AN AREA CO-TRADITION FOR MESOAMERICA
Morton Ho Levine
INTRODUCTION
I believe that archaeology must ultimately provide us with cultural
entities which correspond approximately to the historical facts, Other-
wise it makes no sense to seek explanations for past events.  The es-
tablishment of correspondences between archaeological and historical cul-
tures is, to my mind, a logical and practical precondition for chronicles
of the development of prehistoric societies and their encounters and
intercourse. Only to the degree to which the archaeological account is
constructed on the discipline of history will we be able to generalize
about the relationship of the cultural given to cultural development,
or about any of the other features of cultural dynamics usualUy discussed
under the heading "process",
Having stated the general orientation of this paper, I would now
like to dwell briefly on the notion of the area co-tradition. In several
provinces of the Old and New World there occur archaeological deposits
which suggest that in ancient times groups of neighbouring and contemporary
peoples, whatever the distinctiveness of their local cultures may have been,
shared basic sets of designs for living. The Central Andes, Mesoamerica,
the Southwestern United States, and part of the Middle East are examples
of such provinces. Peruvian archaeology can thank Kroeber, Bennett,
Willey, Steward, and Strong, among others, for their contributions to the
conceptualization of the co-existence through time of a series of regional
cultures exhibiting a common cultural -substratum.
The area co-tradition, in its original application to Peru, has been
criticized by Roweo Martin and Rinaldo have tried to apply it to the
Southwest and have been taken to task by Rouse. Discussions, pro and con,
have pivoted by tacit agreement on the question of "fit". Some hold that
the area co-tradition hypothesis must be rigorously applied and that it
must then be determined to what extent the area conforms to the concept.
Others have argued that, since no two provinces are exactly alike, the concept
may legitimately be adapted to the area under consideration. This paper wili
attempt to answer the questions Does the area co-tradition concept fit the
kind of problems we encounter in the archaeology of Mesoamerica?
It is quite true that the notions of "culture area with time depth",
the "co-tradition", "horizon styles". "phases", "traditions", "develop-
mental stages", and so ons can be regarded either as descriptive or analy-
tic devices, or as both, But it must be remembered they are devices, tool
concepts applied to archaeological data in a rigorous fashion - not to tidy
it up, but to observe the particulars of the overflow, When we speak of
specific misfits, we approach the viewpoint of the historian to whom each
cultural whole is a unique entity, because no mismatch will ever be the same
as any other in different places and at different times, From the point of
1
view of the analytic .grid held constant in applications to different archaeo-
logical provinces, we move toward comparative archaeology which - unlike the
pessimistic McKern system  has reference to historic cultures.
Neither the area co-tradition, nor any of the concepts associated with
it, can be proposed as a "solution" to the problem of aligning archaeological
chronicles to the historic continuum. First of all, Whistoric" cultures cannot
be considered as the only "real" ones, since there is more than one way of
usefully analyzing culture history. Even if it is granted that some analyses
of history are more useful than others, the methodological categories mentioned
above are much more than basic minimal units, And such "minimal units" have
not yet been isolated; they are subsumed in the larger notions of "component"
and "phase", for example. The true minimal unit is still the "trait", and
neither archaeology nor ethnology has ever reached any agreement as to the
definition of a "trait". Among the social sciences, only linguistics, with
the phoneme, has established a fundamental building block for dealing with
patterns. For studies of non-linguistic culture, the definition of a com-
parable unit remains a pressing need,
The point of this apparent digression is to make explicit that any
attempt to deal with Mesoamerican data on the level of the area co-tradition
is essentially a gross procedure. The objective of a direct approach to
historicity in archaeological research will doubtless elude us for some time
to come. It will probably be attained only as a result of more or less prag-
matic attempts at concordance between archaeological and historical data.
The present paper is divided into three sections: The first deals with
Bennett's definition of the area co-tradition, its application to Peru and
the Southwest, and the critical discussion which attended those efforts. The
second section offers, in broad outline, the tentative structure of a Meso-
american co-tradition, The final section considers the problems of Meso-
american culture history to which this methodology may be usefully applied.
THE AREA CO-TRADITION IN PERU AND THE SOUTHUEST
In taking stock of Peruvian archaeology, Kroeber (194) said:  "I re-
gard all native Peruvian civilizations as a unit, a larger historical whole,
a major areal culture with time depth." This comprehensive view has played
an important role in the structure of Peruvian research. One expression of
this approach was the concept of the area co-tradition, set forth by Bennett
(1948). These are the principal features of Bennett's scheme:
l Culture area: "The addition of time depth to a culture area
forms a meaningful unit for archaeological investigation. For
one thing, it allows a more precise regional delimitation, since
only the territory is considered within which the component cul-
tures formed a culture area at every time period, and not the
territory of maximu  expansion during a particular time period000"
2
2. Co-tradition: "Unlike the culture area classification, the cul-
tures included in an area co-tradition are treated as wholes.
Thus, each has its own history. its own persistent traditions.
The coined word, co-tradition, refers, then, to the linkage, the
interrelationships of the cultural traditions in time and space."
3. Area co-tradition:   "...an area co-tradition is the overall unit
of culture history of an area within which the componenb cultures
have been interrelated over a period of time. The term is not
applied merely to the cultural history of a region. .neither is
a co-tradition the history of a single culture."
The culture area with time depth is well exemplified in Peru. Central
Andean civilization, as a whole, shared patterns of subsistence (intensive
agriculture and herding), methods of cultivation (irrigation, terracing,
fertilization, crop rotation, etc.), types of clothing, craft   techniques
(pottery, metallurgy, weaving of exceptional quality), specific artistic
motifs, architectural forms, settlement patterns, broad outlines of social
organization and stratification,and religious beliefs.   These are the core
cEh4arateristics; they are, according to Bennett, found throughout the time
span of the Peruvian co-tradition and in every one of the constituent cul-
tures9 But the co-tradition is held together by still other ties:
Specific traditions link the cultures of some subdivisions throughout
several time periods,  Various types of horizon styles cut across some
or all of the sub-regions in one time period. (Bennett, 1948)
The criteria with respect to "traits" are relatively precise.   A dit-
ferent situation obtains with respect to boundary-making. Bennett says:
'Each coastal valley forms an isolated unit and should, theoretically,
hare its own local culture history.   However, archaeological refine-
ments in Peru are not sufficient to show thiso   Consequently, valleys
arei arranged into nine groups on the basis of proximity and cultural
overlap. (1948)
It is clear that we are not dealing with specific geographical areas
corresponding exactly to historic cultures,   The provinces within the
larger culture area are generalized space units which loosely embrace dis-
tinctive archaeological configurations,   The -umnda   is precise only be-
cause it has been !arbitrarily drawn for anati-cal purposeso This     nr
of internal geography, lie the overall culture area, is maintained through
time. Even when such specificity is recognized as arbitrary, the continual
accretion of archaeological information makes it advisable to change the
detail of the analytic matrix.  Thus, Bennettes regional areas changed some-
what between his publication in "A Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology"
(Beinett, 1948) and "Andean Culture Histoxy" (Bennett and Bird, 1949)o
Since then Willey (1954a) has offered other modifications.
