologist Miguel Covarrubias (1957) p. 50 says that Olmec pieces are among the world's masterpieces
Rubber for the balls used in the ceremonial ballgame was produced by the people in the Gulf Lowlands dating back to as early as 1600 BCE. Rubber Processing, MIT. The process involved extracting latex from a rubber tree common in the area, Castilla elastica, and mixing the latex with the juice of a local vine, Ipomoea alba. The Nahuas (including Aztec Empire) called their contemporary neighbors in the Gulf Lowlands "rubber people" but this was documented some 2,000 years after the end of the ancient Olmec culture. Archaeologists in the early 20th century mistakenly applied the name "Olmec" to the rediscovered ruins and artifacts in the heartland decades before it was understood that they were not created by the same "rubber people" that were contemporary with the Aztecs. Despite the mistaken identity, the name has stuck.Diehl, p. 14.
It is not known what name the ancient Olmec used for themselves; some later Mesoamerican accounts seem to refer to the ancient Olmec as "Tamoanchan".Coe (2002) refers to an old Nahuatl poem cited by Miguel Leon-Portilla, which itself refers to a land called "Tamoanchan":in a certain era
Coe interprets Tamoanchan as a Mayan language word meaning 'Land of Rain or Mist' (p. 61). A contemporary term sometimes used for the Olmec culture is tenocelome, meaning "mouth of the jaguar".The term "tenocelome" is used as early as 1967 by George Kubler in American Anthropologist, v. 69, p. 404.
which no one can reckon
which no one can remember
where there was a government for a long time".
What is today called Olmec first appeared fully within San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, where distinctive Olmec features occurred around 1400 BCE. The rise of civilization was assisted by the local ecology of well-watered alluvial soil, as well as by the transportation network provided by the Coatzacoalcos river basin. This environment may be compared to that of other ancient centers of civilization such as the Nile, Indus River, Yellow River and Mesopotamia. This highly productive environment encouraged a densely concentrated population, which in turn triggered the rise of an elite class. The elite class created the demand for the production of the symbolic and sophisticated luxury artifacts that define Olmec culture.Pool, pp. 26–27, provides a great overview of this theory, and says: "The generation of food surpluses is necessary for the development of social and political hierarchies and there is no doubt that high agricultural productivity, combined with the natural abundance of aquatic foods in the Gulf lowlands supported their growth." Many of these luxury artifacts were made from materials such as jade, obsidian, and magnetite, which came from distant locations and suggest that early Olmec elites had access to an extensive trading network in Mesoamerica. The source of the most valued jade was the Motagua River valley in eastern Guatemala,Pool, p. 151. and Olmec obsidian has been traced to sources in the Guatemala highlands, such as El Chayal and San Martín Jilotepeque, or in Puebla,Diehl, p. 132, or Pool, p. 150. distances ranging from away, respectively.Pool, p. 103.
The state of Guerrero, and in particular its early Mezcala culture, seem to have played an important role in the early history of Olmec culture. Olmec-style artifacts tend to appear earlier in some parts of Guerrero than in the Veracruz-Tabasco area. In particular, the relevant objects from the Amuco-Abelino site in Guerrero reveal dates as early as 1530 BCE.
Following the decline of San Lorenzo, La Venta became the most prominent Olmec center, lasting from 900 BCE until its abandonment around 400 BCE.Diehl, p. 9. Pool gives dates 1000 BCE – 400 BCE for La Venta. La Venta sustained the Olmec cultural traditions with spectacular displays of power and wealth. The Great Pyramid was the largest Mesoamerican structure of its time. Even today, after 2500 years of erosion, it rises above the naturally flat landscape.Pool, p. 157. Buried deep within La Venta lay opulent, labor-intensive "offerings" – 1000 tons of smooth Serpentine group blocks, large mosaic pavements, and at least 48 separate of polished jade celts, pottery, figurines, and hematite mirrors.Pool, p. 161–162.
