Olmec Lithic Economy at San Lorenzo

Olmec Lithic Economy at San Lorenzo

Kenneth Hirth and Ann Cyphers

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO

Louisville

© 2020 by University Press of Colorado

Published by University Press of Colorado

245 Century Circle, Suite 202

Louisville, Colorado 80027

All rights reserved

The University Press of Colorado is a proud member of the Association of University Presses.

The University Press of Colorado is a cooperative publishing enterprise supported, in part, by Adams State University, Colorado State University, Fort Lewis College, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Regis University, University of Colorado, University of Northern Colorado, University of Wyoming, Utah State University, and Western Colorado University.

ISBN: 978-1-64642-056-8 (hardcover)

ISBN: 978-1-64642-057-5 (ebook)

https://doi.org/10.5876/9781646420575

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Hirth, Kenn, author. | Cyphers, Ann, author.

Title: Olmec Lithic Economy at San Lorenzo / Kenneth Hirth and Ann Cyphers.

Description: Louisville, Colorado : University Press of Colorado, [2020] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020010299 (print) | LCCN 2020010300 (ebook) | ISBN 9781646420568 (cloth) | ISBN 9781646420575 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Olmecs—Implements—Economic aspects—Mexico. | Obsidian implements—Mexico. | Excavations (Archaeology)—Mexico—Antiquities. | San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán Site (Mexico)—Antiquities.

Classification: LCC F1219.8.O56 H57 2020 (print) | LCC F1219.8.O56 (ebook) | DDC 972/.01—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020010299

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020010300

Every effort has been made to identify copyright holders and obtain their permission for the use of copyright material. Notification of any additions or corrections that should be incorporated in future reprints or editions of this book will be greatly appreciated.

Cover photographs by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison

Contents

List of Figure

List of Tables

Preface

1. Introducing Lithic Economy

2. The San Lorenzo Olmec

3. The Lithic Percussion Industries of San Lorenzo

4. Craft Production and Pressure Blade Technology at Puerto Malpica

5. Trade and Obsidian Procurement at San Lorenzo

6. Supply Side Economics: Obsidian Procurement for Craft Production at the Malpica Workshop

7. The Distribution and Consumption of Obsidian on San Lorenzo Island

8. From Workshop to Consumer: The Distribution of Obsidian Blades from the Malpica Workshop

9. On the Origin and Transmission of Mesoamerican Obsidian Blade Technology

10. Olmec Lithic Economy: What Have We Learned?

Appendix A: Technological Categories for Core-Blade Production at the Malpica Workshop

Appendix B: Obsidian Craft Production and Progressive Core-Blade Technology in the Central Mexican Highlands (K. Hirth, O. Espinosa Severino, N. Johnson, B. Gentil, and A. Cyphers)

Appendix C: Chemical Characterization of Obsidian Artifacts from Consumption Contexts at San Lorenzo (M. Glascock, R. Speakman, and E. Dyrdahl)

Appendix D: Obsidian Acquisition and the Chemical Characterization of Obsidian Artifacts at the Malpica Workshop (E. Dyrdahl and S. Carr)

Notes

References

Index

Figures

1.1. Map of southern Veracruz and Tabasco showing the location of San Lorenzo and other Preclassic sites. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

1.2. The relationships between the domestic anD the institutioNal econOmy. Illustration by Kenneth Hirth.

1.3. A complete parallel-sided obsidian pressure blade from San Lorenzo. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth.

2.1. Relief map showing San Lorenzo Island and surroundings. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

2.2a.. The PASLT excavation areas. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

2.2b.. The PASLT excavation areas on the central plateau. (Inset map from figure 2.2a) Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

2.3. The topology of the settlement system and transportation network centered at San Lorenzo, 1200–1000 cal BC. Illustration by Ann Cyphers (modified from Symonds et al. 2002: fig. 4.11).

2.4. The size and iconography of early Olmec monolithic stone thrones reflect the political hierarchy. Large thrones are found in the capital and smaller ones in lesser centers. Illustration by Ann Cyphers.

2.5. Tree-covered wetland mound in the northern plain surrounded by characteristic popal vegetation. Photograph by Ann Cyphers.

2.6. Site sectors of San Lorenzo: the top of plateau in red (cima), the terraces in yellow (terrazas), and the periphery in green (periferia). Map by Virginia Arieta.

2.7. Hypothetical reconstruction of an important room inside the Red Palace, which shows features registered in excavations such as the thick rammed-earth walls, earthen bench, and large stone column and lintel. Drawing by Lilian Velázquez.

2.8. Hypothetical reconstruction of Grupo E based on the excavations in the SL-14, SL-73, and SL-61 excavation areas. In this view facing north, the four low platforms and central patio are show with the location of major stone monuments (throne, colossal head, and aqueduct). Illustration by Fernando Botas and Ann Cyphers.

