1ll PRE - AGRICULTURAL VILLAGE LIFE: THE LATE PRECERAMIC PERIOD IN VERACRUZ S. Jeffrey K. Wilkerson Evidence for preceramic occupations in the eastern lowlands of Mesoamerica is very limited; in part because of little investigation and in part due to the vagaries of deposition, both human and geologic. South of the Sierra de Tamaulipas four areas have been suggested to have such occupations: Alvarado, Villa Rica, Punta Delgada, Barra San Augustin, Barra Rancho Nuevo, and the lower Tecolutla drainage (Figure 1). The first three areas are mostly unexplored archaeologically and open to the question of dating. The first was found by Medellin in 1950?s in the course of exploration at Cerro de las Conchas (Medellin: personal communication). Blow-out sites were found by Ford and Medellin in the Villa Rica-Punta Delgada area during 1963-1964, and similar sites are thought to exist on the Barra San Augustin-Rancho Nuevo coast (Medellin: personal communication, 1969). The materials of the preceramic component at Alvarado are unknown. The blow-out camp sites have not been analyzedbut their locations imply that they may not all be preceramic.1 Given the fluctuations of the Gulf water-level since the end of the Wisconsin glaciation, and more specifically during the Holocene, the presence of such sites in the current dune line suggest a later date. Nevertheless, the very constricted coastal region around the Sierra Chiconquiaco should be considered a prime area for preceramic sites as it is the only sea level route between northern and southern Veracruz. The lower Tecolutla drainage contains sites of a different nature and a more secure archaeological context. 2 The site of Santa Luisa occupies an area of approxi- mately ten square kilometers on the north bank of the Rio Tecolutla beginning at a point eleven kilometers from its mouth (Figure 2). The preceramic component, tentatively designated the Palo Hueco phase, appears to stretch for approximately a kilometer along the river in a band of unknown width but in places up to at least sixty meters.3 The occupation is found at a depth varying from four to six meters from the present surface and, in every case to date, sealed by 80 cm. or more of sterile flood sands. Occupation resumes above the sands at the end of the Early Formative. The midden-terrace formed over the preceramic deposits became the principal axis of the site throughout its entire subsequent occupation, which continues with few breaks to the present (Figure 3). At the time of its preceramic occupation the site consisted of a low sand bank between distributaries in the river delta. The present-day swamp to the north was then an enbayment into which the river fed. The esturine environment around the bay was certainly rich in shellfish. The occupational debris consists of large quantities of shell 112 (mostly oyster), cracked river cobbles (also sometimes plentiful), obsidian and sand- stone implements, mammal and fish bone, and carbon fragments. All these items are found in mixed concentrations, in some cases on very slight rises in the original occupational sutface. The cracked river cobbles appear to have been used for cooking purposes, probably with the shellfish. No hearth has been found but, almost invariably, carbon fragments are found in the concentrations among the rock and shell. Artifacts are strewn about but are more commonly found where where the frequency of shell is greatest. In general, however, no single concentration produces a great number of tools and the total corpus from the site is approximately 400 items, mostly flakes and fragments. These observations, nevertheless, may be due to the form of excavation. Due to the quantity of overburden, in some cases con- taining large quantities of materials from later phases, it is difficult to completely ex- cavate any but the smaller concentrations. Twelve square meters is the largest hori- zontal area yet opened for observation in a single trench. Dating is based on carbon samples from within and above the deposits. The one carbon sample from within the preceramic deposits produced a date of 2930 B. C. + 100 (N-913); three more dates from the deposits are currently pending. Four other dates from the Ojite and Esteros phases directly above the sterile sands produced dates between 1000 and 550 B. C. A mangrove sample from beneath the deposits dated to 3300 + 105 B. C. (I-8229). Greater refinement of dating is needed and this may be forthcoming through obsidian hydration dating. Measurement of ground temperatures at distinctive depths, needed for the