One theory for the considerable population drop during the Terminal Formative period is suggested by Santley and colleagues (Santley et al. 1997), who propose the relocation of settlements due to volcanism, instead of extinction. Volcanic eruptions during the Early, Late and Terminal Formative periods would have blanketed the lands and forced the Olmec to move their settlements.Vanderwarker (2006) pp. 50–51
Whatever the cause, within a few hundred years of the abandonment of the last Olmec cities, successor cultures became firmly established. The Tres Zapotes site, on the western edge of the Olmec heartland, continued to be occupied well past 400 BCE, but without the hallmarks of the Olmec culture. This post-Olmec culture, often labeled the Epi-Olmec, has features similar to those found at Izapa, some to the southeast.Coe (2002), p. 88.
While are found abundantly in sites throughout the Formative Period, the stone monuments such as the colossal heads are the most recognizable feature of Olmec culture.Pool, p. 105. These monuments can be divided into four classes:Pool, p. 106. Diehl, pp. 109–115.
Seventeen colossal heads have been unearthed to date.Pool, p. 107.
| San Lorenzo | 10 | Colossal Heads 1 through 10 |
| La Venta | 4 | Monuments 1 through 4 |
| Tres Zapotes | 2 | Monuments A & Q |
| Rancho la Cobata | 1 | Monument 1 |
The heads range in size from the Rancho La Cobata head, at high, to the pair at Tres Zapotes, at . Scholars calculate that the largest heads weigh between .In particular, Williams and Heizer (p. 29) calculated the weight of San Lorenzo Colossal Head 1 at 25.3 , or 23 . See Scarre. pp. 271–274 for the "55 tonnes" weight.
The heads were carved from single blocks or boulders of volcanic basalt, found in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas. The Tres Zapotes heads, for example, were sculpted from basalt found at the summit of Cerro el Vigía, at the western end of the Tuxtlas. The San Lorenzo and La Venta heads, on the other hand, were probably carved from the basalt of Cerro Cintepec, on the southeastern side,See Williams and Heizer for more detail. perhaps at the nearby Llano del Jicaro workshop, and dragged or floated to their final destination dozens of miles away.Scarre. Pool, p. 129. It has been estimated that moving a colossal head required the efforts of 1,500 people for three to four months.
Some of the heads, and many other monuments, have been variously mutilated, buried and disinterred, reset in new locations and/or reburied. Some monuments, and at least two heads, were recycled or recarved, but it is not known whether this was simply due to the scarcity of stone or whether these actions had ritual or other connotations. Scholars believe that some mutilation had significance beyond mere destruction, but some scholars still do not rule out internal conflicts or, less likely, invasion as a factor.Diehl, p. 119.
The flat-faced, thick-lipped heads have caused some debate due to their resemblance to some African facial characteristics. Based on this comparison, some writers have said that the Olmecs were Africans who had emigrated to the New World.Wiercinski, A. (1972). "Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya," XXXIX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970, 1, 231–252. But the vast majority of archaeologists and other Mesoamerican scholars reject claims of pre-Columbian contacts with Africa.Karl Taube, for one, says "There simply is no material evidence of any Pre-Hispanic contact between the Old World and Mesoamerica before the arrival of the Spanish in the sixteenth century.", p. 17.
Explanations for the facial features of the colossal heads include the possibility that the heads were carved in this manner due to the shallow space allowed on the basalt boulders. Others note that in addition to the broad noses and thick lips, the eyes of the heads often show the epicanthic fold, and that all these characteristics can still be found in modern Mesoamerican Indians. For instance, in the 1940s, the artist/art historian Miguel Covarrubias published a series of photos of Olmec artwork and of the faces of modern Mexican Indians with very similar facial characteristics. Mexico South, Covarrubias, 1946 The African origin hypothesis assumes that Olmec carving was intended to be a representation of the inhabitants, an assumption that is hard to justify given the full corpus of representation in Olmec carving.Ortiz de Montellano, et al. 1997, p. 217
Ivan Van Sertima claimed that the seven braids on the Tres Zapotes head was an Ethiopian hair style, but he offered no evidence it was a contemporary style. The Egyptology Frank J. Yurco has said that the Olmec braids do not resemble contemporary Egyptian or Nubian braids.Haslip-Viera, Gabriel: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano; Warren Barbour Source "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs," Current Anthropology, 38 (3), (Tun., 1997), pp. 419–441
Richard Diehl wrote "There can be no doubt that the heads depict the American Indian physical type still seen on the streets of Soteapan, Acayucan, and other towns in the region."
