THE CLASSIC STAGE IN MESOAMERICA

Donald W. Lathrap

INTRODUCTION: METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are two general kinds of uses to which the concept of develop-
mental stages can be put. The first might be called descriptive and the

second 'anialytical.  A statement from a recent paper by Willey and Phillips
indicates this distinction in a clear way:

As a final evaluation of our historical-developmental scheme for New
World prehistory, we sum up by saying that it has serious classifact-
ory defects.  Its adherence to the broad outlines of historical

reality gives it a certain value as a recapitulation of American

archaeology, but the scheme does not provide a short and simple ans-
wer to New World culture history and process. (Willey and Phillips,
1955:794l)o

It is clear from this statement that Willey and Phillips distinguished
between the two uses though they apparently intended their formulation to
serve both of them.  Rowe also makes this distinction in his review of

'Andean Culture History". While he recognizes the possible utility of the
book as an introductory manual and as a source of descriptive information,
he has little good to say about its usefulness as a conceptual framework

for future work in the Andes (Rowe, 1950).   In the face of the mass of un-
connected facts which New World archaeologists have accumulated, any kind
of effective narrative or ordering devrice is wrelcome. There seems to be
some agreement, even among the most critical of American archaeologists,

that the fomulation of Bennett and Bird and the more recent one by Willey
and Phillips were at least partially successful in this respect. It is
not the purpose of this paper to review the descriptive aspects of the

work of lWilley and Phillips, but full attention will be directed toward

what may be called the analytical uses of their concept of a Classic Stage
in Mesoamerica.

There are a few comments which should be made on the nature of develop-
mental stage concepts as descriptive devrices before considering their

natuire as analjrtical devices. When they are used descriptively, there is,
of course, the constant danger that they will become confused with chrono-
logical periods. This danger has been pointed out again and again in dis-

cussions of American archaeology but there is some doubt as to whether these
warnings have been effective.   The first attempts at developmental stages in
various areas of the New World have often had a strikinlg resemblance to the
chronological periods of the best known sub-area of the larger region to
which the developmental stages are applied. The case may be that for

purely descriptive purposes the distinction is of lesser importance. At
any rate, when developmental stages are applied across such a broad area
as that covered by Willey and Phillips, this danger of confusion seems to
be greatly reduced.

38

The recent use of stage concepts as an analytical device had been
largely if not entirely related to the formulations set forth by Julian
Steward under the name of multilinear evolution. It is not the purpose
of this paper to review all.of his statements on the subject. His view
presented in "Anthropology Today" is certainly clear and explicit

(Steward, 1953). The objective of studies along the lines suggested by
Steward is clearly the determination and analysis of cross-cultural,

developmental parallels (Steward, 1953 ;319-"320).  To this..end he stggests-
the comparison .of cultures of the same type in various parts of:-the world
(Steward, 1953:323).  At first his insistence on using the word "typology"
to designate something very similar to what others have called a system
of developmental stages seems like mere quibbling. A more careful con-
sideration indicates that it is not. These "types" are to contain cul-
tures which show certain definitely specifiable developmental analogies.
Thus, if one's typology is adequate, one can sort cultures regardless

of whether their relation to absolute time is known. This condition is
the same one which must be made concerning pottery typologies.  If a
sherd typology is any good, it should be possible to sort the sherds

without inquiring which level they came from.  Steward may be right in
siring that the name '"stage" has too many connotations of equation in

time and of irreversibility to be useful for his purposes. In spite of
thesedangers the term "Istagen will be used in the remainder of this

paper, but wvith the cautions demanded by Steward always kept in mind.

If the utility of the concept of a Classic Stage is to be evaluated
in terms 'of the analysis of cultural regularities, then it must be given
some specific and completely unequivocal definition, which will allow one
to decide immediately whether or not any particular culture is Classic on
the& basis of its own internal configurations alone. Willey and Phillips
d6-not supply such a concise definition but they do give a sufficient

niumber of suggestions so that one may be abstracted from their material.
Such a trial definition of the Classic Stage might be stated as follows:
'ithin a rapidly expanding Neolithic economy, which is accumulating

large surpluses, there will be a period lacking true cities, true states,
and extensive militarism, in which conditions will be particularly

favorable to the development of elaborate, coherent, and all-embracing
art styles.."

rn theory, the method for checking the value of such a stage con-
cept is relatively simple. One has only to plot the distribution in

time and space of the climactic artistic developments, and compare this

distribution with that of the positive or negative features of community
organization which are also regarded as diagnostic of the Classic Stage.
rn practice such a check cannot yet be made.  Since archaeologists have
started thinking along these lines there has been an increasing effort

made to accumulate information to support inferences concerning ancient
patterns of community organization, mainly in the form of settlement

pattern studies. Wherever these studies have been attempted, the re-

sults have been most rewarding.  They give promise of ultimately solving
many other problems besides the ones being considered here (Willey,

Bullard and Glass, 1955; Shook and Proskouriakoff, 1956). At present

39

there are not enough good studies of the development of settlement pat-
terns through time to enable us to plot significant distributions.
Therefore,  this direct method if evaluating the idea of a Classic
Stage can not be applied as yet.

The definition of the Classic given above directly relates artis-
tic development to certain features of socio-economic development. In
a limited way such a relationship is obvious in that a certain minimum
of economic surplus is necessary for any kind of elaborate artistic

development requiring an extensive expenditure of time. A number of

studies have suggested that style behaves according to rules of its own,
provided that a certain level of economic surplus and cultural con-

tinuity are maintained. Meyer Schapiro has recently provided an ex-
cellent listing of such patterns of regularity possibly observable

within art styles, viewed as independent phenomena (Schapiro, 1953).

A favorite theory is that an art style once established must go through
a fixed series of stages and that climactic artistic developments are
possible only in certain stages of this irreversible cycle. Such

notions are related to the idea of patterns, growth, saturation, and
exhaustion proposed by Kroeber (Kroeber, 1944). Now it is clear that

if art develops according to its own rules, independent of other elem-
ents of culture, then the one to one relationship between artistic de-
velopment and patterns of community organization suggested by the

detinition of a Classic Stage cannot be true* On the other hand, if

the definition of a Classic Stage does offer a useful model of cultur-
al development then regularities do not occur in art styles entirely
independent of social conditions.  Since there is considerable evid-
ence suggesting that both kinds of regularities occur, it would seem

that more elaborate conceptualizations, taking into account both kinds
of regularities will be needed if studies of multilinear evolution are
to be very rewardingo

If the regularities suggested in the definition of a Classic

Stage cannot be directly checked on the basis of present information,
neither can those which have been suggested by the art historians.

Pio6skouriakoff 's study of Maya sculpture might furnish one section of
such a check, but until there are similar studies on all phases and

styles of Mesoamerican art, no general analysis can be made (Proskouria-
koff, 1950.

Since both these paths of research are closed, an attempt Will be

made to plot the distribution of Classic Stage cultures on the basis of
more restricted criteria. These criteria will be the presence of a
well-developed and widely-applied art style and the construction of

major ceremonial centers. The second criterion is introduced chiefly

to keep the discussion within Mesoamericao  Because of the circumstances
under which this paper has been written, no culture subsequent to the
spread of cultural influences from the city of Tula, or subsequent to
the spread of plumbate pottery and metal, will be given detailed con-
siderationo This part of the working definition is purely arbitrary.

Once this distribution of Classic Stage cultures in time and space has

140

been delimited, it will be examined for any internal peculiarities which
might throw some light on the problems discussed above. Unfortunately,
the first step in such an analysis must be the aligning of the regional
sequences.

ALIGNING THE SEQUENCES

Since much of the reasoning in this paper is dependent on the partic-
ular chronological arrangement which I have followed, and since this

arrangement is not accepted by all workers in the field, it is necessary
to present the evidence which causes me to regard this formulation as a
reasonable one. It cannot be made too clear that this alignment is not
done of the basis of placing similar developmental stages side by side.
It is my firm belief that such arrangements can only becloud the issue.

This chronological scheme is the result of using the Maya long count dates
as a firm anchor at one end and attaching the other Mesoamerican sequences
to the Maya sequence by means of trade goods and pottery similarities.

The complete avoidance in this paper of native historical traditions (and
the speculations wlhich have been based on them) stems from the conviction
that, in an area where trade pottery is common, the preliminary sequential
alignment can best be accomplished by the tried and true methods of dirt

archaeology. In the past the use of such traditions has not exercised an
altogether wholesome effect on archaeological thinking (Nicholson, 1955:
600).

The Spinden correlation of the Maya calendar has been accepted be-

cause of its better fit with all available C14 dates.  The chart prepared
by Mr. Michael Coe (see Coe 's'paper in this issue, fig. 1) has been used

as the lower limit of the chart presented here (fig. 1), and I see no par-
ticular reasons to make any changes in his work. Though the Spinden cor-
relation seems the most likely, both on the basis of C14 and on the basis
of the date of the arrival of Mexican-type copper bells in southern

Arizona, the question is by no means settled* The chart here presented
is not dependent on any particular correlation or on absolute time other
than that involved in the Maya long count calendar. Any of the other

suggested correlations may be substituted merely by changing the BC and
AD dates in the left hand column.

W Within the period of about a thousand years with which we will be

concerned, there appear to have been two major periods of extensive trade
involving almost the whole of Mesoamerica.  Separating these two periods

when extensive external connections seem to have been the norms there was
a period of from three to four hundred years when long-distance trade

appears to have been the exception rather than the rule. Though the two
periods of long-distance trade must have had considerable depth in time,
the supposed midpoints of these periods as they occur in the various

regional sequences have been given the value of horizons and the regional
sequences, have been lined up accordingly.  This procedure seems justified
since we are in many cases dealing with materials which were manufactured
at a single center or in a localized region rather than with patterns of

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

decoration which could have been utilized in one area long after they had
ceased to be fashionable in another.

These two horizon lines structure the chronological ordering used in
this paper. One of them cuts those segments of regional sequences which
we. choose to regard as representing Classic Stage developments, either in
the middle of their time span or earlier. The later horizon line marks

the time beyond which all Mesoamerican developments, no matter what their
nature, are usually regarded as Post-Classic. The earlier of the two

horizon lines is based on the spread of traits most closely associated

with the great center of Teotihuacan.  These traits can be placed within
the Teotihuacan sequence with some precision. In the older terminology
of Vaillant they were regarded as the characteristics of the periods

designated as II-III. In the more recent and more exact terminology of
Armillas they first appear in the period designated as Xolalpan and ex-
tend to the end of the period known as Tlamimilolpa. There is some

question as to whether these two periods are sufficiently distinct to

deserve two names or whether they should be lumped and called Xolalpan-

Tlam2mllolpa or perhaps just Teotihuacan III (Armillas, 1950:68-69). For

brevity the designation X-T Horizon will be used for the remainder of this
paper.  The traits involved include:  tripod cylindrical vessels with slab
feet and shield-shaped lids; a particular kind of painting on dry stucco
applied after firing; Floreros; Candeleros; and Thin Orange ware. This
last seems to fulfil all the requirements of a good trade ware. Its

manufacture appears to have been strictly localized, though the area can-
not. as yet be specified (Linne, 1942:176-177; Kidder, Jennings and Shook,

1946).- Although the people of Teotihuacan were evidently not its manufac-

turers, they were apparently largely responsible for its distribution since
it is usually closely associated with the other traits.  The second

horizon is associated with the spread of Tohil plumbate, Fine Orange ware,
anid with the first appearance of metals in Mesoamerica. (The single

occurrence of metal at Cuicuilco and the other possibility mentioned by

Sorenson are exceptions (Sorenson, 1954).  Surprisingly there seems to be
more difficulty in using the second horizoh than the first.

tuS will now proceed to an examination of the relevant local sequences
and attempt to align them on the basis of two horizons.

