Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Gulf Olmee of Ancient Veracruz, Mexico Philip J. Amold IIL The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 58, No. 4, Pots & People. (Dec., 1995), pp. 191-199. Stable URL hitp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicisici=0006-0895% 281995 12% 2958%3A4%3C 19 1%3AEPATGO%3E2,0,CO%3B2-Q The Biblical Archaeologist is currently published by The American Schools of Oriental Research. Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutp:/www jstor.orgijoumnals/asor html, ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Thu Sep 14 20:38:53 2006Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Gulf Olmec of Ancient Veracruz, Mexico By Philip J. Arnold IIL HE SOUTHERN GuLF COAST OF VERACRUZ, MEXICO, 1S FAR removed from the circum-Mediterranean areas Ust- ally discussed in Biblical Archaeologist. Infact, the only connection may be the romantic ruminations of arm-chair historians who would link these regions by way of lost Israelite tribes o far-ranging Phoenicians Given the unlikely prospect of pre-Columbian transoceanic contact, the archae- ology of Mexico would appear to have little relevance to the ancient Bible lands. Nonetheless, important parallels exist in the issues that vex archaeologists on both sides ofthe Alantic. Common ques- tions address the distinction of indigenous from exogenous cultural forces the formation of socioeconomic inequality, and the founding of langer-scale, urban centers. In fact, valuable insight is possible when similar questions are evaluated in terms of different data bases. In this paper I take up the issue of ethnicity, pottery, and cultural variation. I discuss these topics against the backdrop of the Gulf Olmec of southern Veracruz, Mexico. The Gulf ‘Olmec constitutes one of the earliest complex chiefdoms that developed in Mesoamerica and are justifiably recognized for their megalithic sculpture and large-scale, earthen, ceremo- nial architecture. The southern Gulf Coast of Mexico has been ‘characterized as the “heartland” of the Gulf Olmec culture and is seen by many as the point from which their distinctive art style originated and spread (e.g, Coe 1965; Lowe 1989). Although often perceived as a homogeneous culture, new ‘At an impressive 1.67 m in height this sculptured head probably portrayed an individual leader of San Lorenzo, the early Olmec ‘enter where it was unearthed. It may have served to reinforce the prominence and prerogatives ofthe leader lineage. The absence of such megalithic sculpture from the Tuxtlas region suggest that its Population groups did not participate in this system of self- promotion. Photograph © Pictures of Record. research within and beyond this “heartland” is hanging our ideas about the development of thi important society (Sharer 1989), Here I consider the degree to which the availabe evi- dence indicates significant internal variation within the Gulf Oimec region. My purposes to explore the possible char- acter of cultural change within the “heartland” and place Gulf Olmec transformation ina less unilineal and more dynamic light. Pottery and Ethnicity The use of specific material remains to identify a pa ‘lar culture has a healthy tration in archaeology This approach ‘was clearly evident inthe writings of V.Gordon Childe (1925), Bical Archaeologist 58:4 (1295) 11‘who proposed that combinations of repeatedly associated arti- facts serve as the diagnostic criteria for defining archaeological cultures. This normative view of culture similarly informed much of North American archaeology during the mid~ twentieth century. Itis fair to say that of all archaeological material, potery provides the most common medium used to identify discrete cultures, The working assumption behind this reasoning is that decisions represented in the designs and forms of ceram- ‘csreflect the mental template, and thus the cultura consciousness of the producer and consumer. One need only document, the spatially restricted co-occurrence of certain traits to estab- lish this template. Ultimately the archaeological “culture” could be charted across space and through time. Pottery$ restricted role as an index of culture history began to change in the proximity, and common descent. Ideas regarding ethnicity become increasingly varied beyond the above principles (Cohen 1978; Williams 1989). Two different views of ethnicity dominate the anthropological literature (eg, Keyes 1981), The first sees ethnicity as a “‘pri- ‘montiat” phenomenon, an ascribed affiliation that links groups through a common ancestry. In this context pottery. as an eth- nic marker, functions much like it would have according to the more normative interpretations of culture noted above. ‘The second perspective approaches ethnic identification as. fluid phenomenon, one that responds to different situa- tions and circumstances. According to this “circumstantial” approach, ethnicity may be considered