Curators and scholars refer to "Olmec-style" face masks but, to date, no example has been recovered in an archaeologically controlled Olmec context. They have been recovered from sites of other cultures, including one deliberately deposited in the ceremonial altepetl (precinct) of Tenochtitlan in what is now Mexico City. The mask would presumably have been about 2000 years old when the Aztecs buried it, suggesting such masks were valued and collected as were Roman antiquities in Europe. "University of East Anglia collections", Artworld The 'Olmec-style' refers to the combination of deep-set eyes, nostrils, and strong, slightly asymmetrical mouth. The "Olmec-style" also very distinctly combines facial features of both humans and jaguars.The British Museum. "Olmec Stone Mask." Smarthistory.com. Olmec arts are strongly tied to the Olmec religion, which prominently featured jaguars. The Olmec people believed that in the distant past a race of werejaguars was made between the union of a jaguar and a woman. One werejaguar quality that can be found is the sharp cleft in the forehead of many supernatural beings in Olmec art. This sharp cleft is associated with the natural indented head of jaguars.
Chalcatzingo, in Valley of Morelos, central Mexico, which features Olmec-style monumental art and rock art with Olmec-style figures.
Also, in 2007, archaeologists unearthed Zazacatla, an Olmec-influenced city in Morelos. Located about south of Mexico City, Zazacatla covered about between 800 and 500 BCE.Stefan Lovgren, Ancient City Found in Mexico; Shows Olmec Influence. National Geographic News, 26 January 2007
Also, the Juxtlahuaca and Oxtotitlán cave paintings feature Olmec designs and motifs.For example, Diehl, p. 170 or Pool, p. 54.
In Guatemala, sites showing probable Olmec influence include San Bartolo, Takalik Abaj and La Democracia.
The generally accepted, but by no means unanimous, interpretation is that the Olmec-style artifacts, in all sizes, became associated with elite status and were adopted by non-Olmec Formative Period chieftains in an effort to bolster their status.See for example Reilly; Stevens (2007); Rose (2007). For a full discussion, see Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures.
The argument that the Olmec instituted human sacrifice is significantly more speculative. No Olmec or Olmec-influenced sacrificial artifacts have yet been discovered; no Olmec or Olmec-influenced artwork unambiguously shows sacrificial victims (as do the danzante figures of Monte Albán) or scenes of human sacrifice (such as can be seen in the famous ballcourt mural from El Tajín).Pool, p. 139.
At El Manatí, disarticulated skulls and femurs, as well as the complete skeletons of newborns or fetuses, have been discovered amidst the other offerings, leading to speculation concerning infant sacrifice. Scholars have not determined how the infants met their deaths.Ortiz et al., p. 249. Some authors have associated infant sacrifice with Olmec ritual art showing limp werejaguar babies, most famously in La Venta's Altar 5 (on the right) or Las Limas figure.Pool, p. 116. Joralemon (1996), p. 218. Any definitive answer requires further findings.
The 2002 find at the San Andrés site shows a bird, speech scrolls, and glyphs that are similar to the later Maya script.Pohl et al. (2002). Known as the Cascajal Block, and dated between 1100 and 900 BCE, the 2006 find from a site near San Lorenzo shows a set of 62 symbols, 28 of which are unique, carved on a serpentine block. A large number of prominent archaeologists have hailed this find as the "earliest pre-Columbian writing".Skidmore. These prominent proponents include Michael D. Coe, Richard Diehl, Karl Taube, and Stephen D. Houston. Others are skeptical because of the stone's singularity, the fact that it had been removed from any archaeological context, and because it bears no apparent resemblance to any other Mesoamerican writing system.Bruhns, et al.
