THE EARLY HORIZON AT TRES ZAPOTES:IMPLICATIONS FOR OLMEC INTERACTIONChristopher A. Pool,aPonciano Ortiz Ceballos,bMara del Carmen Rodrguez Martnez,candMichael L. LoughlinaaDepartment of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506bDepartamento de Antropologa, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Veracruz, MxicocCentro INAH Veracruz, Veracruz, Veracruz, MexicoAbstractModeling Olmec participation in Early Horizon interaction networks requires better understanding of the relations of Gulf Olmeccommunities with one another as well as with contemporaries elsewhere in Mesoamerica. We compare pottery, figurines, and obsidianassemblages from a recently isolated Early Formative component at Tres Zapotes with contemporary assemblages from San Lorenzoand Macayal, both in the Coatzacoalcos basin. Our analysis indicates that village inhabitants at Tres Zapotes interacted with populationsin eastern Olman but also forged their own economic and social ties with central Veracruz and the Mexican highlands. This evidencesuggests a heterogeneous politico-economic landscape in which multiple polities of varying complexity participated in overlappingnetworks of interaction, alliance, and competition within and beyond Olman.In1989, Robert Sharer remarked, wenowknowrelativelymoreabout the origins of complex societies in a number of regionsoutside the Gulf Coast than we knowabout Olmec civilizationitself (Sharer 1989:4). The situation has improved a great dealsincewithsettlement surveys, excavationsat sustainingareasettle-ments, andrenewedinvestigations of major centers, but we stillknowrelativelylittle about interactions amongGulf Olmec sitesbeyond the relationships of major centers to their immediate hinter-lands. The reasons for this are several; they include a perception ofOlmec centers and polities as sequential, rather than temporally over-lapping, entities; difficulties in establishing well-dated chronologicalsequences; difficulties in identifying intraregional exchange patternsof somecommodities; andanunderstandablepreoccupationwithlong-distance interaction between the Gulf Olmecs and their contem-poraries. While we agree with John Clark (personal communication2005)thatunderstandinginteractionsatandbeyondthemarginsofpolitiesisimportant tounderstandingtheirorganization, wearguethat it is also necessary to understand the articulations and disarticula-tions among communitiesback home, especially in cases, such astheOlmecsandEarlyFormativeMesoamerica, whereinterregionalinteraction appears to have varied a great deal in intensity and form(Clark 1997:229; Pool 2007a).In this paper we explore intra- and interregional interaction fromthevantagepointoftheEastern LowerPapaloapanBasin(ELPB),and more specifically the site of Tres Zapotes, at the westernmargin of the Olmec heartland. Our focus is on the EarlyHorizon (ca. 1250900 uncal b.c. or 15001000 cal b.c.), representedat Tres Zapotes by the newly defined Arroyo phase, which we haverecentlyisolatedinstratigraphiccontexts. AlthoughwethinkourresultsspeaktotheterritorialextentandnumberofEarlyHorizonGulf Olmec polities, our principal concernis not whether theseearlycomplexpolitieswereorganizedasstatesorchiefdoms, buthowcommunitiesforgedsocialandeconomicnetworkswiththeirneighbors and more distant contemporaries.THE ARROYO PHASE AT TRES ZAPOTESAlhoughseveralauthorshave suspected theexistence of anEarlyFormative period component at Tres Zapotes on the basis of scat-teredsurfacefindsandredepositedartifactsinexcavations(Lowe1989; OrtizCeballos1975; Pool andOhnersorgen2003), it wasnot until our 2003 excavations that Early Formative period depositswere uncovered in a secure stratigraphic context. Our first discoverycameatadepthof 56 minexcavationUnit12inGroup2,alsoknown as the Arroyo Group, hence our name for the phase(Figure 1). At 5.25 m below datum we uncovered a plate fragmentwithLimnCarved-Inciseddecorationcontaininga catfishspine.Associatedwiththeplatewas ablackwaresherdwithCalzadasCarved decoration and a white-slipped sherd with vertical carving.In the same levels we found the partly articulated bones of a dog.About40 cmdeeperwefoundtheskull,patella,anddistalfemurof a human burial, apparently interred in a flexed position.Centurieslater thedepositsof theArroyophaseandtheMiddleFormative period Tres Zapotes phase were covered by an80-cm-thickcapof grayclay, bracketedbydates of 2450 40BP(Beta-199251, woodcharcoal,13C27.2)(780400cal b.c.)and 2410 40 BP (Beta-199241, wood charcoal, 13C27.2)(760390 calb.c.) (all dates calibrated at 2 using Calib rev4.4.2.[Stuiver and Reimer 2004]). Subsequently we found stratifiedArroyo phase deposits inUnit 8 about 250 m tothe south,whichyieldeda date of 2970 40BP(Beta-199248, woodcharcoal,13C27.7) (13101040cal b.c.). Arroyophase materials werealsorecoveredfromexcavations600 mtothewest inOperations3Aand7, but somemixingwithlater materialsisindicated, so95E-mail correspondence to: capool0@uky.eduAncient Mesoamerica, 21 (2010), 95105Copyright Cambridge University Press, 2010doi:10.1017/S0956536110000064we exclude themfromquantitative description of the phase.Excavations with Arroyo phase materials describe an area ofabout 7ha. Other EarlyHorizonmaterialsrecoveredfromaugertests6to8 mdeepinfloodplaindepositsandsurfacecollectionssuggest a maximumextension of about 17 ha for the Arroyophase village (Pool and Ortiz Ceballos 2008).CeramicsCeramicsof theArroyo phase includediagnostics thatshowclearties to the San Lorenzo phase (Figure 2), but the phase also exhibitsastronglylocal characteraswell asinteractionwithother moredistantareas.Table1andFigure3comparesherdpercentagesofequivalent ceramictypes for theArroyophaseat Tres Zapotes,theSanLorenzophaseat SanLorenzo, andtheMacayal phaseequivalentsat Macayal, avillagesiteabout 15 kmsouthwest ofSan Lorenzo in the Coatzacoalcos basin. We focus our quantitativecomparisonswithSanLorenzoprimarilyontheYaleUniversityprojects Stratigraphic Pit II (SL-PNW-St. II, or