The Early Olmec and Mesoamerica (The Material Record) - Defining Early Olmec Style Pottery - Techniques, Forms, and Motifs at San Lorenzo (2017)

CHAPTER TWO
DEFINING EARLY OLMEC STYLE POTTERY

Techniques, Forms, and Motifs at San Lorenzo
Jeffrey P. Blomster, David Cheetham, Rosemary A. Joyce,
and Christopher A. Pool
ottery classified as “Olmec style” occurs during the Early Horizon at sites
P throughout Mesoamerica and is crucial in exploring interregional inter-
action and the origins of Mesoamerican civilization. But what does “Olmec
style” actually mean? In the nearly 100 years that the concept has existed, it has
been applied inconsistently to a disparate range of material culture. We argue
that a basic obstacle in debates over Early Olmec style pottery, from 1150 to
900 bc, is a lack of uniform vocabulary for describing objects and the motifs
that appear on them, a necessary step that should precede identification of
symbolic referents. In this chapter, we seek to explicate a common lexicon for
technological and stylistic aspects of Early Olmec style pottery. We focus on
ceramic vessels and sherds, as they comprise the most common medium for the
Early Olmec style within Early Horizon Mesoamerica. Because the archaeo-
logical site of San Lorenzo, Veracruz, has generally been the yardstick for
comparison from researchers working throughout Early Horizon Mesoamer-
ica, we focus explicitly on the ceramics from that site. The data on which we
draw derive from the published literature (Coe and Diehl 1980a; Cyphers
2012; Di Castro and Cyphers 2006) and observations of Yale Project San
Lorenzo collections in the Peabody Museum (Cheetham 2010a).
The origins of the term “Olmec” are inextricably linked with current
debates centered on the Early Olmec style. Originally a Nahuatl term for the
fifteenth and sixteenth century inhabitants of the Gulf lowlands (“People of
the Land of Rubber”), the term “Olmec” was initially applied to an art style,
37
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 10 May 2017 at 18:56:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316228098.003
38 JEFFREY P. BLOMSTER ET AL.
based on disparate pieces that found their ways to museums and private
collection in the early twentieth century, generally with no provenience
(Beyer 1927; Saville 1929). Many portable objects from across Mesoamerica
came to be categorized as “Olmec style,” even though they often bore no
resemblance to the monumental art and associated ceramic materials eventually
excavated from sites in Olman (Blomster 2002; Coe 1965a; Diehl 2004; Grove
1996). In addition to art historians and museum curators, since the early 1940s
archaeologists have widely applied the term “Olmec,” while recognizing the
complexities and problems inherent with it. Several efforts to replace the term
(e.g., Grove 1989) have not succeeded, although archaeologists have become
more selective in their use of Olmec. Today we recognize the regional and
cultural diversity of these objects; classifying many disparate pieces as Olmec
style (or “Olmecoid,” see Bernal 1969) without defining precisely what is
meant by “Olmec” in the first place minimizes the richness and diversity of
contemporaneous societies’ material culture without explaining how similar-
ities and differences might have come into existence (Blomster 1998b; Grove
1989, 1997).
In this chapter, as throughout this volume, we reserve the term “Olmec” to
denote the archaeological culture of the peoples of Olman where characteris-
tics of an indigenous, specific material culture co-occur consistently between
1250 and 400 bc (ca. 1450–400 cal. BC). In Olman at San Lorenzo, the Olmec
style developed over the course of the Chicharras phase (1250–1150 bc
[ca. 1450–1400 cal BC]) and dominated during the San Lorenzo phase
(1150–900 bc [ca. 1400–1000 cal BC]), although some question remains about
the endpoint of this phase (see Chapter 1). We focus on Early Olmec style
objects of the San Lorenzo phase (as distinct from the Initial Olmec style of the
Chicharras phase) for comparison with Early Horizon materials across Mesoa-
merica. The Early Olmec style material objects encountered by archaeologists
express the underlying beliefs, behaviors, and ideals of Gulf Olmec culture and
thus some connection with Gulf Olmec peoples, be it in Olman or transferred
piecemeal or wholesale to other regions or segments thereof.
ON STYLE
“Style” is a contested term in archaeology. On the one hand, it may be defined

simply as a particular way of doing things that reflects choice among varying
alternatives (Hegmon 1992, 1998). From there, however, archaeologists are
split on whether and how style conveys information, intentionally or uninten-
tionally. One line of argument, rooted in information theory, sees stylistic
distinctions as at the very least signaling a message, “I am like (or unlike) you”
(Sackett 1990; Wiessner 1983, 1984; Wobst 1977). Some ethnoarchaeological
studies indicate that the correlation between styles and boundaries in living
DEFINING EARLY OLMEC STYLE POTTERY 39
populations is problematic (Hodder 1982; Sterner 1989), which complicates

viewing style as intentional messaging in archaeology. More recently, studies
rooted in practice theory have returned to the question of style and belonging
(Dietler and Herbich 1998; Dobres 2000; Hegmon 1992). Ethnoarchaeological
research dedicated to how similarities are produced and reproduced, whether
with conscious intent or not, show that stylistic coherence with identification
may be recognizable in situations where things are sites of negotiation of
political and social relations (Bowser 2000; Gosselain 2000). Indeed, style
may be as much about exclusion as inclusion (Wiessner 1983; Wobst 1977).
The locations where style works to convey information, however, may be
unexpected (e.g., in houses instead of or in addition to public places) and the
kinds of belonging conveyed may be different from those envisioned in classic
archaeological and art historical approaches; for example, political factions
rather than, or in addition to, ethnic or cultural identity (Bowser 2000; Bowser
and Patton 2008; Pasztory 1989).
Certain approaches that employ explicit or implicit frameworks concerning
learning (Hegmon 1992; Minar and Crown 2001) have been recognized under
the name “communities of practice” (Lave 1991; Lave and Wenger 1991). For
archaeologists, these approaches are especially productive because they do not
require assumptions about either intentional messaging or interpretation, but
rather they begin with technique and technical choices (Joyce 2012; Minar
2001; Roddick 2009; Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001; Wenger 1998). Working
within a community of practice promotes a particular way of doing things,
what Wenger (1998:82–85) described as a shared repertoire, identifiable
through indicators that explicitly included shared ways of doing things
together, common ways of assessing whether actions and their products were
done well, use of common tools, and a recognition of style as a product of
community identity (Wenger 1998:125–126). Aspects of community identity
may be comparable to how some anthropologists link style with ethnicity
(Barth 1969; Jones 1998), viewed as a fluid and dynamic component of social
relationships (Eriksen 2002). Archaeologists have demonstrated that potential
communities of practice can be reconstructed through the use of concepts of
technological style (Dobres 2000; Gosselain 2000; Lechtman 1977, 1984;
Lemonnier 1986, 1993). Participation in communities of practice leaves mater-
ial traces (Leroi-Gourhan 1964), at scales from the worked object to the
context of use, reflecting production and consumption practices (Roddick
2009).
For understanding the kinds of patterned similarities that are represented by
concepts such as “Olmec style,” proponents of communities of practice based
on technological style argue that analysis must begin with a model of the ways
of making things that leave patterned traces of a technological style on objects.
Studies then can proceed to examine the degree to which different centers of
production either share so much about making things as to constitute a single