There are also well-documented later hieroglyphs known as the Isthmian script, and while there are some who believe that the Isthmian may represent a transitional script between an earlier Olmec writing system and the Maya script, the matter remains unsettled.
The Long Count calendar required the use of zero as a place-holder within its vigesimal (base-20) positional numeral system. A shell glyph – – was used as a zero symbol for these Long Count dates, the second oldest of which, on Stela C at Tres Zapotes, has a date of 32 BCE. This is one of the earliest uses of the zero concept in history.Haughton, p. 153. The earliest recovered Long Count dated is from Monument 1 in the Maya site El Baúl, Guatemala, bearing a date of 37 BCE.
In 1976, linguists Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman published a paper in which they argued a core number of loanwords had apparently spread from a Mixe–Zoquean language into many other Mesoamerican languages.Campbell & Kaufman (1976), pp. 80–89. For example, the words for "incense", "cacao", "corn", many names of various fruits, "nagual/shaman", "tobacco", "adobe", "ladder", "rubber", "corn granary", "squash/gourd", and "paper" in many Mesoamerican languages seem to have been borrowed from an ancient Mixe–Zoquean language. Campbell and Kaufman proposed that the presence of these core loanwords indicated that the Olmec – generally regarded as the first "highly civilized" Mesoamerican society – spoke a language ancestral to Mixe–Zoquean. The spread of this vocabulary particular to their culture accompanied the diffusion of other Olmec cultural and artistic traits that appears in the archaeological record of other Mesoamerican societies.
Mixe–Zoque specialist Søren Wichmann first critiqued this theory on the basis that most of the Mixe–Zoquean loans seemed to originate only from the Zoquean branch of the family. This implied the loanword transmission occurred in the period after the two branches of the language family split, placing the time of the borrowings outside of the Olmec period.Wichmann (1995). However, new evidence has pushed back the proposed date for the split of Mixean and Zoquean languages to a period within the Olmec era.Wichmann, Beliaev & Davletshin, (in press Sep 2008). Based on this dating, the architectural and archaeological patterns and the particulars of the vocabulary loaned to other Mesoamerican languages from Mixe–Zoquean, Wichmann now suggests that the Olmecs of San Lorenzo spoke proto-Mixe and the Olmecs of La Venta spoke proto-Zoque.
At least the fact that the Mixe–Zoquean languages are still spoken in an area corresponding roughly to the Olmec heartland, and are historically known to have been spoken there, leads most scholars to assume that the Olmec spoke one or more Mixe–Zoquean languages.See Pool, p. 6, or Diehl, p. 85.
As no documentations of Olmec religious narratives and figures comparable to the Popol Vuh has been left or found, any interpretation of Olmec religious narratives and figures must be based on interpretations of surviving monumental and portable art (such as the Señor de Las Limas statue at the Xalapa Museum), and comparisons with other seemingly similar elements found throughout nearby Mesoamerican cultures. Olmec art shows that such deities as Feathered Serpent and a supernatural rain were already in the Mesoamerican pantheon in Olmec times.Diehl, pp. 103–104.
Instead, archaeologists relied on the data that they had, such as large- and small-scale site surveys. These provided evidence of considerable centralization within the Olmec region, first at San Lorenzo and then at La Venta – no other Olmec sites come close to these in terms of area or in the quantity and quality of architecture and sculpture.See Santley, et al., p.4, for a discussion of Mesoamerican centralization and decentralization. See Cyphers (1999) for a discussion of the meaning of monument placement.
This evidence of geographic and demographic centralization leads archaeologists to propose that Olmec society itself was hierarchical, concentrated first at San Lorenzo and then at La Venta, with an elite that was able to use their control over materials such as water and monumental stone to exert command and legitimize their regime.See Cyphers (1999) for a more detailed discussion.