simplySt. II),strataFthroughJ(CoeandDiehl1980:Table4-1). AccordingtoCoe and Diehl (1980:8485, 133), this pit produced the clearest stra-tigraphicsequencefromtheir excavations, andtheSanLorenzophase assignment of materials from these strata appear straightfor-ward.Recently,DavidCheetham(personalcommunication2008)hascompiledrelativefrequenciesoftypesfor rimsandfor totalsherdcountsfromthemuchlarger samplefromall of CoeandDiehlspitsinthecollectionsat YaleUniversity. Cheethamhasgenerouslyprovideduswiththisunpublishedinformationsothatwe mayrefer toit whentrends differ markedlyfromthose inSt. II (see alsoFigure2). Wealsonotethat AnnCyphers hasrecentlydevelopeda newclassificationfor SanLorenzophasematerials (Symonds et al. 2002), but frequency data from her exca-vations have not been published as of this writing.We have adapted our quantitative comparisons to accommodatedifferences in the recording and reporting of data (Table 1).Published data from San Lorenzo pit St. II present type frequenciesas counts, which may be converted to percentages of all sherds (n =1014) or of classified sherds (n =444). At Macayal, 3,164 of21,025 sherds were unclassifiable2,225 of themdue to thedegree of erosion. We therefore use percentage of classifiedsherds as our main basis of comparison. At Tres Zapotes, werecorded type counts for all sherds in a sample of units that providedkey stratigraphic sequences, including the 1,535 sherds from ArroyophasedepositsinUnit 12. Inotherunits, weclassifiedonlyrimsherdsbytypeandrecordedcountsandweightsofbodysherds.This was the case for the Arroyo phase deposits in Unit8.Inclusion ofrelative typefrequencies forrimsherds providesabroader samplingof Arroyophasecontexts at Tres Zapotes butreduces the total sample size to200. Nevertheless, we presenttheserimsherddatatofacilitatefuturecomparisonswithassem-blages from Canton Corralito and San Lorenzo (Cheetham 2011).Intermsof general pastecharacteristics, thedistinctivedark,basaltic, volcanic ash of the Tuxtla Mountains is a commontemper intheArroyophaseas is quartzsand, withwhichit isoften mixed. As distinct from the curved splinters typical in vitricashes, theTuxtlabasaltsproduceroundedparticlesofdarkglassembedded with phenocrysts of olivine, pyroxene, and plagioclase.Suchbasalticashtemper is apparentlyabsent fromceramics ofthe San Lorenzo and Macayal phases, although recent reportssuggest that vitric ash temper is relatively common at SanLorenzo, and other tempering materials besides quartzite sandalsoarepresent intheSanLorenzophaseassemblage(Gonzlezet al. 2006; see also Guevara 2004, cited in Neff et al. 2006:112).Black ware sherds are more common in the village assemblagesat Macayal andArroyophaseTresZapotesthanat SanLorenzo,Figure 1. Map of Tres Zapotes showing extent ofArroyo phase in exca-vations(triangle) andinexcavations, augertests, andsurfacecollectionscombined (dotted oval).Figure 2. Arroyo phase pottery from Unit 12.Limn Incised plate (top);Calzadas Carved beaker (lower left); white-slipped sherd with verticalcarving (lower right).Pool et al. 96Table 1. Comparison of San Lorenzo, Macayal, and Arroyo phase assemblagesSan Lorenzo phasePit SL-PNW-St. II, Strata F-J*Macayal phase, MacayalPits 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20, 22Arroyo phase, Tres ZapotesUnit 12, Levels 5060 (all sherds classified);Unit 8, levels 4351 (rims only)San Lorenzo type % oftotal% ofclassifiedMacayal type % ofclassifiedEquivalent PATZ type (and code) % allUnit12%rimsUnits8, 12Camao Coarse 21.0% 48.3% Tecomates Rastrillados 20.1% Coarse Brown (2701)Coarse Brown Brushed (2701.5)Coarse Brown half-brushed (2520)0.5% 1.5%Macayas Scored 1.2% 2.7% Scored Coarse Brown (2618)Scored Coarse Red (2907.1)1.9% 1.0%Achiotl Gray andAguatepec Thick3.5% 7.9% Coarse Gray w/volcanic ash temper (2113) 0.1% 0.5%Caf Rojizo condesgrasante de cuarzomediano o grueso16.7%Tatagapa Red 1.7% 3.8% Engobado Rojo 0.2% Red Tecomates (2906)Polished Red (2906.2)Thick Polished Red (2906.3)Smoothed Red (2906.4)3.5% 5.5%Nacahuite Red(Bajio Phase)0.0% 0.0% Specular Red (2905) 1.1% 1.5%Calzadas Carved 1.0% 2.3% Cross-cuts Macayal types Calzadas Carved (2518) 0.9% 1.5%LimnCarved-Incised0.6% 1.4% Cross-cuts Macayal types Cross-cuts PATZ types 0.1% 0.5%El Tigre White 0.5% 1.1% White-slipped Gray (2112)White-slipped Sandy Gray (2114)Cream-slipped with Coarse Paste (2302)2.9% 9.0%La Mina White 1.5% 3.4% Blanco Engobado 0.2% White-slipped with Matte Finish (2405)White-slipped Incised (2403)7.8% 8.8%Xochiltepec White 0.2% 0.5% Kaolin White (2301) 0.3% 0.5%Ixtepec White 0.2% 0.5%Conejo Orange onWhiteOrange-slipped Kaolin White (2301.1) 0.1% 0.1%Mojonera Black 7.5% 17.1% Negro Ahumado 43.1% Fine Polished Black (2112)Medium Polished Black (2123, 2123.1)Coarse Polished Black (2512)Medium Coarse Brown (2519)34.8% 20.5%Perdida Black andWhite1.6% 3.6% Bcromo por coccin 18.0% Fine Paste Black and White (2212)Fine Paste Black and Tan (2214)12.7% 1.0%Tular Black andWhite2.9% 6.5% Medium Paste Black and White (2214)Medium Paste Black and Tan (2226)Coarse Paste Black and White (2213)Coarse Paste Black and Tan (2225)Coarse Paste Black and Tan Incised (2225.21)5.3% 6.0%White-slipped Fine Paste Black and White (2214.3)White-slipped Fine Paste Black and Tan (2224.3)0.0% 4.0%White-slipped Medium Paste Black and White(2214.3)White-slipped Medium Paste Black and Tan (2226.3)White-slipped Coarse Paste Black and White(2213.3)0.2% 3.7%Yagua Orange 0.6% 1.4% Fine Paste Polished Orange (2904.4) 0.4% 0.0%Plain Polished Orange (2904, 2904.5, 2904.6,2904.8)26.6% 11.0%Smoothed Orange (2904.9) 2.0% 0.0%Naranja Engobado 0.3%Naranja Burdo 0.1%Other Classified 1.3%N 1014 444 17861 1535 200*From Coe and Diehl 1980:Table 4-1.Early Horizon at Tres Zapotes: Implications for Olmec Interaction 97regardless of the measure used (percentage of all sherds, classifiedsherds, or rims). As a percentage of all classified sherds, differen-tiallyfiredwaresappear tobemorecommonintheArroyoandMacayal phases than in the San Lorenzo phase. However, differen-tiallyfiredwaresaccount