The Peten and adjoining areas of Classic  l   culture: The standard
dating for TzakM T Early Classic Maya, in terms of the Maya calendar is
8.12.0.0.0 - 9.8.0.0.0 and that for Tepeu 9.8.0.0.0 - 10.3.0.0.0 (Smith,

1950:86-87).  The division between.the two phases of Classic Maya culture
is not arbitrary.  There.was a period. of artistic inActivity lasting from
9.5.0.0.0 - 9.8.0.0.0 which seems to .separate the two major phases of

Mayan art convincingly (Proskouzriakoff, .1950:4).o Thi.s span of slightly
over 600 years can be related to the two crucial.-horizont in a'.fairly

exact way.  In general, the first third of Tzakol would seem to be free

of, influences referable to the X-T Horizon-.: .Kidder and. Thompson have dis-
cussed this point-extensively, and there. is no need to repeat what they
have said (Kidder, Jennings and Shook, 1946; Thompson, 1939:94)Q   X-T

Horizon influences come in during the second third of Tzakol and last to

42

OK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
Z*~

z                        0..~~~~~~~~~~#z  hg

4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4
0    r   )..  ~~~~~~~~~~ U

E:                                       0~~~~

a-  U  U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U        M  ~~~1-A   .

the end of Tzakol, or perhaps only to the beginning of the period of

cultural disturbance already mentioned.  In the Holmul sequence at least

one pot from Holmul II times suggests that X-T influences may have already
been felt in the area  (Merwin and Vaillant, 1932: plate 20a).  By Holmul
III times such influences are very strong, though no pots from Holmul are

definitely known to be trade items.  The traits continue through Holmul IV
but are absent in Holmul V (Tepeu).. Perhaps, 8.17.0.0.0 - 9.8.0.0.0 or

95.0.0.0 would be the best estimate for the duration of X-T traits in the
Peten. Elements of the second horizon are conspicuous by their rarity in
the Peten. It is safe to regard this as an indication that cultural

activrity had largely ceased at the major centers of the Peten before the
Plumbate Horizon.

Yucatan: The Mayan calendar can be used to date most of the signifi-
cant occurrences in this region. The Plumbate Horizon reaches Yucatan in

full'force at Chichen Itza, either in association with the arrival of strong
Mexlcan influences at that site or somewhat later.  The Mexican entrada

has been given a date of roughly 10.4.0.0.0 to 10.5.0.0.0  on the basis of
several lines of converging evidence (Aroskouriakoff, 1950:170).

The Guatemala Highlands: The series of.traits which have been desig-
iiated7 Xas -T are much more in evidence in the Guatemala Highlands than in
the Peten.  The Esperan:za materials from the site of Kaminaljuyu are the

most famous examples(Kidder, Jennings and Shook, 1946), but the material

balled Lato from the Motagua Valley (Smith and Kidder, 1943:172), the Balam
phase at Zacualpa (Wauchope, 1948), and the Atzam phase at Zaculeu (Wlodbury
and'Trik, 1953) all show the same influences as clearly though not as

spectacularly. The Mayan calendar cannot be directly applied to Highland
Guatemala in most cases, but the use of pottery cross-ties substantiates
the conclusions already reached for the Peten. With one exception the
Highland occurrences of X-T traits are associated with ceramics having
*eatures which in the Peten are regarded as diagnostic of Tzakol. The

one exception is. it Tomb I at Zaculeu.  Here a typical Tepeu cylindrical
vessel"was found associated with a number of the features characteristic
6f Teotihuacan UII (Woodbury and Trik, 1953:87)o  This is contrary to all
the other ceramic associations at Zaculeu and to the rest of the evidence
from the Guatemala Highlands. Perhaps the most logical explanation is
that offered in a discussion of the use of vaulted tombs with entrance

passages and stairway in the Motagua Valley. The available evidence sug-
gests that some tombs of this type were used repeatedly over a consider-
able span of time. (Smith and Kidder, 1943:172). Unlike the sites of the

Peten, many of the sites of the Guatemala Highlands show continuous occupa-
tion from Late Classic (Tepeu related) phases to Post Classic phases.

This appears most clearly at Zaculeu and Zacualpa, but the Motagua Valley
and Nebaj have produced less extensive evidence of similar transitions

(Woodbur and Trik, 1953; Smith and Kidder, 1951; Wauchope, 1948; Smith
and }Kidder, 1943)o  This evidence makes it appear that there was no par-
tic-ularly long gap between the end of Late Classic (Tepeu related) cul-
tures and the appearance of Tohil Plumbate and metal0

Qaxaca: The Monte Alb.an sequence can easily be tied to the spread of
traits. The beginning of the transition from Monte Alban II to Moante

143

Alban IIIa is defined as the point at which Teotihuacan influences start
appearing at the site of Monte Alban (Bernal, 1949:3-4). The pottery of
Monte Alban II has unmistakable resemblances to that of Holul I (Merwin
and Vaillant, 1932, Plates 18-19; Caso, 1935, Plates 45-46, 52; Caso,

1938, fig. 39, 40 142). Since Holmul I is thought to fit the boundary
between'Tzakol and Chicanel rather than falling within Tzakol, it might

be suggested that X-T traits appear somewhat earlier at Monte Alban than

in the several areas of Guatemala. This is not an unreasonable assumption
if as we believe, these traits were moving from west to east.  It is par-

ticularly difficult to obtain usable information concerning the nature and
dating of the transition from Classic to Post-Classic in Oaaca.*,

The 0Olmec" area: There is at present more dispute concerning the
chron  gical position of Middle Tres Zapotes-La Venta than on any other
similar problem in Mesoamerica.  The wide range of opinion seems to be

bounded on the one hand by MacNeish's equation of Upper Tres Zapotes with
Teotihuacan I (MacNeish 1954:621,623), and on the other by Amillas'

positioh, which allows Middle Tres Zapotes to overlap largely with Tzakol
but slightly with Tepeu (Armillas, 1955, personal communication).

MacNeish's position seems scarcely tenable. Drucker's discussion of the
meaning of the transition from Middle Tres Zapotes to Upper Tres Zapotes
is lucid and worth quoting in full:

When we turn to the list of new Upper phase traits we are on more

fruitful ground for drawing comparisons. A considerable number of
these elements occur at Teotihuacan, particularly in the later

horizons. The list of these "lTeotihuacanW features in Upper Tres

Zapotes includes: Mold-made figurines, figurines with jointed anms,

vertigal modeled lugs, "candeleros", mold-made spindle whorls, hollow
slab legs with T-shaped openings, scutate pot lids with modeled or-
naments (one only from Tres Zapotes)* o.o.The sudden appearance of

this host of traits at Tres Zapotes points beyond all question to a
new source of cultural stimulus, to importations of patterns and

techniqueso That these elements must have diffused from Teotihuacan
to- Tres Zapotes and not the other way ayound, is demonstrated by the
complete-lack of antecedents for them in the earlier Tres Zapotes
horizons. It should be noted,.too, that while certain of these
traits are widely distributed, their occurrence in an integrated
corpus at Teotihuacan points to that culture as their source
(Drucker, 1943a:121),

MacNeish's correlation would mean that these traits were occurr&ng
at Tres Zapotes fully two periods earlier than they appear at what is

obviously their source. If Drucker's statement completely refutes the

unreasonably early placement of Middle and Upper Tres Zapotes, it is, on
the other hand, difficult to reconcile with the placement suggested by
Dlrucker himself, which would begin Middle Tres Zapotes in Holmul times

4nd extend it for the duration of Tzakol (Drucker, 1943a:121), and even
more difficult to reconcile with the slightly later dating suggested by
Armillaso The chief implication of the Drucker-Armillas placement of
Mkiddle Tres Zapotes is that the X-T horizon traits are received in

4)4

Southern Vera Cruz fully two or three hundred years later than they

appear in the Guatemalan Highlands and the Peten. Their appearance in
this area in fact would very closely coincide with their disappearance
in most other parts of Mesoamerica, provided we accept the late place-

ment of Middle Tres Zapotes. The explanatiQn given for this particular

gap in the or.ginal spread of X-T traits, which extended from the Panuco
River on the north to the Honduras border on the south and east, is that
Vera Cruz and Tabasco were marginal at this particular time. Yet this
marginal culture", Middle Tres Zapotes-La Venta, nearly succeeded in

cornering the supply of the finest jade carvings ever produced in Meso-
america.  Considering the esteem with which jade was regarded in Pre-
columbian Mesoamerica this would seem to have been a peculiar kind of
marginality.

Drucker's argument that the traits which appear in Upper Tres

Zapotes are of Teotihuacan IV rathe 'than Teotihuacan III derivation is

worthy of serious consideration. We will return to the whole problem of

Teotihuacan IV when we discuss the sequences of the Central Plateau. For
the present we may note that the specific traits which Drucker designates
as late in the Teotihuacan sequence (Drucker, 1943a:149) occur at

Xolalpan, which Armillas regards as the type site for the early part of
the Xolalpan-Tlamimilolpa period, as well as at Tlamimilolpa, which is
regarded-as tlypical of the latter part of that period (Linne, 1934:123,
Pig. 339, c-2).

I- find it hard to believe that southern Veracruz and Tabasco could
have lagged two or three hundred years behind the rest of Mesoamerica

in accepting these traits which were so forcefully diffused throughout
the general area. In fact, it would seem more reasonable for them to

appear earlier in Southern Veracruz than in the Peten because of the geo-
graphical proximity of the former to Teotihuacan. I-t is chiefly in the

spirit of compromise that I have assigned the same 8.17.0.0.0 date to the
appearance of these traits at Tres Zapotes that was assigned to their
appearance in the Peten.  The earlier limits of Middle Tres Zapotes-La
Vent^a are still undefined.  There is good reason to believe that it was

a&long period (Drucker, 1952:150)o The placement of the apectacular art

style within the period is probably still an unanswerable question. Save

r6r"the intrusive Soncautla complex, there is nothing at Tres Zapotes which
miust be regarded as Postclassic.  If the placement made in this paper is

relativelyr close to the correct one, Upper Tres Zapotes might equate-with
the latter two thirds of Tzakol and to part of Tepeu as well.   It is im-
possible to determine from Drucker's writings the extension of the X-T
traits within Upper Tres Zapotes.

Central Veracrtiz: The site of Cerro de las Mesas makes an excellent
bridge from the "Olmec" region on the one hand to the region dominated by
the culture known as Tajin or Classic Veracruz on the other. Drucker's

equation of Cerro de las Mesas Lower I with Middle Tres Zapotes seems to

be justified (Drucker, 1943b:82).  The comments made above concerning the
appearance of the X-T traits at Tres Zapotes are applicable to the similar
manifestations in Lower II of Cerro de las Mdesas (D>rucker, 1943b:82-83).