Kroeber (1939) noted that it is most difficult to set boundaries to a
culture areao This is due to the historic fact that one culture tends to
shade into another, rather than being terminated by some frontier line.
3
The contrast between the abstract accuracy of Bennett's definition and
the arbitrary nature of the practical delimitation of areas and their con-
stituents will be seen to have important consequenceso
The Peruvian co-tradition has also been analysed by means of a number
of devices of chronological and developmental significance: traditions,
horizons, periods (Bennett's descriptive tems:   cultist, experimenter,
master craftsmen,etc.), and stages (Willey's developmental terms:  form-
ative, classic,and post-classic).  We may conclude this initial attempt
at definition with these words of Bennett on the subject of a wider Utility
for the idea of the area co-tradition.
Although in part an abstraction, the area co-tradition actually pur-
ports;to represent-a substantial unit of culture history. Various
area co-traditions, once established, can be compared. Do they have
single centers, multiple centers, shifting centers?  What types of
unity are found in each, s1qch as political, stylistic, subsistence,
environmental? Are there regular sequences of internal development?
Archaeologists have been blocked in studies of acculturation and
culture change because of the uncertainty of cultural continuity,
but with this concept regional cultural changes can be examined and
their causes sought. (1948)
I now want. to turn from Bennett's proposal to the criticism leveled
against it by Rowe (1950, 1951). Rowe develops both factual and methodo-
logical issues, which may be illustrated by the following summary from
both statements.
In "A ReappraisaiL of Peruvian Archaeology", Bennett and Willey
offered somewhat different space-time organization of the Peruvian co-
tradition. Neither proposal appeared to Rowe to agree with the archae-
ology. for Peru as a whole. 'Willey's divisions accord only with the coast-
al data from the Chicama Valley to Nasca. North Highlands division may
prove satisfactory, but thie coastal extremes, and especially the central
and South Highiands must be rejected. Rowe also argues that Bennett and
Willey  derived named periods from the Vird Valley sequence on the North
Coast and applied these elsewhere without justification. The Central and
South Highlands and the South Coast do not conform. There is no great time
depth in the Central Highlands;  Cuzco is late, already pre-Inca, and has
no known predecessorso In the South Highlands, Tiahuanaco does not link
the two sides of the Titicaca Basin, as Bennett claimed (Bennett and Bird,
1949),o On the South Coast, the sequence of Chavin, Red-on-White and
Negative "horizon styles" does not conform as it does farther north.
Wille  (1951) called attention to some misinterpretation in the matter
of Sbuth Coast horizons, and asserted that Rowe tended to blur the precise
analytic lines along which the horizon style concept had been refined since
Kroeber first proposed ito  Bennett had-admitted the relative weakness of
the Central and South Highlands divisions prior to Rowee's criticism. But
we are not concerned here with the details of this argument so much as -we
are with the character of Rowe's criticismo  To understand it more fully,
'4
we must turn to (1) his--counter proposal for a meaningful organization of
the_ COntral Andean data, and (2) to the methodological issue he posed. With
respect to the former,Rowe said:
The best solution to the problem of synthesizing the data of Andean
archaeology for elementary presentation would probably be to describe
thhe-North Coast sequence, indicating differences in the essentially
parallel Notth Highlands and Central Coast areas, and then describe
thi Sbuth Coast and Tiahuaraco sequences separately with notes on the
incomlete information available for other Southern Peruvian areas tied
to these two   The rather aberrant Cuzco sequence could be treated as
a prelude to the description of the Incas. (1950)
AS- to the methodological issue, the argument is clearer if we assume
that-Rowe; has stated the facts of mismatch correctlyo  In his suggestion
f6r a substitute organization of the data, Rowe makes it clear that his
criterion for the acceptability of any organizational scheme is its
accurate delineation of the facts, and lack of facts, derived from the
archaeological material available at any given timeo  He has stated very
plainly the methodological bias to which this criterion refers:
Kroeber's general concept of the culture area as 'a substantial unit
of historical development' is the basic one. We can make the data
of Peruvian archaeology fit the co-tradition framework someh,ow, if we
wish; after all, no simple classifactory scheme represents the com-
plexity Of its material adequately.  But in broader perspective,
acceptance of the co-tradition idea implies acceptance of Kroeber's
culture area concept and of a very considerable degree of order and
direction i(ioeo evolution) in culture history .o.OoI am not convinced
that there is enough order and direction in cultural history to
Justify Kroeber's culture area concept in general and for any area;
hence I am resistant to the whole idea of co-traditionso
Two quite different problems are involved in this discussion: one,
how much over-all unity does'the Central Andes display at different
periods of its history?  Two, is the culture area as defined by
froeber an acceptable theoretical construct? Bennett assumes basic
uinity and accepts the culture areaooo0I am inclined at present to
take the opposite view on both problems. (1951)
Bennett's suggestion that the area co-tradition concept be employed
in other regions was quickly adopted, and Martin and Rinaldo (1951) pre-
sented such a scheme for the Southwesto  I will present here only a
summary of some of the salient points:
l1  The Southest, in general, is a geographical, ecological,and
climatological unito
2. Culturally, the area is broadly characterized as follows:
ao It was occupied mostly by aboriginal farmers;
5
b. It featured three parallel and allied developments (Hohokam,
Mogollon and Anasazi), each with a distinctive "flavor";
co A uniform cultural development occurred throughout the whole
area with a simultaneous culmination or climax in the three
sub-cultures.