community of practice, or overlap so substantially with slightly varying bodies
of material that they might constitute what is called a “constellation of
practice,” a network of linked but independent centers of production con-
forming at least in part to similar ideas of what the things being made should
look like, and often how they should be made (Joyce 2012). Since there can be
communities and constellations of practice that are shaped by how things are
used, not just how they are produced, proponents of communities of practice
models also call for examining the functional aspects of things and their
contexts of use and disposal (Roddick 2009).
This theoretical perspective is consistent with an understanding, shared by
most scholars involved in this volume, of what stylistic conformity or diver-
gence in the execution of Early Olmec style objects in Olman and in distant
regions means in terms of people and practices. In the case of greater con-
formity, production by Gulf Olmec immigrants, their descendants, or indigen-
ous non-Gulf Olmec peoples in contact with Gulf Olmecs who replicated
Gulf Olmec would have constituted a community of practice. In the case of
greater divergence, regional interpretations that adopted aspects of the Early
Olmec style of Olman but deviated from it significantly might be conceived of
as constellations of practice with enhanced indigenous input and varying
degrees of syncretism. These concepts are not viewed as opposed but rather
as overlapping and related. Blomster (2002) applied this perspective in classifying
Early Horizon hollow ceramic figurines as Group 1 (conformity) or Group 2
(deviation), as has Cheetham (2010a) in his examination of material culture at the
Gulf Olmec colony of Canton Corralito, Chiapas. Questions of actual contact,
which would further inform community of practice-based interpretations, are
further investigated through petrography and chemical composition analyses,
which indicate the beginning and end points of such interaction chains but not
necessarily how direct the contact may have been.
In this chapter, we begin by proposing a standardized description of the
formal properties of ceramic vessels (shapes of pots) and ways of making pots
and designs (technological style), based on the ceramics of San Lorenzo.
Standardization of description is critical to recognizing the characteristics that
identify pottery-making practices of the San Lorenzo Olmec and to assess the
degree to which ceramics elsewhere might have been products of these
practices or might have been relatively independent. We then develop an
inventory of core motifs from San Lorenzo, many of which have a history of
identification with referents for the proposed kinds of things and creatures, real
or supernatural, that they represent. Regional manifestations of these motifs are
provided by other authors in this volume, showing how this standardized
inventory can facilitate understanding of what might or might not constitute
a community or constellation of practice. The degree to which the motifs were
legible (following Bowser 2000) in the same way in different locations might
be addressed by examining the communities of practice composed by people
using these motifs, or rather things marked with these motifs, in different areas.
Here, we lay the foundation for such work but do not provide a complete
demonstration of how this would work; individual chapters may be context-
ualized within this theoretical framework, allowing us to see different visions
of Early Horizon Mesoamerica and begin to debate the degree to which
different models could explain the empirical data.
PRO DUCTION AND TECHNO LOGICAL STYLE
Technological style and the closely related concept of technological choice

incorporate the idea of production as performed in culturally preferred and
valued ways that are never completely determined by mere technical demands
(Bourdieu 1977; Lechtman 1977, 1984; Lemonnier 1986, 1993; Sillar and Tite
2000). Killick (2004:571) summarizes underlying assumptions shared by these
approaches: “there is usually more than one technology that satisfies the
requirements” and so the choice of technology is conditioned “by the beliefs,
social structure, and prior choices” of the group. The concept of technological
style consequently suggests that the repeated use of similar choices is evidence
of a cultural and social rationale that influences choices among otherwise
equivalent ways of making something.
Different vessel forms, surface finishes, firing, and execution of decoration
are the product of a sequence of interrelated operational choices, identified
with the concept of the chaîne opératoire (Lemonnier 1986; Leroi-Gourhan
1964) that led to the creation of the ceramic vessel (Dobres 2000). Due to
the embedded nature of technological style in social practice and learning
networks (Dietler and Herbich 1998; Hegmon 1992, 1998), technological
style, as it is materialized in both quotidian artifacts (which are the ones most
frequently encountered by archaeologists) and elite and exotic objects, has
been especially useful in distinguishing when boundaries in style may coincide
with cultural or social boundaries and so presents a promising avenue for
interregional comparisons (see Cheetham 2010a; Gosselain 2000). As Hodder
(2006) highlights, pottery vessels reinforce social practice and values with every
meal in which they are employed.
To move forward, however, we must be much more explicit about how we
record features of vessels that might reflect different ways of doing things, such
as incising or excising, which might produce visually similar motifs through
different techniques, and thus indicate different technological styles and com-
munities of practice. Our focus is on techniques commonly observed on Early
Olmec style pottery, and we follow standard guides to ceramic technology to
identify how pottery forming was executed (Orton et al. 1993; Rice 1987; Rye
1981).
Vessel Form
Regionally established ceramic sequences depend, in part, on uniformity in
how aspects of vessel forms are described, but the terminology is seldom
consistent from region to region. For example, different kinds of bowls in
Oaxaca are described as conical, cylindrical, hemispherical, or composite
silhouette (Blomster 2004; Caso et al. 1967; Flannery and Marcus 1994;
Martínez López et al. 2000). Studies in other regions may employ different
terms (e.g., vertical instead of conical or cylindrical) for vessels of the same
shape (e.g., see Clark and Cheetham 2005). There are many ways shape can be
systematically described (see Rice 1987:215–222), but descriptive disharmony is
an impediment to interregional comparison of Early Horizon era ceramics. In
order to keep form descriptions of Early Olmec style pottery consistent, we use
a modified version of Sabloff’s (1975:22–27) scheme developed for the Maya
ceramics of Seibal, Guatemala:
plate: height < 1/5 of rim diameter
dish: height 1/5 but < 1/3 of rim diameter
bowl: height 1/3 of rim diameter
These basic serving vessel forms are further described by wall shape: incurved,
outcurved, rounded, outsloped, insloped, or vertical. These categories are
related to metric data (height–width ratio) that allow relatively unambiguous
identification of form (dish, plate, bowl, etc.). For potsherds that lack vessel
height information (i.e., the rim or the base/wall juncture is missing), basic
vessel form can be inferred from known complete examples, based on the
vessel’s angle and wall shape as determined from rim sherds. Additional metric
and non-metric technical properties (e.g., bolstered rim dish with vertical wall)
are then recorded to amplify the parameters of a basic form.
All vessel forms that make up at least 1 percent of the San Lorenzo phase
ceramic complex are shown in Figure 2.1. This sample includes all rim sherds
from all San Lorenzo phase contexts excavated by Coe and Diehl (1980a; see
also Chapter 8). Utilitarian forms include tecomates (neckless jars) with a
restricted orifice and horizontal or near horizontal rim. Most tecomates have
a gradually thickened rim (Figure 2.1a), with other examples displaying a slight
exterior bolster (Figure 2.1b). Less frequent are large jars or ollas with a tall
outcurved neck (Figure 2.1c). Other presumably utilitarian forms include small
jars with a rounded side and medium-tall vertical neck (Figure 2.1d) as well as
large capacity basins with a bolstered rim (Figure 2.1e). Serving vessel forms
(Figure 2.1f-k) include bowls, dishes, and plates with direct or thickened rims.
Of these, bowls, dishes, and plates with vertical to outsloping sides (Figure 2.1f)
are most common, followed by bolstered-rim bowls and dishes (Figure 2.1g).
Nearly all vessels chosen for incised and carved decoration are vertical to
outsloping bowls, dishes, and plates (Forms f and g), although large basins
2.1 Major vessel forms and frequencies of the San Lorenzo Ceramic Complex, San Lorenzo,
Veracruz (adapted from Cheetham 2010a:figs. 6.7–6.8): (a) medium-large tecomate, rounded to
sub-globular side, slightly interior-thickened or direct rim, rounded lip (33.28%); (b) medium-
large tecomate, rounded to sub-globular side, exterior-thickened rim, rounded lip (2.65%); (c)
large jar, rounded or sub-globular side, tall outcurved neck, horizontally everted rim, rounded
lip (1.27%); (d) small jar, rounded side, medium-tall narrow vertical neck, direct rim, rounded lip
(1.60%); (e) large basin, flat base, outsloping to near vertical side, exterior-thickened rim,
rounded lip (1.77%); (f) bowl/dish/plate, flat base, outsloping to vertical side, direct rim,
rounded lip (29.80%); (g) bowl/dish, flat base, outsloping to vertical side, exterior-thickened
rim, rounded lip (13.60%); (h) dish/bowl/plate, flat base, incurved side, direct rim, rounded lip
(1.99%); (i) dish/bowl/plate, flat base, outcurved side, direct rim, rounded lip (1.82%); (j) bowl,
incurved to rounded side, exterior-thickened rim (flattened-elongated, wedge, or rounded),
rounded lip (2.65%); (k) bowl, rounded side, direct or slightly interior-thickened rim, rounded
lip (1.44%); (l) medium-small tecomate, direct or interior-thickened rim, rounded lip (2.27%);
(m) bowl, bulbous side, short insloping rim/collar, rounded lip (1.55%); (n) small “paint dish,”
convex or flat base, vertical to slightly-outsloping side, direct rim, rounded lip (1.00%).
and various rare forms (e.g., spouted trays) were selected on occasion. Less
common serving and special purpose forms include small, direct rim tecomates
(Figure 2.1l), dishes and bowls with a rounded side and recurved insloping rim
(Figure 2.1m), and small “paint dishes” (interior smeared with hematite) with a
convex or flat base and short vertical to outsloping side (Figure 2.1n). Com-
bined, these fourteen forms make up 96.7 percent of the San Lorenzo phase
ceramic complex, with twenty-nine additional rare forms comprising the
remainder (see Chapter 8 for the complete form breakdown).
As is evident in Figure 2.1, we recognize that there is substantial variation in
vessel forms based not just on wall shape but also on rim shape. We identify
four rim types at San Lorenzo: direct, thickened (generally confined to teco-
mates), bolstered, and everted (not shown in Figure 2.1; see Chapter 8). Direct
rims follow the shape of the vessel wall profile and terminate without further
elaboration, while bolstered rims have a substantial band of clay around the
vessel’s orifice (usually the exterior) that enhances the size of the rim and lip.
Thickened rims expand more gradually than bolstered rims and have a less
dramatic impact on the size and shape of the rim and lip. Thickening may be
symmetrical or more pronounced on the interior or exterior of the vessel.
Everted rims break the angle of the vessel’s profile, usually extending from the
vessel horizontally. These slightly different ways of finishing the lip of a vessel
might figure into identifying technological style, when the manner in which
they were produced is clearly recorded.
Surface Color and Finish