for63%ofall SanLorenzophaserimsherds(Cheetham,personalcommunication2008)butonly about16%oftheArroyophaserims. Moreover, thedifferentiallyfiredwaresoftheArroyophasetendtowardfinerpastesequivalenttoPerdidaBlack-and-White(unlessonlyrimsherdsareconsidered;seeTable1), andtheirlightersurfacestendtowardtanandbufftones. White-slippedpotteryalsoappearstobemorecommonintheArroyophasethantheSanLorenzoandMacayal phasesandwasoccasionallyusedtoenhancethelight rimsofdifferentiallyfired pottery at Tres Zapotes. This greater prevalence of white slip-pingmost likelyisaconsequenceofthegenerallybetterpreser-vation ofslips inthe excavated Tres Zapotesmaterial,ratherthanthe relatively late Early Formative date of the Arroyo phase.Better preservationof surfaces at Tres Zapotes wouldalsohelpexplain the lower proportions of unslipped gray pottery comparableto Aguatepec Thick of the San Lorenzo phase, the sherds of whichwere all heavily eroded (Coe and Diehl 1980:156).One of the most striking differences with both Coatzacoalcos basinsites is the much lower proportion of a type comparable to CamaoCoarseintheArroyophase. Thisissomewhat surprisingbecausebrushed coarse brown jars (Rastreado) become the dominant utilitar-ian type in the Late Formative period at Tres Zapotes, but comparabletreatments are nearly absent from Early Formative period contexts.Another impressive contrast is the high proportion ofPolishedOrange in the Arroyo Phase (about 30%). Polished Orange is a typewithafairlysoftandlightlytemperedorangepastethatiseasilyeroded, although it is likely that many vessels were left unburnished.Burnishing raises a self-slip on some examples, but otherwise theArroyo phase variants all lack the slips that are diagnostic of Middleand Late Formative Polished Orange. The closest parallel toPolished Orange in Coe and Diehls San Lorenzo phase descriptionsis Yagua Orange, but it is far less common (1.4%). Naranja erosio-nado reported by ORourke (2002:171) at Las Galeras may also berelated, but at 3% of the Formative period assemblage, it too is muchless common than is Polished Orange in the Arroyo phase. NaranjoBurdo and Naranja Engobado, however, are very localized types ofthe Macayal phase, with no precise equivalents at San Lorenzo orTres Zapotes. These Formative period types are also distinct fromClassic period Coarse Orange in the Tuxtla Mountains (seeArnold et al. 1993; Pool 1990; Stoner et al. 2008).Calzadas Carved and Limn Carved-Incised each constitute lessthan 1% of the sherds from the Arroyo phase. This is not terriblydifferent from1to2.3%for the SanLorenzophase levels ofSt. II (Table 1). Cheethams tallies for Calzadas and Limonsherds fromall pits at San Lorenzo in the Yale collection,however, aremuchhigherat about 8%ofall sherdsforeach(or6.4%and8.8%, respectively, of rims) (personal communication2008). Current evidence, then, suggeststhat relativefrequenciesof thesetypicallyOlmecdecorativestyles at Tres Zapotes weremore in line with such distant sites as Canton Corralito(Cheetham. 2010), SanJosMogote, or Zohapilco(Stark2007:551552, Table 3.1) than at the much closer site of San Lorenzo.Some of the Calzadas-like motifs in the Arroyo phase resemblestylesreportedlymorecommoninOaxacathanat SanLorenzo,includingincisedmusicbrackets(FlanneryandMarcus 2000:24; see also Stark 2007:5053).1In one plate (Figure 4), we haveFigure 3. Cumulative percentages of ceramic types in assemblages of the San Lorenzo, Macayal, and Arroyo phases. For the Macayalphase, sherds with Calzadas Carved and Limn Incised decoration are included with black and differentially fired ware frequencies (seeTable 1).1FlanneryandMarcus(2000:28)placegreateremphasisondifferingorientations of motifs commonly glossed as fire serpent or skydragon, stating, At Tlapacoya and San Jos Mogote, Motif 1 wasusuallyplacedonbowlsat a45angle(Figures21ab). At SanLorenzoandvariousChiapassites,ontheotherhand,thesamemotifwasusuallyplaced horizontally (Figures 21cd). Diagonal representations of fireserpentoccurat TresZapotes, but it isdifficult toassessquantitativelytheir relative prevalence in different regions and sites frompublishedPool et al. 98theunusual co-occurrenceof diagonal andvertical incised(notcarved) motifs associatedbyPyne (1976) withthe zoomorphicsupernatural in Oaxaca. This calls to mind the less abstract designonafamousvessel attributedtoTlapacoya, whichbearsprofileand frontal views of the zoomorphic supernatural (Joralemon1971:42). Note, however, that theslantedelement onthisvesselis not the typicalabstracted skymotif but a double music bracket(Motif 11), whichPyne (1976) associates withthewere-jaguarand Marcus (1989) associates with earth/earthquake.2To ourknowledge, this particular combination of vertical and slantedmusic brackets is not reported fromOaxaca or San Lorenzo,suggesting somelocalreinterpretationofthesignificanceof thesemotifs at Tres Zapotes. Note that we make no claim here of importa-tion of pottery from Oaxaca, and in fact paste characteristics suggestthis piece was locally made.Figurines and Other Ceramic ArtifactsArroyophasefigurinesincludelocalandregionalstyles. Hollow,white-slippedbabyfigurines(Blomsters[2002]TypeI)arerare,butdooccur(Figure5).Wehavetwofacefragmentsandtwoorthree limbs. One face fragment was redeposited in a LateFormative context, and the other is from the surface, but there canbe no doubt they are of Early Formative period manufacture.Solidheads similar toSanLorenzophaseexamples arerare(Figure 5). More common are the hawk-nosed variants with filletedmouths first identifiedbyGarca Payn(1942; see alsoGarcaPayon1966) at Trapiche, andsoonthereafter describedat TresZapotesasaMorelostypebyWeiant (1943:9293) andTypeII-Dby Drucker (1943:79) (Figure 6). Arnold and Follensbee(2004)describedsimilarfigurinesfortheEarlyFormativeperiodatLaJoya,whichthey subdivided intoCantanteandBantamvarietiesboth of which occur in the Arroyo phase. Despite somesimilarities to some highland Type C, D, and K figurines, particu-larly