The Full Wiki

Olmec: Map


Wikipedia article:

Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article:

The Olmec were an ancient Pre-Columbian civilization living in the tropical lowlands of south-central Mexicomarker, in what are roughly the modern-day states of Veracruzmarker and Tabascomarker.

The Olmec flourished during Mesoamerica's Formative period, dating roughly from 1400 BCE to about 400 BCE. They were the first Mesoamerican civilization and laid many of the foundations for the civilizations that followed. Among other "firsts", there is evidence that the Olmec practiced ritual bloodletting and played the Mesoamerican ballgame, hallmarks of nearly all subsequent Mesoamerican societies.

The most familiar aspect of the Olmecs is their artwork, particularly the aptly-named colossal heads. In fact, the Olmec civilization was first defined through artifacts purchased on the pre-Columbian art market in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Olmec artworks are considered among ancient America's most striking and beautiful, and among the world's masterpieces.


The "Olmec heartland" is an archaeological term used to describe an area in the Gulfmarker lowlands that is generally considered the birthplace of the Olmec culture. This area is characterized by swampy lowlands punctuated by low hills, ridges, and volcanoes. The Tuxtlas Mountains rise sharply in the north, along the Gulf of Mexico's Bay of Campechemarker. Here the Olmecs constructed permanent city-temple complexes at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlánmarker, La Ventamarker, Tres Zapotesmarker, and Laguna de los Cerrosmarker. In this region, the first Mesoamerican civilization would emerge and reign from 1400–400 BCE.


What we today call Olmec first appears within the city of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, where distinctive Olmec features appear around 1400 BCE.The rise of civilization here was assisted by the local ecology of well-watered alluvial soil, as well as by the transportation network that the Coatzacoalcos river basin provided. This environment may be compared to that of other ancient centers of civilization: the Nile, Indusmarker, and Yellow Rivermarker valleys, and Mesopotamia. This highly productive environment encouraged a dense concentrated population which in turn triggered the rise of an elite class. It was this elite class that provided the social basis for the production of the symbolic and sophisticated luxury artifacts that define Olmec culture. Many of these luxury artifacts, such as jade, obsidian and magnetite, came from distant locations and suggest that early Olmec elites had access to an extensive trading network in Mesoamerica. The source of the most valued jade, for example, is found in the Motagua River valley in eastern Guatemalamarker, and Olmec obsidian has been traced to sources in the Guatemala highlands, such as El Chayal and San Martín Jilotepequemarker, or in Pueblamarker, distances ranging from 200 to 400 km away (120 - 250 miles away) respectively.

La Venta

The first Olmec center, San Lorenzo, was all but abandoned around 900 BCE at about the same time that La Venta rose to prominence. A wholesale destruction of many San Lorenzo monuments also occurred circa 950 BCE, which may point to an internal uprising or, less likely, an invasion. The latest thinking, however, is that environmental changes may have been responsible for this shift in Olmec centers, with certain important rivers changing course.

In any case, following the decline of San Lorenzo, La Venta became the most prominent Olmec center, lasting from 900 BCE until its abandonment around 400 BCE. La Venta sustained the Olmec cultural traditions, but with spectacular displays of power and wealth. The Great Pyramid was the largest Mesoamerican structure of its time. Even today, after 2500 years of erosion, it rises 34 meters above the naturally flat landscape. Buried deep within La Venta, lay opulent, labor-intensive "Offerings": 1000 tons of smooth serpentine blocks, large mosaic pavements, and at least 48 separate deposits of polished jade celts, pottery, figurines, and hematite mirrors.


It is not known with any clarity what caused the eventual extinction of the Olmec culture. It is known that between 400 and 350 BCE, population in the eastern half of the Olmec heartland dropped precipitously, and the area would remain sparsely inhabited until the 19th century. This depopulation was likely the result of "very serious environmental changes that rendered the region unsuited for large groups of farmers", in particular changes to the riverine environment that the Olmec depended upon for agriculture, for hunting and gathering, and for transportation. Archaeologists propose that these changes were triggered by tectonic upheavals or subsidence, or the silting up of rivers due to agricultural practices.