establishment of the hydration scale, is now in its second year at the site. 4 When applied to the many obsidian fragments worked during the preceramic period, this will form a much tighter chronological framework. Most of the implements of the Palo Hueco phase are of obsidian, a few are of limestone and sandstone. The obsidian has been shown by trace element analysis5 to come from the source in El Paraiso, Queretaro, over 330 kilometers distant in a straight line. 6 Nodules of poor quality and very small size, generally about 5 cm. in diameter, were imported and worked at the site. River cobbles of sandstone and lime- stone were readily obtainable in erosional cuts of the elevated Pleistocene river beds wouth and east of the river, on the opposite side from the site, and in exposed beds of the Miocene Tuxpan Formation along the river. Crude blades are the commonest type of implement. 7 The reduced size of the nodules from which they were struck is evidenced by the many cortical surfaces. Examples with prepared striking platforms are the most prevalent and are followed in frequency by examples with unprepared striking platforms, and pointed platforms. Laterally worked unifaces are also common. Most are thin flakes with one edge utilized or retouched. A few flake gravers were also found. There are also three possible crude end-scrapers. The limited number of bifaces present include a rhomboid-based drill, block-core choppers, flake choppers, spherical battered pebbles, and a net sinker. 113 A very few river pebbles and pumice stones8 were found in the deposits as well as large quantities of cracked sandstone cobbles, some fire marked, and shell. The cracked sandstone cobbles were almost certainly used in relation to the shell remains. 9 Although a few could have been purposely cleft, most appear to have been fire-cracked and as such suggest the possibility of their use in opening oysters. None have ths surface lacerations or crushed areas typical of hammerstones. The cobbles may have been first heated, and cracked, and then spread out for the shells to be placed above so that the heat would cause the valve muscle to relax. Once the valves were separated, perhaps with the aid of choppers or river pebbles, the oysters could be removed by cutting with blades or laterally worked unifaces. A portion of the shell material also show burning. Oysters (Crasostrea virginica) are by far the most prevalent, representing between 57 and 97% of the total in the Palo Hueco phase levels. However, also present in descending frequency are venus clams, flat tree oysters, hooked mussels, crown conches, marsh clams, and small olive nerites. 10 Most of these came from the brackish water of estuaries, either from the bottoms or from mangrove roots. A few came from mud flats that would be exposed at low tide. Shellfsh were unquestionably a major portion of the diet. Among the shell and rock debris were small fragments of crustacean shell and bone. Identification of these remains is underway but field observation suggests large land crabs, small mammals, a howler monkey, and fish. 11 In general, bone is not well-preserved and is not plentiful. However, the endscrapers, flake gravers, drills, and choppers suggest that hunting was important. The blades and unifaces could have also been used from cleaning and preparing skins and cutting bones. The further importance of hunting is also indicated by the nearby site of La Conchita. La Conchita is located among the sandstone hills of the Tuxpan Formation at an elevation of 45 meters and a distance from Santa Luisa of four kilometers. Like most sites in the area the deposits are buried, in this case in dense clays, with no surface indication. Excavation was begun at the site to expose extinct Pleistocene fauna in 1973. At a depth varying from two hundred to three hundred twenty centimeters, a meter to two meters above the faunal deposits, a series of artifacts were found on what may have been a sharp sloping ground line. Additional artifacts, and a possible crude hearth without charcoal, were found at two other locations at the same site in 1974. The artifacts suggest poorly-preserved and scattered campsites in a small valley near a now non-existant water supply. At least some limestone and sandstone artifacts were worked at these locations as debris and primary flakes were found. Although some ob- sidian blades were encountered, there was no indication of local chipping. The artifacts are very few. Two, of soft grey-green limestone, may date earlier than the end of the preceramic period and be Pre-Palo