as an objective and /or a subjective social construct that reacts in the face of group 1950s, primarily through the influence of radiometric dating techniques Freed from their chronological restraints ceram= ics were used to ask a different, more behavior oriented, range of questions. This trend was evident in the “ceramic ‘ecology’ of Matson (1965) in which he suggested that pottery be used to inves- tigate the relationship between producers and their natural and cultural environ- ments. This new use of ceramics was, operationalized through the “ceramic sociology” of the late 1960s. Research by eetz (1965) and Longacre (197), among, ‘others evaluated models of descent and post-marital residence patterns through the leaming framework of potters as rep- resented in variations within ceramic design elements, An added overlay to this more “cul- Valley of Mexia Yucatan Peninsula tural” use of pottery was the recognition that style may convey information about the producers users and uses of ceramic vessels (Plog 1978; Wobst 1977) This infor- ‘Map of Mesoamerica, showing the Gulf Olmec “Heartland” of southern Veracuz and ‘northern Tabasco, Mexico. This region includes the Tuxtla Mountains, as well asthe major lowland Gulf Olmec centers of San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Laguna de los Cerros. Also shown ‘are (underlined) areas ouside ofthe Gulf lowlands that exhibit "Olmec style" artifacts. mation, however, is not considered tobe the passive reflection of cultural norms. Rather than view- ing style asa simple mirror of group affiliation, the “information school’ approaches pottery as a dynamic medium that actively transmits messages. Seen along these same lines, pottery also ‘becomes a vehicle by which individuals compete for prestige and/or appropriate important cultural identities. ‘One potential line of information conveyed through pot- tery is ethnic affiliation. Establishing ethnic affiliation, however, is rarely a straight-forward process. Infact, there is consider- able discussion in the social anthropology literature as to the exact nature of ethnicity. Most scholars would agree with Barths (1969) observations that ethnicity involves the cre- ation and maintenance of social boundaries. These boundaries are often reflected in dimensions of affiliation, including a shared system of communication, common values, geographic mm Bical Archaeologist 584 (1985) {goals and interests. The flexibility afforded ethnicity inthis ‘perspective is more consonant with the view that style isinfor- mation, malleable in its message and crosscutting different contexts with different messages. Ethnicity therefor, is not synonymous with culture ‘Not surprisingly therefore anthropologists have not applied the ethnic label evenly or consistently Some researchers empha- size biological origins and common language, while others believe that ethnicity is a response to various circum- stances. Nonetheless all sides agree thatthe “‘us/them’ disintion has strong political overtones and may be imposed from with- ‘out or employed from within. In the following discussion, 1 adopt the perspective of Keyes (1981) that these views need not be mutually exclusive and that both in combination afford the best line of investigationGiven the above discussion, pottery would seem to pro- vvide a ready medium for ethnic identification. Pottery vessels are usually short-lived, so information could be easily updated. Pottery is also plastic, so a wide range of information can be transmitted. Finally, pottery performs in a variety of contexts, ranging from domestic to public. All ofthese contexts provide an opportunity for an individual or group of individuals to proclaim ethnic identity via ceramics. The Gulf Olmec The term Gulf Olmec embodies both a culture and an art style (Grove 1993). Nonetheles.a failure to appreciate this dis- tinction continues to produce considerable confusion in the archaeological literature. As a cultural entity, the Gulf and the faa! or double scroll Recent research by a number of Mesoamerican archae- ologists is clarifying the distinction between the Gulf ‘Olmec as a culture and the Olmec as an art style. An impor- tant result ofthis work is the recognition that the Gulf Olmec ‘were not the “mother culture” of Mesoamerica, as the wide- spread distribution of stylistic motifs has been interpreted. Rather, many archaeologists prefer to see Mesoamerican soci- ties during the early part of the first millennium ace as participating in a shared system of beliefs and ideologies that is expressed through similar motifs on portable sculpture and ceramics. Nonetheless there is growing evidence that similar motifs may have played different roles and conveyed differ- ‘ent “meaning” at sites distributed throughout Mesoamerica (Flannery and Marcus 1994; Grove 1989). ie ee —_A_A A “Sn. xlf= = ‘We stand at an important threshold in. “Mesoamerican studies in which the devel ‘opment