2.9. Monolithic throne SL-14 from San Lorenzo, front and side views. Photograph by Brizio Martínez.

2.10. The ten colossal heads from San Lorenzo with four views each (not to scale). Drawings by Fernando Botas.

2.11. Olmec monuments from San Lorenzo (SL) and Loma del Zapote (LZ) with elements suggesting craft production. Drawings by Fernando Botas and Argelia Ramírez; photographs by Brizio Martínez.

2.12. Olmec monuments from San Lorenzo (SL) and Loma del Zapote (LZ) with elements suggesting craft production. Drawings by Fernando Botas and Argelia Ramírez; photographs by Brizio Martínez.

2.13. Reconstruction of the monument storeroom in the Red Palace. Drawing by Lilian Velázquez.

2.14. Reconstruction of the monument-recycling workshop within the Red Palace. Drawing by Lilian Velázquez.

2.15. Relief map of the southern extreme of San Lorenzo Island, showing the location of Puerto Malpica with its three U-shaped bays (herraduras), the Camelias pass (Portezuelo), and the community of Las Camelias. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

2.16. Topographic map showing the distribution of boreholes and the patterning of obsidian artifact distributions. Map by Gerardo Jiménez and Nadia Johnson.

2.17. Topographic map showing the location of the eleven areas tested during 2012 and 2013. Map by Gerardo Jiménez and Nadia Johnson.

2.18. Photograph of Pit (Pozo) 2, Feature (Rasgo) 16/18. Photograph by Ann Cyphers.

3.1. The bipolar percussion technique (modified from Crabtree 1972: 40). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.2. The indirect percussion technique (modified from Crabtree 1972: 88). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.3. Calculating flake diameter using the ring size technique. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth.

3.4. Irregular percussion flakes. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.5. Triangular percussion flakes. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.6. Triangular percussion blades (a–d) and parallel-ridge percussion blades (e–f). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.7. Triangular percussion blades (a) and parallel-ridge percussion blades (b). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.8. Parallel-ridge percussion flakes. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.9. Utilized wedge (a) and drills (b–c). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.10. Wedge preforms (a–f) and square flakes (g–h). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.11. Utilized wedges. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.12. Two bipolar flakes showing primary and secondary impact points on their ventral surfaces (redrawn from Crabtree 1972: 41). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.13. Exhausted percussion flake cores. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.14. Bipolar flake cores. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.15. Bipolar battered flake cores. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.16. Bifaces (a–b) and unifaces (c). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.17. Well-shaped obsidian bifaces. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

3.18. Well-shaped chert bifaces, San Lorenzo phase B. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.1. An idealized production sequence for sequential core shaping using percussion techniques. Illustration by Brad Andrews.

4.2. An idealized production sequence for the sequential removal of pressure blades. Illustration by Brad Andrews.

4.3. Cross-section of a twelve-sided polygon and average angles. Illustration by Kenneth Hirth.

4.4. Facet angles on triangular percussion blades with percussion scars or cortex on their dorsal facets. Illustration by Kenneth Hirth.

4.5. blocky obsidian pre-core recovered from aN obsidian blaDe workshOp at chalcatzIngo, Morelos. Photograph by oscar Espinosa Severino.

4.6. Lamacrete percussion blades. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.7. Platform faceting flakes. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.8. The progressive blade production sequence. Drawing by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.9. Dorsal and ventral views of (a) a decortication pressure blade, and (b) a final 3s blade with a remnant percussion scar on its left dorsal facet. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.10. Dorsal and ventral views of (a) a triangular corner blade removed by pressure with cortex on its left lateral facet, and (b) a second series (2s) triangular pressure blade with a remnant percussion scar on its right dorsal facet. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.11. Three pressure blades with a remnant percussion scars: (a) a second series (2s) triangular pressure blade with a remnant percussion scar on its left dorsal facet, (b) a prismatic corner blade with a remnant percussion scar on its left dorsal facet, and (c) an irregular triangular blade with a percussion facet on the left lateral dorsal facet. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.12. Four pressure blades: (a) a third series (3s) decortication blade with cortex on its left dorsal facet, (b) an irregular second series (2s) blade with a remnant percussion scar and cortex on its left dorsal facet, (c) a third series (3s) ridge blade with a remnant percussion scar on its left dorsal facet, (d) an irregular second series (2s) blade with a remnant percussion scar on its left dorsal facet. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.13. Triangular and ribbon blades: (a) a triangular pressure blade, (b) a ribbon blade, (c) a triangular decortication blade, (d) an irregular triangular blade with a percussion facet on tHe left latEral dorSal facet. drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.14. Three irregular first series (1s) blades. Note the remnant percussion scars on the distal end of their dorsal surfaces. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.15. Four irregular second series (2s) blades. Note the remnant percussion scar on the central facet of (b), the lower left facet of (c), and the two left facets of (d). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.16. Irregular decortication and ridge blades: (a) an irregular decortication blade with cortex on its right distal facet, (b–c) irregular ridge blades with a remnant percussion scar on their right dorsal facets, and (d) an irregular ridge blade with a remnant percussion scar on its left dorsal facet. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.17. Irregular ridge blades. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.18. Dorsal and ventral views of third series (3s) corner blades: (a) a third series (3s) decortication corner blade with cortex on its left dorsal facet, and (b) a third series (3s) blade with a remnant percussion scar on their right dorsal facet. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.19. Four third series (3s) decortication corner blades: (a–b) proximal sections with cortex on their left dorsal facets, and (c–d) medial sections with cortex on their right dorsal facets. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.20. Three third series (3s) corner blades: (a) a third series (3s) decortication corner blade with cortex on its left dorsal facet, (b) a third series (3s) decortication corner blade with cortex on its right dorsal facet, and (c) a medial section of a third series (3s) ridge blade with lateral percussion facets on its right dorsal facet. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