Nonetheless, Olmec society is thought to lack many of the institutions of later civilizations, such as a standing army or priestly caste.Serra Puche et al., p. 36, who argue that "While Olmec art sometimes represents leaders, priests, and possibly soldiers, it is difficult to imagine that such institutions as the army, priest caste, or administrative-political groups were already fully developed by Olmec times." They go on to downplay the possibility of a strong central government. And there is no evidence that San Lorenzo or La Venta controlled, even during their heyday, all of the Olmec heartland.Pool, p. 20. There is some doubt, for example, that La Venta controlled even Arroyo Sonso, only some away.Pool, p. 164. Studies of the Sierra de los Tuxtlas settlements, some away, indicate that this area was composed of more or less egalitarian communities outside the control of lowland centers.Pool, p. 175.
These villages were located on higher ground and consisted of several scattered houses. A modest temple may have been associated with the larger villages. The individual dwellings would consist of a house, an associated lean-to, and one or more storage pits (similar in function to a root cellar). A nearby garden was used for medicinal and cooking herbs and for smaller crops, such as the domesticated sunflower. Fruit trees, such as avocado or Theobroma cacao, were probably available nearby.
Although the river banks were used to plant crops between flooding periods, the Olmecs probably also practiced slash-and-burn agriculture to clear the forests and shrubs, and to provide new fields once the old fields were exhausted.Pohl. Fields were located outside the village, and were used for maize, beans, Cucurbitaceae, cassava, and sweet potato. Based on archaeological studies of two villages in the Tuxtlas Mountains, it is known that maize cultivation became increasingly important to the Olmec over time, although the diet remained fairly diverse.VanDerwarker, p. 195, and Lawler, Archaeology (2007), p. 23, quoting VanDerwarker.
The fruits and vegetables were supplemented with fish, turtle, snake, and mollusks from the nearby rivers, and crabs and shellfish in the coastal areas. Birds were available as food sources, as were game including peccary, opossum, raccoon, rabbit, and in particular, deer.VanDerwarker, pp. 141–144. Despite the wide range of hunting and fishing available, midden surveys in San Lorenzo have found that the domesticated dog was the single most plentiful source of animal protein.Davies, p. 39.
In the latter half of the 19th century, Olmec artifacts such as the Kunz Axe (right) came to light and were subsequently recognized as belonging to a unique artistic tradition.
Frans Blom and Oliver La Farge made the first detailed descriptions of La Venta and San Martin Pajapan Monument 1 during their 1925 expedition. However, at this time, most archaeologists assumed the Olmec were contemporaneous with the Maya – even Blom and La Farge were, in their own words, "inclined to ascribe them to the Maya culture".Quoted in Coe (1968), p. 40.
Matthew Stirling of the Smithsonian Institution conducted the first detailed scientific excavations of Olmec sites in the 1930s and 1940s. Stirling, along with art historian Miguel Covarrubias, became convinced that the Olmec predated most other known Mesoamerican civilizations.Coe (1968), pp. 42–50.
In counterpoint to Stirling, Covarrubias, and Alfonso Caso, however, Mayanists J. Eric Thompson and Sylvanus Morley argued for Classic-era dates for the Olmec artifacts. The question of Olmec chronology came to a head at a 1942 Tuxtla Gutierrez conference, where Alfonso Caso declared that the Olmecs were the "mother culture" (" cultura madre") of Mesoamerica."Esta gran cultura, que encontramos en niveles antiguos, es sin duda madre de otras culturas, como la maya, la teotihuacana, la zapoteca, la de El Tajín, y otras" ("This great culture, which we encounter in ancient levels, is without a doubt mother of other cultures, like the Maya, the Teotihuacana, the Zapotec, that of El Tajin, and others".) Caso (1942), p. 46.
Shortly after the conference, radiocarbon dating proved the antiquity of the Olmec civilization, although the "mother culture" question generated considerable debate even 60 years later.Coe (1968), p. 50.