of socio-economic complexit originally attributed to the far-flung activ- ities ofa single group is now viewed as an interactive and dynamic social phe- ‘The “Heartland” Given the increased emphasis on the regionalized nature of culture develop ‘ment in Mesoamerica itis appropriate to focus attention on the area of south- ‘em Veracruz and northem Tabasco usually referred to as the Gulf Olmec “Heart- land.” This area is demarcated by the presence of megalithic sculpture ren- ae Early and Middle Formative period pottery motif linked to the "Olmec style.” These designs Include the crocodiian profile with “flaming eyebrows” (upper left and right), the "paw wing” (lower right) and the “double line break” lower lft). After Flannery and Marcus 1994fg. 12.1 and Grove 1993. 2. Olmec occupied the area of southern Veracruz and north- em Tabasco, Mexico from approximately 1200 ack to 400 vcr. ‘This era spans the Early and Middle Formative periods in the Mesoamerican chronology. The Gulf Olmec adaptation was ‘based on swidden maize agriculture, supplemented with river- ine and terrestrial resources (Coe and Dieh! 1980; Rust and Leyden 1994), The primary diagnostic of the Gulf Olmec culture was their penchant for megalithic sculpture (colossal heads, “thrones,” and stele) and large-scale, earthen, ceremo- nial architecture In contrast the use ofthe term Olmec as an art style refers toa suite of traits and motifs that occur on artifacts distrib- uted throughout Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize also dating to the Early and Middle Formative periods. These artistic con- ventions include figures with “flaming” eyebrows cleft forehead down-tumed mouths and incorporate either a feline ora croc- odilian quality. On pottery the “Olmec’ style includes incised designs such as the “paw wing” motif, “St. Andrew$ cross,” dered in the Gulf Olmec style and extends from the Papaloapan River on the west- em edge to the Grijalva River to the east (Lowe 1988), This region includes sev- eral of the largest riverine systems in Mexico resulting in the apt designation ‘of the Gulf Olmec as the “People ofthe River” (Coe and Dich! 1980). ‘To date, the majority of Gulf Olmec research carried out in this area has been realized at only two major sites: San Lorenzo and La Venta (Sharer 1989). Additional, albeit periph- ‘ral fieldwork has been conducted at Laguna de los Cerros and Tres Zapotes. Research within the Gulf Oimec Heartland has spanned almost fifty years although fieldwork at any sin- gle site has been relatively short term and sporadic (Arnold 194), Given the overall paucity of information regarding settle- ‘ment distributions throughout this area, characterizations of Gulf Olmec usually concentrate on the four sites mentioned above. In discussions of regional-level phenomena, there is a tendency to treat these sites as contemporaneous, result- ing in models of discrete “polities” that are interacting with cone another (eg, Drucker 1981; Earle 176) This treatment is unfortunate, since data from San Lorenzo and La Venta show Biblical Archaeologist 58:4 (1995) 193that their respective “heydays” over- lapped very litte Furthermore although ‘excavations at Laguna de los Cerros and. ‘Tres Zapotes indicate Olmec period oocu- pation, this fieldwork also demonstrates that much of the most elaborate archi- tecture postates the Olmec culture Bove 1978; Drucker 1943). In other words, in the absence of much needed informa- tion it would be premature to consider the “Gulf Olmec Heartland” as com- prising a series of distinct, possibly competing, polities As noted above, competition is an important context within which ethnic identification is expressed. IF Gulf Olmec polities within the heartland were not competing, does it necessarily follow that ethnic dferences did not exist within the heartland region? I would argue that, ‘while the Gulf Olmec constitutes a single culture, italso com- prises several ethnic groups distributed across the Gulf lowlands. ‘Competition between these groups may not be overtly political, but rather competition may result from environ- ‘mental variation within the heartland. This ethnic variation, in turn, is reflected through differences in settlement orga- nization, scale of socio-economic complexity, and the presence /absence of artifacts and stylistic motifs. To date, the best evidence for this ethnic variation occurs in the Tuxtla Mountains of southern Veracruz, Mexico, Gulf Olmec and the Tuxtla Mountains ‘Although the Gulf Coasts often characterized asa coastal plain, that description masks a considerable amount of environmental and physiographic variation (Arnold 1994). For ur current purposes, the single most important variation within the Gulf Olmec Heartland is the Tuxtla Mountains, a volcanic uplift that reaches a height of 1500 m. This region exhibits some ofthe heaviest annual precipitation (> 3m) and, {ishhome to some ofthe riches soils anywhere along the