To define surface coatings, the most relevant concepts are slip and wash. A slip
consists of fine clay minerals forming a suspension in liquid. Slips can coat all or
portions of a vessel, with colors that can differ from the clay body or reinforce
it. A slip can be applied by dipping, pouring, or wiping (Rye 1981:41). A wash
is distinguished from a slip by being a very thin coating of pigments on the
vessel’s surface, and need not imply that the pigment was carried in a clay
suspension (Rye 1981:41). On small sherds, the difference between a slip and a
wash is not always apparent. Both slips and washes are applied before firing.
Pigments, especially red colored ones containing minerals such as hematite or
cinnabar, could also be applied post-firing, either within decorations or over
substantial portions of the vessel’s surface.
Prior to firing, the surface of Early Olmec style pots were finished through
combinations of techniques that leave traces of when they were done, and with
what kinds of tools and gestures, that if properly recorded can be recognized as
evidence of technological styles within communities of practice of production
(Rye 1981:58–59). Common at San Lorenzo are smoothing and burnishing (see
Rye 1981: 89–90). Smoothing produces a matte finish; if executed with a
moistened hand or cloth on moist clay, “wet-paste” smoothing raises fine

parallel rills. Smoothing on a dry paste produces a more even, but still non-
lustrous, finish. Burnishing involves rubbing a hard, smooth object, such as a
quartz pebble, on the surface while the vessel is leather-hard. Burnishing, which
compacts the paste and aligns the clay particles, can vary greatly in effort and
intensity, producing a streaky to consistently lustrous surface that has the appear-
ance of a slip (“self-slipped”); wet-paste smoothing also usually raises a self-slip
(Rice 1987:151). The technique of burnishing can be documented through the
presence of narrow, parallel linear facets (Rice 1987:138), although these may be
nearly eradicated by the potter.
The range of surface colors that characterize San Lorenzo phase pottery is
enumerated in Chapter 1 (Table 1.3). In Early Horizon Olmec style pottery,
there may be substantial differences in slip composition and surface treatment
used to produce similar appearances in different regions. Slips at San Lorenzo,
for instance, often appear to be thin and not well-made compared with the
extremely durable and often thick slips found in various parts of Oaxaca. In
other cases, it is uncertain if differences in appearance are due to technological
style or post-depositional taphonomy and alteration. The surfaces of San
Lorenzo vessels lack the almost metallic sheen that some Oaxaca graywares
achieve. However, this may be due to the notoriously acidic soils in which
they are found at that site (Coe and Diehl 1980a). Sherds of vessels exported
from San Lorenzo to Etlatongo and Canton Corralito, for example, have well-
made slips and are well burnished and retain hematite (see Blomster 2004,
2010; Cheetham 2010a, 2010b).
Firing
In addition to slips and pigments, vessel surface color is also affected by firing.
A combination of the iron compounds and organic materials present in the
clay as well as the firing duration, temperature, and atmosphere determine the
vessel’s fired surface color (Orton et al. 1993:133). This provides an excellent
opportunity to identify differences in technological style by communities of
practice in a constellation of practices. Contrasting black-and-white surfaces
that are found on Early Olmec style pottery produced at San Lorenzo were
achieved through various firing techniques, from smudging to partial
reduction (Figure 2.2; see Coe and Diehl 1980a; Di Castro and Cyphers
2006). At San Lorenzo differentially fired ceramics begin in the Ojochi phase,
the first in the sequence defined by Coe and Diehl (1980a:139). Simple
smudging to darken all or portions of a vessel surface would have been possible
using open air kilns and/or pit firing, with various materials placed over the
impacted part of the vessel; this process deposits carbon on the vessel’s surface
(Rye 1981:110).
2.2 Black-and-white ceramic types of the San Lorenzo Ceramic Complex, San Lorenzo,
Veracruz: (a–d) Tular Black-and-white potsherds of Forms f, g, j, and l shown in Fig. 2.1;
(e–h) Perdida Black-and-white potsherds of Forms f, h, g, and j shown in Fig. 2.1. Photographs
by David Cheetham, courtesy of the Peabody Museum, Yale University.
While much of the Early Horizon black pottery resulted from smudging,
some examples were created through incomplete reduction (see Rye 1981:98).
Some pots evince true reduction firing, which indicates the presence of more
substantial firing technology, most likely a kiln (implying separation of the
vessels from the fuel during firing), as the temperatures required are greater
than can be achieved in open air or pit firing (see Rye 1981:table 3 for possible
temperatures associated with different types of firing technology). Important
pottery types that are truly “grayware” in the sense of fully reduced through
firing, such as Coatepec White-rimmed-black and Delfina Fine Gray in the
Valley of Oaxaca, may have required reducing atmospheres of 750C or higher
(Flannery and Marcus 1994; Payne 1994).
Different techniques could produce similar surface appearance but through
different steps in control of the firing atmosphere, which can be detected
through examination of vessel wall sections (Rye 1981:114–118). Documenta-
tion of early firing technology in the San Lorenzo region and beyond will
allow for better informed Early Horizon comparisons, as will consistent
description of sherd sections. While blackened or differentially blackened
vessels were exchanged during the Early Horizon, it has been suggested that
technology itself also could have been shared through exchange networks and
relationships (Rosenswig 2010:183). Until actual early kilns or other firing
techniques are identified archaeologically, the movement of such technology
remains conjectural. The presence of darkened pottery at Early Formative sites,
whether resulting from smudging or from other technology, and the efforts to
achieve consistent darkened zones and/or contrasting colors on the same
vessel, indicates an interest in common visual aesthetics that may relate to

communities of practice in use and/or production (see Chapters 6 and 9).
Design Production
In the sample of Calzadas Carved and Limón Incised published from San
Lorenzo, there is great consistency in the location of carved and incised motifs:
all decorations are placed on the vessel’s exterior wall, with the exception of
one carved plate with interior decoration (Coe and Diehl 1980a:fig. 193g).
While the kinds of plastic decoration that result in surface penetration or
displacement of clay (Rice 1987; Rye 1981) are fairly self-evident (such as
rocker-stamping and punctation), three decorative techniques executed prior
to firing are especially relevant for Early Olmec style pottery: grooving,
incising, and excision/carving, with the latter two modes constituting the
hallmark Limón Carved-incised (referred to in the following simply as Limón
Incised; see Chapter 1) and Calzadas Carved ceramic types at San Lorenzo
(Coe and Diehl 1980a). A fourth type of plastic decoration is sculpted or relief
carving, represented at San Lorenzo by one published example classified as
Limón Carved-incised (Coe and Diehl 1980a:fig. 145c); the sherd, from a
shallow compartmented box with straight sides, has a band that has been
thoroughly altered in terms of surface relief. Other pottery types defined at
San Lorenzo less frequently received plastic decoration, which includes false
rocker-stamping, scoring, brushing, and punctation.
Grooving (Figure 2.3) Called impressing by some authors (Rice 1987:144),
grooving is usually accomplished by pressing or dragging something hemi-
spherical into or across the vessel’s surface; essentially, the object is pressed
slightly to halfway into the clay. At San Lorenzo, the resulting groove varies in
width, generally from 3 to 6 mm, has a rounded cross-section, and often lacks
well-defined edges. This technique was executed on wet clay and occurs alone
or, most often, in combination with incised or carved designs.
2.3 Limón Incised potsherds with grooved (impressed) lines, San Lorenzo Ceramic Complex,
San Lorenzo, Veracruz. Specimens a–c are of Form g shown in Fig. 2.1, specimen d is an
example of Fig. 2.1 Form f. Photographs by David Cheetham, courtesy of the Peabody
Museum, Yale University.
2.4 Limón Incised potsherds with incised lines, San Lorenzo Ceramic Complex, San
Lorenzo, Veracruz. Specimens a–f are of Form f shown in Fig. 2.1, specimen g is an example
of Fig. 2.1 Form g. Photographs by David Cheetham, courtesy of the Peabody Museum, Yale
University.
Incising (Figure 2.4) This decoration consists of narrow lines produced by