One theory for the considerable population drop during the Terminal Formative period is suggested by Santley and colleagues (Santley et al. 1997) and proposes shifts in settlement location [relocation] due to volcanism instead of extinction. Volcanic eruptions during the Early, Late and Terminal Formative periods would have blanketed the lands and forced the Olmecs to move their settlements

Whatever the cause, within a few hundred years of the abandonment of the last Olmec cities, successor cultures had become firmly established. The Tres Zapotes site, on the western edge of the Olmec heartland, continued to be occupied well past 400 BCE, but without the hallmarks of the Olmec culture. This post-Olmec culture, often labeled Epi-Olmec, has features similar to those found at Izapamarker, some 330 miles (550 km) to the southeast.


Fish Vessel, 12th–9th century BCE.
Height: 6.5 inches (16.5 cm).
The Olmec culture was first defined as an art style, and this continues to be the hallmark of the culture. Wrought in a large number of mediums – jade, clay, basalt, and greenstone among others – much Olmec art, such as the Wrestler, is surprisingly naturalistic. Other art, however, reveals fantastic anthropomorphic creatures, often highly stylized, using an iconography reflective of a religious meaning. Common motifs include downturned mouths and a cleft head, both of which are seen in representations of were-jaguars.

In addition to human and human-like subjects, Olmec artisans were adept at animal portrayals, for example, the fish vessel to the right or the bird vessel in the gallery below.

While Olmec figurines are found abundantly in sites throughout the Formative Period, it is the stone monuments such as the colossal heads that are the most recognizable feature of Olmec culture. These monuments can be divided into four classes:

  • Colossal heads
  • Rectangular "altars" (more likely thrones) such as Altar 5 shown below.
  • Free-standing in-the-round sculpture, such as the twins from El Azuzul or San Martin Pajapan Monument 1.
  • Stelae, such as La Venta Monument 19 above. The stelae form was generally introduced later than the colossal heads, altars, or free-standing sculptures. Over time stelae moved from simple representation of figures, such as Monument 19 or La Venta Stela 1, toward representations of historical events, particularly acts legitimizing rulers. This trend would culminate in post-Olmec monuments such as La Mojarra Stela 1, which combines images of rulers with script and calendar dates.

Colossal heads

The most recognized aspect of the Olmec civilization are the enormous helmeted heads. As no known pre-Columbian text explains them, these impressive monuments have been the subject of much speculation. Once theorized to be ballplayers, it is now generally accepted that these heads are portraits of rulers, perhaps dressed as ballplayers. Infused with individuality, no two heads are alike and the helmet-like headdresses are adorned with distinctive elements, suggesting to some personal or group symbols.

There have been 17 colossal heads unearthed to date.
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto;"

The heads range in size from the Rancho La Cobata head, at 3.4 m high, to the pair at Tres Zapotes, at 1.47 m. It has been calculated that the largest heads weigh between 25 and .

The heads were carved from single blocks or boulders of volcanic basalt, found in the Tuxtlas Mountains. The Tres Zapotes heads, for example, were sculpted from basalt found at the summit of Cerro el Vigía, at the western end of the Tuxtlas. The San Lorenzo and La Venta heads, on the other hand, were likely carved from the basalt of Cerro Cintepec, on the southeastern side, perhaps at the nearby Llano del Jicaroworkshop, and dragged or floated to their final destination dozens of miles away. It has been estimated that moving a colossal head required the efforts of 1,500 people for three to four months.

Some of the heads, and many other monuments, have been variously mutilated, buried and disinterred, reset in new locations and/or reburied. It is known that some monuments, and at least two heads, were recycled or recarved, but it is not known whether this was simply due to the scarcity of stone or whether these actions had ritual or other connotations. It is also suspected that some mutilation had significance beyond mere destruction, but some scholars still do not rule out internal conflicts or, less likely, invasion as a factor.

The flat-faced, thick-lipped characteristics of the heads have caused some debate due to their apparent resemblance to Africanfacial characteristics. Based on this comparison, some have insisted that the Olmecs were Africans who had emigrated to the New World. However, claims of pre-Columbian contacts with Africa are rejected by the vast majority of archeologists and other Mesoamerican scholars. Explanations for the facial features of the colossal heads include the possibility that the heads were carved in this manner due to the shallow space allowed on the basalt boulders. Others note that in addition to the broad noses and thick lips, the heads have the Asian eye-fold, and that all these characteristics can still be found in modern Mesoamerican Indians. To support this, in the 1940s artist/art historian Miguel Covarrubiaspublished a series of photos of Olmec artworks and of the faces of modern Mexican Indianswith very similar facial characteristics. In addition, the African origin hypothesis assumes that Olmec carving was intended to be realistic, an assumption that is hard to justify given the full corpus of representation in Olmec carving.