south Gulf Coast. ‘The volcanic Tuxtlas also provide a suite of resources that are not duplicated along the coastal plain (Arnold et a. 1993). For example, the basalt used for Gulf Olmec megalithic sculp- ture and utilitarian ground stone utensils was quarried in the ‘Tntlas (Coe and Dich! 1980) Tropical bird feathers and cinnabar are other resources that may have attracted early socio-eco- ‘nomic interests in the region. In act, $0 rich were the resources of these volcanic uplands that Hernan Cortes, the famous Spanish conquistador, requested the labor and produce from the Tuxtlas as partial payment for his efforts on behalf of the Spanish Crown, Given the environmental character and important resources of this upland zone, scholars have long speculated as to the connection between the Taxtlas and the Gulf Olmec centers to the south and east, Some archaeologists even suggested that 14 Bilal Archaeolgist 58:4 (1295) {A The Tuxtla Mountains within the Gulf Olmec "Heartland." The region is characterized by rch, voleanic soils and abundant rains Natural resources from the Tuxtlas were exchanged across Mesoamerica during much of the pre-Columbian era. Photographs courtesy ofthe author V7 The settlement distribution in the Tuxtlas shows a surprising lack of large sites during the Early and Middle Formative period. This pattern contrasts markedly with the coeval settlement organization ‘elsewhere in the Gulf Olmec “Heartland.” Formative Period 100 arly Middle 50 Percent of Sites the Tuts constituted the original “homeland” of the occu- pants at San Lorenzo and La Venta (Heizer 1968-22). The fact that maize was present in the Tuxtlas approximately half a millennium before it appeared at the major Gulf Olmec centers (Goman 1992) further implicates the Tuxtlas as an. ‘important region during this time period, ‘During 1991 and 1992 I served as co-director ofa regional survey of the Taxtla Mountains (Santley and Amold 1995) This survey focused on surface settlement remains and documented. the entire pre-Hispanic occupational sequence within a{J Columnar basalt, such a this outcrop in the Tutlas, was used by the Gulf Olmec for a variety of tasks. At La Venta, long pieces of| basalt served as construction material for an elite tomb. ‘Y These drilled, ilmenite cubes found in the Tuxtlas link the region 10 activities taking place at Gulf Olmec centers such as San Lorenzo and La Venta, The function ofthese objects, however, remains unknown. four hundred square km portion of the volcanic uplands. As a result ofthis research, we now have considerable informa- tion on the Early and Middle Formative period within the upland portion of the Gulf Olmec Heartland. These data pro- le an important contrast to the riverine and estuarine ‘occupation within other portions ofthe Gulf Coast during the arly and Middle Formative periods Perhaps the most important finding from our recent set- tlement survey is the lack of congruence between the ‘Tuxtlas occupation and that documented around Olmec cen- ters such as San Lorenzo and La Venta. First, we encounter none ofthe large-scale architecture that characterizes the Gulf ‘Olmec centers. To be sure, several sites, in our study area boast large numbers of high earthen mounds, but these sites invariably date to the later por- tion of the pre-Columbian sequence. In other words, the monumental con- struction that characterizes Gulf Otmec ‘occupation in other parts of the Heart- land is not replicated in the Tuxtlas. ‘Another important distinction ‘between the two areas is the lack of three dimensional megalithic sculpture in our study region. As noted above, such sculp- ture has been a distinguishing characteristic of Gulf Olmec occupation. Furthermore, the Taxtlas provides the raw material from which the large-scale sculpture is carved, To be sure, we did encounter sculptures that date to later time periods It is surprising, therefore, to find no evidence for Gulf Olmec mega- lithic art in our survey area, ‘Nonetheless, similarities in material culture do link the ‘Tunas oacupation with the Gulf Olmec. For example, we recov ‘ered several drilled ilmenite cubes that are very similar to ‘examples excavated at San Lorenzo (Coe and Diehl 1980; Lowe 1989) Timenit, an iron-black material, snot a natural resource Of the Tuxtlas (nor anywhere along the Gulf Coast; like the cubes from San Lorenzo, the Tuxtlas artifacts may have ‘come from a source in Oaxaca, Mexico, several hundred miles to the west Lithic material from Early and Middle Formative period sites in the Tuxtias also conforms tothe general patterns estab- lished for the Gulf Coast. Our survey recovered considerable quantities of obsidian all of which was imported into the study region, Neutron activation analysis of trace elements indicates that the obsidian originated from the same primary sources that provided lithics to other Early and Middle Formative period Gulf Coast occupation (Cobean et al. 1991). More- over, our