The large mass of material assignable to Lower II and the fact that much
of the mound-building activity seems to have taken place at this time

suggests that this was the most signiflcant period of the site (Drucker,
1943b:77, tables 5,7).  An alignment of Lower II with the later part of
Tzakol and the earlier part of Tepeu seems to be called for under these

circumstances. The dated stelae at Cerro de las Mesas cannot be related
to the ceramic sequence with any degree of certainty (Drucker, 1943b:85).
In view of the previous remarks it would be tempting to assign them to
Lower IIo If Stelae 6 and 8 can be regarded as relating to the ayan

calendar, then their dates should be read as 9.1.12.14.10.1 and 9.4.18.
160 8.9, respectively (Proskouriakoff, 1950:173; Sterling, 1943, plates

23, 24). Miss Proskouriakoff does not comment directly on the probability
of such a dating, but the trend of her discussion suggests that while

these monuments cannot be considered as typical examples of Early Classic
Mayan art, they show several specific characteristics which would be ex-
pectable on monuments occurring within the Peten during this time range
(Proskouriakoff, 1950:174). Two other stelae have traits suggestive of
Late Classic rather than Early Classic Mayaan art (Stetling, 1943 plate
21b, 25; Proskouriakoff, 1950). Though these are undated, their exist-

ence is compatible with the suggestion already made that Lower II was in
part contemporaneous with Tepeu.

The smiling head figuri*nes, which may ultimately prove to have some
value as an horizon marker in Veracruz, seem to be confined to the later
part of Lower II, Cerro de las Mesas (Drucker, 1943b; tables 8,9; Hedlin
Zenil and Peterson, 1954).

The positioning of Cerro de las Mesas Upper I, in any more precise
terms than that it follows Lower II, is extremely difficult. This phase
would usually be treated as Postclassic and by rights could be disre-

garded here.  Since it-seems to relate to the problem of thel,te1ntiein
of occupation at Tajin, a site usually treated as Classit, it is best to

briefly review the evidence. On the one hand the remains are clearly re-
lated to Mazapan by the figurine types (Drucker, 1943b, plate 39; compare
with Vaillant 1950, plate 25, row IV).   The complicated polychrome of

this period at Cerro de las Mesas is identical to the "Polichroma laca"

of the`post-Teotihuacan period at the site of Cholula (Noguera, 1954:272).
The significance of the single occurrence of Tohil Plumbate at Cerro de
las Mesas is not clear.  Drucker's description of the circumstances of
this find suggests that it may well form part of the scanty Upper II

occupation rather than belonging in Upper I (Drucker, 1943b:7-8). The
lack of Fine Orange ware, Isla de Sacrificios Type B, and the lack of

metal in Cerro de las Mesas Upper I appears to indicate that the Upper I
phase did not persist to the peak of the second horizon. Isla de Sacri-
ficios Type B seems to have had its peak of pop2larity in the Veracrus
sequence during Campoala I-II (Garcla Payo6n, 1950a:416). More far-

reaching cross-ties can be pointed to for Isla de Sacrificios Type B.
The maJor occurrences of Type B and Fine Orange X at the site of Isla
de Sacrificios appear to have been contemporaneous. Orange X is the

dominant luxury ware during the period of maximum development at Toltec
-Chichen Itza, which falls on our second horizon. Brainerd in his dis-
cussion of these complex relationships indicates that Drucker has far

46

underestimated the age of Isla de Sacrificios (Brainerd, 1953:473).   s
a summary of this rather tangled digression it may be suggested that at

least the earlier part of Upper I at Cerro de las Mesas was contemporary
with Tepeu and that a date of 10.5o0.0.0 or 10.6.0.0.0 should have seen
the end of Upper I. The scanty Upper II material at Cerro de las Mesas

need not concern us. It is quite obviously fully postclassic according to
any standard definition.

The long ceramic sequence at the site of Tajin has only recently been
studied in a systematic wary? Its partial association with the art style
known variously as Tajin, Totonac, or Classic Veracruz makes it of

special interest in connection with the purposes of this paper. fu

Solier, on the basis of his work at the site, suggests that the begin-
nirngs of the sequence might well equate with the end of Teotihuacan II

(Miccaotli) and presents evidence from the ceramics of the site to prove
his point (Du Solier, 1945:190). Viewed in a wider perspective this

position seems reasonable and even slightly conservative. It is clear

on the basis of evidence both from Teotihuacan itself and from Kaminaljuyut
that the Classic Veracruz art style must have reached a developed form

early in the Xolalpan period (Teotihuacan III) (Kidder, Jennings and Shook,
1946, fig. 156; Linne, 1934., fig. 117).  In the upper part of the deposits,
but apparently still well within the period of maximum prosperity of the

site, there are numerous flat, mold-made figurines which strongly suggest
Mazapan influences (Du Solier, 1945, Stratigraphic Tables, hamia Ac.Type

2; compare with Linne, 1934, fig. 112). The appearance of Isla de Sacrif-
icios Type B only in the uppermost levels suggests the period at which

occupation ended at the site.  Chiefly on the basis of this ceramic evid-

ence the alignment suggested by Espejo allows for a minimum overlap between
thl Tajin sequence and Cempoala I (Du Solier, 1945, Stratigraphic Tables,
Garcia Payon, 1950a:416; 1947:330-332. Espejo, 1953).

Huasteca: The sequence developed by Ekholm for the Huasteca is easily
tied to the two major horizons. Period III gives clear evidence of X-T

traits (Ekholm, 1944, fig. 7), while Period V has definite affinities with
the Mazapan culture and thus can be placed on the Plumbate Horizon (EIcholm,
1944:352). The Period IV between the two can be regarded as roughly con-
temporaneous with Tepeu.

Westerrt Mexico: A series of somewhat similar cultures sharing elab-
orate  hand-made figurines occur in western Mexico. The Apatzingan of

lichoacan, the Ortices of Colima, and the Tuxacuesco of Jaisco are typi-
cal..  On the' basis-of a single Thin Orange pot from a grave in Colma,

presumably Ortices, this general range of cultures has been assigned to a

position equivalent to Teotihuacan III (Kelly, 1947:187). The culturesv.*hibh
followr the previously mentioned cultures in the same areas have general

similarities to lMazapan, so it can be seen that there is considerable lee-
way in these sequences.

The Valley of Mexico and vicinity: This crucial area has been left

to the last so that the information from the other areas can be brought to
bear on the problem. Placing the beginning of Xolalpan at 8.12.0.0.0 seems

reasonable if sufficient time is to be allowed for the spread of traits from

47

Teotihuacan to the Peten. Indeed this alignment might be regarded as
on the conservative side. This would mean that all of Miccaotli is
earlier than any part of Tzakol. The date of the ending of the

Xolalpan-Tlamimilolpa period in terms of the Mayan calendar is a more
interesting and difficult problem. The range of possibilities would

seem to lie between the date 9.8.0.0.0, the end of Tzakol, and 10.3.0.

00.0, the end of Tepeu. The former date would give Xolalpan-Tlamimilopa
a duration of roughly three hundred years, while the latter would ex-
tend the period to over six hundred years.  Amount of ceramic change

cannot be used as a sure guide for estimating elapsed time but neither
can it be completely ignored. Armillas does not feel that the change
which occurred in this period was great:

Es posible que no se encueten elementot suficientes para justi-
ficar su (Tlamimilolpa) separacion como face aparte Xolalpan
(Armillas, 1950 :69).

A second line of evidence is the nature of the trade sherds which

were recovered from the Tlamimilopa pp&lace itslf, the-,type -site. ?or ,the
latter part of the period.' Among these sherds are fragments of four

Classic Maya vessels of the Tzakol period. Their position in the ruin

indicates that they were associated with the earliest occupation at this
particular siter, but they are definitely associated with the incised
(rather than engraved) tripods which Armillas regards as late at

Teotihuacan ( Inne, 1942:178, fig. 328-329, 331; Armillas, 1950:69).

There seems to be no doubt concerning the identification of the sherds
made by Vaillant, whose statement relates these pieces directly to the

Holmil sequence, with whi ch he was particularly familiar.  This evidence
indicates that the Tlamimilolpap--pat of.Teotihuacanr-III was we-l -urder. -W

before the end of Tzakol.  The third line of reasoning is purely inductive,
but is perhaps suggestive. As has already been pointed out, the manner in.
which Teotihuacan traits disappear from the Peten and Guatemala Highlands
assemblages immediately after the Tzakol-Tepeu transition is rather dra-

matic. Several reasons might be advanced for this fact, but a particular-
ly economical one would be that the inspiration for these traits was cut
off at its source, i.eo that Teotihuacan had been destroyed.  The period
between 9.8.0.0.0 and 10.3.0.0.0 seems to have been marked by the pro-

gressive breakdown of long-distance contacts and such tendencies may have

been given an impetus by the sacking of a center which had for a consider-

able period of time exercised a profound influence over much of Mesoamerica.
Since w--aves of cultural influence and population movements have largely

followed a northwest to southeast direction in Mesoamerica during Classic,
and Postclassic times, it is reasonable to assume that waves of anarchy
may hav'e followed the same trend.  Such a reconstruction of events is by

no means an original concept on my parto  Escalon Ramos offered almost the
identical outline in his discussion of the archaeology of Xochicalco
(Escalon Ramos, 1953:367).

The termination of urban occupation at Teotihuacan and the ending of

the Classic period in this part of the Valley of Miexico at 9.8.0.0.0 would
not create any unseemly gaps in the sequence. At the ruin of Atetelco

48

within the urbanized area of Teotihuacan the remains of a palace of

Tiamimilolpa date were buried under a deposit of refuse two meters deep
containing Coyotlatelco potteryO Intrusive into this midden were

burials with pure Mazapan style pottery (Armillas, 1950;56658)o Much
of the occupation at the site of Xochicalo in Morelos appears to date

from this general time. This site shows ceramic ties with Azcapotzalco
and, though Noguera's discussions of the pottery of this site are some-
what difficult to follow from a chronological point of view, the

following statement by him indicates that the site was probably aban-
doned before the full development of Mazapan culture and consequently
prior to the Plumbate Horizon.

"Toda la ceramica fragmentada que se encuentra en la superficie
de Xochicalco corresponde a los ultimos periodos prehispanicos
como ya lo hemos anotado al referirnos a los tipos de Mazapa,
Coyotlatelco, Tlahuica, Matlatzinca y problemente Azteca,"
(Noguera, 1945. 83).

The period Teotihuacan IV, which has often proved useful to people
who insist on balancing their chronological arrangements neatly or who
wish to have a source from which to derive Teotihuacan influences at
an-unu0ually late period, apparently has reality only at the site of

Azcapotzalco. Even if the 9.8.0.0.0 date for the fall of Teotihuacan

is too early, considerable time must be taken from the spah which in the
Peten is allotted to Tepeu in order to accommodate the manifestations
just mentioned. The date of 9.8.0.0.0 will be used for the remainder
0f .this paper, not because of overwhelming evidence that it is the

correct one, but chiefly to determine the broader implications of this
slightly novel arrangement.