Hueco. One is a pebble chopper with worn use marks. The other is a projectile point, or more probably, a blank for a point that may have been of the La Mina type. The various flakes of 114 limestone and sandstone all appear to have come from local river cobbles and to have no clear utilized edges. The obsidian blades, with prepared striking platforms, are identical to those at Santa Luisa. Virtually no bone or shell material were uncovered in association with these artifacts. Except from one location encountered this year, all the material appears to have moved downslope with the runoff from the immediately adjacent hills. Taken as a whole, the available materials of the Palo Hueco phase present us with several interesting conclusions and questions about the late preceramic culture of north-central Veracruz. In terms of preceramic cultural traditions, defined by Mac- Neish etal (1967: 227-244), the Palo Hueco phase is very similar to the Tehuacan tradition of the Archaic Period. The Abasolo tradition apparently stops short of north- central Veracruz and is, thus, confined to the north-east, perhaps coming no further south than the Panuco-Tamesi drainage. The Abasolo tradition with its lack of emphasis on blades has few overt similarities to the implements and their frequencies at Santa Luisa. In contrast, all the implements found in the Santa Luisa corpus are also found in the Tehuacan Valley, except, possibly, the rhomboid-based drill. Nonetheless, these are distinctions which should be explored further before assigning the Palo Hueco phase to the Tehuacan tradition. There are no examples of manos and metates, or other clear agricultural implements. Absent also are stone vessels or discernible house structures, such as pit houses. Most artifacts are made from small obsidian nodules derived from rather distant Queretaro. At Tehuacan in the Archaic Period, most artifacts are not of obsidian. Santa Luisa has large amounts of cracked cobbles and shell, indicating a diet not to be expected at Tehuacan. Crude blades are found in both areas, and have different proportions. Tem- porally, the corresponding phase at Tehuacan would be Abejas. There, crude blades with pointed striking platforms are most prevalent, followed in frequency by unprepared and prepared striking platforms. At Santa Luisa the relationship of blade types is the reverse. Unless this distinction is due to the necessity of using the available nodules of small size, one must assume a different blade preference in the Santa Luisa area. The cultural tradition is, for the mcment, neither conclusively Tehuacan nor totally a new coastal tradition. It may be, however, more of a new tradition than a simple variant of its highland cousin. Final confirmation, or rejection of this cultural tradition, which might be called the Santa Luisa tradition, will have to await a larger corpus of artifacts and a more precise knowledge of the life style they represent. 12 The nature of late Archaic life as presented at the lower Tecolutla drainage sites is that of a village exploiting simultaneously several surrounding ecological zones with distinct subsistence activities. Primary is the esturine environment with its various types of shellfish that were collected. Secondary is the river with its fish re- sources and third are the hills where hunting aided the diet, and campsites appear to have been established. 115 Agriculture is a moot point. The common artifacts, such as grinding tools associated with the highland domesticates, corn, beans, and squash, are absent from the examined deposits. Preliminary examination of pollen samples recovered from these same levels, and whose analysis is not yet complete, give no indication of dom- esticated plants. However, what about the indication of root crops, such as manioc, that disseminate little pollen?13 There are no grater bowls present, although they are popular in later ceramic periods. But what about the common crude blades and utilized flakes--are they all used for oysters and meat-cutting? A preliminary exam- ination of the edges of these implements has not indicated a systematic use pattern which might come from having been utilized in a stationary perishable object for root- grating. However, I feel that a larger corpus is necessary before this possibly is to be satisfactorily ruled out. We also require a more extensive pollen analysis, which is underway. 