incision rather than pressing or excision. A narrow instrument, such as a
pointed stick or bone, is held at or near 90 degrees to the vessel’s surface, the
line (usually about 1–2 mm in width) created as the clay is pushed forward and
displaced to its edges. Displaced clay, if any exists, may be neatly trimmed
away. If incised while the vessel is leather hard, the design margins tend to be
quite sharp without additional trimming. Incised decoration is additionally
described in terms of the production stage in which it is executed: preslip,
postslip, or postfire. Incised pots at San Lorenzo were decorated after the
application of the wash or slip (or after burnishing) in the leather hard or dry
stage (Rice 1987:64–66) before firing. Thus, on some specimens very fine
chipping is visible along the edges of lines, evidence that incising occurred
when the vessel was leather hard. Chipping may also occur if the incising is
performed on softer pastes after firing (Rice 1987). When incising is performed
on still relatively wet vessels, the displacement of clay is quite evident if it has
not been trimmed away or smoothed, resulting in a raised margin along the
incised line (see Rice 1987:fig. 5.16). At San Lorenzo, red hematite was rubbed
into the surface of many (if not most) incised pots after firing, although erosion
often leaves only faint traces.
Excising (Figure 2.5) Excision, or carving, is a technique that results in the
removal of clay, even if only through shallow scraping, rather than its
2.5 Calzadas Carved potsherds, San Lorenzo Ceramic Complex, San Lorenzo, Veracruz.
Specimens a–d, f–g are of Form f shown in Fig. 2.1, specimen e is an example of Fig. 2.1
Form g. Photographs by David Cheetham, courtesy of the Peabody Museum, Yale University.
displacement (as in incising or grooving). The important difference (mechan-

ically speaking) is that the paste is removed with a flat-tipped chisel-like
instrument (such as a wide and modified stick, bone, or obsidian blade) held
at an acute angle to the pot’s surface while the vessel is in a leather-hard stage
of drying prior to firing. The instrument is pushed along the surface, not
dragged, effectively carving out the area. Execution of this technique likely
varied between pottery making communities of practice across Early Horizon
Mesoamerica that were characterized by different technological styles. For the
Valley of Oaxaca, it has been suggested that excised designs were first outlined
with an obsidian blade, with the actual strip of clay removed with something
like a cane (Flannery and Marcus 1994:266). This method (see variant 1 in the
following) is also known at San Lorenzo and Canton Corralito, and quite
likely other Mesoamerican sites where Early Olmec style pottery is present.
Carved designs first appear during the Early Horizon in Mesoamerica and
represent another innovation in technological style associated with this period.
Additional observation of carved designs clarifies that there are at least three
modes of excision (see Figure 2.6a–c), due to the kind of instrument used in
executing the design or secondary working of the excised area, or both.
1. Flat excision (Figure 2.6a) results in a flat bottom with straight walls within the
excised line. Two instruments may have been involved: one to cut the edges
and delineating the lines, another to remove clay between the lines and trim
the bottom. The initial delineation lines are sometimes visible at the bottom of
the cut on either side, if they are slightly deeper than the excised center part.
2. Trough excision (Figure 2.6b) results in a curved (concave) bottom in profile,
indicating a single pass of an instrument with a rounded distal end. Typically at
San Lorenzo such lines are ca. 2 mm in depth at the lowest point, although
some variance has been documented (Cheetham 2010a). The edges of the
carved area are shallower due to the convexity of the cut.
2.6 Decorative techniques of execution on Calzadas Carved pottery, San Lorenzo Ceramic
Complex, San Lorenzo, Veracruz (after Cheetham 2010a:fig. 7.5): (a–c) carved/excised;
(d) scraped-incised (raspada). Well-preserved potsherd on far right of d (shown for comparison)
is from Canton Corralito, Chiapas. Photographs by David Cheetham, courtesy of the Peabody
Museum, Yale University.
3. Convex excision (Figure 2.6c) is similar to flat excision, except that a convex
instrument was used to remove the clay between the delineation lines. In some
cases, the instrument may have been passed twice (once on either side) to
carve out the center clay, thus creating the convexity.
An additional related technique, referred to in the literature as “scraped-

incised” or “raspada” (see Coe and Diehl 1980a), involves scraping or very
shallow carving (Figure 2.6d). This technique, which is very rare at San
Lorenzo (Cheetham 2010a:297), involves scraping an area, usually a line of
similar width to that of an excised line, while the vessel is in a leather-hard
stage of drying, or after a vessel is fired. Raspada lines are demarcated by incised
lines or left undelineated. Most examples have a rough appearance, are shal-
lower than an excised line, and on larger sherds may display various degrees of
completeness.
After firing, Calzadas Carved pots were generally finished by rubbing red
hematite pigment into excised areas as well as zones not burnished or
smoothed. This created a stark contrast between uncarved surface areas and
the excised (now blood red) design, and likely explains why the bottoms of
excised areas were generally left unsmoothed, as they would be covered in red
pigment later (which might adhere better to the rougher surface). In other
cases, especially incised designs (Limón Incised), much larger surface areas
framing the overall design were left unburnished or were deliberately
roughened before hematite pigment was liberally applied.
EARLY OLMEC VISUAL STYLE
As discussed earlier, style is contested in archaeology, with differing positions

held about whether style can communicate or express such things as group
identity, individual identity, and status, and, if so, how. Sackett (1990:37)
developed a contrast between what he called passive (isochrestic) and active
(iconological) style, arguing that “the choices involved in isochrestic behavior
create the raw material of style” but that style recognized as identity (in his
case, ethnicity) “is an etic perception of the observer,” while allowing for the
possibility that the same variation in style could have been recognized in the
past as “an emic phenomenon involving the operation of symbolic behavior
upon the products of isochrestic choice.” Hence it is no longer simply a matter
of saying that style does or does not define ethnic groups and/or openly
express individual identity and status; we must identify the conditions under
which style becomes salient.
Ethnoarchaeological research demonstrates that some stylistic distinctions
may only be understood by their producers or a limited subset of society
(Dietler and Herbich 1998). Stylistic specificities typical of a particular group of
producers forming a community of practice may also be recognizable as
distinctive by outsiders, even when the stylistic specificities are not discursively
recognized by the community of practice as identifying them. The ability of
members of a community of practice to recognize style as meaningful is what
Bowser (2000) called “legibility,” and which she showed can best be under-
stood by examining the contextual contrasts in use of objects of different styles.
Outsider recognition of styles as indicating identities may extend to tech-
nical “choices” for which alternatives were not recognized by the potters, and
which were thus arguably never choices at all (see Sillar and Tite 2000 for a
useful discussion). A study by Margaret Hardin Friedrich (1984) with contem-
porary Tarascan potters reveals that rather than meanings encoded in final
decorative composition, the potters’ primary concern is more related to
technological style, where different design fields or spaces are created and then
painted with different configurations of discrete design elements, with the
overall vessel decorative composition achieved through a sequence of such
smaller crafting decisions. The overall designs created by the Tarascan potters
play only a minor role in their emic classification of the finished vessel.
Hardin’s example reinforces the need to emphasize structure over content of
decoration and imagery in looking at style, identity, and ethnicity (Barth 1969).
From the perspective of contemporary models of technological style and
communities of practice, similar ways of making pots may be produced through
aesthetic conformity and the desire for others to judge work as good, rather
than, or in addition to, an intention to signal identification and group affili-
ation, such as ethnicity. For Early Horizon Mesoamerica, then, the question
becomes when and how we might propose that style is recognized as evidence
of identification of any kind and, if so, what kind of identification we are
witnessing.
There is a substantial literature on identifying Early Olmec style compos-
itions as representing various creatures and concepts. We believe an equally
useful tack for interregional comparisons is to identity the specific motifs that
are then arranged in various ways to form larger compositions, following the
lead of several structural analyses (Bowser 2000; Bowser and Patton 2008;
Friedrich 1984). Motif and the design composition may both be nuanced
indicators of intra- and interregional variety and local understandings and
reinterpretations of the Early Olmec style. Rarely do any of the motifs we
outline here form a self-contained composition, but rather they are rearranged
in different ways with other motifs to form designs that may be referred to, for
example, as were-jaguars, fire-serpents, dragons, and maize gods (see Coe
1965a, 1965b; Coe and Diehl 1980a; Covarrubias 1946, 1957; de la Fuente
1977; Joralemon 1971, 1976, 1996; Taube 1995, 2004). Alternatively, the
presence of just one motif (or a repeated motif) may represent the larger
composition (the pars pro toto concept). Our goal in this section is to isolate
specific motifs, not to assess the validity of any of these interpretive proposals
for larger images formed by motif combinations, although we will refer to