Jade face masks

Another type of artifact is much smaller; hardstone carvingsin jadeof a face in a mask form. Curators and scholars refer to "Olmec-style" face masks as despite being Olmec in style, to date no example has been recovered in a archaeologically controlled Olmec context. However they have been recovered from sites of other cultures, including one deliberately deposited in the ceremonial precinct of Tenochtitlan (Mexico Citymarker), which would presumably have been about 2,000 years old when the Aztecs buried it, suggesting these were valued and collected as Roman antiquities were in Europe.

Beyond the heartland

The major Formative Period (Pre-Classic Era) sites in present-day Mexico which show Olmec influences in the archaeological record.

Olmec-style artifacts, designs, figurines, monuments and iconography have been found in the archaeological records of sites hundreds of kilometres outside the Olmec heartland. These sites include:

Other sites showing probable Olmec influence include Takalik Abajmarker and La Democracia in Guatemala and Zazacatla in Morelos.The Juxtlahuacamarker and Oxtotitlanmarker cave paintings feature Olmec designs and motifs.

Many theories have been advanced to account for the occurrence of Olmec influence far outside the heartland, including long-range trade by Olmec merchants, Olmec colonization of other regions, Olmec artisans travelling to other cities, conscious imitation of Olmec artistical styles by developing towns – some even suggest the prospect of Olmec military domination or that the Olmec iconography was actually developed outside the heartland.

The generally accepted, but by no means unanimous, interpretation is that the Olmec-style artifacts, in all sizes, became associated with elite status and were adopted by non-Olmec Formative Period chieftains in an effort to bolster their status.

Notable innovations

In addition to their influence with contemporaneous Mesoamerican cultures, as the first civilization in Mesoamerica, the Olmecs are credited, or speculatively credited, with many "firsts", including the bloodlettingand perhaps human sacrifice, writingand epigraphy, and the invention of zeroand the Mesoamerican calendar, and the Mesoamerican ballgame, as well as perhaps the compass. Some researchers, including artistand art historianMiguel Covarrubias, even postulate that the Olmecs formulated the forerunners of many of the later Mesoamerican deities.

Bloodletting and sacrifice

Although there is no explicit representation of Olmec bloodlettingin the archaeological record, there is nonetheless a strong case that the Olmecs ritually practiced it. Numerous natural and ceramic stingrayspikes and magueythorn, for example, have been found at Olmec sites, and certain artifacts have been identified as bloodletters (see this Commons photo).

The argument that the Olmecs instituted human sacrifice is significantly more speculative. No Olmec or Olmec-influenced sacrificial artifacts have yet been discovered and there is no Olmec or Olmec-influenced artwork that unambiguously shows sacrificial victims (similar, for example, to the danzante figures of Monte Albánmarker) or scenes of human sacrifice (such as can be seen in the famous ballcourt mural from El Tajinmarker).

However, at the El Manatímarker site, disarticulated skulls and femurs as well as complete skeletons of newborn or unborn children have been discovered amidst the other offerings, leading to speculation concerning infant sacrifice.It is not yet known, though, how the infants met their deaths. Some authors have also associated infant sacrifice with Olmec ritual art showing limp were-jaguarbabies, most famously in La Venta's Altar 5(to the left) or Las Limas figure. Any definitive answer will need to await further findings.


See also: Cascajal block
The Olmec may have been the first civilization in the Western Hemispheremarker to develop a writing system.Symbols found in 2002 and 2006 date to 650 BCE and 900 BCE respectively, preceding the oldest Zapotecwriting dated to about 500 BCE.

The 2002 find at the San Andréssite shows a bird, speech scrolls, and glyphs that are similar to the later Mayan hieroglyphs. Known as the Cascajal Block, the 2006 find from a site near San Lorenzo, shows a set of 62 symbols, 28 of which are unique, carved on a serpentineblock. A large number of prominent archaeologists have hailed this find as the "earliest pre-Columbian writing". Others are skeptical because of the stone's singularity, the fact that it had been removed from any archaeological context, and because it bears no apparent resemblance to any other Mesoamerican writing system.

There are also well-documented later hieroglyphs known as "Epi-Olmec," and while there are some who believe that Epi-Olmec may represent a transitional script between an earlier Olmec writing system and Mayan writing, the matter remains unsettled.

Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and invention of the zero concept

See also: History of zero

The Long Count calendarused by many subsequent Mesoamerican civilizations, as well as the concept of zero, may have been devised by the Olmecs. Because the six artifacts with the earliest Long Count calendar dates were all discovered outside the immediate Maya homeland, it is likely that this calendar predated the Maya and was possibly the invention of the Olmecs. Indeed, three of these six artifacts were found within the Olmec heartland. But an argument against an Olmec origin is the fact that the Olmec civilization had ended by the 4th century BCE, several centuries before the earliest known Long Count date artifact.

The Long Count calendar required the use of zero as a place-holder within its vigesimal(base-20) positional numeral system. A shell glyph —— was used as a zero symbol for these Long Count dates, the second oldest of which, on Stela C at Tres Zapotesmarker, has a date of 32 BCE.This is one of the earliest uses of the zero concept in history.

Mesoamerican ballgame

The Olmec, whose name means "rubber people" in the Nahuatllanguage of the Aztecs, are strong candidates for originating the Mesoamerican ballgameso prevalent among later cultures of the region and used for recreational and religious purposes. A dozen rubber balls dating to 1600 BCE or earlier have been found in El Manatímarker, an Olmec sacrificial bog 10 kilometres east of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan.These balls predate the earliest ballcourt yet discovered at Paso de la Amada, circa1400 BCE, although there is no certainty that they were used in the ballgame.

Daily life

Ethnicity and language

While the actual ethno-linguistic affiliation of the Olmec remain unknown, various hypotheses have been put forward. For example, in 1968 Michael D.Coespeculated that the Olmec were Mayan predecessors.

In 1976 linguists Lyle Campbelland Terrence Kaufmanpublished a paper in which they argued a core number of loanwords had apparently spread from a Mixe-Zoquean languageinto many other Mesoamerican languages. Campbell and Kaufman proposed that the presence of these core loanwords indicated that the Olmec—generally regarded as the first "highly civilized" Mesoamerican society—spoke a language ancestral to Mixe-Zoquean. The spread of this vocabulary particular to their culture accompanied the diffusion of other Olmec cultural and artistic traits that appears in the archaeological record of other Mesoamerican societies.

Mixe-Zoque specialist Søren Wichmannfirst critiqued this theory on the basis that most of the Mixe-Zoquean loans seemed to originate from the Zoquean branch of the family only. This implied the loanword transmission occurred in the period afterthe two branches of the language family split, placing the time of the borrowings outside of the Olmec period. However new evidence has pushed back the proposed date for the split of Mixean and Zoquean languages to a period within the Olmec era. Based on this dating, the architectural and archaeological patterns and the particulars of the vocabulary loaned to other Mesoamerican languages from Mixe-Zoquean, Wichmann now suggests that the Olmecs of San Lorenzo spoke proto-Mixe and the Olmecs of La Venta spoke proto-Zoque.

At least the fact that the Mixe-Zoquean languages still are, and are historically known to have been, spoken in an area corresponding roughly to the Olmec heartland, leads most scholars to assume that the Olmec spoke one or more Mixe-Zoquean languages.

Religion and mythology

Olmec religious activities were performed by a combination of rulers, full-time priests, and shamans. The rulers seem to have been the most important religious figures, with their links to the Olmec deities or supernaturals providing legitimacy for their rule. There is also considerable evidence for shamans in the Olmec archaeological record, particularly in the so-called "transformation figures".

Olmec mythology has left no documents comparable to the Popul Vuhfrom Maya mythology, and therefore any exposition of Olmec mythology must rely on interpretations of surviving monumental and portable art (such as the Las Limas figure at right), and comparisons with other Mesoamerican mythologies. Olmec art shows that such deities as the Feathered Serpentand a rain supernatural were already in the Mesoamerican pantheon in Olmec times.

Social and political organization

Little is directly known about the societal or political structure of Olmec society. Although it is assumed by most researchers that the colossal heads and several other sculptures represent rulers, nothing has been found like the Mayastelae(see drawing) which name specific rulers and provide the dates of their rule.

Instead, archaeologists relied on the data that they had, such as large- and small-scale site surveys. These provided evidence of considerable centralization within the Olmec region, first at San Lorenzo and then at La Venta – no other Olmec sites come close to these in terms of area or in the quantity and quality of architecture and sculpture.

