|
|
The primary methods used to record Tres Zapotes sculpture in the field were to photograph all sculpture and to make rubbings of relief sculpture. In some cases field drawings were also made. Wherever possible photographs show direct Front, Back, Right, Left and some Top and Bottom views for ease of comparison and regularity of presentation. Night photographs of the relief sculptures and the composite photograph of Stela A were made possible by the use of a 30 m ladder and a high intensity lamp both courtesy of the personal generosity of INAH Regional Director Don Fernando Bustamante. Sumi ink and rice paper rubbings of relief sculpture were made at the site museum with the permission of INAH and the assistance of Site Museum Curator Rolando Solis Galloso. These primary records were used to produce stipple drawings of sculpture in the round and line drawings of relief sculpture. The resulting drawings were compared to the original sculptures during subsequent visits and any necessary corrections were made.
Terminology for previously reported Stelae at the site follows Stirling's (1943, 1965) system. A number system has been created to accommodate the altar of Stela C, Altar 1. The large number of new Monuments at Tres Zapotes made Stirling's (1943, 1965) letter system too awkward to use, therefore numbers replace his letters as follows: A=1, B=2, etc. Monuments discovered since 1965 are numbered in order of discovery commencing with Monument 18. A few minor sculptures are placed in a miscellaneous category which is also numbered in order of discovery. Sculptures from the environs of Tres Zapotes, though treated as Tres Zapotes Sculpture, are named and numbered according to place of origin. Previous designations of sculpture are correlated with the present system in Table 1.
The catalogue of Tres Zapotes sculpture includes the following categories: Stelae, Altars, Monuments, Miscellaneous and Related. For ease of comparison (and eventual inclusion in her planned revision) the entries for each sculpture follow the general outline of de la Fuente's (1973) catalog of Olmec sculpture, commencing at the top of the page with the singular form of one of these categories followed by a numeral or capital letter. Following the sculpture category and alpha-numeric are brief notes on Location, Associations, Condition, Photographs, Drawings, References, Carved Areas, Material, Dimensions, Shape, Monument Type, Description, Hieroglyphs and Remarks.
Terminology employed in sculptural description follows Proskouriakoff (1950) where appropriate, with supplemental terms from Clewlow (1974). Terminology employed in textual descriptions follows Thompson (1950, 1960). Native terms appear in italics in the orthography of appropriate dictionaries. Throughout the notes on individual sculptures the terms "right" and "left" are employed differently according to context. In formal descriptions of sculpture right and left refer to the right and left sides of the sculpture itself, the viewer's left and right respectively. In descriptions of carved scenes right and left refer to the viewer's right and left. In descriptions of figures within carved scenes right and left refer to the figure's own right and left (eg. "Figure A's left wrist" refers to the carved figure's left wrist regardless of its relation to the viewer or to the sculpture).
All sculptures for which approximate provenance is available appear as symbols on the map. Sculpture category is indicated in the key. Sculptures for which no provenance is available are not shown on the map.
The Map itself is made from a large aerial photograph, at a scale of 1/8000, and smaller stereo photographs, at a scale of 1/50,000, which were purchased from Compania Mexicana de Aerofoto in Mexico City. Unfortunately, only major structures are visible through a Zoom Stereoscope. However, high points overlooking the ruins provide a reasonable vantage for locating structures in relation to roads, property boundaries and other landmarks which appear on the aerial photographs. Therefore, smaller structures were sketched onto the large aerial photograph from the tops of Structures *,* and * during the 1988 field season. The accompanying map was traced directly from the marked large aerial photograph and the stereo photographs. Naturally, the present map is no substitute for a surveyed map. Funding from 1985 to present has not permitted a full site survey. Structures are numbered in approximate order of discovery. Correspondences with mound groups and alphabetic mound designations are shown in Table 2.