THE DESIGNATION AND DESCRIPTION OF

CLASSIC STAGE CULTURES IN MESOAMERICA

The Peten:and adjoinlng areas of Classic May culture:    The desig-

hatioh of the Classic stage of Maya culture is the simplest problem with
which this paper deals. The abandonment of all major centers in the
Peten at the end of the Tepeu period leaves no doubt concerning where
the upper boundary of the Classic should fall. The break between

'Chicanel and Tzakol has up to now appeared to be equally abrupt.  There
are very few excavated remains which might be regarded as transitional

between the house mounds of the Chicanel period and the vaulted architec-
ture of Classic Maya (Smith, 195017-18).   The primitive, though typical-
ly Maya temple structure of Building B, group II, at Holmul appears to be
as early as the earliest Tzakol pottery (Holmul II3 at the site, and the

interior vault of the stone-faced pyramid which supports it contained the
pre-Tzakol pottery of the site (Holmul I) (Merwin and Vaillant,,1932).

The famous E VII  sub of Uaxactun which is either very late Chicanel or,

more likely, very early Tzakol (Ricketson and Ricketson, 1937:68), carried
no superstructure and therefore throws no light on the development of
vaulted architecture. Within the Petenl the lack of prototypes for the

149

fully developed stela complex of Tzakol is even more striking. In the
Peten the earliest forms of Maya art are by no means primitive. On the

basis of our present evidence, Classic Maya culture appears suddenly in a
full-blown fora. Such a sharp break between Chicanel and Tzakol may be
validated by further excavation,but the small amount of work done on
Chicanel sites suggests that the apparent break may be the result of
archaeological ignorance.

Once established in its area of maximum development, Classic Maya
culture underwent six hundred years of steady development. The region
stands out as a sharply delimited culture area with extensive inter-

change of ideas within its boundaries, but much less with outside areas.
This is made very clear in Butler's discussion of the connections of

Piedras Negras pottery (Butler, 1935:23).  Sculptural art underwent a
remarkably homogeneous development throughout the Classic Maya area.

Though each site may have its own recognizable sub-style, the changes

which mark the several periods of Maya art seem to have occurred almost
contemporaneously everywhere in the area (Proskouriakoff, 1950). The

work of Proskouriakoff has greatly increased our understanding of this
development.    The nature of the architectural development during the
600 years of Classic Maya culture can be clearly traced at the one site
of Uaxactun (Smith, 1950). There appear to be sufficient comparative
data from other sites to make a study of this problem on a pan-Peten

basis rewarding. Butler's discussion of the ceramics of Piedras Negras
indicates that a much stronger regionalism is observable in Maya pot-

tery than in the moreAthoroughlyt sacred atts of architecture arid, scilp-
ture (Butler, 1935:20).

The area of Classic Maya culture, along with Yucatan and Highland
Guatemala, stands in sharp contrast to Mexico in the manner in which

figurines disappeared almost completely during the transition from Form-
ative to Classic.  There was, however, a considerable resurgence in the
use of figurines in various parts of the Classic Maya area during Tepeu
times. At this period figurines were typically mold-made (Butler, 1935:
49-52). The details of Maya ceramic chronology are not particularly

germane to this study though it might be mentioned that the more natur-
alistic renderings of objects on Tepeu polychrome specimens parallels
similar tendencies in Late period Maya sculpture.  It is also worth

noting that the regional differentiation in Maya ceramics becaxe pro-

gressively more pronounced aq time passed. Both the amount of raw data
available on Classic Maya culture and the amount of comparative work
already done is staggering. Besides three major books on the subject
(Morley, 1946; Brainerd, 1954; Thompson, 1954h), there is considerable

specific and comparative work on such items as ball courts (Satterthwaite,
1944), sweat houses (Satterthwaite, 1952), settlement patterns (Willey,
Bullard and Glass, 1955; Ricketson and Ricketson, 1937;15-24), and the
plans of the major ceremonial centers. It is clear that no serious

analysis of the Classic stage of.Mesoamerica can afford to ignore this
material. rt is equally clear that in a paper of this length any

attempt to cite all such material, let alone evaluate it would produce
a complete imbalance. Since there is no solution to this problem, the
whole area must be abandoned with only a fewr further comments which

might be relevant to the orientation of this paper.  The problem of what
Proskouriakoff has called the Decadent Phase of Maya art, 9.19.0.0.0 to
10.3.0.0.0, is especially interesting (Proskouriakoff, 1950:150-153).

Here the Classic Maya style begins to show those characteristics which
are often associated writh the final phases of a cyclical development in
art or with pattern exhaustion. They date from very close to the time
at which the whole structure.of Classic Maya culture collapsed. Are

the artistic characteristics noted to be construed only as signs that

the art style was coming to the end of its cycle of development, or are

they to be related to the accelerating dissolution of all of Maya civil-
ization during this period? The answer to this question would be most
important to the solution of the problems outlined in the introduction
to this paper, but unfortunately the evidence at hand will permit no

easy answer.  It has been observed that the most remarkable examples of
Maya art date from a relatively short period of time, 9.13.0.0.0 to

9.19.0.0.0, and were largely produced in rather restricted regions near
the boundaries of the Classic Maya area, namely Copan and Quirigua at

the eNtern edge, and the Usumacinta region and Palenque at the western
edge.

Yucatan: During the period of time which is called Tzakol in the
Peten, Yucaan seems to have been culturally marginal to the Peten and

its development seems to have shown a noticeable time lag when compared
to the Peten. There is one example of what is evidently a very early

Classic Maya style sculpture in Yucatan (Proskouriakoff, 1950:6-7), but
in general, where they can be dated, particular features in Yucatan are
demonstrably later than corresponding features in the Peten. It is not

clear whether those X-T traits which reached the Peten with only moderate
intensity can be observed in the ceramics of Yucatan. The unique stucco
reliefs of the site of Acanceh show certain stylistic affinities to the
murals of Teotihuacan andp should they prove to be of the proper date,
might be regarded as examples of Teotihuacan influences (Seler, 1911).

Proskouriakoff regards the date of about 9.13.0.0.0 as the time
beyond which most of Yucatan diverges strongly from a Classic Maya

tradition.. Certain sites maintain a Classic Maya tradition beyond this

point but in host areas strongly marked regional styles such as Puuc and
Chenes take on their  characteristic form (Proskouriakoff, 1950:150).

In summary, these styles contrast with Classic Maya in an even greater
emphasis on architectural decoration and in the reduction of sculpture
from a primary art to an element of architectural decoration. They

are certainly of a sufficiently high degree of sophistication so that
their assignment to the Classic stage need not be questioned. The

Toltec invasion of Yucatan is marked by the introduction of a complete-
ly new artistic tradition; the Classic stage must end here by defini-
tion.

The Guatemala Highlands and Chiapas:  It is difficult to determine

the po Et at which a true Classic Stage culture appears in the Guatemala
Highlands proper.  The elaboration of various elements as early as Mira-
flores has been noted in the accompanying paper by Mr. Coe, but the

clinching factor of 'the fully developed and widely applied art style seems
to be lacking. The time period corresponding to Tzakol in the Peten is
marked here chiefly by the strength of influences from the Mexican site
of Teotihuacan. The richness of the individual tombs at Kaminaljuyu is
remarkable, as is the extent of the trade relations indicated by these
mortuary offerings (Kidder, Jennings and Shook, 1946). Evidence from

other Guatemala Highland sites reflects the same picture (Kidder, Jennings
and Shook, 1946). The fact that evidence concerning this period is large-
ly confined to the contents of large, rich tombs may have over-influenced
our picture of the culture, but it was at any rate not an--era of major

building activity at many of the sites. (Woodbury and Trik, 1953;262; &Sith
and Kidder, 1943; 1951). The-general lack of monumental stone sculpture

or vaulted stone architecture, except for tombs, places the Highland in an
unfavorable light when compared to the Peten, where the major artistic

expression appeared in these forms (Wauchope, 1948:12; Woodbury and Trik,
1953:162). Beyond this there is for this period a lack of any tryly

unifying art style except perhaps the one imported from Teotihuacan.  The
period under consideration is Classic more because of the richness of its
mortuary cuilt and the extensive ties with other, more definitely Classic
Stage cultures indicated by the mortuary remains, than because of any
particularly strong and coherent indigenous art style.

The-period in the Guatemala Highlands which corresponds to Tepeu in
the Peten saw an increase in building and in forms of cultural activity
other than the mortuary complex (Woodbury and Trik, 1953:35; Wauchope,

1948:12; Shook and Proskouriakoff, 1956), but architectural achievements
were still meager when compared to 1owland Maya. Jade and polychrome
pottery in the finest Tepeu tradition are the most noticeable artistic
features of this period, but these seem to have been manufactured at a

few localized centers and in many cases were imported from outside of the

Highlands (Snith and Kidder, 1943:36,72; Woodbury and Trik, 1953; Wauchope,
1948).  Thus at many of the sites their presence is more an indication of
affluence than of high, local, artistic development.

The appearance of Tohil Plumbate can be used as an effective if

arbitrary demarcation for the end of the Classic in this area, but at some
of the sites the evidence for a marked change in cultural patterns does
not come until later.

The Pacific slope of Guatemala gives information of a much more

scattered nature, but of much more interest from the point of view of

this paper. Both El Baul and Santa Margarita contain carved stone stelae
bearing what appear to be Seventh Cycle dates. The style of these monu-
ments could well have served as a prototype for Early Classic Maya style
(Proskouriakoff, 1950:174-175),o In the light of what has been said about
the sudden and mysterious appearance of the stela complex and the Early
Classic art style in the Peten, further knowledge which might validate

this possibility would be of the greatest importance. The final classifi-
cation of the culture which produced these objects should probably wait
for fuller information, but on the basis of what is already known a

placeme~nt in the Classic Stage does not seem unreasonable. Other, pre-
sumably later, sculptural remains at El Baul and at the site of Santa-

Lucia Cotzumalhuapa suggest a development out of this early style parallel
to, but more or-less independent of, the Classic Maya style of the Peten
(Proskouriakoff, 1950:174-175).

More is known about the archaeology of Classic period Chiapas than can
be included in this paper. For our purpo,ses the site of Izapa is the most

important. It is undated but its excellent monumental stone sculptures show
similarities on the one hand to the early material from Santa Margarita and
El Baul and on the other to La Venta-Middle Tres Zapotes (Sterling, 1943;
Proskouriakoff, 1950:176).

Oaxaca: Monte Alban is the type site for Classic Stage culture in this
area. One difficulty in the discussion of Classic Zapotec culture lies in
the rather spotty publication of archaeological material from this site.

While there is a most detailed and useful report, on the ceramics of Monte

Alban IIIa there is nothing comparable for any og the other periods (Bernal,
1949). The situation with regard to sculptural art and architecture is

even worse. It might be possible to assemble a usable series of illustra-
tions of these features as they occur in the several phases, provided that
all the preliminary reports which have appeared on the site were carefully
assembled and analyzed. Such a study could not be made during the prepara-
tion of this paper, but sufficient material is available on the nature of
Monte Alban. II to allow for certain observations* The question is, not

whether Monte Alban II should be regarded as Classic, but whether the Classic
Stage shou2Ld be extended back to Monte Alban I. Monte Alban I had a form
of wlriting, a calendar, and a fairly well developed style of stone carving
(Caso, 1938:38).  Since this "Danzantesm art style seems not to have been
applied to media other than relief sculpture, it perhaps cannot be called
fully developed. The associated ceramics are not much more elaborate than
would be expected in a Formative stage (Caso, 1938s figs. 31-34). Monte

Alban I is just such a culture as one would expect to find on the boundary
between the Formative and Classic Stage, provided that no intervening stage
is employed.