This evidence of geographic and demographic centralization leads archaeologists to propose that Olmec society itself was hierarchial, concentrated first at San Lorenzo and then at La Venta, with an elite that was able to use their control over materials such as water and monumental stone to exert command and legitimize their regime.

Nonetheless, Olmec society is thought to lack many of the institutions of later civilizations, such as a standing army or priestly caste. And there is no evidence that San Lorenzo or La Venta controlled, even during their heyday, all of the Olmec heartland. There is some doubt, for example, that La Venta controlled even Arroyo Sonso, only some 35 km away. Studies of the Tuxtla Mountain settlements, some 60 km away, indicate that this area was composed of more or less egalitarian communities outside the control of lowland centers.


The wide diffusion of Olmec artifacts and "Olmecoid" iconography throughout much of Mesoamerica indicates the existence of extensive long-distance trade networks. Exotic, prestigious and high-value materials such as greenstoneand marine shell were moved in significant quantities across large distances. While the Olmec were not the first in Mesoamerica to organise long-distance exchanges of goods, the Olmec period saw a significant expansion in interregional trade routes, more variety in material goods exchanged and a greater diversity in the sources from which the base materials were obtained.

Village life and diet

Despite their size, San Lorenzo and La Venta were largely ceremonial centers, and the majority of the Olmec lived in villages similar to present-day villages and hamlets in Tabasco and Veracruz.

These villages were located on higher ground and consisted of several scattered houses. A modest temple may have been associated with the larger villages. The individual dwellings would consist of a house, an associated lean-to, and one or more storage pits (similar in function to a root cellar). A nearby garden was used for medicinal and cooking herbs and for smaller crops such as the domesticated sunflower. Fruit trees, such as avocado or cacao, were likely available nearby.

Although the river banks were used to plant crops between flooding periods, the Olmecs also likely practiced swidden(or slash-and-burn) agriculture to clear the forests and shrubs, and to provide new fields once the old fields were exhausted. Fields were located outside the village, and were used for maize, beans, squash, manioc, sweet potato, as well as cotton. Based on archaeological studies of two villages in the Tuxtlas Mountains, it is known that maize cultivation became increasingly important to the Olmec over time, although the diet remained fairly diverse.

The fruits and vegetables were supplemented with fish, turtle, snake, and mollusks from the nearby rivers, and crabs and shellfish in the coastal areas. Birds were available as food sources, as were game including peccary, oppossum, raccoon, rabbit, and in particular deer. Despite the wide range of hunting and fishing available, middensurveys in San Lorenzo have found that the domesticated dog was the single most plentiful source of animal protein.

History of scholarly research

Olmec culture was unknown to historians until the mid-19th century. In 1869 the Mexican antiquarian traveller José Melgar y Serranopublished a description of the first Olmec monument to have been found in situ. This monument—the colossal head now labelled Tres Zapotes Monument Amarker—had been discovered in the late 1850s by a farm worker clearing forested land on a hacienda in Veracruz.Hearing about the curious find while travelling through the region, Melgar y Serrano first visited the site in 1862 to see for himself and complete partially exposed sculpture's excavation. His description of the object, published several years later after further visits to the site, represents the earliest documented report of an artifact of what is now known as the Olmec culture.

In the latter half of the 19th century, Olmec artifacts such as the Kunz Axe (right) came to light and were subsequently recognized as belonging to a unique artistic tradition.

Frans Blom and Oliver La Farge made the first detailed descriptions of La Ventamarker and San Martin Pajapan Monument 1 during their 1925 expedition.However, at this time most archaeologists assumed the Olmec were contemporaneous with the Maya – even Blom and La Farge were, in their own words, "inclined to ascribe them to the Maya culture"..

Matthew Stirling of the Smithsonian Institutionmarker conducted the first detailed scientific excavations of Olmec sites in the 1930s and 1940s.Stirling, along with art historian Miguel Covarrubias, became convinced that the Olmec predated most other known Mesoamerican civilizations.

In counterpoint to Stirling, Covarrubias, and Alfonso Caso, however, Mayanists Eric Thompsonand Sylvanus Morleyargued for Classic-era dates for the Olmec artifacts. The question of Olmec chronology came to a head at a 1942 Tuxtla Gutierrezmarker conference, where Alfonso Caso declared that the Olmecs were the "mother culture" ("cultura madre") of Mesoamerica.

Shortly after the conference, radiocarbon datingproved the antiquity of the Olmec civilization, although the "mother culture" question generates much debate even 60 years later.