The Olmecs could have had direct influence on the societies around them. Olmec iconography and artwork uses imagery of animals such as the jaguar and the serpent, as well as large heads to depict their leaders. This same artwork and imagery can be seen in later civilizations' art and creations. Many Olmec artifacts have been found beyond their original territory. Despite the evidence, the hypothesis of a "mother culture" is uncertain as the diversity of cultures in Mesoamerica is great enough that the cultural strides made by the Olmec could have been made by other civilizations independently. In some cases, the motifs seen in Olmec archaeology might have been adopted from even earlier civilizations. Examples of these civilizations include the site of Zohapilco, the center for Tlatilco culture, the Zapotec peoples, and San Jose Mogote. Discoveries of older agriculture, writing, and ceramic creation show that cultures surrounding the Olmecs could have been more advanced, meaning that the Olmecs are not necessarily the "mother culture" that has been hypothesized.
At the site of Zohapilco, some of the oldest ceramics in Mesoamerica have been found dating back to almost 5,000 years ago. The area was known to have had a high population and was a clay-rich source for brickmaking.Hepp, Guy David. "Interaction and Exchange in Early Formative Western and Central Mesoamerica: New Data from Coastal Oaxaca.” Interregional Interaction in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Joshua D. Englehardt and Michael D. Carrasco, University Press of Colorado, 2019, pp. 51–82. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvkjb2qb.7. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024. The ceramic figurines that have been found there represent pregnant women and could have influenced later Olmec civilization. Olmec art shows that they could have adopted very similar styles of art.Evans, Susan T. (2004). Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology and Culture History. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28440-7., p. 122. These connections show the complexity of Mesoamerican culture through the discovery of more and more ceramics throughout the region.
San Jose Mogote is another site that has elements of cultural strides that the Olmecs could have adopted as the site can be dated back to 1500–500 BCE. San Jose Mogote is a site that dates to the early Zapotec peoples, a civilization that situated well outside the Olmec heartland. The site shows some of the earlier signs of a working irrigation system by diverting water from streams over cropland.Marcus, Joyce; Kent V. Flannery (1996). Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05078-3. This irrigation system created by the Zapotecs existed well before the Olmecs existed as a society. The Olmecs also used various irrigation methods, but because of the difference in dating it is safe to infer that they most likely obtained some of these methods and ideas from the Zapotecs.
Despite evidence existing that at one time pointed in the direction that the Olmecs could have been a "mother culture" in Mesoamerica, these new discoveries largely refute that idea. The older evidence of the Zapotecs and other civilizations show that what was once considered Olmec technological and social evolutions were in fact much more widespread throughout the region before the Olmecs had even arrived at their strongest point. Mesoamerica is filled with many different civilizations that all contributed to the overall development of the region as time went on.
This pioneering study of mitochondrial DNA in 2018 was carried out on two Olmec individuals, one from San Lorenzo and the other from Loma del Zapote, resulted, in both cases, in the unequivocal presence of the distinctive mutations of the haplogroup A maternal lineage. They share the most abundant of the five mitochondrial haplogroups characteristic of the indigenous populations of the Americas: A, B, C, D and X.Genetic Affiliation of Pre-Hispanic and Contemporary Mayas Through Maternal Linage (Ochoa-Lugo 2016) [6]Villamar Becerril Enrique, “Estudios de ADN y el origen de los olmecas", Arqueología Mexicana, núm. 150, pp. 40–41.(2019)[7]
As of 2018, mitochondrial DNA studies carried out on Olmec remains, one from San Lorenzo and the other from Loma del Zapote, resulted, in both cases, in the "unequivocal presence of the distinctive mutations of the “A" maternal lineage. That is, the maternal ancestry of the Olmecs is not in Africa but in America, since they share the most abundant of the five mitochondrial haplogroups characteristic of the indigenous populations of the continent: A, B, C, D and X.
Kunz axes
The Kunz axes (also known as "votive axes") are figures that represent and were apparently used for rituals. In most cases, the head is half the total volume of the figure. All Kunz axes have flat noses and an open mouth. The name "Kunz" comes from George Frederick Kunz, an American Mineralogy, who described a figure in 1890.
Beyond the heartland
Olmec-style artifacts, designs, figurines, monuments and iconography have been found in the archaeological records of sites hundreds of kilometres outside the Olmec heartland. These sites include:See Pool, pp. 179–242; Diehl, pp. 126–151.