lithic artifacts from the Formative era mimic the flake-dominated assemblages recovered from other Gulf Olmec settlements In sum, the Tuxtlas survey data indicate important varia- tion within the study region when compared to other Gulf ‘Olmec occupations Certain imported materials, such as obsid- ian and ilmenite, ink the Tuxtlas with other heartland areas. ‘At the same time, the use of local materials such as basalt takes ‘ona very different character when the Tuxtlas are contrasted ‘with San Lorenzo or La Venta. Furthermore the minimal set- tlement hierarchy and lack of large-scale, civie-ceremonial architecture in the study region also distinguishes the Tuxt- las occupants from other Gulf Olmec groups. Gulf Olmec Pottery Perhaps the most difficult arena of material culture to inter- pret from our survey efforts is pottery: Not surprisingly, the Bical Archaeologist 58:4 (1995) 195ceramics from our Early and Middle For- ‘mative period sites are neither an exact duplicate nor a total departure from assemblages that characterize the coastal Gulf Olmec settlements. Navigating between these extremes involves filter- ing out the products of our survey methods themselves and exploring the ‘way in which pottery may be used to ‘communicate at different scales along, the south Gulf Coast. Similarities in the ceramics include types that are common, not just on the Gulf Coast, but throughout Mesoamer- ica during this period. In fact, because our regional research, involved surface survey, ceramic cross-dating constituted the primary means by which site chronologies were established. In other words our research strategy almost ensured that any sites we attributed to the Early and Middle Formative periods ‘would contain pottery similar to that from controlled For- ‘mative period contexts throughout Mesoamerica. (Our research was certainly successful in this regard. For example white-rimmed blackware, usually in the form of flat- bottomed serving dishes, is a common Early and Middle Formative pottery type on the Gulf Coast, in Highland Mex- ‘co, and along, the Pacific Coast of Mesoamerica (Lowe 1989). \Not surprisingly, we encountered small percentages of this ‘ceramic on our survey. A common ceramic form is the teco- mate—a neckless, globular jar whose functions may have included storage and cooking, Characteristic Early and Mid- de Formative period designs on these neckless jars include rockerstamped incisions (caused by “rocking” the edge of a shell along the exterior shoulder of the vessel) and thumb nail ‘punctation (also found on the vessels exterior shoulder); (Lowe 1989), Tecomates of this type also occurred throughout the sur- ‘vey region, as did other surface treatments such as brushing and reed punctation. Nonetheless, decoration was present on less than five per cent of the ceramic assemblage, irrespec- ‘tive of the settlement context (ie, hamlet village) in which it ‘was recovered, For our present purposes the absence of certain designs ‘sas noteworthy as the presence of others. For example, a com ‘mon ceramic complex associated with the Olmec style (as well, as the Gulf Olmec centers) includes “boldly carved” designs, ona hard paste white ware (Coe and Diehl! 1980). Design ‘elements include “X”-shapes and “flaming eyebrows” Research ‘outside the coastal heartland suggests that these motifs are strongly associated with lineage affiliations (Flannery and, Marcus 1994) Interestingly,no pottery with these designs was recovered from our survey. Instead, we find a less “robust, local version, ‘of the carved white ware one thatis executed more in the style ‘of broad incision than carving. Furthermore, the hatchure design represented on these ceramics appears to be a derivative of a more finely incised black-ware tradition found along the Gulf Coast. 196 Biblical Archaeologist 584 (1996) ia A Tecomate ris from the Tuxtlas ae thicker and less elaborate ‘than those from other Gulf Olmec “Heartland! sites. These examples include such decoration as thumbnail punctate (top row) and rocker stamping (bottom right ‘VAcollection of surface artifacts from a Gui Olmec ste located on ‘the lower flanks ofthe Tustla Mountains. Diagnostic artifacts include ‘hite-rimmed black ware (bottom right, a figurine torso (center), and thin-walled tecomate rim (upper right. Assecond widespread stylistic motif commonly associated ‘with this time period is the “line break.” This simple linear design is usually incised on the interior of bowls and dishes Nonetheless Early and Middle Formative period assem- ‘lages from our survey are surprisingly lacking in this “Olmec style” diagnostic. Stark (1994) argues that a more regional “line-break” tradition can be identified for Northern and Cen- tral Veracruz, in which “line-breaks’ occur on the exterior of vessels. The fact that this style does not extend into southern, Veracruz suggests that the Olmec Heartland participated in ‘a separate social arena during