The name "Olmec" means "rubber people" in Nahuatl, the language of the Aztec, and was the Aztec name for the people who lived in the Gulf Lowlands in the 15th and 16th centuries, some 2000 years after the Olmec culture died out. The term "rubber people" refers to the ancient practice, spanning from ancient Olmecs to Aztecs, of extracting latexfrom Castilla elastica, a rubber treein the area. The juice of a local vine, Ipomoea alba,was then mixed with this latex to create rubberas early as 1600 BCE.

Early modern explorers and archaeologists, however, mistakenly applied the name "Olmec" to the rediscovered ruins and artifacts in the heartland decades before it was understood that these were not created by people the Aztecs knew as the "Olmec", but rather a culture that was 2000 years older. Despite the mistaken identity, the name has stuck.

It is not known what name the ancient Olmec used for themselves; some later Mesoamerican accounts seem to refer to the ancient Olmec as "Tamoanchan".Coe (2002) refers to an old Nahuatl poem cited by Miguel Leon-Portillawhich itself refers to a land called "Tamoanchan":
in a certain era

which no one can reckon

which no one can remember

[where] there was a government for a long time".
Coe interprets Tamoanchan as a Mayan language word meaning 'Land of Rain or Mist' (p. 61).A contemporary term sometimes used to describe the Olmec culture is tenocelome, meaning "mouth of the jaguar".

Alternative origin speculations

In part because the Olmecs developed the first Mesoamerican civilization and in part because little is known of the Olmecs (relative, for example, to the Mayaor Aztec), a number of Olmec alternative origin speculations have been put forth. Although several of these speculations, particularly the theory that the Olmecs were of African origin popularized by Ivan van Sertima'sbook They Came Before Columbus, have become well-known within popular culture, they are not considered credible by the vast majority of Mesoamerican researchers.


Image:The Wrestler (Olmec) by DeLange.jpg|"The Wrestler", an Olmec era statuette, 1200 – 800 BCE.Image:Olmec mask at Met.jpg|An Olmec mask.Image:Sanlorenzohead6.jpg|Colossal Olmec head no. 6 from San Lorenzo TenochtitlanmarkerImage:El Azuzul twin.jpg|One of the "twins" from El AzuzulImage:Olmec Bird jug.jpg|Bird Vessel, 12th–9th century BCEImage:Olmec celts from Met.jpg|Three celts, Olmec ritual objects.Image:Jaguarbaby.jpg| An Olmec were-jaguarImage:Olmec-style_bottle_1.jpg|Olmec style bottle, reputedly from Las Bocasmarker, 1100 - 800 BCEImage:Olmecmask.jpg|An Olmec jade mask.Image:Juxtlahuaca Ruler (M Lachniet).jpg|An Olmec-style painting from the Juxtlahuacamarker cave.