The authors of this scheme interpret the area co-tradition concept as
involving the satisfaction of four major conditions:
1.  The area as a whole must exhibit an overell configuration of cul-
ture traits -which distinguishes it or delimits it from other areas:
Thirteen characteristics are offered: a common) pre-agricultural,
pre-ceramic stage; subsequent subsistence based on maize, beans,
and squash; cotton raising; permanent village settlement;
dllings consisting of pit houses, or houses constructed of
rough- stone, mud and beams, or of storied multi-roomed houses
of masonry or adobe; metate-mano milling stones of evolving form;
underground cists or pits for storage and cooking; crafts rep-
resented by highly developed basketryr, weaving and pottery with
a characteristic emphasis on painting as against textured decor-
ation; complex ritual including kivas, ball courts, rain and
fertility eults, color symbolism and a priesthood; the atlatl
and, later, the bow and arrowr; domesticated dogs and turkeys;
an absence of monumental stone carving, metallurgy, and permanent
social stratification; an emphasis on kinship in social organiza-
tion, without political organization of villages into larger
groups.
2. There must be evidence of linkage between regional sub-cultures,
demonstrating that these groups were subjected to the same general
influences. Three categories of evidence are offered heres
a. A series of progressions or developments which run parallel
in the three sub-cultures:  eogo, progression from troughed
metates to large, flat, concave slabs, and from pit houses
to communal surface dwellingso
b.  Specific traits-universally found (horizon markers?) such
as the bone awl, certain bead and bracelet types, side-notched
chipped blades, certain pottery shapes, and similar geometric
design elements.
c.J Distribution of trade pieces (horizon markers?) including
Anasazi pottery found at Hohokam and kMgollon sites and the
widespread occurrence of7bracelets and beads made from shells
whose provenience has been traced to the Gulf of California*
3. The areal unit under consideration must have limits in space and
timeo Here the culture area is defined, but not the internal div-
isions referable to the sub-cultures:
6
Southeastern Utah9 the eastern half of- Arizona, the western three-
quarters of New Mexico, southwestern Colorado, and the northern
edge of Mexicoo  Parts of the "Greater Southwest" are tentatively
omitted. Navaho-Apache history is excluded as not integral to the
area.  The period under consideration is from 2,000 B.C. to A.D.
1700, with a cultural climax around A.D. 1100.
4. The maJor cultural changes within 'each time period should be more
or less evident in the component sub-cultures:
There is evidence for five "stages", which are listed with accom-
parqing rough dates:
a. Pre-Agricultural'and Pre-Ceramic (2000 BoCo.1000 BoCo)
b. Early Agricultural Stage (1000 BoC.-l A.D.)
co Formative Stage (1 AeD.-900 or 1000 AoDo)
do Classic Stage (1000 AoDo-1350 AoDo)
e. Renaissance Period (1350 AoDo-1700 AoDo)
The above will suffice to outline the way in which the Southwestern
CGotradition has been conceived by Martin and Rinaldo.  It is well to note
that the authors are markedly tentative with respect to the details of their
formulation. At the same time, they feel there is enough evidence to justi-
fy setting it up as a "conceptual scheme..,. twhich may be a useful tool in
tracing mants achievements, in seeing and appraising man and his deeds, and
in creating comparative histories." (Martin and Rinaldo, 1951)o
Rouse (1954) approaches this effort with fundamental and, in some re-
spects, devastating criticism.  His analysis proceeds from the assumption
that Bennett had made his case for Peru in detail.  He upholds the utility
of the co-tradition concept "as an indicator of the kind of culture change
which occurred in Peru".  Its utility in comparative studies would be to
identify "the Peruvian kind of culture change wherever it may be found".
Rouse's specific criticism runs somewhat as follows:
1. Martin and Rinaldo point to the existence of a culture area, de-
fine its- limits in space and time, and list its characteristics.
But. they fail to show that these characteristics are found in
each main time period and in each regional divisiono
2.  They group their internal units incoherentlyo  The Hohokam,
I&g6llon and Anasazi "sub-cultures" are really cultural sequences
which _(a) are not coexistent throughout the whole span of the time
depth for the culture area, and (b) are not geographically de-
limited within the broad confines of the culture area.
7
3. They fail to define regional traditions, delimit their regional
distribution, or specify which cultures shared them.
4. With respect to the broad cultural developments which Martin and
Rinaldo call stages, they do not demonstrate their pan-areal extent
throughout the whole of the time depth asserted for the culture
area.
Rouse offers two very interesting reasons wy the area co-tradition
concept is not applicable in the Southwest0 First, he points out that the
prehistoric peoples of the Southwest, to whom the archaeological assemb-
lages called Hohokam, Mogollon and Anasazi presumably refer, did not ,re-
main throughout their history in restricted geographical regions, as did the
Peruvian Indians.  Second, this historical difference was overlooked when
Bennett suggested trying the concept on the Southwestern material and when
Martin and Rinaldo took up that suggestion;  and this oversight was due to
the fact that "Peruvian archaeologists are accustomed to trace the dis-
bU   on of cU-lture in terms of both  eIods'and regions (whereas) South-
.~~~~~~~-                           1.   a  ,    to    .. rio  . .  Z  .
western archielgss       rid to trace it on  accordin  to  eriods anT
thereBobscure     e  inal variations     hch are suc   a     ortansub
of su    in )eru       Ru e  1---5-
Rouse's critique brought forth a reply from Martin (1954) and consider-
able= comment by Wheat, Brew and Smith, and 'Willey in the "Southwest Issue"
of the American Anthropologist (1954). I can only sample this response here.
lartin said, in effect: Bennett's co-tradition concept has to be
applicable to other cultures,since we need a design to help us study culture
history, cultural evolution and cultural processes, and Bennett's plan can
be modified to fit other areaso  There are genuine and meaningful simil-
arities between the several cultural traditions in the Southwest,  While
gaps still e .xist in the archaeological record, a modest hypothesis at the
present time will expose and str'ucture problems, as well as glve specificity
to the kind of data which is lacking.
Wheat and Bre'w and Smith are not perturbed if Bennett!s definitioh has
to be warped in order to apply it to the -Southwesto  Concept-ial tools jMve
to grow arid change4Wheat). The virtue of the co-tradition while South-
western research is in its present state "lies in its very elasticity and
vagueiess, swhereby it can be made to serve as a guide in any effort to
compare 'cultures' on any chosen 'level'*"  (Brew and Smith).
