Early formative pottery trade and the evolution of Mesoamerican civilisation.

Early formative pottery trade and the evolution of Mesoamerican civilisation. A recent commentary by Hector Neff in Antiquity (80: 714-16)continues a debate concerning Early Formative pottery exchange and itsrole in the development of Mesoamerican civilisation. The debate wassparked by a report of an INAA analysis of a non-random sample of 944pottery samples from 16 Mesoamerican sites to determine sources for theproduction of several pottery types (Blomster et al. 2005; Neff et al.2006a: 111). The report concluded that the Olmec site of San Lorenzo San Lorenzo,town, S Honduras, on the Gulf of Fonseca. Its satellite, Henecán is the chief Pacific port of Honduras. Henecán's modern port facilities and deepwater harbor and channel approach were constructed in the late 1970s after the old port at exported pottery to several contemporary non-Olmec sites, but that thesenon-Olmec sites did not import pottery from San Lorenzo or exchangepottery with each other. These conclusions were used to make severalclaims in support of the idea that all Mesoamerican civilisationsoriginated from the Olmec--the core tenet TENET. Which he holds. There are two ways of stating the tenure in an action of waste. The averment is either in the tenet and the tenuit; it has a reference to the time of the waste done, and not to the time of bringing the action. 2. of the so-called 'motherculture' model. Although Neff (2006:714) states that the INAA results 'clearlyfavours' the 'mother culture' position, our critiqueshave pointed out the fallacies of this claim (Flannery et al. 2005;Sharer et al. 2006), including petrographic pe��trog��ra��phy?n.The description and classification of rocks.pe��trogra��pher n. data (Stoltman et al. 2005)that support pottery trading patterns contrary to the conclusions madeby Blomster, Neff and Glascock (2005). As a result, Neff has moderatedthe original claim of exclusive one-way trade of pottery at San Lorenzo,so that it is now acknowledged that 'a few' pots were tradedinto the site (Neff 2006: 715). Neff and his colleagues continue to imply that my colleagues and Iare being unscientific unscientificUnproven, see there by not accepting their evidence (Neff et al.2006a: 116; Neff 2006: 715). To the contrary, critiquing new data andthe conclusions derived from them are an essential part of science. Neff(2006: 715) also mistakenly believes our critique was motivated by adesire to deny 'empirical patterns that don't fit ourpreconceptions'. While some of my colleagues have reservationsabout INAA (see Flannery et al. 2005; Stoltman et al. 2005), I alongwith most of my colleagues agree that the INAA results reported byBlomster, Neff and Glascock (2005) imply that San Lorenzo traded a lotof pottery (Sharer et al. 2006), as Neff and his colleagues havepreviously recognised (Neff et al. 2006a: 113). On the other hand wecontinue to have reservations about reliance on a single line ofevidence to support models of ancient cultural processes--multiplesources of consistent evidence are preferable for deriving inferencesfrom archaeological data. It is obviously better to combine and compareresults of INAA, petrographic, and typological analyses to identifyancient pottery manufacturing sources, rather than rely on only one ofthese techniques. We also have serious reservations about the adequacyof the INAA sample, for while Neff (2006: 714) states these samples camefrom 'key early Formative centres throughout Mesoamerica', infact the majority of key Mesoamerican sites and regions were notsampled, including most sites in the Valley of Mexico The Valley of Mexico is a highlands plateau in central Mexico roughly coterminous with the present-day Distrito Federal and the eastern half of the State of Mexico. Surrounded by mountains and volcanoes, the Valley of Mexico was a center for several pre-Columbian civilizations, , and sites inGuerrero, Morelos, Puebla and the entire Maya area. From my perspective the central issue in our critique of theoriginal report (Blomster et al. 2005) is not the INAA results, but theconclusions drawn from these results. This is because the support forthe 'mother culture' model advocated by Blomster, Neff andGlascock (2005), and more recently by Neff (2006), is ultimately foundedon an untested assumption, namely that Olmec civilisation and ideologywere diffused into non-Olmec regions via pottery decorated bycarved-incised 'Olmec-style motifs' from the Gulf CoastLowlands. Based on this assumption, a single line of INAA evidenceshowing that San Lorenzo traded a lot of pots to several other EarlyFormative sites is seen as support for the 'mother culture'model. It is also important to note that this support is based on only16 samples of the carved-incised pottery vessels on which 'Olmecmotifs' were supposedly diffused from the Gulf Coast (1.7 per centof the INAA sample; see Neff et al. 2006b: 61). But no matter how many samples are analysed, exactly how tradingcarved-incised pots disseminated Olmec civilisation remains unexplainedand unsupported by archaeological evidence. Although we have outlinedthe kind of research necessary to begin testing the assumed connectionbetween pottery exchange and the rise of civilisation (Sharer et al.2006), there are a number of obvious reasons to question the validity ofthis connection. Among these is that many artefacts decorated in the'Olmec style' found outside the Gulf coast region have unknownorigins, while there is also evidence that some components of the'Olmec style' originated in non-Olmec regions of Mesoamerica(Flannery & Marcus 2000). Thus, if dissemination of'Olmec-style motifs' was critical to the development ofMesoamerican civilisation (an assumption still to be demonstrated), itseems likely there were multiple sources for this style, not just one. In their original report Blomster, Neff and Glascock (2005) made aseries of sweeping statements in support of the 'motherculture' model, ostensibly os��ten��si��ble?adj.Represented or appearing as