in the filleted mouth, and eye treatments, the Trapiche figurinetype is mainly associated with Veracruz, where it has been identifiedasfar northasSantaLuisa, andeastwardtothecentral Tuxtlas(GarcaPayn1971:521) (Figure4). Theyarerareor absent atSan Lorenzo, although one helmeted figurine assigned to theNacastephaseissimilar(CoeandDiehl1980:366,leftmost).Wehave not yet found any Arroyo phase figurines resembling ArnoldandFollensbees (2004) Axoquntype, whichtheycompare toPilli figurine heads from the Basin of Mexico.Figurine bodies include seated and cross-legged variants resem-bling examples from the San Lorenzo phase but only one tripod fig-urine. Particularly spectacular examples include a large female torso,whoserightward-leaningpostureresembles seatedexamples fromSanLorenzo;aseatedold,pot-belliedman,andabeautifulwhite-slipped standing female figure whose skirt was highlighted by omit-tingtheslip. Wehavenot recoveredceramicspatulas likethosereportedfromSanLorenzo(CoeandDiehl1980:284,Figure399)andCantnCorralito(Cheetham2005,2010), althoughwecannotrule out their existence without more extensive excavation.ObsidianTheArroyophaseobsidianassemblagefromUnits8and12com-prises 113pieces, dominatedbyflakes (106, 93.8%) andbipolarflake cores (5, 4.4%), with only 2 (1.8%) prismatic blades or bladetools. Visual categories of obsidian previously sourced by INAA tothe Guadalupe Victoria source (Knight 2003) account for 49.6% ofthe assemblage, Pico de Orizaba may account for as much asFigure 4. Photograph and drawing of differentially fired vessel with incisedmusic bracket design.Tres Zapotes, Unit 8, level44.Drawing by IsraelTrujillo Ramirez.reports. Flannery and Marcus (1994) illustrate 41 examples of Pynes Motifs1and2(bothfireserpentrepresentations),notcountingduplicateillus-trations of the same sherd or vessel. Of these, 25 (61%) are diagonal versionsof the fire serpent(Figures 12.4, 12.5a/12.54, 12.5c/12.49/12.50, 12.5d/12.49/12.50, 12.5e/12.55-right, 12.6a/12.41, 12.6b, 12.6c, 12.28a,12.38b, 12.44c, 12.45, 12.46c, 12.51-top, 12.51-bottom, 12.56-left,12.56-right, 12.68a, 12.146a, 12.146b, 12.148; 16.1-upper right,16.1-middleleft, 16.1-middleright, 16.1-lower right). The16horizontalexamples are illustrated in Figures 12.5b/12.39, 12.5f, 12.6d, 12.6e,12.38c, 12.38d, 12.38e, 12.39/12.5b, 12.44e, 12.53, 12.55-left, 12.146e,16.1-upperleft, 16.1-lowerleft, 16.2-upperleft, 16.2-lowerleft. CoeandDiehl (1980:Figures138143)illustrate12CalzadasCarvedsherdswithfireserpentmotifs, 7(58.3%) of whicharehorizontal (Figures 138i,139k, 140a, 140i, 142, 143b, and 143j) and 5 of which are diagonal(138b, 141a, 141h, 143g, 143i). (We exclude from this count 7 occurencesof the hand-paw-wing motif, all horizontal, which Stark [2007:63] includesinhertally ofpossiblefireserpents). Thus,ifthefrequency ofillustratedmotifs approximates their occurrence in assemblages (and this is admittedlya shaky assumption), Flannery and Marcuss impression regarding regionaltendencies in the orientation of this element may be strictly true, but horizon-talanddiagonalorientationsdonotconsistentlydistinguishhighlandandlowland modes of representation.Regional variationdoes appear tooccur inthefrequencies of othermotifs, however, includingthe music brackets that formelements ofPynes(1976)Motifs811. InthecollectionsfromtheValleyofOaxacaanalyzed by Pyne (1976:Table 9.12), 132 of 591 sherds (22.34%) exhibitedthese motifs. Of the 55 Calzadas Carved sherds illustrated by Coe and Diehl(1980: Figures 138143), only 3 (5.45%) (or possibly 4 [7.2%]) have someformof musicbracket.Ifincisedmotifsfromnon-Calzadassherdsareincluded, the proportionwithmusicbrackets is evenlower. Again, theutilityofthiscomparisondependsontheillustratedsherdsbeingbroadlyrepresentativeoftheprevalenceof motifsintheSanLorenzocollection.Other authors (FlanneryandMarcus 2000: 24; Stark2007: footnote8)have alsocommentedonthe scarcityof earthor jaguar imagery(withwhich music brackets may be associated) among the sherds fromSanLorenzo illustrated by Coe and Diehl.2Joralemon (1975) and Taube (1995, 2000, 2004), among others, offeralternative identifications ofthesupernaturalsrepresented bythesemotifs.Here we are less concerned with the specific meaning of these motifs thanwith their formal qualities. We reference Pynes (1976) and Marcuss(1989) labels because theyrefer tospecific sets of motifs inOaxacanceramics.Early Horizon at Tres Zapotes: Implications for Olmec Interaction 9938.1%, and the rest consists of varieties of black and banded obsidiantied to Zaragoza-Oyameles (12.4%).3In contrast to the San Lorenzophase(Cobeanet al. 1971, 1991) noneof thematerialsfromtheArroyophasedepositsarevisually assignabletoOtumba,Pachuca,or Guatemalan sources, and the overall variety of sources is much less.GroundstoneThestonematerial for utilitariangroundstoneartifacts appearstoconsist entirelyof olivineandpyroxenebasaltsderivedfromtheTuxtlaMountains, principallyCerroel Viga(Kruszczynski 2001;WilliamsandHeizer 1965), althoughrecentlycompletedanalysissuggests varieties from more distant Tuxtlas sources may also be rep-resented in minor amounts (Jaime-Rivern, personal communication2006). BasaltsfromthewesternTuxtlasappear not tohavebeenimportedtoSanLorenzo(Willams andHeizer 1965; Fernndezand Coe 1980) owing, no doubt, to the greater proximity of sourcesat Llano del Jcaro and other locales in the eastern Tuxtlas.Other Exotic ArtifactsWe recovered one multiperforate ilmenite cube fragment from Arroyophase levels in Unit 12. Five ilmenite cubes almost certainly dating tothe Arroyo phase were encountered 200 m to the west in the Ranchitogroup by Stirling (Weiant 1943:121 and Plate 78), and we recoveredone on survey 600 m to the west in the vicinity of Operation 7. Thesource of the ilmenite for these small, enigmatic objects is probablytheRoLaVentaareaof westernChiapas, whereexcavations atPlumajillo recovered over 2,000 pieces in various stages of production(Agrinier 1984:8081). In the southern Gulf lowlands they have beenfound at the village site of La Joya in the Tuxtla Mountains (Arnold1995:195), at the secondary center of Las Limas (Yadeun in Agrinier1984:75). They are most numerous, however, at San Lorenzo, where atotal of over six metric tons of finished and discarded multiperforateilmenite cubes were found in two large pits (Cyphers and Di CastroStringher1996)aswellasafewinother contexts(CoeandDiehl1980:242). It is not clear if the cubes at Tres Zapotes were acquireddirectly from the source or indirectly via San Lorenzo.Olmec MonumentsWedoubt that communityleaders of the Arroyophaseat TresZapoteshadtheauthority orlaborreserves tocarveandtransportthetwoknowncolossalheads tothesite, andso weassignthemtoearlyintheMiddleFormativeTresZapotesphase. Asseveralpeoplehavenoted, theTresZapotesheadsarecarvedinalocalstyledistinct fromthoseof SanLorenzoor LaVenta(Clewlowetal. 