4.21. Dorsal and ventral views of third series (3s) ridge blades: (a) a percussion facet on the left dorsal facet, and (b) two percussion facets on the distal right dorsal facet. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.22. Dorsal and ventral views of two complete third series (3s) prismatic blades. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.23. Distal core adjustment flakes (a–b) and core recycling (c–d). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.24. A half-cylindrical asymmetrical prismatic obsidian core with transverse percussion flaking on the unused side from Villa Morelos, Michoacán (redrawn from Hester 1978: fig. 2). The age of this core is unclear, but it probably dates to the Epiclassic period. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.25. A half-cylindrical core with cortex on one side from the Middle Preclassic site of Chalcatzingo, Morelos. Photograph by Oscar Espinosa Severino.

4.26. Artifacts from half-cylindrical cores: (a) a distal orientation flake with unmodified side, and (b) a plunging blade with cortex on the distal end of the ventral surface of the plunge. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.27. Plunging blades from half-cylindrical cores: (a) cortex on the distal end of the plunge, (b) a percussion facet on the distal end of the plunge, and (c) a percussion scar on the lateral side of the blade representing the flat side of the half-cylindrical core. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

4.28. Core fragments: (a–b) core section flakes; (c–d) core tops removed by percussion. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

5.1. Major obsidian sources in Mesoamerica. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

5.2. Ojochi phase excavation areas used in source analyses on San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

5.3. Bajío phase excavation areas used in source analyses on San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

5.4. Chicharras phase excavation areas used in source analyses on San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

5.5a.. San Lorenzo A phase excavation areas used in source analyses on San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

5.5b.. San Lorenzo A phase excavation areas used in source analyses on the central plateau of San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

5.6a. San Lorenzo B phase excavation areas used in source analyses on San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

5.6b. San Lorenzo B phase excavation areas used in source analyses on the central plateau of San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

5.7. Nacaste phase excavation areas used in source analyses. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

6.1. Obsidian sources identified in the craft workshop at the Malpica workshop. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.1. Ojochi phase consumption contexts. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.2. Bajío phase consumption contexts. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.3a. Chicharras phase consumption contexts on and near San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.3b. Chicharras phase consumption contexts on the central plateau of San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.4a. San Lorenzo A phase consumption contexts on and near San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.4b. San Lorenzo A phase consumption contexts on the central plateau of San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.5a. San Lorenzo B phase consumption contexts on and near San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.5b. San Lorenzo B phase consumption contexts on the central plateau of San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

7.6. Nacaste phase consumption contexts on San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

8.1a. The location of twenty-two consumption contexts on and near San Lorenzo Island used to examine the distribution of blades made of Ucareo obsidian manufactured in the Malpica workshop. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

8.1b. The location of consumption contexts on the central plateau of San Lorenzo Island used to examine the distribution of blades made of Ucareo obsidian manufactured in the Malpica workshop. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

8.2. Hypothetical model of workshop distribution on San Lorenzo Island. Black circles represent frequent contact, while gray ones indicate less interaction. Illustration by Ann Cyphers and Kenneth Hirth.

8.3. Hypothetical model of dendritic distribution on San Lorenzo Island. Illustration by Ann Cyphers and Kenneth Hirth.

8.4. Hypothetical model of resident artisan distribution on San Lorenzo Island. Illustration by Ann Cyphers and Kenneth Hirth.

8.5. Hypothetical model of consignment distribution on San Lorenzo Island. Illustration by Ann Cyphers and Kenneth Hirth.

8.6. Hypothetical model of market distribution on San Lorenzo Island. Illustration by Ann Cyphers and Kenneth Hirth.

8.7a. The percentage of blades manufactured of Ucareo obsidian in contexts on and near San Lorenzo Island during the San Lorenzo B phase. Map by Gerardo Jiménez and Nadia Johnson.