See also


  1. See Pool, p. 2. Although there is wide agreement that the Olmec culture helped lay the foundations for the civilizations that followed, there is disagreement over the extent of the Olmec contributions, and even a proper definition of the Olmec "culture". See Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures for a more indepth treatment of this question.
  2. See, as one example, Diehl, p. 11.
  3. See Diehl, p. 108 for the "ancient America" superlatives. Artist and archaeologist Miguel Covarrubias (1957) p. 50 says that Olmec pieces are among the world's masterpieces.
  4. Dates from Pool, p. 1. Diehl gives a slightly earlier date of 1500 BCE (p. 9), but the same end-date. Any dates for the start of the Olmec civilization or culture are problematic due to the fact that their rise was a gradual process, that most Olmec dates are based on radiocarbon dating (see e.g. Diehl, p. 10) which is only accurate within a given range (e.g. ±90 years in the case of early El Manati layers), and that there is much to be learned concerning early Gulf lowland settlements.
  5. Pool, pp. 26-27, provides a great overview of this theory, and says: "The generation of food surpluses is necessary for the development of social and political hierarchies and there is no doubt that high agricultural productivity, combined with the natural abundance of aquatic foods in the Gulf lowlands suppported their growth".
  6. Pool, p. 151.
  7. Diehl, p. 132, or Pool, p. 150.
  8. Pool, p. 103.
  9. Diehl, p. 9.
  10. Coe (1967), p. 72. Alternatively, the mutilation of these monuments may be unrelated to the decline and abandonment of San Lorenzo. Some researchers believe that this mutilation had ritualistic aspects, particularly since most mutilated monuments were reburied in a row.
  11. Pool, p. 135. Diehl, pp. 58-59 and p. 82.
  12. Diehl, p. 9. Pool gives dates 1000 BCE - 400 BCE for La Venta.
  13. Pool, p. 157.
  14. Pool, p. 161-162.
  15. Diehl, p. 82. Nagy, p. 270, however, is more circumspect, stating that in the Grijalva river delta, on the eastern edge of the heartland, "the local population had significantly declined in apparent population density. . . A low-density Late Preclassic and Early Classic occupation . . . may have existed; however, it remains invisible." .
  16. Quote and analysis from Diehl, p. 82, echoed in other works such as Pool.
  17. Vanderwarker (2006) p. 50-51
  18. Coe (2002), p. 88.
  19. Coe (2002), p. 62.
  20. Coe (2002), p. 88 and others.
  21. Coe (2002), p. 62.
  22. Pool, p. 105.
  23. Pool, p. 106. Diehl, p. 109-115.
  24. Pool, p. 106-108 & 176.
  25. Diehl, p. 111.
  26. Pool, p. 118; Diehl, p. 112. Coe (2002), p. 69: "They wear headgear rather like American football helmets which probably served as protection in both war and in the ceremonial game played…throughout Mesoamerica".
  27. Grove, p. 55.
  28. Pool, p. 107.
  29. In particular, Williams and Heizer (p. 29) calculated the weight of San Lorenzo Colossal Head 1 at 25.3 short tons, or 23 tonnes. See Scarre. p. 271-274 for the "55 tonnes" weight.
  30. See Williams and Heizer for more detail.
  31. Scarre. Pool, p. 129.
  32. Pool, p. 103.
  33. Diehl, p. 119.
  34. Wiercinski, A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.
  35. Karl Taube, for one, says "There simply is no material evidence of any Pre-Hispanic contact between the Old World and Mesoamerica before the arrival of the Spanish in the sixteenth century.", p. 17. Davis, N. "Voyagers to the New World" University of New Mexico Press, 1979 ISBN 0-8263-0880-5 Williams, S. "Fantastic Archaeology" University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991 ISBN 0-8122-1312-2 Feder, K.L. "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries. Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology" 3rd ed., Trade Mayfield ISBN 0-7674-0459-9
  36. "Mexico South", Covarrubias, 1946
  37. Ortiz de Montellano, et. al. 1997, pp. 217
  38. Artworld University of East Anglia collections
  39. See Pool, p. 179-242; Diehl, p. 126-151.
  40. For example, Diehl, p. 170 or Pool, p. 54.
  41. Flannery et al. (2005) hint that Olmec iconography was first developed in the Tlatilco culture.
  42. See for example Reilly; Stevens (2007); Rose (2007). For a full discussion, see Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures.
  43. See Carlson for details of the compass.
  44. Covarrubias, p. 27.
  45. Taube (2004), p. 122.
  46. As one example, see Joyce et al., "Olmec Bloodletting: An Iconographic Study".
  47. See also Taube (2004), p. 122.
  48. Pool, p. 139.
  49. Ortiz et al., p. 249.
  50. Pool, p. 116. Joralemon (1996), p. 218.
  51. See Pohl et al. (2002).
  52. Pohl et al. (2002).
  53. Skidmore. These prominent proponents include Michael D. Coe, Richard A. Diehl, Karl Taube, and Stephen D. Houston.
  54. Bruhns, et al.
  55. Diehl, p. 184.
  56. "Mesoamerican Long Count calendar & invention of the zero concept" section cited to Diehl, p. 186.
  57. Haughton, p. 153. The earlist recovered Long Count dated is from Monument 1 in the Maya site El Baúl, Guatemala, bearing a date of 37 BCE.
  58. Coe (1968) p. 42
  59. Miller and Taube (1993) p. 42. Pool, p. 295.
  60. Ortiz C.
  61. See Filloy Nadal, p. 27, who says "If they [the balls] were used in the ballgame, we would be looking at the earliest evidence of this practice".
  62. Coe (1968) p. 121.
  63. Campbell & Kaufman (1976), pp.80–89. For example, the words for "incense", "cacao", "corn", many names of various fruits, "nagual/shaman", "tobacco", "adobe", "ladder", "rubber", "corn granary", "squash/gourd", and "paper" in many Mesoamerican languages seem to have been borrowed from an ancient Mixe-Zoquean language.
  64. Wichmann (1995).
  65. Wichmann, Beliaev & Davletshin, in press (Sept 2008).
  66. Wichmann, Beliaev & Davletshin, in press (Sept 2008).
  67. See Pool, p. 6, or Diehl, p. 85.
  68. Diehl, p. 106. See also J. E. Clark, , p. 343, who says "much of the art of La Venta appears to have been dedicated to rulers who dressed as gods, or to the gods themselves".
  69. Diehl, p. 106.
  70. Diehl, p. 103-104.
  71. See, for example, Cyphers (1996), p. 156.
  72. See Santley, et al., p.4, for a discussion of Mesoamerican centralization and decentralization. See Cyphers (1999) for a discussion of the meaning of monument placement.
  73. See Cyphers (1999) for a more detailed discussion.
  74. Serra Puche et al., p. 36, who argue that "While Olmec art sometimes represents leaders, priests, and possibly soldiers, it is difficult to imagine that such institutions as the army, priest caste, or administrative-political groups were already fully developed by Olmec times." They go on to downplay the possibility of a strong central government.
  75. Pool, p. 20.
  76. Pool, p. 164.
  77. Pool, p. 175.
  78. Pool 2007: 290–293
  79. Except where otherwise (foot)noted, this Village life and diet section is referenced to Diehl (2004), Davies, and Pope et al.
  80. Pohl.
  81. VanDerwarker, p. 195, and Lawler, Archaeology (2007), p. 23, quoting VanDerwarker.
  82. VanDerwarker, p. 141-144.
  83. Davies, p. 39.
  84. Benson (1996) p. 263.
  85. See translated excerpt from Melgar y Serrano's original 1869 report, reprinted in Adams (1991), p.56. See also Pool (2007), pp.1,35 and Stirling (1968), p.8.
  86. Quoted in Coe (1968), p. 40.
  87. Coe (1968), p. 42-50.
  88. "Esta gran cultura, que encontramos en niveles antiguos, es sin duda madre de otras culturas, como la maya, la teotihuacana, la zapoteca, la de El Tajín, y otras” ("This great culture, which we encounter in ancient levels, is without a doubt mother of other cultures, like the Maya, the Teotihuacana, the Zapotec, that of El Tajin, and others".) Caso (1942), p. 46.
  89. Coe (1968), p. 50.
  90. Rubber Processing, MIT.
  91. Diehl, p. 14.
  92. The term "tenocelome" is used as early as 1967 by George Kubler in American Anthropologist, v.69, p.404.
  93. See Grove (1976) or Ortiz de Montellano (1997).