Before applying the co-tradition concept to Mesoamerica, I would like
to include this comment of Willey's:
Tn his concluding pages Wheat has struck at the heart of the matter in
asking the questiba.: 'What problems are we trying to meet with the con-
cept of the co-tradition? 'What performance do we expect of it? The
debate over the co-tradition concept is pointless outside of these
problem contexts, for a Southwestern co-tradition is not an end-all
of research to be accepted or rejected in the abstract. The co-
tradition concept is a device by which we attempt to express a degree
a
of historical intimacyo  I believe  .t has had an important heuristic
-value in American"st studies in that it has exposed the older concept
of culture area to time-depth analyses ..In both the Southwest and
Peru it has served as a useful point of departure for asking the
questions: IHfw muah of the apparent cultural homogeneity that we can
see in these areas is due to relatively late diffusions and how far
back can we trace common origins? ...Such a unitary frame of re-
ference offers a vantage point for the observatpion of some grades
of -historically interrelated or diffused phenomena but by its very
definition ignores or slights others. (Willey, 1954c).
The approach which -will be made to a Mesoamerican co-tradition can
be illustrated by reference-to the previous discussions. Bennett's de-
finitions are indeed strict, and almost as specific in their strictures
as Ro&se insists. Whether Rowe is correct in every detail of his criti-
cism or not does not make much difference since,if he. were to take; cog-
nizance. of Bennett's admissions of weakness for. two major: highland areas
lnd his description of the broad basis; fsr the valley groups ob the coast,
and of Do we's demonstrations of misfit, it is perfectly clear that Rouse
would have to reject the Peruvian co-tradition tooo
Rowee' rejection of the Peruvian co-tradition, at least in part, and
Rouse's use of it as a standard against which to measure the success of
Martin and Rinaldo 's attempt,find common ground in the criterion of fit.
yr own position is that this is neither the only possible nor the most
useful criterion.  In the first place, the perfect fit, in the sense of
Rowe and Rouse, will never be observed,  In the second place, a perfect
fit, even if the objective were, so modifi?d as to be achievable, would
still be only"'temporary so long as the evidence is incomplete.  Finally,
ipserfect fit, once attained, rules out comparative work. For each cul-
tiire is unique and incomparable in many respects, as is every human being.
In his insistence that the area co-tradition hypothesis is well-adapted to
the circumstances of PeruviarvAn culture history, Rouse is referring not to a
concept but to a kind of algebralc equation for what actually transpired
there, a shorthand summary of the particular archaeological record of that
areao  There would not be much point to surveying the archaeological     4
provinces of the world in search of detailed resemblances to the course
of events in Peruo
As we have seen, Rowe entirely rejects the co-tradition as a concept.
He does not believe it can be used to describe any given area because he
does not accept the idea of broad regularities in cature history., whether
in Peru or elsewhere. He considers the notion of an area co-tradition mis-
leading unless it can be referred in every way to known archaeological re-
lationships. To me it seems evident that Rowe's objection is rooted in a
lack of interest in synthesis, as his counter-proposal demonstrates. Even
his kind of organization of the data represents, for him, a summary "for
elementary presentation", a kind of teaching deviceo
Another approach to fit is represented by the various statements of
Martin, Wheat and Brew, and ,nith. This view I have already described as
9
'1aking the concept fit the area". But this runs into the same objections
as the insistence that the area must fit the concept, namely, that the area
co-tradition would disappear as a concept and, in each province, would come
to represent a description of local conditions. Therefore, while I agree
to the advantages of synthesis, both within and between areas, I cannot see
how the comparative objective will be furthered by robbing the area co-
tradition concept of its character. The solution seems to me to invdlve
a generalized notion of the area c6&tradition, firmly held and carefully
applied, with the most scrupulous attention directed to the kind and,degree
of fit.  In accordance with this, the following approach to the use of the
co-tradition concept seems reasonable.
Although a boundary must be drawn around a culture area for reference,
it is impossible to make this a precise lineo Furthermore9 the line cannot
embrace the farthest extent of manifestations characteristic of the culture
areao  I mentioned 'earlier KroeberIs view that a Wreal" map of culture areas
would be' composed-of different colors for different culture climaxes and
that 'tfiese' would 'shade into oie anothero We must temporarily ignore the
areal-culture outliers, and agree with Bennett in insisting on limiting -
the boundary so as to includonly the extent of regional sub-cultures with
time deptho  In fact, by excluding the outliers,we may be able to under-
stand them more fullyo  It is clear that the purpose of this provision is
analytic, and this fact justifies its arbitrary charactero  But Bennett
and Rouse go-too far in applying their reseNations within the culture
area, as well as beyond it.- Within the area of climax we delimit the re-
gional boundaries carefully, but not because the material justifies this
action.  HeOre, it seems to me, we are intensely interested in gaps, in
late starts, in the early extinction of the various internal tnits.  This
kind of evidence may refer to conquest, migration, or cultural exhaustion,
as well as to other processes of change which it is in our interest to
determine.  We can only determine them if we put ouirselves in a position
to see contradictionso
Another qualification with respect to the culture area is in the
matter of time depth.  I do not regard it as either reasonable or useful
to' insist on regional differentiation throughout the time scaleo  I,am
particularly concerned about this in the earlier periods. First, it is
unlikely that we will ever get a situation where the differentiation is
an indigenous developmento  Secondly., any interest that we may have in
historical origins demands that we pay a great deal of attention to the
places and times where a relatively undifferentiated areal culture began
to be segregated into regional sub-units.  It should be sufficient to
recognize the existence of these regional sub-cultures for a considerable
period of time during which major areal changes transpire.
Turning now more specifically to the matter of regional sub-cultures,
I believe that these can only be defined as Bennett has "done, ?"That'is,
they mtist be arbitrarily delimited geographically, just as is the case
for the culture area as a whole, (It is on this point that Rouse most
heavily criticized the Southwest  co-tradition).  The sub-cultures must,
of course, share the core cultural  inventory described for the larger
10
area* Each region within the culture area should also reflect the develop-
sental stages which describe the evolution of the areal culture as a whole
(although 'there are legitimate qualifications here too). Two or more sub-
cultures might be'expected to share a common tradition or traditions
form time to time, although this may not invariably be the case. Also,
form the point of v'iew of areal unity, one would expect the kind of mani-
festition' described as horizon markers or horizon styles in several or
a4ll f' the h' -_regi"onal cultures.  In addition to their shared traits, which
may reflect parallelism or diffusion, the regional units must each ex-
hibit'a'residuum of individuality which4 sets them apart. This may take
either the form of peculiar traits or that of a distinctive configuration
of the same traits found elsewhere.