some of the commonly accepted names associated with the specific motifs
described in the following. While the pars pro toto concept may have imbued
some of these discrete motifs on which we focus with significance, they would
have achieved meaning through the way they were combined and arranged.
A fundamental source for exploring Olmec motifs is David Joralemon’s
(1971) monograph. While many scholars have understood Olmec representa-
tion as abstracting cosmological and supernatural concepts, Joralemon was the
first to systematically attempt to decipher the iconography by breaking it down
into its component parts (what he isolated as “basic characters” or “elemental
units”) and then to recognize compositions of these parts (what he called
“motif combinations” and “character complexes”). In common with others
engaged in attempting to understand the visual representation of this period,
Joralemon employed an approach to interpretation grounded in the work of
art historian Erwin Panofsky (1972). Panofsky’s model held that interpretation
proceeds in three stages, from pre-iconographical, to iconographic, to icono-
logical, “requiring the historian to identify forms, motifs, and cultural meaning,
respectively” (Davis 2004:10). Joralemon engaged in the first two “stages” in
defining and recording specific forms as motifs, that is, as forms standing for
something specific.
Following Davis (2004) we need to revise our understanding of how
Panofsky’s model works: similar visual forms in different areas of Early
Horizon Mesoamerica may not have been motifs in this sense, understood
by all who made and used objects with them in the same way (although in
Postclassic Mesoamerican societies there were well-documented shared styles,
motifs, and understandings; see Smith and Berdan 2003). Nonetheless, even
the identification of forms that are repeated can serve as a basis to explore
relationships. Panofsky understood specific times and places as having a char-
acter or sensibility that was the product of a particular shared way of doing
things and thinking about things, that in turn structured the way things were
done, what he called a habitus (Holsinger 2005:99–100). Pierre Bourdieu
(1977:78) adopted the term to label the “durably installed generative principle
of regulated improvisations” (Holsinger 2005:96–102). Hanks (2005:70) notes
that for Panofsky (and thus for modern analysts rooted in practice theories) it is
“the procedure, not the work, that bears the mental habit.” Thus while the
older approaches to iconography may be problematic in light of contemporary
understandings of the reproduction of cultural logics through practice, there is
no fundamental inconsistency in recognizing motifs as icons produced through
habituated practice at specific times and places, whose iconological meaning
we may or may not want to expand from one area to another (Joyce 2012).
The first portion of Joralemon’s study resulted in a list of 182 motifs. While
this list would seem potentially amenable to our current focus, he includes not
just discrete iconographic motifs but also parts of facial features, such as
different kinds of eyes, as well as gestures and arm position. More problematic,
Joralemon’s list contains numerous examples of motifs that do not come from
documented excavations, with origins from different regions and temporal
periods throughout Mesoamerica. Other contributions to Olmec iconography
have been presented by Román Piña Chan (1993) and Karl Taube (1995,
2004), among others, although again both excavated and undocumented
objects are combined from different periods. The list of icons we present here
is constructed only from ceramics excavated at San Lorenzo that date to the
San Lorenzo phase (Coe and Diehl 1980a).
Studies subsequent to Joralemon’s have employed different criteria and
methodologies to classify and compare larger decorative compositions. For
example, designs have been organized using the first two categories in
Friedrich’s (1984) system: design elements and motifs (Cheetham 2010a). This
system is hierarchical and design elements are, strictly speaking, parts of motifs,
which by necessity results in some conflation across these categories (see
Cheetham 2010a:283–288 for a discussion of this problem). Several authors
in this volume attempt to employ a classification introduced by Anna Di
Castro and Ann Cyphers (2006) for some elements of decorated pottery from
San Lorenzo, primarily motifs that occur on the types Calzadas Carved and
Limón Incised. They define four basic elements: crossed bands/St. Andrew’s
cross, inverted U, hand-paw-wing, and the head of an entity (such as a
dragon). Di Castro and Cyphers (2006:34–35) observe how these four elem-
ents, along with several others, appear in four different compositions on San
Lorenzo pottery, the first three of which consist of symmetrical designs, some
of which may be combined for the fourth (asymmetrical compositions of
fantastic creatures). These are the kinds of observations that we envision as
being highly amenable to interregional comparisons.
Icons from San Lorenzo

In this chapter we base our inventory only on objects from San Lorenzo.
Several motifs appear to originate at San Lorenzo prior to the Early Horizon,
the time when they appear in other regions of Mesoamerica (Cyphers 2012;
Cyphers and Di Castro 2009; Di Castro and Cyphers 2006; Hirth et al. 2013).
For example, Di Castro and Cyphers (2006:51) trace the appearance of
inverted Us at San Lorenzo to the Chicharras phase, 100 radiocarbon years
before the San Lorenzo phase. San Lorenzo arguably was the center for
production of Early Olmec style vessels that moved out to other regions, since
there is no evidence for Early Olmec style pottery made in other areas being
consumed at San Lorenzo (Blomster 2010; Blomster et al. 2005; Cheetham
2010a:177–213). While there have been objections to the neutron activation
analysis (NAA) conclusions, based on the use of petrography (Stoltman et al.

2005), ongoing combination of these two methods in the study of ceramics
from San Lorenzo and Canton Corralito has reinforced the conclusions of the
original study (Cheetham et.al. 2009). We thus proceed on the understanding
that San Lorenzo was an origin point for the core set of motifs found there,
which also were executed in pottery in other areas. Chemical evidence does
suggest that undecorated vessels not made at San Lorenzo, or those with motifs
originating outside the Gulf Coast, may have been exchanged between regions
(see Chapter 6).
San Lorenzo Early Olmec style symbols on excised and incised vessels are
defined here, and contributors of other chapters have been asked to explicitly
compare their regional data with those from San Lorenzo, using the same
terms. An important caveat and limiting factor is that we (and the various
authors in this volume) are primarily dealing with potsherds, often precluding
the presence of even one complete motif. We include only motifs that have
been documented in at least two examples, carved and/or incised, on San
Lorenzo pottery, primarily those sherds excavated by Coe and Diehl (1980a).
Our goal in using two as a baseline for inclusion is to avoid including outliers
or unusual decorations, such as an example of concentric circles or curved
lines/arches that intersect each other on a tecomate (see Cruz Lara Silva and
Guevara Muñoz 2002:119), which may not have been part of the repertoire
distinguishing the community of practice at San Lorenzo. A tabulation and
discussion of all motifs and designs on carved and incised San Lorenzo phase
potsherds is presented by Cheetham (2010a).
The result is the definition of a set of twelve motifs (Figure 2.7) evident at
San Lorenzo as basic categories, with variations on the regional level in
execution and overall composition to be discussed by regional specialists.
Where possible with these motifs, we reference Joralemon’s (1971) numbering
system, with a “J” and number (e.g., J99). We do not discuss “filler” elements
that may be associated with these motifs, such as dots or crosshatching, as
additional elements of this sort may not be unique to these motifs (see
Cheetham 2010a). Nor do we provide an extensive discussion of the combin-
ations in which these motifs appear, noting only possible compositions and
creatures with which these twelve motifs have been associated. In addition to
Early Horizon ceramic vessels, we draw on contemporary examples in stone
sculpture at San Lorenzo. Our citations of published figures are not intended to
be comprehensive.
We avoid materials that lack provenience, with the exception of two often-
published examples that have been the subject of rich iconographic interpret-
ation and probably date to the late Early Horizon or just beyond: a cylindrical
bowl, supposedly from Tlapacoya, with a profile and frontal view of the same
supernatural creature (Joralemon 1971:fig. 120), although it is likely post-Early
2.7 Motif categories of decorated Early Olmec style pottery from San Lorenzo, Veracruz: (a)
Motif 1/St. Andrew’s cross (after Coe and Diehl 1980:fig. 139l); (b) Motif 2/U-shapes/brackets
(after Coe and Diehl 1980:fig. 141d); (c) Motif 3/K-bracket/music bracket (after Coe and Diehl
1980:fig. 138a); (d) Motif 4/Sunburst/shell/star (after Coe and Diehl 1980:fig. 140f); (e) Motif 5/
Pointed-line/claw (after Coe and Diehl 1980:fig. 138g); (f) Motif 6/Quadripartite (after Coe and
Diehl 1980:fig. 139m); (g) Motif 7/Flame Eyebrow (after Coe and Diehl 1980:figs. 141a, 140i);
(h)Motif 8/Paw-wing (after Coe and Diehl 1980:fig. 138j); (i) Motif 9/Pi (exported to Canton
Corralito, Chiapas); (j) Motif 10/S scroll; (k) Motif 11/Gill and fin; (l) Motif 12/Barb (j–l
photographed by David Cheetham).
Horizon (the Manantial phase; see Chapter 5); and the famous Las Limas
sculpture, which shows a human figure holding an infant-like creature, with
four profile heads – possible supernaturals – incised on the figure’s knees and
shoulders (Coe 1968:114). These two objects have been so influential in the
perception and naming of motifs that to avoid them would be to ignore part of
the broader context motivating identification of motifs as different rather than