Central Mexico
Tlatilco and Tlapacoya, major centers of the Tlatilco culture in the Valley of Mexico, where artifacts include hollow baby-face motif figurines and Olmec designs on ceramics.
Western Mexico
Teopantecuanitlan, in Guerrero, which features Olmec-style monumental art as well as city plans with distinctive Olmec features.
Southern Mexico and Guatemala
Olmec influence is also seen at several sites in the Southern Maya area.
Nature of interaction
Many theories have been advanced to account for the occurrence of Olmec influence far outside the heartland, including long-range trade by Olmec merchants, Olmec colonization of other regions, Olmec artisans travelling to other cities, conscious imitation of Olmec artistic styles by developing towns – some even suggest the prospect of Olmec military domination or that the Olmec iconography was actually developed outside the heartland.Flannery et al. (2005) hint that Olmec iconography was first developed in the Tlatilco culture.
Notable innovations
In addition to their influence with contemporaneous Mesoamerican cultures, as the first civilization in Mesoamerica, the Olmecs are credited, or speculatively credited, with many "firsts", including the bloodletting and perhaps human sacrifice, writing and epigraphy, and the invention of popcorn, zero and the Mesoamerican calendar, and the Mesoamerican ballgame, as well as perhaps the compass.See Carlson for details of the compass. Some researchers, including artist and art historian Miguel Covarrubias, even postulate that the Olmecs formulated the forerunners of many of the later Mesoamerican deities.Covarrubias, p. 27.
Bloodletting and sacrifice speculation
Although the archaeological record does not include explicit representation of Olmec bloodletting,Taube (2004), p. 122. researchers have found other evidence that the Olmec ritually practiced it. For example, numerous natural and ceramic stingray spikes and Agave americana have been found at Olmec sites,As one example, see Joyce et al., "Olmec Bloodletting: An Iconographic Study". and certain artifacts have been identified as bloodletters.See Taube (2004), p. 122.
Writing
The Olmec may have been the first civilization in the Western Hemisphere to develop a writing system. Symbols found in 2002 and 2006 date from 650 BCESee Pohl et al. (2002). and 900 BCE respectively, preceding the oldest Zapotec writing found so far, which dates from about 500 BCE.
Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and invention of the zero concept
The Long Count calendar used by many subsequent Mesoamerican civilizations, as well as the concept of zero, may have been devised by the Olmecs. Because the six artifacts with the earliest Long Count calendar dates were all discovered outside the immediate Maya homeland, it is likely that this calendar predated the Maya and was possibly the invention of the Olmecs. Indeed, three of these six artifacts were found within the Olmec heartland. But an argument against an Olmec origin is the fact that the Olmec civilization had ended by the 4th century BCE, several centuries before the earliest known Long Count date artifact."Mesoamerican Long Count calendar & invention of the zero concept" section cited to Diehl, p. 186.
Mesoamerican ballgame
The Olmec are strong candidates for originating the Mesoamerican ballgame so prevalent among later cultures of the region and used for recreational and religious purposes.Miller and Taube (1993) p. 42. Pool, p. 295. A dozen rubber balls dating to 1600 BCE or earlier have been found in El Manatí, a bog east of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan.Ortiz C. These balls predate the earliest ballcourt yet discovered at Paso de la Amada, c. 1400 BCE, although there is no certainty that they were used in the ballgame.See Filloy Nadal, p. 27, who says "If they the were used in the ballgame, we would be looking at the earliest evidence of this practice".
Ethnicity and language
While the actual ethno-linguistic affiliation of the Olmec remains unknown, various hypotheses have been put forward. For example, in 1968 Michael D. Coe speculated that the Olmec were Maya predecessors.Coe (1968) p. 121.
Religion
Olmec religious activities were performed by a combination of rulers, full-time priests, and . The rulers seem to have been the most important religious figures, with their links to the Olmec deities or supernaturals providing legitimacy for their rule.Diehl, p. 106. See also J. E. Clark, p. 343, who says "much of the art of La Venta appears to have been dedicated to rulers who dressed as gods, or to the gods themselves". There is also considerable evidence for shamans in the Olmec archaeological record, particularly in the so-called "transformation figures".Diehl, p. 106.