1967;delaFuente1977;Kubler1962;Wicke1971).Mostof theother sixor sevenOlmecmonumentsfromTresZapotesalso appear to be of a Middle Formative period date (Pool 2007b;Pool and Ortiz Ceballos 2008). Two seated figures, however, maybe froman earlier time. Milbrath (1979) tentatively assignedMonument I, thecrossedlegsof aseatedfigure(Stirling1943:Plate9a, b), andMonument M, thetorsoandheadof aseatedfigure(Stirling1943:Plate11b,c,d), tohersculpturalGroupII,towhichshealsoassigns seatedfigures fromSanLorenzo, LaVenta, Arroyo Sonso, Cruz de Milagro, and Cuahtotoalpan Viejo,amongothers. Crenulatedearflaps onMonument Mrelateit tobothearlyFormativeSanLorenzoMonument 52and(probably)MiddleFormativeLaVentaMonument 77(thelatter discussedbelow). Unfortunately, Monument Mand the right half ofMonument I have disappeared since Stirling reported them,making detailed comparisons difficult.Two monuments recently discovered to the north of TresZapotes hint at political interactions with eastern Olman. One, cur-rently at the Casa de Cultura in Lerdo de Tejada, closely resemblesthe San Martn Pajapan monument (Figure 5). The other monumentis currently on the plaza in Angel R. Cabada (Figure 6). It is alsomutilated, but therope-likeelementsonitsstiff capeareclearlyvisible, as is the battered attachment of its legs to the torso,showingit tobe a seated, cross-leggedfigure. Althoughcapedcross-leggedfigures appear at SanLorenzo, theclosest informand details of costume to the Cabada monument is La VentaMonument 77. Interestingly, theelement wornonthebelt oftheLerdomonument (Figure5)alsolinksittoLaVentaMonument77, which wears an identical belt. Given the presumed associationofthesemonuments withthemesof rulership,we cannotruleoutthepossibilitythat thenortheasternPapaloapanplainfell undereastern Olmec hegemony for a time,but it would appear torelateto the apogee of La Venta and so postdate the Arroyo phase.Figure 5. Olmec-style figurines of the Arroyo phase. Olmec baby facefragment (left). San Lorenzo type figurine (right).Figure 6. Trapiche-type figurines of the Arroyo phase.3Knight (1999, 2003) analyzed obsidian at Tres Zapotes and the nearbysite of Palo Errado using the same visual categories. INAAwas conducted onpieces fromPaloErrado. Visual characteristics identifythe most likelysource of the Arroyo phase prismatic blade as Guadalupe Victoria, and theblade tool as Zaragoza-Oyameles. Preliminaryresults of INAAonfiveArroyo phase obsidian pieces tentatively identify one macroflake ofParednobsidianaswellasflakesfromtheGuadalupeVictoriaandPicode Orizaba sources (Esmeralda Robles Fernndez, personal communication).Pool et al. 100ARROYO PHASE SETTLEMENT IN THE EASTERNLOWER PAPALOAPAN BASINRecent surveys intheEasternLower PapaloapanBasin(ELPB)provide information of variable quality on Formative period settle-ment patterns(Figure7). Ina sitelessfeature-basedsurveyof28 km2around Angel R. Cabada, north of Tres Zapotes, Loughlin(2004) encountered 28 locations with Arroyo phase materials.Theselocations consistedprimarilyof later mounds intowhichnearbydepositswithArroyophasesherdshadbeenredepositedasfill. Clustersof theselocationsandisolatedfindssuggest theexistence of Arroyo phase communities on the scale of villages orhamlets, although their extent is difficult to determine due toheavy alluviation covering most of the in situ deposits.Kruszczynski (2001) surveyed a 24 km2area covering the south-west quadrant of Cerroel Viga. At thetimeof Kruszczynskissurvey, theArroyophasehadnotbeenidentified, andtheauthordid not discriminate between the Middle and Late Formativeperiods (Tres Zapotes and Hueyapan phases). It is therefore possiblethat some Arroyo phase occupations were lumped with later phases.Nevertheless, nositeof LateFormativeperioddateorearlier inKruszycynskis survey was larger than 1.2 ha.In a more expansive but less intensive survey that extended fromwest of Angel R. CabadasouthtoTresZapotes, thelateIgnacioLenPrez(2003)identified31siteswithFormativeperiodcom-ponentsinanareaof356 km2. All except threeofthesesitesareclassified as villages and hamlets. Unfortunately, Len Prezsreport does not distinguish chronological subdivisions of theFormative period, but the one center for which ceramic type frequen-cies are provided is clearly Late Formative period in date, and the otherFigure 7. Distribution of sites with Trapiche type figurines (circles) and sources of obsidian used at Tres Zapotes in the Arroyo phase(triangles).Figure 8. Olmec Monument found in municipio of Lerdo. Photo by Pool.Early Horizon at Tres Zapotes: Implications for Olmec Interaction 101two Formative periodcenters are described asoccupying 2 ha orless. Therefore, todate, it is fair tosaythat noEarlyFormativeperiod administrative center has been identified in the ELPB.Rather, the area appears to have been lightly occupied byhamletsandvillages, includingamediumtolargevillageat TresZapotes.