as variants of the same form.
1. St. Andrew’s Cross (J99) This distinctive motif (Figure 2.7a), consisting of
two crossed bands that form an “X,” is generally referred to in the literature as
the St. Andrew’s cross (after the Scottish flag). It may occur as a vessel’s primary
decoration, symmetrically arranged around the lower portion of bowls (Coe
and Diehl 1980a:figs. 139l, 140h), or incorporated with other motifs into larger
compositions where, for example, it may be positioned to the rear or front of a
“paw-wing”/Motif 8 (Coe and Diehl 1980a:fig. 138j) or infixed inside of an
upside down bracket/Motif 2 (ibid.:fig. 141c) or a sunburst/Motif 4 (ibid.:
fig. 140e). In terms of formal properties, there is great consistency to this icon,
with differences being primarily based on manner of execution. Crossed bands
were executed using flat, trough, or convex excision. Incised versions appear
to be more common as repeated elements bounded by incised lines.
Motif 1 appears on several examples of stone sculpture from San Lorenzo.
On Monument 30 it is in the eye of a dragon-like creature with a profile cleft-
head (Coe and Diehl 1980a:339). The St. Andrew’s cross also appears on a
pectoral worn by a proposed rain deity on San Lorenzo Monument 52 (see
Figure 1.8), on the pectoral of the infant-like figure on the Las Limas sculpture,
referred to as a young maize god by Taube (2000), and also on the pectoral of
the enthroned figure painted on Oxtotitlán Mural 1. Demonstrating the
variety of supernatural concepts with which it is associated, Motif 1 also
appears across the back of a fish monster shown on San Lorenzo Monument
58 (Cyphers 2004:122–124). Intriguingly, the crossed bands appear visually
similar to the ropes on the box-like San Lorenzo Monument 15 (Coe and
Diehl 1980a:fig. 440), recently renamed as Loma del Zapote Monument 13
(Cyphers 2004:261).
Iconological interpretations of the St. Andrew’s cross invariably focus on its
placement in later monumental art. Taube (1995) has associated the crossed
bands with a sky band, derived from his understanding of Maya iconography
and most graphically depicted from post–Early Horizon La Venta Monument
19. Crossed bands are also prominently displayed in the headdress of the mask
on Tres Zapotes Stela A, from the Late Middle Formative, interpreted as a sky
monster. Beyond Olman, images involving this icon complicate a primarily
celestial association. Motif 1 appears on Middle Formative sculptures from
Chalcatzingo. David Grove (2000:280) associates this motif at Chalcatzingo
with serpent imagery, comparing it with the crossed bands infixed on the eye
of the profile head incised on the right knee of the earlier Las Limas figure.
However, the St. Andrew’s cross is also infixed into the eyes of the creature
shown in profile on Monument 1 and in frontal view on Monument 9 at
Chalcatzingo; with a cruciform-shaped mouth and sprouting vegetation, this
creature is more likely related to earth monster imagery. The varied contexts
on which this motif appears on San Lorenzo sculpture suggests that during the
Early Horizon this icon may have been invested with varied meanings.
2. U-shapes/brackets (J105–109, 115) Various U-shapes and brackets, both
inverted and upright, appear on San Lorenzo phase pottery. Often referred
to as “gum brackets” because they sometimes line the mouths of supernatural
creatures, these motifs appear in a variety of contexts and compositions, with
only some of them having clear buccal associations. U-shapes may be long,
shallow, and look more like brackets, or they may be compact and wide,
appearing more like teeth. Many inverted U-shapes (Figure 2.7b), both hori-
zontal and diagonal, do appear to be gum brackets. Both excised and incised
versions occur; incision is often, but not exclusively, used when brackets are
repeated in a horizontal series around the exterior of a vessel (e.g., Coe and
Diehl 1980a:fig. 141d, 143j). An example of Calzadas Carved pottery at San
Lorenzo has a large inverted U as a gum bracket, which contains smaller
inverted U-shapes, perhaps representing individual teeth (Coe and Diehl
1980a:fig. 140i). The various shapes, sizes, and orientations of Motif 2 make
it one of the most varied in its formal properties at San Lorenzo.
Monumental sculpture from Olman evinces several different positions for
Motif 2. The incised profile head on the right knee of the Las Limas figure,
where an inverted U appears to the left of a bifid tongue, reinforces the buccal
association. Inverted Us may also serve as the upper lip on monumental
sculptures from San Lorenzo, such as Monuments 10 and 52. Monument 58,
the fish creature noted earlier, has an upright shallow Motif 2 for an eye.
Upright U-shapes also appear to form eyes on the frontal image on Potrero
Nuevo Monument 2 (renamed as Loma del Zapote Monument 2; see Coe and
Diehl 1980a:366; Cyphers 2004:325), a tabletop throne with two chubby
dwarf-like creatures holding up the top portion of the throne. On all four
sides of the top portion are a series of inverted shallow brackets, four each on
the long sides, and two each on the short sides. On Monument 2 these brackets
clearly resemble examples on Calzadas Carved pottery, although some scholars
suggest this motif may be related to a decoration that increases in popularity
at the end of or after the Early Horizon, namely double-line breaks
(Cyphers 2004:325; for double-line breaks outside of Olman, see Plog 1976:
figs. 9.2 and 9.3).
The iconological meaning of Motif 2 remains problematic. In addition to
the motif being interpreted as teeth/gum brackets of a caiman/dragon
(Joralemon 1971, 1976), Taube (1995:92) draws on Maya iconography and
sky bands in referring to the represented creature as an Avian Serpent. Di
Castro and Cyphers (2006:235), on the other hand, interpret this element as
related to earth. The narrow U-shape extends through Joralemon’s motifs
J105–J109 (1971:14), which are distinguished from each other by J105 being
simply a narrow U-shape, and J106–J109 having one additional element with
the U. Motif J115 is a series of repeated inverted brackets, or the gums of an
upper jaw (Joralemon 1971).
3. K-bracket/music bracket This vertically orientated design (Figure 2.7c) is
composed of two elements. The first element is a straight vertical line or
several parallel vertical lines; the second element, which runs parallel to the
first, consists of two smaller vertical lines, placed end to end, which are either
slightly curving or straight and come to a point at the facing ends, with the
pointed ends making contact with (or almost contacting) the first element
(Coe and Diehl 1980a:figs. 138a, c, h, 141f). All illustrated examples are carved.
Often, the brackets are executed by holding a pointed instrument at an oblique
angle to the surface, resulting in an asymmetrical V-shaped carved profile that
is generally narrower than most carved lines (but need not always be). In the
more complete examples from San Lorenzo, there are two of these brackets in
a row (ibid.:figs. 138a, c), bounded on at least one side by an additional vertical
line. The formal properties of the K-bracket are very consistent at San
Lorenzo, with differences primarily in width of the curving lines.
This motif has been referred to as both a K-bracket and music bracket in the
literature, or simply “vertical bracket,” but has not been associated with
particular compositions or symbolism at San Lorenzo (Pyne [1976] suggests
earth monster imagery for Oaxaca, but this interpretation remains unsup-
ported). It may be a vertically orientated version of our Motif 2, although
the second element comprises two lines with generally only one side of each
coming to a point.
4. Sunburst/shell/star This design (Figure 2.7d) has been called various names,
and we cannot determine if it is best characterized as a sunburst, shell, or star –
or all three. Potters created a space, sometimes scraped, the boundary of which
is defined by a series of carved arcs. The arcs that form the motif perimeter are
incised or carved, with the interior space left unaltered (burnished, slipped,
etc.) or, as noted earlier, roughened or scraped. All three illustrated examples
from San Lorenzo (Coe and Diehl 1980a:figs. 140b, e–f) come from the
exterior of large sherds, which show that this motif is pendant from the rim
(or rises from the base) but maintains bilateral symmetry. The formal properties
of Motif 4 vary considerably, both in its shape and what it contains (as further
evinced by additional unpublished examples). As noted by Coe and Diehl
(1980a:166), additional designs may be incised, grooved, or carved within the
interior space of this motif. At San Lorenzo, there are two examples of infixed
crosshatching and one example of an infixed St. Andrew’s cross.
This motif also appears on monumental art. On San Lorenzo Monument
14, a tabletop throne, the figure on the left side of the throne wears a pectoral
that is a complete version of this motif. Coe and Diehl (1980:320) suggest that
it is a cut seashell, which is not too dissimilar from the “six-petaled flower or
star” (ibid.:343) placed on the pectoral of San Lorenzo Monument 34 (“the