this time period. The lack of either element in the Tuxtlas pottery assemblage implies that this region occupies a distinct middle ground between the Gulf Olmec to the south and the Early and Middle For- mative groups to the north. ‘The evidence from our survey indicates that the over- whelming majority of pottery consisted of undecorated, locallyIncsed white ware found inthe Tuxtas is very different from the “boldly carved” ceramics recovered at San Lorenzo. This difference in style may represent distinct “messages,” possibly associated with ethnic set identification produced vessels. There is a tendency for larger communities toexhibit relatively more decorated pottery, but the difference isnot statistically significant. Texrmates dominate the assem- blage, but these are not the finely made, thin-walled vessels found elsewhere in the heartland, Several shapes that are com- ‘mon at San Lorena such asthe “fluted” vessel or the long-neckedt bottle, were not encountered on our survey. Discussion It should be clear from the above presentation that Early and Middle Formative period occupation within the Taxtlas was rather different from occupation along the surrounding coastal plain. Variation in material culture, especially pot- tery styles combined with diflerences in settlement configuration and subsistence orientation all contribute to this characteri- zation. The question, of course is to what degree these diferences may be attributed to ethnicity as opposed to some other expla- nation. Returning to our original discussion of ethnicity, it was pointed out that ethnic distinctions may be constructed inter- nally or externally. In other words ethnicity can be established through self-identification (internal) or by the imposition of an ethnic classification by others (external). Ethnicity is not simply what you call yourself; ethnicity is also what you are called by others. It is difficult at this point to establish the degree to ‘which the Tuxtlas inhabitants identified themselves as an eth- nic group separate from other Gulf Olmec. Certain facts would seem to suggest a distinction; these include the distinctive pottery designs that are not duplicated along the coastal plain and the lack of correspondence between the fecomates in the ‘Tantlas with those at Gulf Olmec centers. Nonetheless, the fact that imported goods such as obsidian and ilmenite occur throughout the Gulf Olmec Heartland suggests that the Tuxt- las were not isolated from their lowland neighbors. The fact that occupants at Gulf Olmec centers made considerable use of Tuxtlas basalt further underscores the probable link- ages between these areas, Although the evidence for an inter- nally defined ethnic group in the Tuxtlas remains ambiguous, I believe that the ‘occupants ofthe major Gulf Olmec cen- ters were actively engaged in a process of ethnic differentiation. This process included self-identification as well as efforts to distance themselves both socially and politically from other groups within the Gulf Oimec Heartland, In other words ethnic construction in the Titlas resulted as much from sel-lgitimization by non- local Gulf Olmec groups as it did from internal self-awareness and empower- ‘ment in the Tuxtlas Several lines of evidence support this pesition The colossal hasalt heads believed tobe portraits of individual leaders, sug- _gest that lineage differentiation and affiliation may have been ‘an important part of social life for the Gulf Olmec at San Lorenzo. Furthermore, certain motifs associated with the head, ‘gear of these sculptures are replicated on monuments at La Venta, suggesting a lineage association between these Gulf ‘Olmec sites (Grove 1981)-The lack of Formative period sculp- ture in our study region indicates that Tuxtlas occupants were not participating in this system of self-promotion and were not perceived, either by themselves or by others, as part of these lineages. A similar situation may be reflected in the boldly carved pottery recovered at lowland Gulf Olmec centers. As men- tioned above, these pottery designs have also been linked to lineage identification. Again, their absence from the Taxtlas survey data suggests that the Tuxtlas occupants did not choose toaccess these ancestral ines. The irony, of course is that much has been made ofthe possible Gulf Olmec origins in the Toxt- Jas, including hypotheses thatthe large conical pyramid at La Venta is simply a replica of the volcanic cones in the Tuxtlas (Hleizer 1968:19-21) The fact that the Tuxtlas were linked to the coastal plains economically, but not socially or politically need not be a point cof confusion. Infact, this situation is reminiscent of what Keyes (1981:12; following Barth 1969:18) calls a “symbiotic relation- ship” between ethnic groups. This relationship allows for ‘groups to carry out different economic and /or political activ- ities, even though some groups may have greater access to ‘wealth and power than