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONTheArroyophaseartifact assemblagefromTresZapotesunder-scores the heterogeneity of Gulf Olmec material culture as well asdifferential participation of Gulf Olmec communities in overlappingsocial and economic networks. Ceramic pastes are primarily of localmaterials, incorporatingalkali basalt ashasatemper, aswell aswidely available quartz sand. This is hardly surprising. What is sur-prising is the degree to which the assemblage differs from contem-poraneousassemblagesat SanLorenzoandEl Macayalat modalandtypologicallevels, withfarlessbrushedCamaoCoarse-likepotteryandmuchmoreorange-pastepottery. Infact, theceramicassemblageof Tres Zapotes appears less similar tothat of SanLorenzoinseveralrespects thandoesthatofthefarmoredistantSoconusco site of Canton Corralito reported by Cheetham (2010).WealsonotedifferencesintherelativefrequenciesoftecomatesbetweentheArroyophase(12.1%of173rims)andtheCoyamephaseatLaJoya(about45%)(Arnold2003:Figure6). Thismayrelate togreater residential mobilityat La Joya, where Arnold(1999) argues that tecomates served as multifunctional vesselsthat offered a compromise among requirements for transportability,durability, and cooking effectiveness (Arnold 2000:127).CeramicdecorativetechniquesreflecttheparticipationofTresZapotesinregional stylezonesoftheGulfCoast (especiallyforLimn Carved-Incised decoration and Tatagapa Red inciseddesigns) as well as incorporating motifs, like incised music brackets,that appear to be more common in the highlands.Figurine styles likewise exhibit a combination of more typicallyGulf Olmec Styles (Type I baby faces, solid San Lorenzo heads) andstyles withacentral Gulf orientation(Trapichestyleheads) nottypical of eastern Olmec centers, with the latter predominating.Materials for grinding stones exhibit local patterns of exploita-tion, all apparentlycomingfromwesternTuxtlasbasalt sources,principally Cerro el Viga. On the other hand, obsidian, necessarilyfrom sources beyond the Gulf Coast, came from a smaller and morespatially restricted suite of sources than at San Lorenzo, and thesewere concentrated in eastern Puebla and adjacent Veracruz.Fromthese observations we may conclude, first, that Olmecmaterial culture was not homogeneous across Olman, a point that hasbeenmadebyothers, especiallyPhilipArnoldandRobert Santley(Arnold 2000, 2003; Santley et al. 1997). Second, Olmec social net-works were not tightly bounded, at least inasmuch as we can discernfromtheflowof informationasrepresentedin pottery andfigurinestyles. Third, Early Formative period Olmec communities participateddifferentially in overlapping long-distance exchange networks.AlthoughTresZapotesmaywell haveobtaineditsilmenitecubesfromintermediaries at San Lorenzo, it seems too much of a coincidencethat the obsidian at Tres Zapotes comes exclusively or nearly so fromthenearest sourcesandthat theamount ofobsidianreachingTresZapotes appears to decline with distance from the source, if controlover the acquisition of obsidian was not in local hands.At the regional scale, what settlement data exist do not indicatethe establishment of an administrative hierarchy in the region, eitherdeveloped internally or imposed from without. Of course, we cannotsayiftheArroyophasewitnessedareorganizationofsettlementbecausewehavenoinformationonpre-Arroyophasesettlement.With regard to more overt indicators of power, Olmec monumentsreasonablyinterpretedas proclaimingpolitical authorityexist inFigure 9. Olmec Monument found in municipio of Cabada. Photo by Pool.Figure10. Mapof settlement surveysintheEasternLowerPapaloapanBasin: solidline, El Mesnarea(Loughlin2004); dottedline, CerroelViga (Kruszczynski 2001); dashed-and-dotted line, JIMBA3Dsurvey(Len Prez 2003). MAP modified after INEGI 2007.Pool et al. 102the ELPB, but with two possible exceptions (Tres ZapotesMonumentsLandM)theyappear topostdatetheArroyophaseand the two with the strongest similarities to eastern Olmec sculp-tures, thosefromCabadaandLerdo, arelinkedbyiconographyand style to La Venta. Early Formative period monumental architec-ture simply has not been detected in the region.Wefindlittlesupport intheforegoingfor external politicaldomination of the ELPBin the Early Formative period. Butevenif SanLorenzoclaimednominal dominionover thearea,itsinhabitantsappear tohaveexercisedconsiderableautonomyintheirtastesformaterialculture andtheir externalinteractions.The larger point, though, is that EarlyFormative Gulf Olmecsocietywasnot ahomogeneousentity, andit cannot simplybereducedtoSanLorenzo. Rather, we must continue toexploretheinteractionsofotherGulfOlmecswiththeircontemporarieswithin Olman and beyond.RESUMENParaelaborarmodelosdelaparticipacindelosolmecasenlasredesdeinteraccin del perodo formativo temprano se requiere de un mejor conoci-miento de las relaciones de las comunidades olmecas del golfo entre ellos ascomo con otras sociedades contemporneas en otras partes de Mesoamrica.Comparamos los conjuntos de alfarera, figurillas y obsidiana de un compo-nentedelformativotempranorecinidentificadoenTresZapotesconlosconjuntos contemporneos de San Lorenzo y Macayal en la cuenca del roCoatzacoalcos. Nuestroanlisisindicaquelos habitantesdelaaldeaenTres Zapotes interaccionaronconpoblacionesenel estedeOlmanperotambinelaboraronsuspropiasligaseconmicasysocialesconel centrodeVeracruzylas tierrasaltasdeMxico.Estosdatossugierenunpaisajeheterogneoentrminoseconmicosypolticosenel cual lasunidadespolticas de diversos niveles de complejidad participaron en redes traslapadasde interaccin, alianza y competencia dentro y fuera de Olman.