8.7b. The percentage of blades manufactured of Ucareo obsidian in contexts on the central plateau of San Lorenzo Island during the San Lorenzo B phase. Map by Gerardo Jiménez and Nadia Johnson.

8.8. Areas on top of the San Lorenzo plateau that have obsidian blade frequencies of 13 percent or less of their lithic assemblage. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

8.9a. Maps showing the dominant source of obsidian blades in San Lorenzo B phase contexts on and near San Lorenzo Island, Loma del Zapote, and Las Camelias. Map by Gerardo Jiménez and Nadia Johnson.

8.9b. Maps showing the dominant source of obsidian blades in San Lorenzo B phase contexts on the central plateau of San Lorenzo Island. Map by Gerardo Jiménez and Nadia Johnson.

A.1. Four irregular first series (1s) blades. Note the remnant percussion scar on left dorsal facet of (b). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

A.2. A unifacial lamacrete (1UCB). Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

A.3. Four typical split force nacelle flakes and where they would be removed from the ventral side of a pressure blade. Examples are not from San Lorenzo. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

A.4. A third series (3PDB) decortication corner blade. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

A.5. Medial section of a triangular third series (3TDB) decortication corner blade. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth.

A.6. Dorsal and ventral view of a third series (3s) prismatic blade. Note cortex on the distal end of the dorsal surface. Drawing by Argelia Ramírez.

B.1. Progressive core-blade reduction. Drawing by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison.

B.2. Sites in the Central and Western Mexican highlands, where progressive core-blade technology has been identified. Map by Nadia Johnson.

B.3. A half-cylindrical core recovered at Chalcatzingo, Morelos. Photograph by Omar Espinosa Severino.

B.4. Nine half-cylindrical cores recovered at Chalcatzingo, Morelos. Photograph by Omar Espinosa Severino.

B.5. Two core sections from progressive core-blade blade production at Xochitécatl, Tlaxcala. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth.

B.6. Half-cylindrical core from the Tlajinga 17 obsidian workshop at Teotihuacan. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Bianca Gentil.

B.7. Two half-cylindrical core sections from the Tlajinga 17 obsidian workshop at Teotihuacan. Photograph by Kenneth Hirth and Bianca Gentil.

B.8. Half-cylindrical cores from early Colonial contexts at Otumba (TA-80). Drawing by William Parry and Bradford Andrews.

B.9. Half-cylindrical cores from early Colonial contexts at Otumba (TA-80). Drawing by William Parry and Bradford Andrews.

D.1. Bivariate Plot of Sr vs. Zr for all samples analyzed from the Malpica workshop assemblage. Both values are in parts per million (ppm). Figure by Eric Dyrdahl.

Tables

1.1. Chronological phases at San Lorenzo.

2.1. list of excavation areas, phasing, site sector anD thOse thaT pertain to the Red Palace Complex.

2.2. THE lithic sample from the PASLT project.

3.1. The chert and obsidian flake percussion and biface industries.

3.2. cortex on obsidian percussion flAkes and percussion blades. the sample consisted of 600 percussion blades and 8,157 percussion flakes.

4.1. total obsidian core-blade debitage at the Malpica workshop.

4.2. diagnostic obsidian core-blade debitage at the Malpica workshop.

4.3. standard terminology for sequential shaping and reduction of obsidian blade cores.

4.4. expected angles of equilateral geometric shapes applicable for reconstructing the shape of obsidian percussion cores.

4.5. facet angles on triangular percussIon blades recovered at the malpica workshop with two percussion or cortex-covered dorsal facets.

5.1. excavation areas, and their location, function, and phase dates with the sample size and sourcing sample size.

5.2. Distance To oBsidian Sources used at san Lorenzo island and the place of their occurrence.

5.3. Obsidian source analysis by phase for all securely dated contexts in the PASLT sample.

5.4. summarY of obsidian industries at san Lorenzo by phase.

6.1. the obsidian production and variatIon source samples from the Malpica workshop excavations.

6.2. technological categories analyzed by obsidian source in the production sample from the Malpica workshop.

6.3. Source aNalysis of Artifacts in the production sample by major technological category.

6.4. sourcE analysis of the variation sample by the technological categories that are represented in the sample.

6.5. source analysis of thirD series (3s) blaDes in the Malpica workshop Production Sample.

6.6. comparison oF coRe-blade consumption iN saN lorenzO b contexts at san lorenzo island and the Malpica workshop.

7.1. obsidian frequencies and obsidian-to-ceramic ratios in single-coMponent contexts during the Ojochi phase.

7.2. source determinations of ojochi phase obsidian percussion and pressure blade assemblages.

7.3. obsidian frequencies and obsidian-to-ceramic ratios in single-coMponent contexts during the Bajío phase.

7.4. Source determinations of bajío phase obsidian percussion assemblages.

7.5. obsidian frequencies and obsidian-to-ceramic ratios in single-coMponent contexts during the Chicharras phase.