ballplayer”). This motif may be related to those that Joralemon (1971:15) calls a
“star” (J116) and a “dotted star” (J118), both of which resemble so-called Venus
glyphs in the Maya hieroglyphic system.
5. Pointed line/claw This line may be fairly short and straight or long with
either a curve or angle break before one side of the line ends in a point
(Figure 2.7e). Without the entire line present on a sherd, it could be confused
with a U-shape or bracket; the difference (when complete) is that only one
side of the line ends in a point. This motif appears to be part of larger
compositions; it is not the sole motif on any of the examples illustrated by
Coe and Diehl (1980a:figs. 138b, g, i, 143c). As with several of these motifs,
there is some ambiguity in its identification when incomplete. The formal
properties of Motif 5 are consistent, albeit with variety in angle of orientation
and what side of the icon actually ends in the point. In terms of technological
style, these are executed with both trough and flat excision.
In monumental sculpture from San Lorenzo, four such lines emanate from
the skull-like headdress of the largely destroyed figure on the right side of
Monument 14 (Coe and Diehl 1980a:fig. 438). The lower two of these four
lines are relatively complete, and appear to be claws (probably from a jaguar
paw) or rays. Coe and Diehl (1980a:320) discuss the skull as possibly from a
turtle, and describe these motifs as “clawlike elements.” The prominence of
claws in the headdresses of colossal heads reinforces the interpretation of this
motif as claw-related, so perhaps their appearance in front of the profile
headdress (rather than directly on it) is a result of perspective issues by the
Olmec artists involved with Monument 14.
6. Quadripartite Motif (J143) Only two examples of this motif (Figure 2.7f) are
known from San Lorenzo, the most complete of which (Coe and Diehl 1980a:
fig. 139m) shows a vertical and horizontal cross-like element also defined by
the four rectangular spaces around it. As with several of these motifs, its
identification depends on a large portion of it being present. With only a
fragment present, Motif 6 could be confused with Motifs 2 and/or 5. Our
sample of Motif 6 is inadequate to look at variation in its formal properties on
San Lorenzo pottery.
The only sculpture from San Lorenzo that resembles this motif is Monu-
ment 43, a small insect or spider sculpture, which has two square cartouches,
each of which contains five dots arranged in a quincunx pattern (ibid.:fig. 481).
In Joralemon’s system (1971:16), the central portion of our Motif 6 is his Motif
J143, which he refers to as a “kan cross.” It appears on a later, Middle
Formative Period obsidian core, in the eye of a bird monster, excavated at
La Venta’s Tomb C.
7. Flame Eyebrow (J5) We retain the traditional term for what is generally
several diagonal or curving, scroll-like lines, usually jagged and/or with a
marked angle change, that generally appear above eyes, thus the term “flame
eyebrows” (Figure 2.7g). The “flames” may be represented as a series of
excised elements using flat, trough, convex, or oblique modes of excision,
outlined with incision, or incised along most of their length, with the addition
of a triangular excised point extending from the center of the “flame.” Motif
7 evinces some of the greatest diversity within the San Lorenzo sample in terms
of formal properties. The most naturalistic example on San Lorenzo pottery
(Coe and Diehl 1980a:fig. 140i) appears as three or four wide, well-defined
flame elements, directly above an upright U or bracket. Several examples from
San Lorenzo (ibid.:figs. 141a, g, h) appear above diagonal elements that may be
very abstract eyes, and are fairly truncated in length. Indeed, without the more
naturalistic representations as a reference, some manifestations of the flame
eyebrow would not be so readily identifiable. The variety of what has been
classified as “flame eyebrow” is evident in Joralemon’s Motif J5, which
contains eight sub-types.
Although not represented on sculptures with supernatural imagery from San
Lorenzo, the incised profile head on the left shoulder of the Las Limas figure
clearly has a flame eyebrow, and looking beyond Olman, both the frontal and
the profile view of the supernatural on the slightly later Tlapacoya pot have
flame eyebrows. This motif is especially well developed on pottery vessels from
outside Olman, where in some examples the flames tend to be longer. As noted
by Taube (1995:86, 2000:fig. 6), elements that have been called flame eyebrows
could also be plumes or feathers, possibly of a quetzal bird or raptor, or the crest
of arboreal palm vipers or fer-de-lance (Bothriechis schlegelii) snakes; this kind of
“flying” snake imagery underpins Taube’s avian serpent association.
8. Paw-wing (J36) Also called “hand-paw-wing,” this motif (Figure 2.7h)
consists of a series of curving and/or angled lines, usually excised. Clearly
abstracting a cosmological concept or supernatural creature, it is a complex
motif that can only be identified when a substantial portion of the ceramic
vessel is present. The largest example from San Lorenzo (Coe and Diehl 1980a:
fig. 138j) has four horizontal lines, the lower three of which curve down
toward the base, the upper line bifurcating into two lines that curve up and
down. To the right is a St. Andrew’s cross (our Motif 1), and above the
bifurcating line two short horizontal lines that may represent eyes. The formal
consistency of the paw-wing leads us to consider it as one motif, despite being
comprised of several lines.
While this complex motif has been associated with various supernatural
beasts on ceramic vessels and roller stamps from Tlatilco (Covarrubias 1957;
Joralemon 1971), actual wings (comparable to the three lower lines on the
vessel from San Lorenzo noted earlier) are sculpted on San Lorenzo Monu-
ment 9, a massive “duck fountain” (Coe and Diehl 1980a:314). San Lorenzo
Monument 102 also represents an avian creature with similar wings, however,
it also has extra plumage or tail that extends beyond the wings, resembling a
hand or paw (Cyphers 2004:fig. 110). The most naturalistic portrayal of the
paw-wing is on an Olmec style “hollow baby” (or Group 1) figurine said to
have been found at Atlihuayan, Morelos, during the construction of a road (see
Chapter 5, this volume). The seated figure’s torso inclines forward, and it has
trilobed eyes that visually resemble upside down flame eyebrows. The figure
wears a pelt-like cape of a zoomorphic or crocodilian supernatural, which
extends atop the figure’s head as a helmet or headdress, where the creature’s
face displays flame eyebrows. Each of the four extremities on the pelt resem-
bles a paw-wing on what has been interpreted as the jaguar monster or
“Olmec dragon” (Joralemon 1971, 1996). Several U-shapes frame crosses on
the pelt, and in the center of the pelt is our Motif 4. Rather than a “dragon,”
Taube (1995) associates the paw-wing with wind, and Joralemon (1971:67) also
notes the avian nature of the paw-wing.
9. Pi A recently identified motif appears in three compositions on San
Lorenzo pottery, and probably does not exist as a stand-alone motif. Not
included in Joralemon’s dictionary (1971), we refer to this pagoda-shaped
motif as “Pi” because of its resemblance to that mathematical sign. The Pi
motif (Figure 2.7i) is shaped like an upside down U or bracket, except that the
lower ends flare out at a slight angle, rather than being parallel to each other.
An additional line or element extends from each of the two “corners” atop the
bracket, generally at a 45 angle. Unlike the U-shape to which it is related and
which it often frames, the Pi motif never occurs upright, but always upside
down (this is also the case with examples imported from San Lorenzo but
found at Canton Corralito, as well as examples from Etlatongo). In terms of
formal properties, this is one of the most consistent icons in our sample.
The largest example illustrated by Coe and Diehl (1980a:fig. 138a) has two
Pi motifs, each of which frames two upside down brackets; in between the two
Pi signs are K-brackets, our Motif 3. Examples from San Lorenzo were
executed by flat to trough-shaped excision, as well as incised (ibid.:figs. 138a,
d, 140k). While the iconography of the Pi sign does not lend itself to ready
interpretation, its similarity to Motif 2 suggests related associations.
10. S scroll (J149) Coe and Diehl (1980a:171) first referred to this curvilinear
design, with its distinct curl at its distal portion, as ilhuitl (the Aztec symbol for
“festival”) or opposed volutes motif (Figure 2.7j). Di Castro and Cyphers
(2006:53) associate this motif, which they refer to as the S scroll, with the
“cosmic monster” and suggest that it is an early symbol for sky, or ilhuicatl
(Aztec Nahuatl), based on comparisons of much later S scroll motifs in Maya
hieroglyphs and their association with clouds (Taube 1995:96). Primarily
executed through incision, and nearly exclusively on Limón Incised pottery,
the origins of Motif 10 have been dated as early as the Bajío phase at San
Lorenzo (Di Castro and Cyphers 2006:52). Not a stand-alone design, the
S scroll is combined with diagonal and vertical lines (Coe and Diehl 1980a:
figs. 144c, f, g, k). The formal properties of the S scroll evince great consist-
ency, with difference primarily in the orientation of the motif.
While the S scroll appears in Middle Formative monumental art (at sites
such as Chalcatzingo), it does not occur on monumental art from San Lorenzo
and its monument-yielding secondary centers. Even a cursory glance at the
scroll motifs that characterize Limón Incised pottery (see Coe and Diehl 1980a:
fig. 144) indicate the significant stylistic and, most likely, thematic variability
that this motif must have had.
11. Gill and fin The most common motif on Limón Incised pottery at San
Lorenzo – and other locations where sherds of the Limón Incised type are
present in great numbers (e.g., Canton Corralito, Chiapas) – is a design
involving diagonal lines and arcs (Figure 2.7k). There is some variety in how
this design is organized and executed, but the basic motif consists of arcs that
extend from a single diagonal line to the base or rim to another diagonal line,
or to a horizontal line, as shown in Figure 2.7k (see also Coe and Diehl 1980a:
fig. 144d, h-1, m, Fig. 145a, k–l). While we acknowledge this may be a
simplified version of the S scroll, regularity of design suggests that it represents
something different.
Our use of the term “gill and fin” for this arc-based motif suggests an
underlying iconological interpretation. Cheetham (2010a:332–334, fig. 7.25)
links Motif 11 to a fish or shark’s gill and fin based on incised examples that
plainly depict these anatomical parts on modeled San Lorenzo phase fish pots
from sites near El Manati. Indeed, this interpretation is also apparent from Coe
and Diehl’s sample (1980a:fig. 144a).
12. Barb One final motif occurs exclusively on Limón Incised pottery at San
Lorenzo and other sites where the type is present: the barb (Figure 2.7l).
A thicker diagonal line ending in a curved or two-pronged/T-shaped element
is associated with the end of the scroll motif (Coe and Diehl 1980a:fig. 144b;
Cyphers and Di Castro 2009:fig. 9h) as well as separate from it, where one pot
has a series of paired examples, separated by a diagonal line, and framed by
horizontal and vertical lines (Cyphers and Di Castro 2009:fig. 9c).
We use the term for this motif employed by Cyphers and Di Castro
(2009:37), but the iconography of this motif remains unclear. While Cyphers
and Di Castro (ibid.) recognize that its shape may be related to bloodletting, as
it resembles a thorn, they also note that its position near Motif 10/S scroll
suggests that it is a symbol for wind or lightning. The barb also occurs at the
end of some Gill and fin designs (many such are present at Canton Corralito),
suggesting that the barb is associated in some manner with fish imagery. The
San Lorenzo sherd shown in Figure 2.7l, for instance, has the first of what is
likely a series of framed arcs (Gill and fin motif) on the left side of the sherd just
beyond the barb.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter we isolated specific formal and design aspects of the techno-
logical style of Early Olmec style decorated pottery produced at San Lorenzo,
Veracruz. This approach has enabled us to outline a common lexicon for
motifs envisioned and executed on ceramic vessels by Early Horizon San
Lorenzo potters. Our lexicon is not intended to be all-encompassing; indeed,
the large sample of pottery (some 400,000 sherds!) from recent excavations at
San Lorenzo (Cyphers and Di Castro 2009:36) may expand this glossary of
motifs considerably. We emphasize that while individual motifs sometimes
stand alone to represent the whole composition (pars pro toto), they may also be
combined with other motifs and design elements to create “composite
wholes.” By eschewing interpretive categories for compositions based primar-
ily on supernatural entities or concepts, we leave space for archaeologists
working throughout Mesoamerica to explore how these motifs are deployed
and combined on a regional basis, devising classifications that best address their
research questions.
This focused approach to the material culture of San Lorenzo already
indicates that certain kinds of vessels – and variations thereof – were selected
for carved and incised designs. Moreover, different technological styles were
deployed for different motifs and motif combinations. For example, the
repertoire of strictly incised designs is much narrower than that of carved
designs, and considerable variation exists in the range of executing designs
(e.g., various modes of excision) at San Lorenzo. The utilization of these
motifs, their technical and formal elements, and ultimately their combination
into design compositions varied within Olman and throughout Mesoamerica.
We anticipate exploration of these motifs, as well as the compositions, will
contribute to a more consistent understanding of how Early Horizon potters
and consumers both within and outside of San Lorenzo used, selected, modi-
fied, and contributed to the Early Olmec style canon. By providing standard
ways to characterize visually similar pottery, data will be more comparable and
amenable to communities of practice of production interpretations. This in
turn will lay the necessary groundwork to take the next step, and examine how
these visually similar pots were engaged by communities of practice and
constellations of practice through similar or different practices in which they
were used.