such; ostensive: His ostensible purpose was charity, but his real goal was popularity. based on their INAA results, including,'the San Lorenzo Olmec played a central role in synthesising adistinct style and associated iconography iconography(ī'kŏnŏg`rəfē)[Gr.,=image-drawing] or iconology[Gr.,=image-study], in art history, the study and interpretation of figural representations, either individual or symbolic, religious or secular; , disseminating it acrossMesoamerica', and 'regions outside the Gulf Coast appear to beprimarily consumers and emulators rather than exporters and innovatorsof Olmecstyle motifs', and 'symbols associated with the Olmecwere valued by elites at some of the largest chiefly centers in EarlyFormative Mesoamerica'. Quite obviously these conclusions go farbeyond the explanatory value of the INAA results. In their responses toour critiques, including the recent commentary in Antiquity (Neff 2006),Neff and his colleagues fail to address the logical problem at the coreof their position, offering no bridging arguments to support a linkbetween pottery trade and the development of civilisation. At the sametime, most Early Formative sites and regions remain outside their sampleuniverse, and they continue to ignore multiple lines of strong evidencethat support competing scenarios for the development of Mesoamericancivilisation. Despite Neff's misconception mis��con��cep��tion?n.A mistaken thought, idea, or notion; a misunderstanding: had many misconceptions about the new tax program. , my colleagues and I arecommitted to the application of scientific methods to archaeology, andtherefore expect that conclusions about the development of civilisationin Mesoamerica must be firmly based in empirical archaeologicalevidence. Since the conclusions offered by Blomster, Neff and Glascock(2005) were based on the unsupported assumption that the export ofpottery from San Lorenzo was the vehicle for the diffusion of Olmeccivilisation, without consideration of alternative explanations andcontradictory evidence, we concluded that this report was more areflection of a belief in the 'mother culture' model than arigorous application of archaeological evidence to the issue of theorigin of Mesoamerican civilisation. Previously Neff and his colleagueslabelled our critique a 'smokescreen' (Neff et al. 2006a). Inhis recent commentary in Antiquity Neff (2006) perpetuates his mistakenbelief that our critique was motivated by 'unshakable commitment tocherished beliefs' rather than to scientific principles. Thisassertion and the absurd 'smokescreen' accusation are not onlyuntrue; they serve to divert attention from the key issue in thisdebate, the proper use of archaeological data for deriving and testingreasonable inferences about the prehistoric past. Acknowledgements I thank a number of my co-authors of the articles cited here forreading an initial draft of this commentary and for their suggestionsthat have clarified and refined the present version. References BLOMSTER, J.P., H. NEFF & M.D. GLASCOCK. 2005. Olmec PotteryProduction and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined Through ElementalAnalysis Elemental analysis is a process where a sample of some material (e.g., soil, waste or drinking water, bodily fluids, minerals, chemical compounds) is analyzed for its elemental and sometimes isotopic composition. . Science 307: 1068-72. FLANNERY, K.V. & J. MARCUS. 2000. Formative Mexican Chiefdomsand the Myth of the 'Mother Culture.' Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 19: 1-37. FLANNERY, K.V., A.K. BALKANSKY, G.M. FEINMAN, D.C. GROVE, J.MARCUS, E.M. REDMOND, R.G. REYNOLDS, R.J. SHARER, C.S. SPENCER J.YAEGER. 2005. Implications of New Petrographic Analysis for the Olmec'Mother Culture' Model. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 102(32): 11219-23. NEFF, H. 2006. The Olmec and the Origins of MesoamericanCivilisation. Antiquity 80: 714-16. NEFF, H., J.P. BLOMSTER, R.L. BISHOP, M. J. BLACKMAN, M.D. COE See common operating environment. ,G.L. COWGILL, A. CYPHERS, R.A. DIEHL, S. HOUSTON, A.A. JOYCE, C.P. LIPO& M. WINTER. 2006a. Smokescreens in the Provenance prov��e��nance?n.1. Place of origin; derivation.2. Proof of authenticity or of past ownership. Used of art works and antiques. Investigation ofEarly Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 17:104-18. NEFF, H., J.P. BLOMSTER, R.L. BISHOP, M.J. BLACKMAN, M.D. COE, G.L.COWGILL, R.A. DIEHL, S. HOUSTON, A.A. JOYCE, C.P. LIPO, B.L. STARK &M. WINTER. 2006b. Methodological issues in the Provenance Investigationof Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 17:54-76. SHARER, R.J., A.K. BALKANSKY, J.H. BURTON, G.M. FEINMAN, K.V.FLANNERY, D.C. GROVE, J. MARCUS, R.G. MOWE v. 1. See 4th Mow.n. & v. 1. See 1st & 2d Mow. , T. DOUGLAS PRICE, E.M.REDMOND, R.G. REYNOLDS, P.M. RICE, C.S. SPENCER, J.B. STOLTMAN &JASON Jason, in Greek mythologyJason,in Greek mythology, son of Aeson. When Pelias usurped the throne of Iolcus and killed (or imprisoned) Aeson and most of his descendants, Jason was smuggled off to the centaur Chiron, who reared him secretly on Mt. Pelion. YAEGER. 2006. On the Logic of Archaeological Inference: EarlyFormative Pottery and the Evolution of Mesoamerican Societies. LatinAmerican Antiquity 17: 90-103. STOLTMAN, J.B., J. MARCUS, K.V. FLANNERY, J.H. BURTON & R.G.MOYLE. 2005. Petrographic Evidence Shows that Pottery Exchange Betweenthe Olmec and Their Neighbors was Two-Way. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 102(32): 11213-18. Robert J. Sharer, Department of Anthropology and The University ofPennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology is an archaeology and anthropology museum that is part of the University of Pennsylvania in University City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. , University ofPennsylvania (body, education) University of Pennsylvania - The home of ENIAC and Machiavelli.http://upenn.edu/.Address: Philadelphia, PA, USA. , Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA (Email: rsharer@sas.upenn.edu)