Because Tres Zapotes is the first site where Olmec sculpture was discovered and subsequently unearthed, the study of Tres Zapotes sculpture is inextricably connected to the study of Olmec sculpture in general. Various authors have previously noted that sculptural style is a primary identifying feature of Olmec culture (de la Fuente 1973, Graham 1979). This situation leaves unknowable such fundamentals as the ethnic identity, linguistic stock and social organization of the producers of Olmec sculpture. A further problem results from studies where Olmec art is defined by the presence or absence of a list of iconographic features, rather than by the formal features which characterize the style.
Despite the forgoing problems Olmec sculpture remains a potential mine of information for serious students of the archaeological Olmec (Porter 1989). Beatriz de la Fuente has realized some of this potential in what is certainly the largest and most consistently intelligent contribution to the study of Olmec sculpture. Her Escultura Monumental Olmeca: Catalogo (1973) is an essential resource for all students of Olmec sculpture. She has also greatly refined the definition of Olmec style and documented the important feature of harmonic proportion in numerous studies of Olmec sculpture (de la Fuente 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1981, 1992). All of these works have been used extensively in preparing the present study and in the working definition of Olmec employed throughout as: those sculptures; which focus upon the harmoniously proportioned human figure as their primary subject; which emphasize the subject's volumetric qualities through the creation of rounded swelling forms However, see Group 3b for significant exceptions to the characterization of Olmec sculpture as emphasizing the subject's volumetric qualities through the creation of rounded swelling forms.; and which place greatest sculptural effort in the subject's head, attention to detail diminishing as one approaches the extremities, until the hands and feet are often the merest blocks with crude incision to symbolize fingers and toes.
Such matters as the date of carving of Olmec sculptures present another problem area and are impossible to determine from published records of excavations (Graham, 1989). Tres Zapotes Stela C, alone among Olmec sculptures, bears a legible hieroglyphic date 31 BC. The absence of reliable dates for other Olmec sculptures further complicates efforts to seriate Olmec sculpture as Proskouriakoff (1950) has done for Classic Maya sculpture. Unfortunately, the traditional Olmec seriations of Drucker (1952), Coe (1965), Heizer (1967, 1969), Bernal (1968), Wicke (1971) and Clewlow (1974) focus on iconographic features (Graham 1979, 1982, 1982a, 1989). Such seriations do not succeed because chronological and cultural change is revealed in the manner of the depiction, not in the subject of the depiction. (Proskouriakoff 1950:2-3).
Susan Milbrath approached this problem by de-emphasizing iconographic features and arranging Olmec sculpture into groups distinguished by their position on the continuum from simple-closed forms to complex-open forms. However, she did not review the reasoning behind traditional archaeological seriations which place at the beginning a "Classic Olmec" style which degenerates into Izapan style which then further degenerates into Maya style. She also (reluctantly) accepted assertions by archaeologists claiming to "date" Olmec sculptures by archaeological means: claims which critical analysis has subsequently shown to be without foundation (Graham 1989). It is not surprising therefore that her approach resulted in a sequence which, "presents a highly enigmatic situation. The earliest style recognized in [the] seriation is sophisticated and naturalistic, and [is] clearly not the archaic base for the Olmec style." (Milbrath 1979:46).
John Graham reviewed and analyzed the archaeological reports on G ulf Coast Olmec sculpture excavations and found consistent errors of methodology, simplistic interpretations and frequent factual errors (Graham 1989). Graham's approach was to discard most of the archaeological interpretation altogether and (citing Canaday 1980:40) to employ "such generally accepted, broad formulations as `the usual course of development in style in all periods [is] from solid and simple to more open and complicated'" (Graham 1989:237). He then successfully traced the development of Olmec style from the simple-closed forms of boulder sculpture to the more complex-open forms of "Classic Olmec" sculpture (Graham 1981).
The present study follows de la Fuente, Grove, Graham and others in repudiating the "Olmec to Izapan to Maya" model of Mesoamerican art history and it groups Tres Zapotes sculpture according to the developmental principle that simple-closed forms logically precede more complex-open forms.