14 The Santa Luisa site appears to represent a year-round settlement with the different concentrations of stone and shell, perhaps, representing family locations where artifacts were worked and animals butchered. Hunting activities may have re- quired the establishment of camps in the hills to the west, and at one of them local limestone was worked to provide cutting implements. Material such as obsidian was brought, or traded, over a considerable distance. The possibility of commerce at this early date is an interesting point. Regardless, traded or retrieved, the obsidian clearly indicates an early highland-lowland relationship with regard to primary resources. Although spread out along at least a kilometer of the river, the Palo Hueco phase occupation of Santa Luisa could not have been very dense at any one time. In this case hunting, gathering, and fishing appear to be the basis of subsistence with agriculture, including root crops, having at best an uncertain role. For the moment, Santa Luisa appears to be a pre-agricultural village that successfully exploited local resources but was not so isolated from the highlands as to be unaware of resources there. Perhaps this is how the highland domnesticates arrived in the Gulf lowlands. In summation, we can draw some tentative conclusions and hypotheses from the limited preceramic material of the Gulf lowlands: 1). The Palo Hueco phase is roughly contemporary with the Abejas phase in the Tehuacan Valley; also, a component of the Conchita site may be coeval with the Coxcotlan phase. 2). The Abasolo tradition does not extend southward down the coast from Northeastern Mexico. 3). The late preceramic period in the lower Tecolutla drainage has a dis- tinctive artifact corpus which, although similar to the Tehuacan tradition, represents a culture with a distinct subsistence base which is more than a simple variant of the highlands. 116 4). The cultural material from the Palo Hueco phase at the site of Santa Luisa suggests a village whose economy is based upon collecting, fishing, and hunting in the esturine, riverine, and forest environments surrounding the site. 5). Agriculture is not clearly indicated at the site but is not totally pre- cluded, especially if root crops are considered to have formed part of the diet. 6). Natural resources, such as obsidian, were exploited as far away as the mountains of Queretaro indicating that even at this early date, there were formalized lowland-highland contacts. 7). Based on present evidence, unless North-Central Veracruz is isolated from the primary direction of movement (or our current dating is skewed), agriculture originating in the highlands does not arrive in the eastern lowlands until after the end of the Palo Hueco phase in the third millenium B. C. 8). The culture represented by materials from Santa Luisa and la Conchita might best be considered tentatively to forn part of a separate cultural tradition occupy- ing the eastern lowlands during the late preceramic. NOTES 1. Some of these campsites contained ".... crude scraper-planes, choppers, flake tools, and Matamoras, Garyito, and Pedernales projectile points" (MacNeish 1967: 235). 2. The work at Santa Luisa began in 1968 under the direction of the writer. During 1968-1970, when the preceramic occupation was first positively located, the research was sponsored by the National Science Foundation (GS-2620) and the Foreign Area Fellowship Program. Further preceramic exploration was undertaken in 1973 and 1974 with the sponsorship of the National Geographic Society and the Florida State Museum. All research has been conducted under the supervision of the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia and with the cooperation of the Institato de Antropologia (Univer- sidad Veracruzana). Descriptions of the preceramic are contained in Wilkerson (1972a; b; 1973; in press, n. d.). 3. All testing to date suggests that the deposits are continuous, but additional testing is required for confirmation. 4. The measurements, an aspect of the current project, are part of the investigation by Dr. Irving Friedman, U. S. Geological Survey. 5. Trace element analysis of obsidian artifacts from Santa Luisa have been undertaken since 1971 by Dr. Gary Allen, University of New Orleans. 117 6. It is interesting to note that this source, to which many others are added in the course of time, remained a major source of obsidian for Santa Luisa throughout its entire Pre-Columbian history. 