7.6. Results Of obsidian sourcing of the chicharras phase percussion and core-blade sample by excavation areas.

7.7. Obsidian frequencies and obsidian-to-ceramic ratios in single-component contexts during the San Lorenzo A phase.

7.8. Results Of oBsidian Sourcing of the san lorenzo a phase percussion and core-blade sample by sites and excavation areas.

7.9. obsidian and obsidian-to-ceramic ratios in single-coMponEnt contExts duriNg the san lorenzo B phase. all materials from puerto malpica are excluded from this table.

7.10. Results Of oBsidian Sourcing of the san lorenzo B phase percussion sample by site areas.

7.11. Results Of oBsidian Sourcing of the san lorenzo B phase core-blade sample by site areas.

7.12. Results Of oBsidian Sourcing of the san lorenzo b phase biface sample by site areas.

7.13. obsidian frequencies and obsidian-to-ceramic ratios in single-coMponent contexts during the Nacaste phase.

7.14. Results Of obsidian sourcing of the nacaste phase percussion sample by site areas.

7.15. Results Of obsidian sourcing of the nacaste phase core-blade sample by site areas.

8.1. Consumption contexts used to examine the disTribution of blades made of Ucareo oBsidian manufactured in the Malpica workshop.

8.2. frequency and percentage of obsiDiaN blades manufacTured of El chayal, OTumba, paRedón, ucareo, and zaragoza-oyameles obsidian in twenty-Two Consumption contexts at San Lorenzo.

9.1. the elite production and control and the independent craftsman production models for the transmission of obsidian blade technology.

9.2. Average obsidian-to-ceramic ratios for all occupation phases at San Lorenzo.

C.1. Short INAA Radiation of six elements expressed in parts per million for fifty obsidian samples from San Lorenzo.

C.2. Eleven elements measured using Elva X-Ray Fluorescence spectrometer.

C.3. Nine elements measured using a Brucker III-V portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) spectrometer.

D.1. Summary statistics for replicate analysis of NIST RGM-2 compared to recommended values and other published RGM values.

D.2. Summary statistics by source for the Malpica workshop data set. All values are in parts per million (ppm).

D.3. Source classifications for Production and Variation Samples conducted by the authors using pXRF. Chemical determinations are presented in table D.4.

D.4. Artifacts Analyzed as part of the Production Sample (n = 538). All concentration values are in parts per million (ppm).

D.5. Artifacts Analyzed as part of the Variation Sample (n = 31). All concentration values are in parts per million (ppm).

Preface

This research was conducted as part of the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán Archaeological Project, from 1990 to the present, under the direction of Dr. Ann Cyphers. The information recovered from the investigations in San Lorenzo Island and used in this volume was collected in eleven field seasons and comes from seventy-six excavation areas. It is important to note that this study would not have been possible without access to the large and comprehensive data set collected from multiple domestic and civic-ceremonial areas across San Lorenzo Island. It is a testimony to the value and benefits derived from long-term interdisciplinary research, conducted using a rigorous and comprehensive field methodology together with the careful and prolonged curation of archaeological remains.

Funding and support for research at San Lorenzo Island were provided by the Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas and the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, the American Philosophical Society, the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic Society, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., the Department of Anthropology of Penn State University, and the Fondo para la Comunicación y Educación Ambiental, A.C.

We acknowledge the valuable collaboration of the following archaeologists, affiliated scientists, students, administrators, workers, and field personnel who have worked with the project: Isaura Argelia Ramírez Reyes, María Arnaud Salas, Anna Di Castro, Ranulfo González Caamaño, Esteban Hernández Caamaño, Luis Fernando Hernández Lara, Marci Lane Rodríguez, Jason De León, Arturo Madrid Almada, Timothy Murtha, Javier Ramos, Inocente Salmones Hernández, Rogelio Santiago Salud, Stacey Symonds, Valentina Vargas Jiménez, and Judith Zurita. Mark Dennison and Sean Carr assisted in the technological analysis of the Malpica workshop obsidian remains, and Omar Espinosa Severino helped with lithic terminology.

Technical illustrations of obsidian artifacts were prepared by Isaura Argelia Ramírez with photographs prepared by Kenneth Hirth and Karin Dennison. Topographic maps were created by Gerardo Jiménez, Nadia Johnson, and Virginia Arieta Baizabal. Photographs of Olmec sculpture were taken by Brizio Martínez, and the reconstruction of the Red Palace was drawn by Lilian Nallely Velázquez Cervantes. Drawings of Olmec sculpture were created by Fernando Botas.

We owe a special debt to the many pioneers of Olmec archaeology, including Matthew and Marion Stirling, David C. Grove, Philip Drucker, and Beatriz de la Fuente. We offer this study as a contribution to further our understanding of the development of Mesoamerican complex society.