The- above then are some of the considerations and qualifications in-
volved" in' setting up an area co-tradition.  The basic "arbitrariness" of
this sstem is connected with rigidly held boundaries, both for the areas
themselves and for their constituent sub-cultures.  Within the culture
area, correspondences are sought of minimum conditions rather than con-
cordance' With an over-all ideal. The aim should always be to hold the
geography constant by boundaries and the chronology constant by the trad-
itional devices of relative or absolute chronology.  Then we are free to
measure the extent to which the distribution of specific elements in space
and time does not accord with our reference lines.
The foregoing has dealt with methodology in terms of the inner con-
sistency- and problem orientation of a particular system* Practically
speakihg,,''the application of any scheme cross-culturally runs into a
critical'problem which 'Rouse pointed out but failed to develop fully.
Since each archaeological province offers material organized in tes
of local' intetrests and research traditions, the data are structured ac-
cordingly and attempts at comparatilve analysis must immediately re-
concile mutually unintelligible systems of thought. This problem is
not'easy to overcome, as is clearly evident in many of the shortcomings
of the ensuing discussion. -
THE MESOAMERICAN CO-TRADITION
The Culture Area
rt"would hardly be startling to assert that somewhere between the
Rio Grande'River and the Panama Canal lies a "Mesoamerican culture area")
but to specify its precise limits would be something else again. It
will rot' be e'asy to define boundaries so that they will applyr usefully
to a time' span of more than 2000 years. The construct will" have 't6
accomodate the interplay of three variables: the culture complex, its
geography, and its archaeologyo
A number of students have given considerable attention to defining
the boundary of a Mesoamerican culture area* I will not burden the pre-
sent account with a history of the efforts of Wissler, Beals, Mendizbal
and others in this direction, since the area which will concern us will
3
be considerably smaller than any of those proposed by these authors, and
the culture elements considered definitive  will be quite obvious and
well within the scope agreed upon by all scholars. It might be useful,
as a basic reference point, however, to note the statements by Caso and
Kroeber on the subject.
Caso (1953) statess
When we speak of 'cultural horizons in Mesoamerica', we refer to a
particlar -zone of American culture which extends approximately from
the southern part of Tamaulipas on the east to the Sinaloa River in
western Mexico ....
The southern boundary begins at about the mouth of the Motagua River,
continuous south almost to Sensenti, Honduras, then turns east,
following the present border of El Salvador and Honduras to the big
bend of the Lempa River, and follows this stream to the Pacific
Ocean.
Kroeber (1939) is essentially in accord with this southern boundary.
In the north he has spot-checked the archaeology to determine where
Mesoamerican diagnostics like pyramid mounds and masonry construction, as
well as the pottery and linguistic affiliations characteristic of the area,
fade out.  In the west, basing himself on the earlier work by Sauer and
Brand at Aztatlan and by Kelly at Chametla in Sinaloa, Kroeber finds that
pyramid mounds extend no farther north than northern Nayarit, while low
earth mounds are reported from Sinaloa and Sonorao He suggests that the
northern frontier of Mesoamerica should be traced approximately through
northern Nayarit.  Across the Sierra M adre, on the Central Mexican Plateau,
the northern limit of pyramid mounds extends into Durango.  But, for a
number of reasons, Kroeber puts Durango in a doubtful category, including
only the Zacatecas comnplex in the sphere of Mexican high culture.  This
agrees wiith Spindents early Wnorthwest frontier".  In the state of
Veracruz, Kroeber carries the northern boundary to its eastern terminus
betwreen the Mlaya-speaking Huastecs and the wbarbarous tribes beyond the
Pinuco". Kirchhoffts (1943) boundaries agree very closely with those of
Kroeber and so will not be reviewed hereo
In this quick North-South frontier survey, we have in a sense
assumed propositions which have not yet been demonstratedo Therefore, I
will now give some attention to the character of the hypothetical culture
area whose "limits" have been referred too  Kirchhoff (1943) has published
a painstaking culture element distribution study in which he has plotted
the occurrence of traits from the southeastern United States to the Central
Aides'. In this study he distinguishes among exclusively Mesoamerican
traits  traits shared with other culture areas, and traits present in
other culture areas but not in Mesoamericao  The list of specifically
Mesoamerican traits is quite long, and it does include a few items like
the rubber ball game which are only "essentially Mesoamerican in nature";
but I will quote it here to establish the range of possibilitieso  A
12
comparative trait list for Mesoamerica and other areas is given in Table 2
at the end of this paper.
A certaln type of digging stick (coa);
The construction of gardens by reclaimin,g land from lakes (chinampas);
The cultivation of lime-leaved sage (chia) and its use for a beverage
and for oil to give luster to paints;
The cultivation of the century plant (maguey) for its juice (agua
miel), fiber for clothing and paper, and maguey beer (pulque);
The cultivation of cacao;
The grinding of corn softened with ashes or lime.
Clay bullets for blow-guns;
Lip plugs and other trinkets of clay;
The polishing of obsidian;
Pyrite mirrors;
Copper tubes to drill stones;
The use of rabbit hairs to adorn textiles;
Wooden swords writh flint or obsidian chips along their edges (macuahkiil);
Corselets padded with cotton (ichcahuipilli);
Shields with two hand-grips.
Turbans;
Sandals with heels;
One-piece suits for warriors.
Step pyramids;
Stucco floors;
Ball courts with rings.
Hieroglyphic writing;
Signs for num.erals and relative value of these according to position;
Books folded screen style;
Historical annals and maps.
Year of 18 months of 20 days, plus 5 additional days;
Combination of 20 signs and 13 numerals to form a period of 260 days;
Combination of the two previous periods to form a cycle of 52 years;
Festivals at the end of certain periods;
Good a'nd bad omen days;
Persons named according to the day of their birth.