7. Frequencies are not discussed here as the 1973-1974 material Is still under analysis and is incomplete. However, the occurrence for implement types from the 1970 ex- cavations are as follows: o obsidian f flint 1 limestone j jasper s sandstone c chert Laterally Worked Unifaces: Flake Gravers - 30 Thin Flakes, Two Edges Retouched - lo Thin Flakes, One Retouched - 2o, lc Thin Flakes, Two Edges Utilized - lOo Thin Flakes, One Edge Utilized - 41o, 3f Thick Flakes, One Edge Retouched - lo Thick Flakes, Two Edges Utilized - 2o Thick Flakes, One Edge Utilized - 60, lf Miscellaneous Bifaces: Rhomboid-based Drill - lo Block-core Choppers - ? - lo, lj Flake Chopper - 21 Spherical Battered Pebble - ls? Cores: Crude Block core - 2o Crude, Conical or Hemi-conical Nuclei, Prepared Striking Platforns - 4o, ls? Blades: Crude Blades, Prepared Striking Platforms - 35o Crude Blades, Unprepared Striking Platforms - 26o, ls Crude Blades, Pointed Striking Platforms - 15o Crude Blade fragment - lo End-Scrapers: Crude, Keeled? - lo Crude, Ovoid? - lo Crude, Long, Flat-Flake - lo Debris and Miscellaneous: Unused chips - 87o 118 River pebbles - 7 Pumice Stone - 2 Cracked cobbles and other debris - 84.76 kilos (mostly s) There is also the possibility that the upstream locations, which are generally thicker deposits, may have a longer period of occupation and different artifact frequencies. 8. There is no evidence that these were used as abraders. It is common to find pumice floating downriver today. 9. The 1970 excavations contained 95 kilos of shell in association with 85 kilos of cracked cobbles. The more recent excavations appear to have similar quantities. 10. Mercenaria compechensis, lsognomon alata, Brachidontes recurrus, Melongena melorgena, Mulinia lateralis and Pseudocyrena floridana, and Neritina reclivata. 11. Faunal identification is proceeding under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Wing, Florida State Museum. 12. MacNeish (1967: 235) with reference to some of the artifacts from Ford's blow- out sites suggests the possibility of a distinct tradition but also a general relation to the Coxcatlan and Abejas Phases at Tehuacan. For the Ford corpus only choppers and flake tools would be comparable to the Santa Luisa material. 13. Manioc is still planted as a supplementary house crop in Veracruz. Normally placed along river and stream banks, it is sometimes found well back from the coast and up to 900 meters in altitude in some places. 14. The swamp and former delta area of the Tecolutla were cored during the 1974 season by Dr. Kelly Brooks, University of Florida. Some of these locations, especially the swamps, are far more likely spots for pollen deposition and preservation than the sandy alluvium of the Palo Hueco phase deposits. I /  - I  ,  I I b t 4,, I 4.' 4*'g  I I' '(i  t .' -% W6X t ' I t . X, - - v ^f Lo 1L 119 buiea & La Conchita Barra San -augustln-Rancho Nuevo XVilla Rica- Puntt Delgada I I '4 1'- ;"' ON.5 I % " v% I %. I ,z .- I. '44.4 .1 'I Iv I . _ _ I i N A1I I I FIGURE 1. Preceramic locations in Veracruz (dotted line represents the four hundred meter altitude contour). I II ; I C',nv+. T 120 IGURE 2. Aeri.al. view (1970) of lower Tecolutla drainage. Br.- rnaximum known limits of the site of Santa Luisa. c precerarnic occupational area. Scale: 1 cm. equals i d line 8 mneter FIGU?RE 3 . SENT.\"'YtVl: C1R I N& Y --; GR e,\, TIC T,OWjR,Z TECOLUTLA DIk AINAGE., AND SAN'TA LUISA, VERA CRUZ l 1900 S0~) " 2OLARTE F 1700 t - ~~~~~~~~1500 31 Itoiso 1L0u 1CABEZAS T 1300 1200 EL CRISTO 1100 -000 mLA ISLA B 800 . . - 900 ] LA ISLA A 700 600 _ 0 500 400 CACAH[ATAL 1 300 200 _ TECOLUTLA 100 100 200 J RJYO GRANDE f | - 300 400 ESTEROS B 500 600 1 700 800 ESTEROS A 1000 900 a120 OJITE 1100 1100 1400 1500 i600 g g0 1700 1900 2000 2100 2?00 "~~~~~~~~'~30 2500 2C,_;000 F2700 2800 0 I PALO HUECO 2900 3000 -& xo A 3100 121 122 REFERENCES MacNeish, Richard S., Antonette Nelken-Terner and Irmgard W. Johnson 1967 Nonceramic Artifacts. In: The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Volume 2. University of Texas Press, Austin. Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K. 1972a Ethnogensis of the Huastecs and Totonacs: Early Cultures of North- Central Veracruz at Santa Luisa, Mexico. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1972b La sequencia Arqueologica-Historica de Santa Luisa, Veracruz, Mexico. Anuario Antropologica, pp. 354-378. Universidad Vera- cruzana, Jalapa. 1973 An Archaeological Sequence from Santa Luisa, Veracruz, Mexico. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, pp. 37-50. Berkeley. in press Resultados Preliminares del Estudio de Ecologia Cultural en al Norte-Central de Veracruz durante 1973. Sociedad-Mexicana de Antropologia. no date Cultural Subareas of Eastern Mesoamerica. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, November 1973.