others. Despite these differences, it is the collective activities ofthe ethnic groups that permit the successful operation of the entire society Conclusion Grove (1993:86) recently suggested that the term "Gulf ‘Olmec” should be confined to the Early-to-Middlle Formative period culture located along the Mexican Gulf Coast that pro- duced large stone monuments and used stone for other ritual purposes. Based on this definition alone, the Tuxtlas study region would fall outside the realm of the Gulf Olmec. Biblical Archaeologist 58:4 (1995) 7(Combined with the lack ofa hierarchical socio-political orga- nization, a non-riverine subsistence focus, and the absence of diagnostic stylistic motifs on pottery and other media, the For- ‘mative period occupation inthe Tuxltas does assume a distinct, character along the Southern Gulf Coast. At the same time, it would be imprudent to divorce the ‘Tuntlas from the Gulf Olmec all together. We know that this region is intimately connected with the Gulf Olmec, a con- nection that occurs geographically (as part of the heartland), ‘economically (asa source of basalt) and perhaps ideologically (asa possible “homeland? These connections are too impor- tant to dismiss out of hand. Given the current information, I believe that there is rea- son to suggest that the Tuxtlas occupants constitute a distinct ethnic group within the Gulf Olmec culture. Although the Tuntlas was part of the Gulf Coast socio-economic system, this region didnot participate in much of the activity and sym- bolism that characterizes coastal occupation. Unfortunately, at the present time we cannot establish winether the occupants ‘of the Tutlas saw themselves as different or were viewed as different by the people at the Gulf Olmec centers. In either case, however, it is clear that there was a lack of copying or “appropriation” of emblems and motifs between these two area. Ultimately, we note a significant distinction between the activities of individuals in and around sites like San Lorenzo and La Venta and the behavior of individuals within the Tuxtla Mountains Unlike much of the Bible lands, in which there isa pro- longed literate record, writing did not occur along the Gulf Coast of Mexico until almost five hundred years after the end ‘of the Gulf Olmec occupation. Consequently, we are not ina position to discuss ethnicity from the perspective of language Cr based on the movement of historically documented groups. Instead, we must rely on variations in material culture, especially pottery, to reveal the possible existence and inter- action of ethnic groups. Although these differences may be subtle, they are no less informative. To paraphrase Cohen, (1981:319) ethnicity be it reflected through ancestral affilia- tion, corporate interests or just plain pottery is ultimately a matter of degree. Bibliography Arnold, Philip 199K An Overview of Southern Veracruz Archaeology Anco Mesoamr- fon 525-21 Arnold, Pilip | I, Pol, Christopher A, Kneebone, Ronald Rand Sant- ley Robert 5. 1993. Intensive Ceramic Production and Classic-Period Political Economy in the Sierra de los Tunas, Veracruz, Mexico Ancien! Mesoamerica 4175491 Barth Fredrik 1969 Introduction. Pp, 98 in Etre Gras and Boundaries: The Social Orgone of Cuae, edited by F Barth. Boston: Lite Brown. 198 Biblical Archaeologist 58:4 (1995) Bove, Frederick 1978 Laguna delos Cerros an Olmec Cental Place Joel of New Word Arciaclegy 261-56 Childe, V. Gordon. 1825. The Dn of Ewopean Cicieaton. London: Kegan Paul ‘Cobean, Robert H, Vogt James R, Glascock, Michael D, and Stocker, Ter- ance 1. 1991 High Precision Tce Element Characterization of Major Mesoamer sean Obsidian Soares and Further Analyses of Artists fom San [Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mexico Latin Americar Antigay 2196, Coe, Michae 1965 The Olmee Style and its Distribution. Pp. 739-75 in Handook of ‘Midi American Indians, Nol. 3 edited by G. Wiley. Austin: Un- versity of Toxas Pres (Coe, Michael and Dich Richard 1980 In he Lan of he On. Austin University of Texas Press (Coben, Abner 1981 Vatablein Ethnicity: Pp 307 in Etc Cue edted by C. Kayes Seattle: University of Washington Press. ‘Cohen, Ronald 1978 Ethnicity: Problem and Focus ip Anthropology. Asal Review of Aatepology 7:279-403 eet, James F 1865 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change Arka Camis. nos Stad= {es in Anthropology 4 Urbana: University of Hlinois Press Drucker Philip 13 Conic Sapince a Tes Zpotes men Meco. Bureau of Ameri- ‘on Ethnology Bulletin 140 Wshinglon, DC: SmittsonianInstittion. 