Ann Cyphers

Smokescreens in the Provenance Investigation of Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics

We are glad that Sharer et al. (this issue) have dropped their original claim that the INAA data demonstrate multidirec tional movement of Early Formative pottery. Beyond this, however, they offer nothing that might enhance understanding of Early Formative ceramic circulation or inspire new insights into Early Formative cultural evolution in Mesoamerica. Instead, their response contains fresh distortions, replications of mistakes made in their PNAS articles, and lengthy pas sages that are irrelevant to the issues raised by Neff et al. (this issue). We correct and recorrect their latest distortions and misunderstandings here. Besides showing why their discussion of ceramic sourcing repeatedly misses the mark, we also correct a number of erroneous assertions about the archaeology of Olmec San Lorenzo. New evidence deepens understanding of Early Formative Mesoamerica but requires that some researchers discard cherished beliefs.

Cacao use and the San Lorenzo Olmec

Mesoamerican peoples had a long history of cacao use—spanning more than 34 centuries—as confirmed by previous identification of cacao residues on archaeological pottery from Paso de la Amada on the Pacific Coast and the Olmec site of El Manatí on the Gulf Coast. Until now, comparable evidence from San Lorenzo, the premier Olmec capital, was lacking. The present study of theobromine residues confirms the continuous presence and use of cacao products at San Lorenzo between 1800 and 1000 BCE, and documents assorted vessels forms used in its preparation and consumption. One elite context reveals cacao use as part of a mortuary ritual for sacrificial victims, an event that occurred during the height of San Lorenzos power.

Settlement and Cultural Development at Chalcatzingo

Some of the earliest developments of social stratification and complex religious practices in Mesoamerica can be traced to the Olmec culture that existed on Mexicos southem Gulf Coast from about 1150 to 550 B.C. Possibly due to a belief that complex cultures cannot arise in tropical environments, some scholars have attributed Olmec origins to other regions and other cultures; however, the pre-Olmec stratigraphic sequence recently uncovered at San Lorenzo (1) suggests that Olmec cultural development is basically indigenous to the Gulf Coast region. Other new data indicate that we must not credit Olmec culture alone for developments in social and religious complexity early in the Formative period. Parallel developments may have taken place at least as early in Oaxaca, Chiapas, and possibly even western Mexico (2). By 1150 B.C., however, stylistic motifs that many scholars identify as Olmec were used on ceramics in widespread areas of Mesoamerica, and by 900 B.C. both portable and monumental 01mec-style stone art could be found in areas far distant from the Olmec heartland on the Gulf Coast. The actual nature of this cultural diffusion and the manner of its acceptance in other regions is still unclear and raises a number of questions. For instance, was cultural development in these other regions stimulated or influenced by Olmec culture? In this article we discuss research conducted at a major Formative period archeological site in highland central Mexi-

Densidad poblacional en la capital Olmeca de San Lorenzo, Veracruz

RESUMEN En los últimos años los análisis de densidad poblacional y distribución espacial conforman temas medulares sobre el desarrollo de las sociedades. Una manera de abordar estos temas en la capital olmeca de San Lorenzo, Veracruz, gira en torno al análisis y la interpretación de las pruebas de barreno realizadas de manera sistemática e intensiva. El presente estudio permitió reconstruir el número y tamaño de las estructuras arquitectónicas ubicadas en los diversos sectores del sitio y, a partir de éstos, estimar el número total de pobladores en el asentamiento con el fin de llegar a inferir tendencias en el desarrollo de la primera capital olmeca.