(1975) “Lodestone Compass: Chinese or Olmec Primacy? Multidisciplinary Analysis of an Olmec Hematite Artifact from San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico”, Science, New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4205 (Sep. 5, 1975), pp. 753-760 (753).
(1996) "[Catalogue #]53. Figure Seated on a Throne with Infant on Lap", in Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, eds. E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente, National Gallery of Artmarker, Washington D.C., ISBN 0-89468-250-4, pp. 218.
(2002) Scientists Find Earliest "New World" Writings in Mexico, 2002.
(1987) Paléopaysages et archéologie pré-urbaine du bassin de México. Tomes I & II published by Centro Francés de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, Mexico, D.F. (Resume)
(1999) "Olmec Ritual Behavior at El Manatí: A Sacred Space" in Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, eds. Grove, D. C.; Joyce, R. A., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C., p. 225 - 254.
" Economic Foundations of Olmec Civilization in the Gulf Coast Lowlands of México", Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., accessed March 2007.
“Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World” in Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica: a Reader, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, p. 369-395.
(2005) "Olmec People, Olmec Art", in Archaeology (online), the Archaeological Institute of America, accessed February 2007.
(1999) The Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World, Thames & Hudson, London, ISBN 978-0500050965.
(1996) "Daily Life in Olmec Times", in Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, eds. E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente, National Gallery of Artmarker, Washington D.C., ISBN 0-89468-250-4, pp. 262-263.
(2007) “Olmec-influenced city found in Mexico”, Associated Press, accessed February 8, 2007.
(2006) Farming, Hunting, and Fishing in the Olmec World, University of Texas Press, ISBN 0292709803.

External links

San Lorenzomarker
Colossal Heads 1 through 10
La Ventamarker
Monuments 1 through 4
Tres Zapotesmarker
Monuments A & Q
Rancho la Cobata
Monument 1

Embed code:

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address