Social and political organization
Little is directly known about the societal or political structure of Olmec society. Although it is assumed by most researchers that the colossal heads and several other sculptures represent rulers, nothing has been found like the Maya stelae which name specific rulers and provide the dates of their rule.See, for example, Cyphers (1996), p. 156.
Trade
The wide diffusion of Olmec artifacts and "Olmecoid" iconography throughout much of Mesoamerica indicates the existence of extensive long-distance trade networks. Exotic, prestigious and high-value materials such as greenstone and marine shell were moved in significant quantities across large distances. Some of the reasons for trade revolve around the lack of obsidian in the heartland. The Olmec used obsidian in many tools because worked edges were very sharp and durable. Most of the obsidian found has been traced back to Guatemala showing the extensive trade. While the Olmec were not the first in Mesoamerica to organize long-distance exchanges of goods, the Olmec period saw a significant expansion in interregional trade routes, more variety in material goods exchanged and a greater diversity in the sources from which the base materials were obtained.
Village life and diet
Despite their size and deliberate urban design, which was copied by other centers, San Lorenzo and La Venta were largely ceremonial centers, and the majority of the Olmec lived in villages similar to present-day villages and hamlets in Tabasco and Veracruz.Except where otherwise (foot)noted, this Village life and diet section is referenced to Diehl (2004), Davies, and Pope et al.
History of archaeological research
Olmec culture was unknown to historians until the mid-19th century. In 1869, the Mexican antiquarian traveller José Melgar y Serrano published a description of the first Olmec monument to have been found in situ. This monument – the colossal head now labelled Tres Zapotes Monument A – had been discovered in the late 1850s by a farm worker clearing forested land on a hacienda in Veracruz. Hearing about the curious find while travelling through the region, Melgar y Serrano first visited the site in 1862 to see for himself and complete the partially exposed sculpture's excavation. His description of the object, published several years later after further visits to the site, represents the earliest documented report of an artifact of what is now known as the Olmec culture.See translated excerpt from Melgar y Serrano's original 1869 report, reprinted in Adams (1991), p. 56. See also Pool (2007), pp. 1, 35 and Stirling (1968), p. 8.
DNA
In the investigations of the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán Archaeological Project at the sites of San Lorenzo and Loma del Zapote, several human burials from the Olmec period were found. The bone consistency in two of them allowed the study of their mitochondrial DNA to be carried out successfully, as part of an investigation that proposes the comparative analysis of the genetic information of the Olmecs with that obtained from subjects from other Mesoamerican societies under the advice of the specialists Dr. María de Lourdes Muñoz Moreno and Miguel Moreno Galeana, both at CINVESTAV in Mexico.
Alternative origin speculations
Partly because the Olmecs developed the first Mesoamerican civilization, and partly because little is known of them compared to later Mesoamerican civilizations such as the Maya or Aztec, a number of Olmec alternative origin speculations have been put forth. Although several of these speculations, particularly the theory that the Olmecs were of African origin popularized by Ivan Van Sertima's book They Came Before Columbus, have become well known within popular culture, they are not considered credible by the vast majority of Mesoamerican researchers and scientists, who discard them as pop-culture pseudo-science.See Grove (1976) or Ortiz de Montellano (1997).
Gallery
See also
Bibliography
Cyphers, Ann (1999). 9780884022527, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection and Trustees for Harvard University. . ISBN 9780884022527
Grove, David C. (1981). 9780884020981, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection; Trustees for Harvard University. ISBN 9780884020981
Taube, Karl (2025). 9780884022756, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection; Trustees of Harvard University. . ISBN 9780884022756
External links
Categories: 16th-century Bc Establishments, 4th-century Bc Disestablishments, Ancient Peoples, Archaeological Cultures Of North America, Formative Period In The Americas, History Of Guerrero, History Of Tabasco, History Of Veracruz, Hyperdiffusionism, Mesoamerican Cultures, Pre-columbian Cultures Of Mexico, Indigenous Peoples In Mexico
|
|