1

Introducing Lithic Economy

The economy has been the backbone of societies since the beginning of time. While religious beliefs and political relations framed the motivations behind important human interaction, the reality is that ancient people probably were primarily preoccupied with whether they had enough food to feed their families throughout the year. Consequently, questions about the location and availability of resources and how they could be procured would have been foremost in the minds of pre-Hispanic peoples. As Mesoamerican societies grew in size, they required more resources to support their expanding populations and attendant social and political institutions. Understanding the scale and complexity of early economic systems, therefore, is indispensable for reconstructing the structure, organization, and growth of early complex societies during the Preclassic period.

This study examines economic organization of San Lorenzo and the neighboring secondary center of Loma del Zapote, which are located, together with the modern town and archaeological site of Tenochtitlán, on the geological and cultural formation referred to throughout this volume as San Lorenzo Island (figure 1.1). It also includes several hinterland sites, such as Las Camelias, located south of the island, and fourteen wetland mounds situated beyond its north end.

Figure 1.1. Map of southern Veracruz and Tabasco showing the location of San Lorenzo and other Preclassic sites. Map by Gerardo Jiménez.

San Lorenzo was identified as an important Olmec center by Matthew and Marion Stirling in 1945 after they received a letter from a friend mentioning the presence of large stone monuments near the village of Tenochtitlán 30 km upriver from the town of Coatzacoalcos (Cyphers and Morales 2006; Grove 2014; Stirling 1955; Stirling Pugh 1981). Their excavations conducted in 1945 and 1946 uncovered numerous stone monuments and brought San Lorenzo to the attention of archaeologists as a major Olmec site (Stirling 1955). Large-scale research was initiated at San Lorenzo in 1967 with the Río Chiquito Project under the direction of Michael Coe. In three field seasons, this project mapped the San Lorenzo plateau and discovered a range of new monuments (Mon 18-52). In the process Michael Coe and Richard Diehl (1980) developed a Preclassic chronology of occupation for San Lorenzo spanning 1,100 years and established that San Lorenzo was the first large Olmec site to develop in the Mesoamerican Gulf Coast.

Despite its importance, large-scale research did not resume at San Lorenzo until 1990 with the initiation of the Proyecto Arqueológico San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán (PASLT) under the direction of Ann Cyphers of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) in Mexico City. The contributions of PASLT to our understanding of cultural processes at San Lorenzo during the Preclassic period are the result of systematic multidisciplinary investigations carried out over three decades of archaeological research. Investigations by this project have transformed what is known about the Early Preclassic occupation at San Lorenzo and the Olmec horizon in the Gulf Coast. It has surveyed and mapped all of San Lorenzo Island (Cyphers et al. 2007–8; Cyphers et al. 2014), contextualized development at San Lorenzo within a broad-scale regional survey (Borstein 2008; Symonds et al. 2002), developed a comprehensive model of the Early and Middle Preclassic subsistence economy (Cyphers et al. 2013; Cyphers and Zurita-Noguera 2012), discovered eighty-one new stone monuments (Mon 67-139 at San Lorenzo, Mon 5-11 and 16 at Loma de Zapote; Cyphers 2004, 2018), and established that the San Lorenzo plateau was a large-scale, built environment (Cyphers et al. 2014).

San Lorenzo was the center of early Olmec culture and the capital of Mesoamerica’s first large and complex society (Cyphers 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 2012; Pool 2007). Refined chronological analysis and dating have established that it was occupied during the Early and Middle Preclassic periods between 1800 and 800 cal BC (table 1.1). That San Lorenzo was the first major center in Mesoamerica to develop a strong interregional presence is evident from the scale of construction, the number of its large public monuments, and the size of its administrative complex. The population of San Lorenzo Island is estimated at 8,000–18,000 people at the height of its development during the San Lorenzo B phase (1200–1000 cal BC) (Arieta and Cyphers 2017; Cyphers et al. 2007–8). It was at this time that its local lacustrine resources (Cyphers et al. 2013) probably could no longer support its resident population and that some food resources were mobilized from its surrounding hinterland.

Table 1.1. Chronological phases at San Lorenzo.

The focus of this volume is a reconstruction of the Preclassic lithic economy of San Lorenzo Island. Lithic economy as it is used here refers to the procurement, production, distribution, and consumption of flaked stone tools within the confines of San Lorenzo and its immediately surrounding hinterland. While a small component of economic life, the lithic economy provides a valuable perspective on early Olmec society for two reasons. First, cutting tools were used in a wide array of activities from preparing food in domestic settings, to the ritual activities carried out in institutional contexts. Second, most cutting tools at San Lorenzo were manufactured of imported obsidian. This is fortuitous because obsidian both preserves well and can be chemically characterized to identify its source of origin and to reconstruct the probable trade relations that brought it to San Lorenzo (Cobean et al. 1971). Lithics, therefore, provide an accessible entrée into the past and a logical place to begin developing a comprehensive picture of the internal structure and operation of Olmec economy.