The Early Olmec and Mesoamerica (The Material Record) - Defining Early Olmec Style Pottery - Techniques, Forms, and Motifs at San Lorenzo (2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Early Olmec and Mesoamerica (The Material Record) - Defining Early Olmec Style Pottery - Techniques, Forms, and Motifs at San Lorenzo (2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER TWO

DEFINING EARLY OLMEC STYLE POTTERY

“Style” is a contested term in archaeology. On the one hand, it may be deﬁned

populations is problematic (Hodder 1982; Sterner 1989), which complicates

production either share so much about making things as to constitute a single

PRO DUCTION AND TECHNO LOGICAL STYLE

Technological style and the closely related concept of technological choice

Surface Color and Finish

moistened hand or cloth on moist clay, “wet-paste” smoothing raises ﬁne

vessel, indicates an interest in common visual aesthetics that may relate to

Incising (Figure 2.4) This decoration consists of narrow lines produced by

displacement (as in incising or grooving). The important difference (mechan-

An additional related technique, referred to in the literature as “scraped-

EARLY OLMEC VISUAL STYLE

As discussed earlier, style is contested in archaeology, with differing positions

for larger images formed by motif combinations, although we will refer to

Icons from San Lorenzo

analysis (NAA) conclusions, based on the use of petrography (Stoltman et al.

the broader context motivating identiﬁcation of motifs as different rather than

star” (ibid.:343) placed on the pectoral of San Lorenzo Monument 34 (“the

You might also like