]Monte Alban II had well developed architecture and it was during this
phase that- the ceremonial center of Monte Alban began to take its elaborate
form (Caso, 1938:10-14, 38). The beginnings of vaulted architecture are
to be noted.  The ceramics are well represented, especially in tomb 77

(Bernal, 1949:6; Caso, 1935, figs. 44-48). The famous Zapotecan funerary
urns have their prototypes.in this period, and these are stylistically

interesting in the light of Bernal's comments on the Mara affinities of
Monte Alban culture up to Monte Alban IIIa (Bernal, 1949:3)o The mask
headdress of the largest urn of tomb 77 is almost identical to those of

Early Classic Maya art (Compare Caso, 1935. figs. 42-44 with Proskouriakoff,
1950: fig. 17). The modeling of the face is also distinct from that on
Monte Alban III urns.

The development from Monte Alban' II to Monte Alban III involved the

introduction of a large number of specifically X-T traitse Bernal has pre-
sented a most thorough analysis of the ceramic features involved (Bernal,

1949). The urns reach their most characteristic and elaborate form, and a

clear change from a Mayoid to a Teotihuacan stylistic affiliation can be

noted in many of their features. The mew forms of headdresses show strong
similarities to headdresses on Teotihuacan III figurines, and the treat-
ment of the faces on many of the typical Monte Alban III urns strongly

resembles the faces of Tlamimilolpa masks (Compare Linne, 19L42, plates 3-5
with Linne, 1938, plates 8,16,18).  A certain amount of architectural

sculpture and extensilve and well preserved wall paintings from the tombs
show a fairly homogeneous art style which relates to the urns on the one
hand-and the mural art of Teotihuacan on the other (Caso, 1938; Armillas,
1950, laminas XIIIa, XIV).  This is the peak period of architectural ex-
pansion--at the site. Suggestions of Teotihuacan influence on the archi-
tecture, though perhaps not as strong as at Kaminaljuyu, are present;

at least there appears to be no smooth development from the architecture
of Monticulo J to that of Monte Alban IIIo

The partially documented collection of the typical funerary urns

presented by Linne (Linne, 1938) gives some idea of the distribution of

Monte Alban III culture within Oaxaca, and typical burials of this culture
have been found as far to the north as Tehuacan in Puebla (Noguera, 1950).

The transition from the Classic to the Postclassic in this area seems
to have involved the decline of the center of Monte Alban in all respects
save as a cemetery, but a great deal of study will be necessary before a
more complete description of this transition can be given.

The Valley of Mexico and vicinity: The Classic Stage in this area

is usiilly regared as synonymouswiE the flowering of the great site of
Teotihuacan. Palerm notes the unanimity of those who have written on
cultural stages or developmental sequences in Pre-Columbian Mexico in
designating the fall of Teotihuacan as the end of the Classic Stage in
the Valley of Mexico (Palerm, 1955a:226-227).

Miccaotli (Teotihuacan II) may be cited as a refutation of those

who would trim the Classic Stage to a neat horizontal band of time. Un-
less the chronological orderings of the previous section are in complete
error, the pre-8.12.0O0.0  date of MIiccaotli must stand.  While there are
various arguments which might be advanced to place both Middle Tres

Zapotes-La Venta and Monte Alban II into a Pre-Classic or Formative stage,
such arguments wrill not hold for Miccaotli. All of the major religious

architectuTe of the site was accomplished before the beginning of Xolalpan
and the basic layout of the site must have been achieved long before. The
construction of the pyramids of the Sun and the Moon marks the end of the
period prevrious to Miccaotli (Armillas, 1950:68), while the famous sculp-

tured facade of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl and the pyramid which is super-
imposed on it were constructed before the beginning of Xolalpan (Armi~llas,
195050:51O 68). Within this period, there was elaborate sculpture, both
architectural and free, as well as mural painting. In short, the arts of
Teotihuacan had reached the complex stage of development requit~ed by the
most rigid definition of the Classic. The statue of the Water Goddess

which is probably of this period already had those monumental and sculp-
tural qualities which were to dominate Mexican art up through Aztec times
(Vaillant, 1950, plate 2ha),

The development of the site of Teotihuacan after Miccaotli was almost
entirely a matter of the expansion of urban occupation outward from the

ceremonial center. The size of the densely settled area around the city
reached at least three square miles. The "tpalaces" which formed the bulk
of this urban development seem, unlike the Maya "palaces", to have been
built for the purpose of human occupation.  The rooms were relatively

spacious and the courtyards around which they were arranged were provided
with effective drainage systems.  Linne noted the peculiar lack of evid-
ence of fire in any of the rooms, which must mean that, if these were in

fact ordinary houses, the cooking facilities must have been centralized or
have been out of doors (Linne, 1942:114-115).  Some of the "palaces" were
decorated with elaborate murals. Several of these structures have been
excavated and there are some good plans which clearly indicate their

character (Linne, 1934, fig. 9-16; Armillas, 1950:54; Linne, 1942, plate
l), The largest 'pilacen so far excavated is that of Tlamimilolpao

Here Linne uncovered 170 rooms without reaching an outer wall at any
point.

The large population which seems to be indicated by these remains has

led to much speculation on the matter of food supply. Most studies of this
nature have reached the conclusion that intensive irrigation must have been

practiced in the Valley of Teotihuacan in order to support such a population.
(Palerm, 1955b;  Millon, 1954). As yet, in spite of the strong inferential
arguments for its presence, no direct evidence for irrigation during the
Classic occupation of Teotihuacan has been uncovered.

Though some tendency towards secularism is observable in the transition
from Miccoatli to Xolalpan, if only in the emphasis on what appears to be
domestic architecture, the arts of Xolalpan and Tlamimilolpa are by no

means decadent. The extensive and impressive murals have already been men-
tioned. The stone masks fomed another noteworthy class of Teotihuacan

manufactures. The ceramics associated with Xolalpan-Tlamimilolpa were dis-
cussed above in another context.

Both Linne and Armillas have given attention to the problem of the

distribution of the pure Teotihuacan culture and it would take a major re-
search project to expand on their findings (Linne, 1942; Armillas, 1950).

The pyramid of Cholula is almost certainly the largest construction of Pre-
Columbian America. Noguera's stratigraphic work at this site has demon-

strated that at least a part of this construction was done by carriers of
a pure Teotihuacan culture (Noguera, 1954 o185198).  Its original con-

struction seems to have been the result of the eastward expansion of an

offshoot of Teotihuacan culture. This is suggested both by ceramic traits
and by architecture. The site continued to be a center of the greatest

importance after the collapse of Teotihuacan. It was a commercial center

so situated as to receive trade wares from a number of areas, and it seems
to have been one of the centers for the distribution of the magnificent
"Policroma laca" ware which was very widely traded. Cholula is thus a

site of the greatest importance for cross-dating regional sequences (Garcla
Payon, 1950a).  The question of the dating of the beginning of post-

Teotihuacan occupation at the site and of the first appearance of "Policroma

laca" ware is of considerable significance. The question cannot be re-
garded as settled;fbut the trend of the chronological arguments in this

paper, especially that dealing with Cerro de las Mesas Upper I, indicates
the possibility that "Policroma laca" ware may have originated earlier

than others of the wares, such as Plumbate and Fine Orange X, which are
regarded as Postclassic indicators.

The fall of Teotihuacan at the end of the Tlamimilolpa phase led to

a general though temporary cultural regression within -the Valley of Mexico.
If the dating of close to 9.8.0.0.0 is correct, this is the earliest

beginning of a Postclassic stage in the Mesoamerican area. The major

period of building at the site of Xochicalco, in Morelos may well fall
within the imediately Post-Teotihuacan period.   The ceramic ties have

already been discussed. The site is famous both for its spectacular loc-
ition and for the architecture of its principal temple, which is a very

successful blend of Mexican and Tepeu sculptural styles. The site deserves

Classic status on the basis of this one monument. The ball court is of con-
siderable interest in that it shows close ties to the Classic Maya ball

courts of Copan arid Piedras Negras on the one hand and to those of Tula on
the other (Noguera, 1945:13-18)o

The Valley of Mexico and adjoining highland areas thus presented a
peculiar cultural picture in the period after 9.8.0.0.0. There were a

number of contemporaneous communities at relatively small distances from
one another, some of which must be classified as belonging to the Classic
Stage and others which it seems best to assign to the Postclassic Stage.

The Olmec area: The highly developed art style of Middle Tres

Zapotes-La Venta which occurs both on monumental sculpture and in Jade

carving, as well as the large and extremely complex ceremonial center of

La Venta, leave little doubt that, according to the criteria of this paper,

this is a fully Classic Stage culture (Drucker, 1952; Sterling, 1943; 1955).
Until the development of Olmec culture is better understood the point at

which it attained a Classic status can not be specified.  The clay figur-
ines found at Gualupita, in a clearly definable archaeological context,

are proof that at least one aspect of the style reached a characteristic
form at a very early date (Vaillant and Vaillant, 1934L124-126). It is
possible that the art might have first developed in clay figurines and

that the moim complex application on monuments and jade carvings is later..
The three major sites already discovered give a sample sufficient to enable
us to form some idea of the range of the style, but as yet there is no

evidence concerning its internal chronology. The ceramic stratigraphy of
one of these three major sites has not yet been published. Since an

adequate discussion of the art style (Drucker, 1952) and a good distribu-

tional study of the elements of the culture (Greengo, 1952),htve been pub-
lished, ithere is no need to enter into those matters here.

The area seems to undergo a decline in cultural intensity during and

after the appearance of the X-T traits, if we are to judge from the evidence
of Tres Zapotes. This period, and wre can include Lower II of Cerro de las
Mesas in these comments, is characterized by a number of interesting minor

art styles;  in figurines, the smiling faces, the San Marcos style, and the
remarkable monumental ceramics of Cerro de las Mesas (Drucker, 1943b); in
carved stone, the various objects in the Classic Veracruz style and the
vaguely Maya stelae of Cerro de las Mesas. Both a single unifying style
and major ceremonial centers seems to be lacking but this is perhaps a

function of the sites which have been tested. Stated briefly, the area

might be considered as marginal to other areas of cultural development at
this later period.

Central Veracruz: Of all the major artistic developments of

Mesoamerica our information is scantiest for the one which is at least

partially related to the site of Tajin. The evidence for the long dura-
tion of the style as a coherent entity has already been presented. Con-
siderable progress has been made in understanding the ceramic history of
the site of Tajin but as yet this seems not to have been related to

architectural or sculptural developments (Du Solier, 1945), On the basis
of present information, it seems justified to extend the Classic Stage of
development at this site from a time probably equivalent to Miccaotli to
a period contemporary with the flourishing of the Toltec culture at Tula.
Certainly the subject matter of some of the Tajin carvings shows strong
relations with Tula (Spinden, 1933, fig. 6).