Studying Ancient Economy

The economy is a socially mediated form of economic interaction involving the production and allocation of resources among alternative ends. Several things are implied by this definition. First, economic interaction refers to the behaviors associated with the material provisioning of everyday life. Interaction at this level involves the interplay between resources in the natural environment and the individuals who regularly acquire and use them. From an archaeological perspective, this interplay is visible in the material remains that archaeologists regularly recover in the process of their investigations. Second, the economy is socially mediated. This means that the values and behaviors that individuals employ are learned behaviors specific to the society in which they live. Third, production and allocation refer to the process of rational decision making that individuals go through with regard to the production, distribution, and use of resources. The perspective adopted here is that the process of rational decision making is socially mediated. That is, the criteria for decision making are dictated by the values, mores, and economic constraints or incentives that are promoted or advocated within society.

Investigators typically approach the study of ancient economy using a functional perspective that separates behavior into production, distribution, and consumption activities (e.g., Costin 2001; Torrence 1986). This approach is productive because it permits investigators to subdivide economic behavior into different segments that can be examined independently in considerable detail. An alternative approach focuses more on the organization of economic activity. This structural perspective is concerned with identifying the organizational structures and primary modes of resource mobilization, production, and the distribution of goods and services across society (e.g., Wolf 1982).¹ From this structural perspective, the economy can be modeled into two broad organizational sectors that compose the domestic and the institutional economy (Hirth 2012, 2016).

This study combines both functional and structural perspectives. It examines the production, distribution, and consumption of obsidian tools within and between both domestic and institutional contexts. These two levels are important to distinguish from one another because domestic and institutional contexts are two distinct socially mediated realms of economic interaction in which production and distribution activities occurred in ancient societies. They distinguish economic activities that individuals engaged in to support their families, from those that they engaged in for the benefit of their community, their leaders, or the broader society in which they lived. These organizational divisions can be found in most ancient complex societies and are described briefly below. They are especially important in a discussion of San Lorenzo lithic economy because they provide alternative frameworks in which specialized obsidian craft production may have been organized.

The domestic economy consists of the economic behaviors that families and households engage in to provision themselves with the resources that they need for their support. Households have been in business for themselves throughout antiquity. Normally governments did not support commoner households except in rare situations such as famines or instances of severe resource shortfall.² Instead, households relied on themselves, their extended families, and other households in their communities to procure the food, fiber, and other resources needed to meet subsistence needs and their social, political, and ritual obligations. Households throughout antiquity were always active economic agents innovating and intensifying production with the means they had at their disposal (Netting 1989, 1990, 1993). It is important to consider the range of entrepreneurial activities that households engaged in to supply themselves with the resources needed for their maintenance and reproduction.

The institutional economy consists of the economic interactions that fund formal organizations above the level of individual households. Formal institutions refer to the social, political, and religious organizations that integrate and operate for the society as a whole. Formal institutions require resources to operate, and they either extract them from the households that they govern or produce them within contexts that they directly control (Hirth 2016, 2020). In chiefdom and state-level societies, they represent the durable and important organizations that produce special purpose buildings, monuments, and architectural arrangements used in their respective operations. It is with the development and management of both formal and informal institutions that social differentiation can occur,³ and elite strata often appear (Hirth 1996).⁴ Informal institutions provide the interface between individual households and the formal institutions that operate across society. Informal institutions are the rules, customs, expectations, workgroups, and other economic arrangements that operate on a voluntary or quasi-voluntary basis within communities to assist households in their economic pursuits. These informal arrangements operate through kinship linkages and/or community interactions to supply labor to households on a rotating or regular basis, or to support them in times of need.

The domestic and institutional realms are fundamental components of all societies from simple bands to complex states. It is easy to conceptualize formal institutions at the level of states where they produce temples, palaces, political buildings, libraries, and sports arenas. It is more difficult to archaeologically identify formal and informal institutions in small-scale societies such as bands and tribal groups. Examples of informal institutions in small-scale societies include gift-giving networks such as hxaro among hunters and gatherers (Mauss 1990; Wiessner 1982) and forms of communal labor, child fosterage, and emergency support at the community level (Herskovits 1965; Miller 1990; Sahlins 1972).

Figure 1.2 illustrates the relationships between the domestic and institutional economy. While formal institutions embrace all households within society, informal institutions operate on a local interhousehold basis and the networks they form vary with the initiatives of the households that construct them. Within this matrix of interactions, the procurement, production, distribution, and consumption of resources take place and resources such as obsidian tools can be examined.

Figure 1.2. The relationships between domestic and institutional economy. Illustration by Kenneth Hirth.