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe research at Tres Zapotes reported in this paper was conducted under NSFgrant BCS-0242555 with the permission of the Instituto Nacional deAntropologaeHistoriaof Mexico. Ceramicanalysis was conductedbyPoncianoOrtizCeballos andstudents fromtheUniversityof Kentucky,theUniversidadVeracruzana,andUNAM.Theobsidian wasanalyzedbyCharles Knight, Eric Stockdell, and Esmeralda Robles Fernndez.Groundstone was analyzed by Olaf Jaime-Rivern. Jeff Blomster, DavidCheetham, Michael Coe, Annick Daneels, and Barbara Stark providedvery helpfulsuggestionsonprevious draftsofthisarticle.Wethank themfortheirperceptivecommentary asweabsolvethemofanyresponsibilityfor anyerrorsoffactorinterpretationthatmayremain.Finally, wethankDavid Cheetham and Jeff Blomster for their invitation to present a versionofthispaperintheirsymposiumatthe2006meetingsoftheSocietyforAmerican Archaeology.REFERENCESAgrinier, Pierre1984 The Early Olmec Horizon at Mirador, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers ofthe New World Archaeological Foundation No. 48, Provo, UT.Arnold III, Philip J.1995 Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Gulf Olmec of Ancient Veracruz,Mexico. Biblical Archaeologist 58:191199.1999 Tecomates, Residential Mobility, and Early Formative OccupationinCoastal LowlandMesoamerica. InPotteryandPeople, editedbyJamesM. SkiboandGaryM. Feinman, pp. 157170. UniversityofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.2000 Sociopolitical Complexity and the Gulf Olmecs: AView from theTuxtla Mountains, Veracruz, Mexico. In Olmec Art and Archaeology inMesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 117135.National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.2003 Early Formative Pottery fromthe Tuxtla Mountains and Implicationsfor Gulf Olmec Origins. Latin American Antiquity 14:2946.Arnold, Philip III J., and Billie J. A. Follensbee2004 Early Formative Figurines from La Joya: Implications forGulf Olmec Regional Variation. InFacesofContinuity andChange:Figurine Studies at the Turn of the Millenium, edited byCharles Kolb and Cynthia Otis-Charlton. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.Arnold III, Philip J., Christopher A. Pool, Ronald R. Kneebone, andRobert S. Santley1993 Intensive Ceramic Production and Classic-Period PoliticalEconomyinthe Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. AncientMesoamerica 4:175191.Blomster, Jeffrey P.2002 What and Where is Olmec Style? Regional Perspectives onHollow Figurines in Early Formative Mesoamerica. AncientMesoamerica 13:171195.Cheetham, David2010 CulturalImperativesinClay: EarlyOlmecCarvedPotteryfromSan Lorenzo and Cantn Corralito. Ancient Mesoamerica 21:165186.2011 Interregional InteractionandSocial Identity inMesoamerica,1200-1000B.C.:APossibleOlmecEnclaveonthePacificCoast ofChiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in preparation,School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.Clark, John E.1997 The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica. Annual Review ofAnthropology 26:211234.Clewlow, C. William, Richard A. Cowan, James F. OConnell, andCarlos Beneman1967 Colossal Heads of the Olmec Culture. Contributions of theUniversity of California Archaeological Research Facility,No. 4. University of California, Berkeley.Cobean, Robert H., Michael D. Coe, Edward A. Perry, Jr., Karl K.Turekian and Dinkar P. Kharkar1971 ObsidianTradeat SanLorenzoTenochtitlan, Mexico. Science174:666671.Cobean, Robert H., James R. Vogt, Michael D. Glascock, andTerrance L. Stocker1991 High-Precision Trace-Element Characterization of MajorMesoamerican Obsidian Sources and Further Analyses of Artifacts fromSan Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 2:6991.Coe, Michael D. and Richard A. Diehl1980 In the Land of the Olmec: Vol. 1, The Archaeology of San LorenzoTenochtitln. University of Texas Press, Austin.Cyphers, Ann, and Anna Di Castro Stringher1996 Los artefactos multiperforados de ilmenita en San Lorenzo.Arqueologa 16:314.Early Horizon at Tres Zapotes: Implications for Olmec Interaction 103de la Fuente, Beatrz1977 Los hombres de piedra: Escultura olmeca. Universidad NacionalAutnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.Drucker, Philip1943 Ceramic Sequences at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 140. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, DC.Fernandez, Louis A., and Michael D. Coe1980 Appendix2. PetrographicAnalysisofRockSamplesFromSanLorenzo. InIntheLandof theOlmec: Vol. 1, TheArchaeologyofSan Lorenzo Tenochtitln, edited by Michael D. Coe and Richard A.Diehl, pp. 397404. University of Texas Press, Austin.Flannery, Kent V. and Joyce Marcus2000 Formative MexicanChiefdoms andthe Mythof the MotherCulture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:137.Garca Payn, Jos1942 Conclusiones de mis exploraciones en el Totonocapanmeridional, temporada 1939. 27th International Congress ofAmericanists 2:8896.1966 Prehistoria de Mesoamrica. Cuadernos de la Facultad deFilosofa, Letras, y Ciencias 31. Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Ver.1971 Archaeology of Central Veracruz. In Archaeology ofNorthernMesoamerica, Part 2, editedbyGordonF. EkholmandIgnacio Bernal, pp. 505542. Handbook of Middle American Indians,Vol.11,RobertWallchopegeneraleditor.University ofTexasPress,Austin.Gonzles, S. E., R. J. Behl, D. Cheetham, and H. Neff2006 Petrographic Analyses of Early Formative Olmec Carved Pottery.Poster presented at the Archaeological Sciences of the AmericasSymposium, University of Arizona, Tucson.Guevara, Mara Eugenia2004 LacermicadeSanLorenzoTenochtitln, Veracruz: Origenynaturaleza. Masters thesis. Facultad de Filosofa y Letras,Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.Instituto Nacional de Estadstica, Geografa e Informtica2007 Mapa Digital de Mxico. http://galileo.inegi.org.mx/website/mexico/viewer.htm?sistema=1&s=geo&c=1160. (AccessedAugust31, 2007).Joralemon, Peter David1971 A Study of Olmec Iconography. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art andArchaeology, No. 7. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Knight, Charles L. F.1999 The Late Formative to Classic Period Obsidian Economy at PaloErrado, Veracruz, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.2003 Obsidian Production, Consumption, and Distribution at TresZapotes: Piecing Together Political Economy. In SettlementArchaeology and Political Economy at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz,Mexico, edited by Christopher A. Pool, pp. 6989. Cotsen Institute ofArchaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Kruszczynski, Mark A. R.2001 Prehistoric Basalt Exploitation and Core-Periphery RelationsObserved fromthe Cerro el Viga Hinterland of Tres Zapotes,Veracruz, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Kubler, George1962 TheArt andArchitectureof Ancient America. PenguinBooks,Baltimore.Len Prez, Ignacio2003 RescatearqueolgicorealizadoenestudiossismolgicosJimba3D, primerafaseysegundafase. Report submittedtotheInstitutoNacional de Antropologa e Historia. Veracruz, Veracruz, Mexico.Loughlin, Michael L.2004 Recorrido arqueolgico El Mesn. Report submitted to theFoundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.Coral Gables, FL. http://www.famsi.org/reports/02058/index.html.(Last accessed June 16, 2010)Lowe, Gareth W.1989 Heartland Olmec: Evolutionof Material Culture. In RegionalPerspectivesontheOlmec, editedbyRobertJ.SharerandDavidC.Grove, pp. 3367. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Marcus, Joyce1989 ZapotecChiefdoms andtheNatureof FormativeReligions. InRegional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharerand David C. Grove, pp. 148197. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Milbrath, Susan1979 A Study of Olmec Sculptural Chronology. Studies in Pre-ColumbianArt and Archaeology, No. 23. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Neff, Hector, Jeffrey Blomster, Michael D. Glascock, Ronald L. Bishop, M.James Blackman, Michael D. Coe, George L. Cowgill, Ann Cyphers,Richard A. Diehl, Stephen Houston, Arthur A. Joyce, Carl P. Lipo andMarcus Winter2006 Smokescreens in the Provenance Investigation of Early FormativeMesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 17:104118.ORourke, Laura Catalina2002 Las Galeras and San Lorenzo: A Comparative Study of Two EarlyFormativeCommunitiesinSouthernVeracruz, Mexico. Ph.D.disser-tation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.Ortiz Ceballos, Ponciano1975 La cermica de los Tuxtlas. Unpublished Maestra thesis, Departmentof Archaeology, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Veracruz.Pool, Christopher A.1990 CeramicProduction, ResourceProcurement, andExchangeatMatacapan, Veracruz, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans.2007a Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.2007b Stone Monuments and Earthen Mounds: Polity and Placemakingat Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Paper presented at the DumbartonOaks Pre-Columbian Symposium, Antigua, Guatemala.Pool, Christopher A., and Michael A. Ohnersorgen2003 Archaeological Survey and Settlement at Tres Zapotes. InSettlement Archaeology and Political Economy at Tres Zapotes,Veracruz, Mexico, editedbyChristopher A. Pool, pp. 731. CotsenInstitute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Pool, Christopher A., and Ponciano Ortiz Ceballos2008 TresZapotescomouncentroolmeca: Nuevosdatos. InOlmeca:Balance y Perspectives. Memoria de la primera mesa redonda, Tomo II,edited by Mara Teresa Uriarte and Rebecca B. Gonzlez Lauck,pp. 424443. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, ConsejoNacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Instituto Nacional de Antropologae Historia, and New World Archaeological Foundation, Mexico City.Pyne, Nanette1976 The Fire-Serpent and Were-Jaguar in Formative Oaxaca: AContingency Table Analysis. In The Early MesoamericanVillage, editedbyKent V. Flannery, pp. 272280. AcademicPress,New York.Santley, Robert S., Philip J. Arnold and Thomas P. Barrett1997. Formative period settlement patterns in the Tuxtla Mountains. InOlmectoAztec: Settlement PatternsintheAncient Gulf Lowlands,edited by Barbara L. Stark and Philip J. Arnold III, pp. 174205. TheUniversity of Arizona Press, Tucson.Sharer, Robert J. and David C. Grove (editors)1989 Regional Perspectives ontheOlmec. Universityof CambridgePress, Cambridge.Stark, Barbara L.2007 Out of Olmec. In The Political Economy of Ancient Mesoamerica,editedby VernonL. ScarboroughandJohnE. Clark, pp. 4763.University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Stirling, Matthew William1943 Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Bulletin 138, Washington, DC.Stoner, Wesley D., Christopher A. Pool, Hector Neff and Michael Glasscock2008 Exchange of Coarse Orange Pottery in the Middle Classic TuxtlaMountains, SouthernVeracruz, Mexico. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 35:14121426.Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer2004 Calib rev4.4.2 Radiocarbon Calibration Program. QuaternaryIsotope Lab, University of Washinbton, Seattle.Symonds, Stacey, Ann Cyphers and Roberto Lunagmez2002 Asentamiento prehispnico en San Lorenzo Tenochtitln.Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City.Taube, Karl A.1995 The Rainmakers: The Olmec and their Contribution toMesoamericanBelief andRitual. InTheOlmecWorld: Ritual andRulership, edited by Jill Guthrie and Elizabeth P. Benson,pp. 83103. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.Pool et al. 1042000 Lightning Celts and Corn Fetishes: The Formative Olmec and theDevelopment of Maize Symbolism in Mesoamerica and the AmericanSouthwest. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited byJohn E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 297337. National Gallery of Art,Washington, DC.2004 Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks. Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary and Collection, Washington, DC.Weiant, Clarence W.1943 An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz,Mexico. Bureauof AmericanEthnologyBulletin139. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington DC.Wicke, Charles R.1971 Olmec: An Early Art Style of Precolumbian Mexico. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.Williams, Howel, and Robert F. Heizer1965 Sources of Stones Used in Prehistoric Mesoamerican Sites.Contributions of the University of California ArchaeologicalResearch Facility 1:139.Early Horizon at Tres Zapotes: Implications for Olmec Interaction 105