Ceramc influences from Teotihuacan can be noted at Tajin, especially
in the form of candeleros and certain cylinder-shped vessels which appear
to be trade wares (Du Solier, 1945:62)o The hand-modeled figurines of
Tajin also show strong similarities to those of the "retrato" type at

Teotihuacan (Du Solier, 1945:62). These traits seem to be minor, however,

and Du Solier's discussion of the Tajin ceramics leaves the impression that
specific X-T influences were weaker here than in some other parts of
Mesoamericao

:Ellen Spinden's description of the architecture and sculpture of the
site is still valuable (Spinden, E,p 1933), though a certain amount of
specific information has been added since (Garcia Payon, 1949; 1950b)o
Proskouriakoff 's brief study appears to be the first attempt to inject
chronology into the study of the distinctive art style and her work

suggests that progress can be made along these lines (Proskouriakoff,

1953). Since the Classic Veracruz style comes closest to matching Classic
Maya art in its coherence, complexity, and long span of development, de-
tailed comparisons between the two styles could be of considerable the-
oretical interest.

Huasteca:  On, the basis of available information it has been de-

cided that no period in the Huasteca qualifies as a Classic Stage develop-
ment, Descriptions of the ceremonial centers of the area leave the im-
pression that the Huasteca examples come off badly in a comparison with

those of the areas of Mesoamerica already discussed* There were artistic
developments in the Huasteca in sculpture (Ekholm, 1944; Muir, 1920) and

in shell carving (Spinden, H., 1937; Beyer, 1934), but both of these styles
seem limited to one particular medium. At present, the existence of a
major, unifying style within this area is unproved.

West Mexico:  The comments applied to the Huasteca seem equally just

here. The elabor'ate hand-made figurine styles of West Mexico have recently
found great favor with art students.  Some, such as the dogs of Colia, must
be regarded as among the most attractive objects produced in Pre-Columbian
Mesoamerica. As has been mentioned, these styles are probably of a date
overlapping with some part of the span of Classic Stage cultures in the

rest of Mesoamerica. Here again the style is confined to a single medium
and the development of ceremonial centers during this period seems to be
feeble (Kelly, 1947:173-174,187; 19451:88,194).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The first observation which must be made is that the application of
the particular criteria for a Classic Stage culture, used in this paper,
has not produced the even, horizontal band which is so admired by those

who tend to confuse stages with periods. According to the methods and the
chronological arrangement I have employed, the Classic Stage plots out in
time and space not as a neat strip but rather as something which must be

described as a free form. If the odd form which the Classic Stage assumes
on the chart serves as an effective warning against the practice of con-

fusing stage concepts with temporal periods, then the painful lucubrations

of the chronologically oriented section of this work have not been entirely
in vain.

The minimal definition of a Classic Stage which was presented as an

abstraction from the Willey-Phillips usage of the term indicates the belief
in a causal connection between certain patterns of social organization and

artistic develop-ments of a climactic nature. It was stated that while such
an assumption seemed likely, it could not be evaluated on the basis of the
existing corpus of raw archaeological data. The alternative which was pro-
posed involved the plotting of the climactic artistic developments in space
and time in order to see if any other factors might be discerned which might
effect the course of stylistic history. Should other such influences appear
to be operative, then the simple one-to-one relationship suggested in the

minimal definition would require a more elaborate and detailed description,
though it would not necessarily be invalidated.  We must therefore attempt

to reduce the descriptive data of the preceding section to historical terms,
in order to be able to inspect it for the presence of any such factors.

This history of artistic development in Mesoamerica can be viewed as

the result of the interplay of two very broad art styles. As an analogr to
the terminxlogy of historical linguistics, the term macro-art styles might

be useful* The names Lowland and Highland have been proposed for these art

styles and the patterns of culture associated with them, but these two terms
do not seem particularly appropriate. The discussion of Proskouriakoff

suggests that the Maya sculpture of the Early Classic Period (Tzakol) may
be one branch of a more widely diffused art style. The famous Stela 1 of
El Baul with its seventh cycle date and the similarly dated fragmentary

stela from Santa Margarita show definite similarities to the Early Period
of Classic Ma;ya art (Proskouriakoff, 1950:176-177). The sculptural art of
the site of Izapa in southwrestern C:hiapas has definite relations, on the

one hand to the pieces just mentioned, and on the other to certain mani-

festations of the Classic "Olmec" or La Venta art style appearing in mon-
umental stone carvings (Sterling, 1943; 1955; Proskouriakoff, 1950:177).
The culture of Monte Alban prior to the arrival of the X-T traits at the
beginning of the transition from Monte Alban II to Monte Alban III has

definite Mayan affiliations. The similarities to Holmul I pottery have
already been mentioned. The relationship between the style of "los

Danzantes" and that of La Venta has often been mentioned. Bernal is

quite emphatic in regarding Monte Alban I and II as definitely Mayoid,
while after these phases the culture at this site assumes a completely
Mexican flavor (Bernal, 1949:48).  The scattered and inconclusive evid-

ence presently available does suggest that in the seventh cycle the ante-
cedents for such diverse art styles as Coastal Guatemalan, Classic Mayan,
La Venta, and "Zapotec" showed definite affinities.   The hearth for such
a proto-style might have been either the Pacific slope of Guatemala and
Chiapas or the Olmec area, but by the eighth cycle the Highlands of

Guatemala, the Highlands of Oaxaca, the Peten and even Yucatan were being
influenced by the style to a progressively greater degree. The position

of the art style known as Classic Veracruz in relation to this hypothetical
proto-style is not clear.   The persistent emphasis on curvilinear de-
signs aligns it at least partially with the various other so-called

Lowland styles mentioned previously. The evidence alreaty cited shows
that Classic Veracruz had attained a characteristic form prior to the
spread of X-T traits, that is, prior to 8.17.0.0.0.

The history of the second macro-style, which usually goes by the
name of Mexican or Highland, seems to be intimately connected with the
several expansions from centers in or near the Valley of Mexico. The
major manifestation of this art style within the period which we are

studrying is that at the site of Teotihuacan involving the Miccaotli and
Xolalpan-Tlamimilolpa phases.  The art of Tula and the art of the Aztecs
appear to be historical developments within this tradition and the three
taken together might well form the basis for the kind of thoroughgoing

stylistic analysis best exemplified by Proskouriakoff 's magnificent study
of Mayan art. The spread of the "Mexican" art style out of Teotihuacan

had a -shattering effect on the once continuous distribution of the "Mayoid"
or "Lowland" style. The full force was felt all along the highlands to the
east at least as far as the Honduras border. In southern Veracruz and

Tabasco the La Venta style seems not to have survived this stylistic in-
trusion, Only in the areas where these influences were minor did the

Lowland or Mayoid style survive as a coherent entity. These areas were:
the Peten, Yucatan, probably to a lesser degree the Pacific slope of

Guatemala, the later manifestations of Santa Lucia Cotzumalhuapa, and

El Baul (Proskouriakoff, 1950:175-176). The Highlands of Guatemala be-
cane artistically marginal to the Peten rather than an area of coherent
development, while Monte Alban passed emphatically into the domain of

"lMexican" style art.  The culture of the site of Tajin in Central Veracruz
seems to have resisted the influx of X-T traits better than most other
areas and it too seems to have maintained an artistic continuity.   The

second major spread of a Mexican art style, that whi ch may hanve origin-
ated from the site of Tula and which was associated with the spread of

Fine Orange and Plumbate pottery, effectively submerged those pockets of non-
"Mexican" art which survived the spread from Teotihuacan. It is this second
spread which brings what is usually known as the Classic Stage in Mesoamerica
to an end.

Within those periods of the various regional sequences which we have

assigned to the CLassic Stage, there are varying degrees of development of

art style. Certain periods such as Upper Tres Zapotes or Cerro de las Mesas
Lower II were placed in the Classic, not so much because of any conviction
that they belong there, but rather because they could not be placed else-
where.  Even in the area of Classic Maya art those works which have most
often drawn praise from art students were produced during a rather brief

segment of the period called Classic Maya; almost all of them were created
between 9.13.0.0.0 and 9.19.0.0.0, the majority dating from 9016.000.0 to

9.19.0.0.0.  Only about 120 years are involved in the longer period and only
about 60 in the shorter. Middle Tres Zapotes-La Venta is certainly the

climactic period in the Olmec area, and the arts of Yucatan assume their
most characteristic and elaborate form in the period containing Puuc and
related sub-styles. The major development of sculpture and religious
architecture at Teotihuacan falls within the Miccaotli phase.

Before proceeding to a discussion of art style in terms of history
we can make some statements concerning the relation of the truly cli-

mactic period of artistic development to the periods of maximal external
contact which have proved so valuable in structuring this paper. The

briefest inspection will show that they tend not to coincide. Middle Tres
Zapotes-La Venta and Miccaotli definitely antedate the X-T expansion,

while the Ornate -and Dynamic phase of Classic Maya art, Puuc, and pro-
bably the most fully developed phase of Classic Veracruz art, are sub-

sequent to it by a considerable interval of timeo On this basis we might
suggest that an. extensive exposure to alien conta5ts was not favorable

to artistic developmento Such an assumption might be supported by even
more specific observationso Thus Kidder notes at Uaxactun strong evi-
dence indicating a reduction of trade during late Tepeu times (Kidder,

1947:11)o  Brainerd has reported the same process with reference to the
development of Puuc culture. While Puuc culture was developing its

characteristic form, the occurrences of Tepeu trade wares became pro-

gressively fewer in the Puuc region (See Brainerd, 1940; also comments

in amendation for page 62, Andrews, 1943)o Shook and Proskouriakoff have
commented that the increase of cultural vigor noted in the transition
from the Esperanza to the Amatle. phase is accompanied by a decrease in

external connections (Shook and Proskouriakoff, 1956)o  To summarize the
foregoing discussion, we might say that the most fully developed and co-
herent stylistic developments of Mesoamerica are to be found in times of

decreasing rather than increasing external contact, Those that reached the
most fully developed form occurred in those areas which were more or less
sheltered from the full force of foreign contacts. This would hold for
Maya art and perhaps to a lesser degree for Classic Veracruz. The

statement might be expanded to, the form that the areas which have ex-

perienced the most elaborate stylistic developments are those which have
been able to maintain stylistic continuity over the longest period of

60

time. In its simplest terms, this hypothesis would relate the excellence
of Maya art to the somewhat marginal position of the Peten in relation to
the routes of diffusion of the X-T traits. The art historian might ex-
plain the apparent relationship between an all-embracing art style and
a parochial outlook purely in terms of his own subject matter. In dis-
cussing the connection between eclecticism and disorder in artistic de-
velopment in recent times, an art critic has recently written:

It is perhaps both our virtue and our vice that our taste has become
so catholic: our virtue because ourcsthetic. wjoyets ihave \

expanded and our insight into other civilizations deepened; but per-
haps our vice in the sense that this all-embracing taste has left

us with standards too broad to insist upon a single grand style of
our own times and marked our age with a multitude of little styles
(Saarinen, 1955).

It is tempting to apply this suggestion to the Mesoamerican picture
we have just outlined, but before we accept it as a full explanation for
the  Classic developments, it would be well to examine what the events we
have so far examined only in terms of art history might mean in terms of
the more general context of culture history.

The discussion presented above of the disembodied developments and
movements of art style does not indicate any faith on my part in the
complete autonomy of an art style as a phenomenon, but since such a
discussion followed naturally from the criteria used in defining a

Classic Stage, its further elaboration seemed justified. The spread of

the X-T complex of traits has been used extensively as an ordering device
in the preceeding discussion of the interaction of styles, but up to

this point the question of what this spread meant in more general cul-
tural terms has been deliberately avoided. This problem must now be
faced.