The Lithic Economy at San Lorenzo

Flaked stone tools provide five valuable types of information for reconstructing the pre-Hispanic economy at San Lorenzo. First, all Mesoamerican societies needed cutting edges, and chert and obsidian were the two primary materials used for this purpose from the Paleo-Indian period into the Colonial times.⁵ Second, lithic tools preserve well under a wide range of environmental conditions. This is especially important in the tropical Gulf Coast, where heavy rainfall and acidic soils create preservation problems for even durable materials such as ceramics. In this regard, stone tools can provide relatively complete assemblages for archaeological analysis without significant loss of materials that can occur from decomposition and other postdepositional processes (Schiffer 1976).

Third, flaked stone tools are produced using a reductive technology (Andrefsky 2000; Collins 1975; Crabtree 1972; Flenniken 1981). Artifacts are produced sequentially, with later outcomes dependent upon preceding shaping behaviors. The result is that flaked stone tool manufacture produces a range of waste flakes that are discarded during production when they are too small for alternative use. Because this waste also preserves, it is possible to reconstruct the exact steps of manufacture using the lithic technology approach (Clark 1988; Collins 1975; Flenniken 1981; Hirth 2003b; Inizan et al. 1999). This reconstruction enables archaeologists to identify how tool production took place, where it occurred, and whether the production process was a single event or subdivided into a series of production steps carried out by different craftsmen in different locales across the landscape. At the time of European contact all specialized obsidian blade makers in Mesoamerica were male (Clark 1989b), and for that reason the gender-specific term of craftsmen is used throughout this study to refer to them. This terminology is intended to enhance gender accuracy in this form of specialized production but recognizes that the ad hoc manufacture of percussion flakes used as cutting tools (see below) almost certainly were produced by both women and men of all ages.

Fourth, obsidian was used to make flaked stone tools at San Lorenzo, and its source location can be determined with a high degree of precision through geochemical characterization studies (Cobean 2002; Cobean et al. 1971). This determination enables archaeologists to identify both pre-Hispanic trade in obsidian (Golitko and Feinman 2015; Hirth et al. 2013) and to reconstruct the form of organization by which it moved (Hirth 1978, 1998, 2010). Obsidian was widely traded throughout the Preclassic period (Golitko et al. 2012; Pires-Ferreira 1975, 1976) and while it moved in relatively small quantities,⁶ its movement helped to structure early networks of interregional interaction through which a wide array of other products also moved.

Fifth and finally, the ad hoc production of obsidian-cutting tools using percussion techniques gradually gave way to a pressure blade technology produced by craft specialists. Ad hoc production refers to production activities that went on within every household to supply tools, food, and craft goods that were regularly consumed. The appearance of craft specialization was an important step in development of cultural complexity. It reflects a decline in domestic self-sufficiency and an increase in economic interdependence as households increasingly relied on craft specialists for products that they used in daily life (Durkheim 1933). This is an important topic in Mesoamerican archaeology because the appearance of specialized craftsmen producing obsidian blades has been linked to the development of prestige goods economies in early chiefdom societies (Clark 1987). Understanding whether early craft specialization developed in domestic or institutional contexts is significant for examining how elite did or did not shape the emerging social hierarchy through the production and control of material goods. Obsidian crafting is one case in point for examining this question.

The Volume’s Organization

This volume explores the structure and organization of lithic economy at San Lorenzo Island from 1800 to 800 cal BC. Its goal is a comprehensive understanding of the organization and development of stone tool production, distribution, and consumption in both domestic and institutional contexts. The model that emerges provides a general understanding for how the economy operated for the production and distribution of stone tools that may be useful for considering how other perishable materials also circulated.

Chapter 2 begins with a brief examination of Olmec society at San Lorenzo. It provides a discussion of the geomorphology of San Lorenzo Island, its major internal divisions, the areas explored by the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán Archaeological Project (PASLT), the development and organization of the regional population, and the subsistence practices that supported it. The discussion then shifts to the question of craft production and the types of activities envisioned as having taken place within the site based on the types of material goods recovered in archaeological contexts and depicted on the site’s carved stone monuments. This initial survey of San Lorenzo culture concludes with a brief deliberation of transportation networks and the waterways that would have moved people and goods into and out of San Lorenzo Island. Noteworthy is the site of Puerto Malpica located at the southern end of San Lorenzo Island. In addition to being located along a tributary of the Coatzacoalcos River and the main nexus onto San Lorenzo Island by both riverine and overland transportation routes, Puerto Malpica was the location of specialized obsidian blade production at the site’s apogee during the San Lorenzo B phase (1200–1000 cal BC).

This discussion is followed by two chapters that discuss the two important flaked stone lithic industries found at San Lorenzo.⁷ The first of these (chapter 3) explores the obsidian percussion flake industry, which was the dominant technological system used to produce the majority of cutting tools used at San Lorenzo over the length of its occupation. This industry involved