Ritual use of paper and rubber;
Sacrifice of quail;
Certain forms of human sacrifice (burning people alive, dancing dressed
in the skin of the victim);
Certain forms of self-sacrifice (exctraction of blood from one's tongue,
ears, legs, sexual organs);
The flying game or ritual (juego del volador);
13 as a ritual number;
A series of divinities; Tlaloc, for exampl-e;
13
Concept of several other worlds and of a difficult journey to them;
Drinking the water in which a deceased relative has been bathedo
Specialized markets or markets subdivided according to specialties;
Mlerchants who are at the same time spies;
Military orders (eagle knights and tiger knights);
Wars for the purpose of pecuring sacrificial victims.
'When Caso described the limits of the Mesoamerican culture area, he
noted- that "This delimitation for Mesoamerica is valid only from the 16th
century"o (1953:226)o Now the same kind of problem, from the point of
view of this paper, confronts us in the matter of culture traits. While
Kirchhoff's list is very useful in giving substance to the general im-
pression that we are dealing with an areal configuration of marked in-
tegrity which is quite distinct from adjacent configurations, it does not
yet give us a neat conformance to the requirements laid down by Bennett.
The list is really a grand average in space and in time. As a list, it
fails to describe the specific contexts for these characteristic traits.
'While by no means disregarding the importance of Kirchhoff's list, we still
must present the evidence with more direct relevance to the problems of
this paper. This means that we are going to have to refer to the archae-
ologyo Two things can be determined by means of the archaeological
evidence:  (1) The culture elements which show sufficient persistence to
be reckoned as true markers of a culture area with time depth will be
singled out. (2) The distribution of characteristilc assemblages with
time depth can be used to establish the outer limits of the area within
which we assert a&co-traditiono
Various authorities have described the development of Mesoamerican
culture history in terms of somewhat different evolutionary categories.
There are also differences in the placement of particular archaeological
assemblages on one side or the other of the various stage divisions.  But
regardless of the differences in detail, there seems to be a general con-
sensus pm-the broad course of Mesoamerican culture history.  Radiocarbon
dating has established a date of approximately 1500 BoCo for the early
horizon of Zacatenco in the Valley of Mexicoo This we shall use as the
provisional base-line for the reckoning of a sedentary maize agricultural
tradition in Mesoamerica, Prior to remains characteristic of settled ag-
-ricultural villages, only a few scatteredifinds allow us a glimpse' of the
long antevedent period of early hunters and proto-agriculturalists.  These
finds are cited and commented upon by Armillas (1948); Caso (1953), and
'Willey and Phillips (1955)0
From Early Zacatenco on, the archaeological record contains an in-
finitely fuller and more coherent expression of the historical continuumo
Sedentary village life based on maize cultivation produces a food surplus
adequate to support a growing population, greater density of settlement,
and increasing specialization of human endeavoro Villages develop into
urban centers. Ceremonialism becomes an important theme in Mesoamerican
life, expressed in great monuments and in powerful art styleso Linked
4
with ceremonialism are learned developments in astronomy, the calendar,
mathematics, and writing. Trade becomes institutionalized and the exchange
of products and ideas involves the entire area.  There is a long period
during which these themes are elaborated, and in outstanding cases, fan-
tastically embellished. Then follows a series of oscillations for which
the archaeological record indicates temporary hegemonies, the breakdown
of top-heavy cultural structures in certain areas, and possibly consider-
able movement of peoples.
Different students have variously interpreted this continuum. It is
pertinent to consider these differences in interpretation, Coe's discussion
of the Formative, also published in this journal, represents a refinement
of the prevalent Formative-Classic-Post Classic stage sequence, distinguish-
ing an early Formative stage of village agricultural, pottery-making
societies from a late Formative stage (Proto-Classic) in which the funda-
mental materials for Classic elaboration - writing,ucalendar, monumental
architecture,etce - were developed. A similar hypothesis is presented by
Caso (1953) who distinguishes a two-stage pre-Classic following primitive
agriculture and potteryo These stages,which coincide With Armillas' (19148)
Formative, Caso calls "Archaic" and "Formative". The agreement on a unit-
ary Classic stage (Armillas' "Florescent") is quite general. What some
have called the Post-Classic and others the Militaristic is, however, di-
vided by Caso into a "Toltec" and a "Historical" or pre-Conquest stage.
It is clear that the various proposals to organize Mesoamerican history
represent the imposition of different perspectives on more or less the
s.ame-datao  Some of these divisions are true developmental stages, others
re really time periods.  But, whatever the bias of the various schemes,
the important point for present purposes is the fact that Mesoamerican cul-
tui  history sho-ws a progression of distinctive configurations through time
from any:point of view,  It. is this fact which allows us to seek time-
depth diagnostics for the Mesoamerican culture area as a whole,
The approach here used is that these diagnostics are better described
as having depth in time if we can show their persistence through at least
to phases of this "progression of configurations" than if we argue, say,
that such and such a trait lasted so many years.  I prefer the three-stage
organizational scheme because it seems to me to tie-t'lLso-called Proto-
Classic manifestations to their logical antecedents in the evolution of
a surplus-producing agricultural economy. In contrast, an unconscious
teleology is involved in classifying these developments according to their
affinity to the subsequent Classic florescenceo I will use the Formative-
Classic-Post-Classic scheme here in order to avoid any tendency to employ
effects in explaining causes.
Our attention is focused on the earliest of the developmental stages
because the obvious items involved need only to be established as "early".
The selection is made from Armillas (1948), Wauchope (1950), Caso (1953),
and MacNeish (1954).