As has been noted, the spread of the X-T complex into the Olmec

area appears to have completely swamped the indigenous art style. The
spread of this complex into the Oaxaca area completely and pemanently

altered the cultural orientation of the area, changing not only ceramics,
but architectural practices and other phases of art style. The appear-
ance of this complexAin the Guatemalan Highlands involved not only new
luxury pottery types, but a series of architectural practices which are
specifically related to those of the site of Teotihuacan. The culture
of Teotihuacan was by no means more sophisticated in art or in science

than those of the areas on which its influences were imposed. The only

field in which it might be considered more advanced is in community orga-
nization for it offers us the first clear evidence of urbanization in
Mesoamerica. It might be asked whether there are any other historical
examples of one culture 's being so completely and dramatically imposed
upon another without either vast differences in sophistication or the
use of military force. The archaeological data from Kaminaljuyu are
remarkably analogous to those from Chichen Itza which have long been
used as evidence for a Toltet invasion. All that is lacking at the

61

Guatemalan site is the narrative art style in which invading warriors are
represented as defeating the local inhabitants.  The similarities include
the imposition of a complete complex of luxury wares without any corres-
ponding change in the utility wares and the adoption of an entirely new

set of architectural practices. The discussion of Shook and Proskouriakoff
indicates that the Esperanza phase represents a regression, both when com-
pared to the Preclassic Arenal or to the Amatle which immediately followed
(Shook and Proskouriakoff, 1956;97-98)o This suggests that some kinds of
adverse influences were operating in the area during Esperanza times, and
military conquest might be suggested as one possibility. Whether or not

military force was involved, the evidence strongly indicates the imposition
of a foreign, or foreign oriented, elite group over the natives of the area
(A.V. Kidder, personal communication)O

The evidence that the spread of Teotihuacan influences involved mili-
tary domination of some kind is certainly not conclusiave but the possibi-
lity merits further consideration. Military conquest could occur with-
out resulting in a unified empire, but neither should the possibility
of an empire be completely ignored. At least the spread of X.-T traits
into Highland Guatemala implies some sort of extensive ideological pro-
selytizing. It can be said in summary that such foreign domination ex-
ercised a deleterious effect on the local art style wherever it was
strongly felt.

So far we have been considering the development of the Lowland or

Mayoid art styles and of the cultures which carried them, their early si-
milarities, their retreat before a series of cultural influences emanating
from-the site of Teotihuacan, their flowering in certain areas during the
period when Mexican influences were relatively weak}, and their final

collapse in the face of a second and even more widespread series of cul-
tural impulses from the Valley of Mexico. It is also necessary to con-

sider the effects which expanding social organization, military conquest,
and extensive urbanization have on the arts of the people who instigated
these developments. Mention has been made of the fact that, while the
artistic developments in the Valley of Mexico are discontinuous, they
appear to have a certain coherence when the three major sections,

Teotihuacan, Tula, and Aztec, are put in their proper sequence. This
possibility cannot be evaluated until a detailed study has been made.

The major problem concerning this artistic development, if the applica-

tion of the Classic Stage concept to Mesoamerican data is to be evaluated,
is whether there is a progressive decline in artistic excellence and tech-
nical competence as one passes from the most ancient to the most recent in

this series.  The progression from Miccaotli to Xolalpan-Tlamiilolpa within
Teotihuacan culture tends to support the assumption made in setting up the
Classic Stage. An increased secularization seems to be observable accom-
panied by a definite increase in urbanism. The evidence from Tula and

especially from Aztec culture is less comforting. The degree of technical
competence and the tremendous expenditure of time involved in Aztec work
in mosaic, ground rock crystal, ground obsidian, and metallurgy is re-

markable, as is the artistic effectiveness of the products. Some of the
Aztec sculptures in the round must be placed among the finest creations

62

of Mesoamerican art.  While the injurious effects of militarism on the
arts is quite clear from the Mesoamerican data if we view the works of

those who lost the battles, it is less so when we view the abhievements
of those who won.

The final step in this analysis involves the comparison of the gen-
eral outline of the Classic Stage of Mesoamerica with that of two other
areas which have been favorites of those interested in studying regular-
ities in the birth of civilization.  If the developmental sequence of

Peru as-described by Willey and Phillips is aligned with that of Meso-

aterica, a fair degree of correspondence is noted at f:irst glande. The

Melsoamerican Classic starts earlier and lasts longer than the Classic of
Peru, especially if the Spinden correlation is used in dating the Meso-
american sequence. A closer inspection reveals a disturbing disharmony.
If archaeologists working in Mesoamerica had long ago developed the same
healthy respect for the phenomenon of horizon markers which the work of
Uhle and Kroeber injected into the field of Peruvian archaeology, the

X-T traits which have figured so importantly in the present discussion

would have long ago been set up as a major horizon. Since the develop-
mental stages of Peru are in large measure bounded by the important

horizons, specifically Chavin and Tiahuanaco, it becomes of some im-

portance to decide with which horizon of Peru the X-T horizon of Meso-

america might coincide in its functional and developmental significance.
There are three true stylistic horizons in Peru from which to choose.

The Inca horizozi the terminal member, need not be considered here. If
Porter and Willey are correct in their speculations concerning cultural
connections, the Chavin horizon should be equated to the first appear-
ances in Mesoamerica of that vague entity which has been called the

Macro-Lowland or Macro-Mayoid style in this paper; this correspondence

would represent not only an anology but also an homology (Willey, 1955:

582). This leaves the Tiahuanaco horizon with which to draw comparisons.,
and some rather striking similarities do in fact appear.  In Peru the

Tiahuancolhorizon strongly altered the course of artistic development of
all cultures on which it impipged. Only on the Northern Coast of Peru
was there a reaction to the earlier art style after the wave of cul-
tural influence  subsided (Willey, 1953)o  Unlike the Chavin horizons
the X-T horizon and the Tiahuanaco horizon included a specific manner
of applying the art style to certain artifact types and not just a

specific art style variously applied. Both horizons also involved spe-
cific architectural features.  If we were to be completely consistent
*,th the procedure followed above in dealing with Peru, we would have
to regard all of the Post-X-T manifestations in Mesoamerica as Post-
classic, including the most spectacular part of Classic Maya as well
as much of Classic Veracruz. The reason why this is not done is that

the X-T horizon did not achieve as complete a penetration of the Meso-

american co-tradition area as did its Peruvian counterpart in the Andean
co-tradition area. A possible explanation for this might be that the
Mesoamerican co-tradition area exceeds its South American counterpart
both in gross area and in the percentage of that area which could

support intensive agriculture.  Thus two horizontal developments, the

X-T and the Tula-Mazapan (Plumbate), wrere necessary to achieve the com-
plete penetration wvhich the Tiahuanaco horizon alone accomplished in
the Andes.

63

If the Middle East is now brought into these comparisons some other

pertinent observrations can be made. If Egypt, the North Coast of Peru and
the Peten are placed in one classification,2arid Mesopotamia, the southern

edge of the Peruvian co-tradition area and the Valley of Mexico in another,
certain similarities can be noted within each of the two groups.  The

first group shares a long continuous artistic development within a coher-
ent tradition and a longer survival of theocratic rather than civil or

military organization (this is not certain for the North Coast of Peru).
The second shares an earlier development of planned cities, militarism,
effective civ'l' organization and the successful pursuit of widespread

military invasions. The similarities between the Peten and Egypt on the
one hand and the Valley of Mexico and Mesopotamia on the other are the

most striking, and the possible reasons for these similarities are most
easily suggested.  During the period under consideration, the movements
of peoples in Mesoamerica seem to have been from northwest to southeast,
both into the Valley of Mexico from the area of "lower" cultures beyond
the boundaries of the co-tradition and from the Valley of Mexico into
the rest of Mesoamerica.  In this respect the Peten was well insulated
partly because it was off the main path of the movements and partly be-

cause it was at the end of the civilized area opposite to that from which
pressure from barbarians was strongest. In contrast, the Valley of

Mexico was particularly exposed in all respects. The area of almost

completely worthless land which surrounds the Nile Valley on both sides
was at least partially effectiive in protecting Egyptian civilization: from
such population movements. Unlike Egypt, Mesopotamia was open to in-

vasion on all sides and the surrounding lands were sufficiently fertile
to support dangerously large populations which were only semi-sedentary,
or even entirely mobile. The rapidity of social and military develop-
ments in the two exposed areas could then be interpreted as a response

to the necessity of preserving civilization against less civilized groups.
Whatever the reason, the manner in which cultural dominance and leader-
ship in artistic development passed from group to group rather than

showing a smooth continuity is strikingly similar in both areas, i.eo
the shift from Teotihuacan, to Toltec, to Aztec, as compared to the

shift from Sumerian, to Akkadianr, to Babylonian, to Assyrian, and fin-
ally to Achaemenian just beyond the boundaries of the original area.

If the explanation of these events just offered is not the correct
or the complete one, then the "water-works theory of culture" might be
invoked. There is good evidence that the effective utilization of the
two rivers of Mesopotamia required more extensive irrigation projects
than were needed in the Nile Valley where flood plain agriculture was
effective.  If the importance of irrigation at Teotihuacan, which has

so often been suggested, could be proved, then this hypothesis would be
worthy of further consideration.

The explanation for the difference in rate of development in Peru
is less easily found. Population pressures might have built up faster
in the smaller southern Peruvian valleys, necessitating more effective
social controls (this idea was largely suggested by Kidder's discussion
of the Classic in Smith and Kidder, l95l;77-8h). In any case it is

6)4

clear on the basis of recent work in Peru that the Classic Nazca culture
had large-walled and carefully planned cities (John H. Rowe, personal
communication; Francis A. Riddell, personal communication),

The conclusions resulting from this study may be stated as folloaws:

1) The odd-shaped blob on the chronological chart accompanying this paper

should be regarded as a warning to those who tend to confuse developmental
stages with chronological periods. 2) The basic conception behind the

formulation of the Classic Stage can not be evaluated at present because

of the lack of information concerning settlement patterns for Mesoamerica
as a whole. 3) The search for other factors which might be effective in
the course of stylistic development should not be regarded as a total

failure; there are suggestions that there may be such factors and that
their workings must be understood if the Classic Stage concept is to be

applied in the most rewarding manner. 4) The comparison with other areas.
at supposedly similar stages of development was intended to be suggest-
ive only; the possible presence of other regularities not yet accounted
for in the developmental schemes so far advanced is noted.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrews, E. Wrllys

1943       The Archaeology of Southwestern Campheche. Contributions

to American Anthropology and History. No 40, Carnegie
Institution of Wadhington, Publication 546:1-102.
Washington, D.CO

Armillas, Pedro

1950       Teotihuacan, Tula y los Toltecas. Runa. 3:37-70. Buenos

Aires.

Bernal, Ignacio

1949       La Ceramic de Monte Alban lIIa.  Thesis, Universidad

Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Mexico D.F.

Beyer, Hermann

1934       Shell Ornament Sets from the Huasteca, Mexico, in Studies

in Middle America, No. 4. 153-215. Middle American Re-
search Series Publication No. 5, Tulane University, New
Orleans.