1981 On the Nature of Olmec Polity. Pp. 29-47 in The Olnee ad Their Neos edited by E Benson Weshington, DC-Dumbarton Oaks, Earle Timothy 1975 A.Nearest-Neighbor Analysis of Two Formative Sttoment Sys- tems Pp. 196-223 in The Emiy Messameican Ville, edited by K. Flannery New York: Academic Pees Flannery. Kent Vand Marcus Joyce 1994” Ely Formate Ptr of the Vile of Onan. Memoirs cf the Museum. ‘of Anthropology, University of Michigan 27 Ann Arbor: Univer= sity of Michigan. Goman, Michele 192” PaseclicalExence for Prstoric Agricul and Topical Forest Clearance inthe Sier de os Tula, Vera Mexico. MLA. thesis, Department of Geography, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley. Grove, David C 1951 Olmee Monuments: Mutilation a8 a Cie to Meaning, Pp 49-68 in The Oinec aud Th Noghtors edited by E- Benson. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. 1969 Olmec: Whats in a Name? Pp 8-14 in Regional Perspectives om the Cie, edited by R Sharer and D. Grove. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, *Olmec" Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica: Difusion| or Social Evolution? Pp. 8311 in Latin American Horizons edited by D Rice. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks 1998,Heize Robert 1968 "New Observations on La Venta, Pp. 9-36 in Dumbaron Oaks Con Src on hee by E- Benson, Washington, DC: Dumbarton | Oaks. Keyes, Charles E 1981 The Dialects of Ethnic Change Pp 4-30 in Eric Chae, edited by C. Keyes. Seattle: Unversity of Washington Press. Longacre, Wiliam, W9M_Archaclgy as Aniopolgy: A Case Sut. Anthropological Papers ‘Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Lowe, Gareth W. 1889 The Heardand Olmec: Evolution of Material Culture. Pp 33-67 in agonal Pesce om the Oba edited by R Sharer and D.Grove (Cambridge: Camiridge University Press “Matson, Frederick R 1865 "Ceramic Ecology: An Approach tothe Study of Early Caltores in the Near Fast Pp. 202-7 in Commas an Melted by E Matson. (Chicago: Aldine Plog, Stephen 1978. Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A Reanalysis Pp. M43 {2in Advances in Arcelie Meth a Theory, el. edited by M.Schilfer New York: Academic Pres. Rust Wiliam and Leyden, BW. 1994 Evidence for Maize Use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta ‘Ole Sites: Pp 181-201 in Com and Cllr inthe Prehistoric New Philip Arnold isan Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Loyola University Chicago He received hs PRD from the University of New “Meaico in 1988 and fo the last ten years has caried out archaeologi- cal esearch in southern Veracruz, Mexico. is research emphasizes ‘raft production and the development of poiio-economis along, the ancient Gulf Coast Dr Arno has writen several articles 0 precolumbian pottery production and is the author of Domestic Ceramic Pct art Stal Organization Mexican Case Staal in Etioarhaclogy, Cambridge University Press. Hei currently investigating Formative Period household economics at La Joa in ‘he Tata Mountains, Worl edited by & Johannessen and C. Hastorf. Boulder: West- view Press, Santly, Robert Sand Amol Philp JIL ind. Prehispane Settlement Faterns in the Tantla Mountains South- cen Veracruz, Mexico, Jounal of Field Arhaely In press ‘Share Robert. 1989 Oimec Studies: A Status Report. Pp. 37 i Regional spect on ‘he Olmec edited by R. Sharer an D. Grove, Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Pres, ‘Stark, Barbara ‘nd. Gulf Coast Styles and Political Geography in Ancient Veracraz. In From Ome io Azte: Rot Setonnt tr Reson in the Anion? Gu Lowlands, edited by B Stark and P Arnold In prep Wiliams, BracketteF 1989 A Class Act: Anthropology and the Race o Nation across Eth- fic Teri, Arma Review of Ardopolagy BAC, obs, HM. 1977 Stylistic Behavior an Information Exchange. Pp. 3172 in For the Dino: Resowch Essays ix Honor of fans Grif, edited by C. Cleland. Anthropological Papers 6, Museum of Anthropology. [Ann Arbor University of Michigan, ‘We are proud to announce the resumption of the Mitchell Dahood Memorial Prize Competition in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic ‘The Society of Biblical Literature and the Ecumenical Theologi- ‘al Seminary in Detroit, Michigan, ate pleased o announce the continuation of this distinguished prize competition, which pro- ‘es an opportu for your scholars fo ons to the iscuasions ‘of ibiza Hebrew and Norwest Semitic The description of he com petition fellows ‘Subject: The Hebrew Bible Conditions 1. The competition is open to qualified junior faculty andl graduate students who have not eached ther 40th birthday by December 511996 2. They must be recommended by an established senior schon 1 They must hold the PRD. or equivalent degee, or bein the final tages of completing sch a depre. 2. Thedeadine for submission of manuscripts in February 2 1968 Prize 1. Acash award of $1500 othe winner 2. The author is expected to read the prize-winning paper atthe SBLI9%6 Annvol Meeting ‘Competition Committee Frank Moore Cros fe Harowd Unizeraty “Marvin Pope ile Unies Jack M. Season, Unive of Nort Caine David Noel Freedman So “hi vomiratans ques matsp edhe shouldbe sent fo the Duo Pze Competition Commute Dr Asti Beck, Coordinator Program on Studies in Religion 5 West Engnsering Bldg ‘The University of Michigan ‘Ann Arbor MI 481094092 Biblical Archaeologist 584 (1995) 19