Maize cultivation and sedentary settlement can be observed at the very
outset of the Formative. Pottery is already being made,as are other clay
15
items including griddles (comales), hand-modeled figurines and earplugso
Obsidian stonework also appears early in the Formative. Weaving is in-
dicated, but there is a wyestion whether the earliest material utilized
was maguey fiber or cotton* There are traces of jade and turquoise, but
these are hardly diagnostic for the early Formativeo Somewhere in the
latter part of the initial stage of development, according to Armillas,
technics of intensive agriculture develop. This cannot be considered
as demonstrated for the Formative, although chinampas are characteristic
of the Valley of Mexico later ono  If,-however, such a development were
ultimately to be established for this nascent period of Mesoamerican
high civilization, it would give us a logical antecedent for the rise
of monumental architecture, impOsing ceremonial or urban centers, writing
and the calendar, and dated monumentso The evidence for mound architec-
ture consists of isolated mounds during MacNeish's "Temple Formative"
and mound groups around plazas during the "Proto-Classic"o  The exist-
ence of the calendar and dated monuments, however, can only be in-
ferred:
We must also believe that the remarkable hieroglyphic and calen-
drical systems of the Maya were evolved during the Archaic, for
when the oldest dated stelae were erected at the beginning of the
Classic Period, those systems were in full working ordro,...Caso
has recently brought forth weighty arguments tending to shaw that
bar-and-dot numeration.o.omay have been originated in Oaxaca,..e
and if the very early date on the famous stela of Tres Zapotes,
in Vera Cruz, has been correctly read and if it recorded a con-
temporaneous event, one might have to look to the southern coast
of the Gulf of Mexico for the place of originoo.. (Kidder, 1950).
I would say-that the following traits are old enough and,as com-
Parison with KiLrchhoff Is list will show., endure long enough to constit-
ute a verifiable, distinctive patterns maize agriculture, village and
later more intensive settlement, a ceramic complex including pottery of
characteristic and widespread forms, griddles, figurines (hand-modeled
and later molded), and earplugs; obsidian, jade and turquoise worked in
a varie'ty of forms and ultimately with pre-eminent skill; pyramid mounds,
writing, the calendar, position numeration and the concept of zero, and
dated monuments. Most of these first appear in the late part of the
Formative, when the ultimate features of Mesoamerican culture were being
defined. -Others, which may be somewhat later, nevertheless should be in-
cliuded-because they persisted through a long development.  While hiero-
glyphic writing alone 'Would distinguish Mesoamerica sharply from all
other areas in the New World, I prefer to look to the combination of
traits rather than to any single element to define this culture area
diachronicallyo
Spme investigations along the margins of the high culture hearth
should help us fix a relatively firm boundary for the persistent civil-
ization in Mesoamerica.  The districts to be surveyed are:  (1) the
western part of Mexico north of Oaxaca, (2) a northern arc from Sonora
in the west to the Veracruz-Tamaulipas border on the east9 which dips
16
south on the central plateau through lower Durango and Zacatecas and
northward over the eastern Sierras to the Palhuco; and (3) the southeastern
peripheries of the Guatemala highlands and Honduraso
,West Mexicol
By now, considerable work has been done in west Mexico, even though
it does not begin to account for the whole area. Kelly, Armillas, Sauer
and Brand, Noguera, Porter, Ekholm and Borbolla have worked in west and
norithwest Mexico and have turned up highly suggestive materialo  However,
Very little synthesis has been attempted beyond setting up such capacious
generai zations as "the Tarascan arealt which in its -widest extent includes
Michoacdnj, parts of Guanajuato, Zacatecas, Jalisco, Colima and Nayarit.
It can hardly be doubted that at least part of this area, especially
inland Michoacah and some of its environs, presents a distinctive con-
fiFuration.  The peculiar architecture of the stone tombs (El Openo) and
yacata. (Tzintzuntzan) and above all the prolific and brilliantly elabor-
ated figuirine industry form an abstract pattern whose meaning will be
fIJl-y clarified only by more excavations.  This- is an area I wish' to KIiew
inj:reater detail than will be necessary for the provinces to the north
or northest.
It goes alqst without saying that the occurrence in this area and in
the Valley of Mexco of numerous ceramic horizon markers (pottery and
figurine types) points to western Mexico as an area of research which
should produce important understandings about Mesoamerican culture history.
I have subdievided the presentation into three parts: a) Guerrero, b) the
hazily defined "Tarascan area", and c) western Mexico up to lower Sonobra.
GUerrero:  Three districts have been explored:   the Middle Balsas
reon, Costa Grande,and the Guerrero coast.    In the Middle Balsas, the
archaeology suggests a cultural sequence from the Late Formative through
Classic and post-Classic levels which can presumably be aligned with the
chronology of the Valley of Mexico by horizon diagnostics.  The archaeology
reveals a complex mound-plapa-platform development.  Construction features
are stucco and plaster floors and walls. There are ball courts with rings,
stone^house foundations, architectural stone sculpture (tenoned heads),
and saculpture in the round.  The array of technology includes' chipped stone
(rare), axes and other copper tools, legless metates and bark beaters.
C6ramics include pottery and figurines, both "local" and "imported".  The
localFpottery consists principally of relatively simple, incised ware
*ithout supports and "formative-like" figurines.  Apparently alien are
painted wares with swollen leg supports and figurines resembling those of
TeotihuacAn Since the exact sequence of this complex is not available
to me,I find it hard to know how to interpret the material; whether as a
long-lived late Formative or as an expression of some kind of evolutionary
development.  Certainly there does not seem to be enough material in this
complex to enable us to define a succession of Formative-Classic-post-
Classic stages.
17
The ceramic sequence in the Costa Grande district resembles that of
the Middle Balsas, and here too there is a ceremonial center of some size.
The mounds are characterized by adobe and stone fill.  An Olmecoid figurine
was found here.  On the Guerrero coast, two sites yeld "formative" ceramic
traits which later give way to Teotihuacaln-like pottery0 But these coastal
sites do not relate clearly to the inland complexes described above, nor
does their real developmental depth parallel the succession of pottery
styles.
Michoacan and adjacent regions: Some generalizations about the region
are in order.  Te ySia mound structure is peculiar to central Michoaca'no
When viewed from the air, the structure resembles a kind of "TW whose cross-
bar is a rectangular mound, and whose stem is short and bulbous at the endo
All sides rise steeply in large steps. The interior is coarse rubble, with
an intermediate retaining surface of broken rock and an exterior surface
of stone slabs. The archaeology of Michoacgn is also characterized by a
florescent expression of clay modeling. There are many human and animal
forms, both true effigies and elfigy vessels. The modeling is realistic
and expert; the human figures are presented in various activities and their
dress is portrayed in rich detail.  The pottery vessels of the area gener-
ally feature simple bowls, bowls with tripod and annular supports, large
Jars and some stirrup spout vesselso  Painted decoration (red-on-buff,
red-on-brownn,etc,) ocurs amid a strong accent on monoehrome as does some
polychrome and al fresco pottexr. Relationships with other areas are
specific with respect to items recognizably from other localities,but
vague in the sense of not supporting anry 'notions about historic relation-
ships. Cross-ties are clearest with the Valley of Mexico, and apparently
least specific with Oaxaca. Relationships with adjacent regions may be
recognized in certain items shared with Guerrero to the south and N'atarit-
Colima-Sinaloa to the northo
El Openo: Here are found stone tombs built into the ground; as seen
from above,these show a T-shape., the stem representing a passageway.