Brainerd, G.W.

1940       Study of Yucatan Pottery.  Carnegie Institution of

Washington Year Book 39. 270-2714. Washington, D.C.

1953       On the Design of the Fine Orange Pottery found at Chichen

Itza, Yucatan. in Huastecos, Totenacos y sus Vecines. ed.
Ignacio Bernal and Eusebio Davalos Hurtado, Revista

lMexicana de Estudios Antropologicos, Tomo XIII, nos. 2,
3:463-370. Mexico, D.FO

1954       The Maya Civilization.  Southest Museum, Los Angeles.
Butler, Mary

1935       Piedras Negras Pottery.  Piedras Negras Preliminary Papers,

University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

66

Coe, Michael D.

m.s.       Pre-Classic Cultures in Mesoamerica:  A Comparative

Study. Manuscript on file in Peabody Museum Library.

Caso, Alfonso

1935       Las Exploraciones en Monte Alban, Temporado 1934-1935.

Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Historia, Pub-
lication 18. Tacubaya, Mexico D.F.

1938       Exploraciones en Oaxaca Quinta y Sexta Temporadas 1936-

1937. Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Historia,
Publication 34, Tacubaya, Mexico D.F.

Drucker, Philip

1943a      Ceramic Sequences at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico.

Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 140, Washington,
D.C.

1943b      Ceramic Stratigraphy at Cerro de las Mesas, Veracruz,

Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnologyr, Bulletin 141,
Washington, D. C.

1952       La Venta, Tabasco, A Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art.

Bureau of American Ethnology., Bulletin 153. Washington,
D.C.

Du Solier, Wilfrido

1945       La Ceramica Arqueologica de El Tajin. Anales del Museo

Nacional de Arqueologia, Historia y Etnografia, Tomo III,
Quinta Epoca, pp. 147-192. Mexico, D.F

Ekholm, Gordon F.

1944       Excavations at Tampico and Panuco in the Huasteca, Mexico.

Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History, part 5j 38s321-5188, New York.

Escalon.Ramos, Alberto

1953       Xochicalco en la Cronologia de la America Media. in

Huastecos, Totonacos y- sua.Vecinos.  Sociedad Mexicana

de Aritropologia, Tomo XIII, no 2, 3.~ pp. 351-370. M6exico
D.F.

67

Espejo, Antonieta

1953       Dos Tipos de Alfareria, Negro-Sobre Anaranj ado en La

Cuenca de Mexico y en el Totonacapan. in Huastecos,

Totonacos y  sus Vecinoso  Sociedad Mexicana de Antro-
pologia, Tomo XIII, no., 2, 3, pp. 403-412.  Mexico, D.F.

Garcla Payon, Jose

1947       Sinopsis de Algunos Problemas Arquelogicos de Totonacapan.

El Mexico Antiguo, Tomo VI, pp. 301-332.l Mexico, D.F.

1949       Arqueologia del Tajin. Uni Ver, Aiio-I, Tomo I, pp. 299-

305, 581-595.  Jalap, Veracruz-

1950a      Exploraciones en Xutetelco, Puebla.   Uni Ver, AiYo II,

Tomo II, pp. 397-426, 447-476. Jalapa, Veracruz.

1950b.     Palamas y Hachas Votivaso  Uni Ver, Agio II, Tomo II, pp.

63-66.  Jalapa, Veracruz.

Greengo, Robert E.

1952       The Olmec Phase in Eastern Mexicoo  Texas Archaeological

and Paleontological Society, Bulletin, 23:260-292. Lubbock.

Kelly, Isabel

1945       The Archaeology of the Autlan-Tuxcacuesco Area of Jalisco.

Part 2; The Tuxcacuesco-Zapotitlan Zone. Ibero Americana,
No. 27, University of California Press, Berkeley.

1947       Ebccavations at Apatzingan, Michoacan. Viking Fund Pub-

lications in Anthropologyg, No. 7, New York.

Kidder, A.V.

1947       The Artifacts of' Uaxactun, Guatemala.  Carnegie Institution

of Washington, Publication 576. Washingtong D.C.

Kidder, Alfred V., Jesse D. Jennings, and Edwin M* Shook

1946       Excavations at Kaninaljuyu, Guatemala.  Carnegie Institu-

tion of Washington, Publication 561  Washington, D.C.

68

Kroeber, A.L.

1944       Configurations of Culture Growth. University of California

Press, Berkeley.

Linne, S.

1934       Archaeological Researches at Teotihuacan, Mexico.  The

Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, New Series Publication No.
1.  Sto c kho lm.

1938       Zapotecan Antiquities.  The Ethnographical Museum of Sweden,

New Series Publication, No. 4. Stockholm.

19L42      Mexican Highlands Cultures.  The Ethnographical Museum of

Sweden, New Series Publication, No. 7. Stockholm.

MacNeish, Richard S.

1954       An Early Archaeological Site near Panuco, Vera Cruz. Trans-

actions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 44:539-
641. Philadelphia.

Iledellin Zenil, Alfonso and Frederick A. Peterson

19h54      A Smiling Head Complex from Central Vera Cruz, Mexico.

American Antiquity, 20:162-170. Menasha.

Mer*in, Raymond E. and George C. Vaillant

1932       The Ruiins of Holmul, Guatemala. Memoirs of the Peabody

Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uni-
versity, Vol. 3- No. 2. Cambridge.

Millon, Rene F.

1954       Irrigation at Teotihuacan.  American Antiquity, 20:177-180.

Salt Iake City.

Morley, S.G.

1946       The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press.

69

I&iir, John M.

1920       Data on the Structure of Pre-Columbian Huastec Mounds in

the Tampico, Mexico. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 56:231-238.

Nicholson, H.B.

1955       Native Historical Traditions of Nuclear America and the

Problem of Their Archaeological Correlation. American
Anthropologist.  57: 594-613.  Menasha.

Noguera, Eduardo

1950       Excavations at Tehuacan. The Maya and Their Neighbours,

ed. C.L. Hay and others, pp. 309-319.  New York.

1945       Ecploraciones en Xochicalco. Caudernos Americanos, Aio

IV, No. 1, pp. 1 -39. Mexico, D.F.

1947      Ceramic de Xochicalco.  El Mexico Antiguo, Tomo VI, pp.

273-300. Mexico D.F.

1954      LLa Cerami c Arqueologica de Cholula.  Editorial Guarania-

Mexico, Mexico, D.Fo

Palerm, Angel

1955a      Investigaciones y Estudios, La Secuencia de la Evolucion

Cultural de Mesoamerica. B.BoAoAo Instituto Panamericano
de Geogrifia e Historia, Vol. 18, Part 1. Mexico D.F.

1955b      The Agricultural Basis of Urban Civilization in Mesoamerica.

In Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Social
Sciences Monographs, No, 1, pp. 28-42.  Pan American Union,
Washington, DoCo

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana

1950       A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture.  Carnegie Institution

of Washington, Publication 593.  Washington, Do C*

1953       Scroll Patterns (Entrelaces) of Veracruz. In Huastecos,

Totonacos y sus Vecinos, Revista Mexicana de Estudios

Antropologicos, Tomo IIII, nos. 293, pp. 389-401 Mexico,
Do7Fo

Ricketsonr, Oliver Garrison Jr., and Edith Bayles Ricketson

1937       Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926-1931.  Carnegie Ins-

titution of Washington, Publication 477. Washington, D.C.

Rowe, John H.

1950       Review of Bennett and Bird, Andean Culture History.

American Antiquity, 16s170-172. Salt Lake City.

Saarinen, Aline B.

1955       An Age of All Embracing Taste. Book Review Section of

New York Times, OctQber 30, 1955, p. 6. New York.

Satterthwaite, Linton Jr.

1943       Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture, Part 1, No. 1,

Introduction, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.

1944       Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture, Part 4, Ball

Courts, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.

1952       Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture, Part 5, Sweat-

houses. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.

Schapiro, Meyer

1953       Style. in Anthropology Todry. ed. by A.L. Kroeber, Uni-

versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Seler, Eduard

1911       Die Stuckfassade von Acanceh in Yucatan. Sitzungsberichte

de Kgl. Prussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 42:101.-1025,
Berlin.

Shook, Edwin, and Tatiana Proskouriakoff

1956       Settlement Patterns in Mesoamerica and- the Sequence in

the Guatamalan Highlands. in Prehistoric Settlement Pat-
ternls in the Newr World. Viking Fund Publications -In
Anthropology, No. 23, pp. 93-100, Newr York.

71

Smith, A. Ledyard

1950       Uaxactun, Guatemala:  Excavations of 1931-1937.  Carnegie

Institution of Washington, Publication 588, Washington,
D.C.

Smith, A. Ledyard and A.V. Kidder

1943       Explorations in the Motagua Valley, Guatemala.  Contri-

butions to American Anthropology and History. No 41.

Carnegie institution of Washington Publication 5L6  pp.
103-182. Washington, D.C.

1951       Excavations at Nebaj, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution

of Washington, Publication 594. Washington, D. C

Sorenson, John L.

1954       Preclassic Metal?  American Antiquity, 21:64. Salt Lake

City.

Spinden, Ellen S.

1933       The Place of Tajin in Totonac Archaeology. American

Anthropologist, 35:225-270. Menasha.

Spinden, Herbert J.

1937       Huastec Sculptures and the Cult of the Apotheosis. The

Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, 24:5. Brooklyn.

Sterling, Matthew WO

1943       Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Bureau of American

Ethnology, Bulletin 138. Washington, DoC.

1955       Stone Monuments of the Rio Chiquito, Veracruz, Mexico.

Anthropological Paper, No. 43. Bureau of American Eth-
nology, Bulletin 157. pp. 1-23. Washington, D.C.

Steward, Julian

1953       Evolution and Process. in Anthropology Today, pp. 313-

326, ed. by A.L. Kroeber, University of Chicago Press,
-Chicago.

72

Thompson, J. Eric

1939       Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras.  Carnegie

Institution of Washington, Publication 506. Washington,
D.C.

1954       The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization.  University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Vaillant, George C.

1950       Aztecs of Mexico. Doubleday and Company, Garden City,

New York.

Vaillant, Suzannah B. and George C. Vaillant

1934       Excavations at Gualupita. Anthropological Papers of the

American MLuseum of Natural History, Vol. 35, no. 1, New
York.

Wauchope  Robert

1948       Excavations at Zacualpa, Guatemala. Middle American Re-

search Institute, PGblication 1h. Tulane University,
New Orleans.

Weiant, C.W.

1943       An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz,

Mexicoo  Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 139,
Washington D. C.

Willey, Gordon R.

1953       A Pattern of Diffusion-Acculturation.  Southestern Journal

of Anthropology, 9:369-384. Albuquerque.

1955       Prehistoric Civilizations of {Nuclear America. American

Anthropologist, 57:571-593. Menasha.

Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr. and John B. Glass

1955       The Maya Community of Prehistoric Times. Archaeology,

8:s1825 .  Brattleboro, Vermont.

73

Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips

1955       Method and Theory in American Archaeology II:  Historical-

Developmental Interpretation. American Anthropologist,
57:723-819. Menasha.

Woodbury, Richard B., and Aubrey S. Trik

1953       The Ruins of Zaculeu, Guatemala. William Byrd Press,

Richmond, Virginia.

7)4