They often hold multiple burials. There are figurines with punched
fillet collars, others like Vaillant's "C" and ID" types at Zacatenco,
and still others-of greenstone with Olmecoid mouthso Other artifacts
include pottery effigy whistles, jade ear spools, barbed and stemmed
triangular projectile points of refinted workmanship, composite sil-
houette jars, some negative painting, and a zoomorphic bowl with four
tall hollow legs. Noguera equates El Openo chronologically with the
Valley of Mexico Formative and regards it as a relatively advanced
complex which may have influenced the latter.
Tzintzuhtzan: The yecatas found at this site were described above.
The stirrup spout jars occur here too. INegative painting is common,
as are footed vessels and polished black ware. Other elements of
the Tzintzuntzan complex include stone sculpture, with human and
coyote figures; obsidian and rock orystal ornaments (jade is scarce);
the use of copper, silver and gold and the techniques of gilding and
lost-wax casting; pipes; and the chac-mool concept. A sequence
suggested for this site correlates it with Teotihuaca'n or Proto-
Classic, with the very late Classic (Coyotlatelco9, Mazapan)9 and
318
With Aztec tixioeso Al fresco and negative painting, rudimentary stone
tombs, and store carvings with Teotihuacan and El Openo-Olmecoid
affinity characterizes the first period0 A little metal comes in
during the next period, which also marks the beginning of mound-
building. The full-blown complex described above characterizes the
Post-Classic or Aztec horizon.
ChupAcuaro: This station is of some interest to us because of its
position on the Lerma River in southeast Guanajuato, at once marginal
to Michoacan and related to itg and occupying an "inside" position
between the Tarascan sites proper and the Valley of Mexico.  There
are no big architectural structures here, but; considerable refuse
suggests the occupancy of a sizeable communityo There is a large
cemetery where simple, extended interment is the general rule.
Howver, single sklll burials are found, and some of these are cut,
suggesting "trophies" or perhaps some sort of purposeful stylized
treatment. The abundant grave offerings include pottery, musical
instruments and jewelry.  The grave complex exhibits an interesting
feature in the form of clay-lined fire-boxes placed near the burials.
Later these fire boxes are set more formally in the midst of a burial
group.  Slant-eyed figurines (Vaillant's N-, "intrusi've in the Valley
of Mexico") appear to cross-date the early phase at Chuplcuaro with
late Ticoman and Cuicuilco-Teotihuacan I. The pottery here is
characterized by an absence of al fresco or negative painting at any
time. -M6nochrome black ware occurs in the form of shouldered vessels,
tripod, pedestal and ring stand bases and effigies. This ware is
sometimes incised.  Red-on-buff and other painted wares, including
polychrome, occur in the early phase at ChupicuaroO
In late times, perhaps coeval with Teotihuacan II, figurines with
classic style headdress (H-5) and fragments of burned adobe walls
and floors appear. This phase grows out of its predecessor. There
are some shifts in ceramic emphasis and more wares recognizabe-
elsewhere are found. However, there seems to be no great change in
the basic life patterno
Western Mexico from Michoac&n to Sonora:  Little purpose would be
served by presenting the kind of detailed account of the archaeology of
this area that was given for the region to the southo  Individual phases
are tdefined in Colima, Jalisco, Nayarit, Sinaloa,and Sonora,which show
specific pottery relationships both with adjacent areas and with Mexican
high culture centers. Although there are suggestive items at Chumbicuaro,
Delieias, Apatzingan,and Aztatldn, and mound structures have been noted
here and there, the kind of information required to include this area
within Mesoamerica proper is not evident in the material I have canvassed.
By the time one reaches Sinaloa, evidence of stone architecture and cere-
monial centers is lacking, and only vessels with leg supports, certain
peculiar design elements, obsidian flake blades and spindle whorls repre-
sent, according to Ekholm, the surviving nexus of "Mexican" traitso
cL9
Northern Frontier of Central Plateau
Very little material is available from this area9 except for infor-
mation on two outliers of Mesoamerican culture in Zacatecas and another
more dubious site in Durango. At La Quemada in Zacatecas there is a hill-
top fortress which bears some resemblance to the ydeatas described above,
Among the truncated pyramids there is an aberrant type which looks as if it
continued to a point. Construction may be broadlj described as rubble, or
more precisely as slightly worked flat rocks, well fitted together. A
feature distinctive of La Quemada is a group of round column8 of similar
construction9 found inside one room. At Chalchihuites the ruins, although
less imposing, are similar to those at La Qiiemada, At both sites is
found a sort of cloisonne ware, as well as pottery with thick paint-
filled incisions and red-on-buff ware. In Durango, the site of Zape
marks the northern limit of distribution for Mesoamerican pottery traits.
An earth-masonry pyramid and room clusters have been found there, Beyond
Zape there is a 100-mile hiatus before Southwest influence is encountered
in the Chihuahua culture, Like the evidence from the northern area of West
Mexico, the archaeology of the Central Plateau gives the impression of late
date and sporadic occupancy, rather than indigenous development through two
or more stages of complexity.
Northeast Mexico
As we cross the eastern Sierra, the P&nuco River dividing Veracruz
from Tamaulipas appears also to separate the northernmost extension of
Mesoamerican civilization (Huasteca) from what Kroeber called "the
barbarous tribes across the river"o  MacNeish, who has developed a more
coherent picture of the archaeology of Tamaulipas than had previously
been available, has worked also to the south, where he has extended
Elcholm's Huasteca sequences backward in time (MacNeish, 1954; Ekholm,
1944). Archaeology on either side of the Pgnuco River has in no way
contradicted Kroebergs statement that here Mesoamerican civilization
came to a halt,
The Southern Limits
In the Comayagua Valley of Spanish Honduras, Canby (1951) describes
a long sequence at Yarumela which yields a succession said to extend from
a very early Formative horizon to the Classic, Pottery, which-is well
made and well finished, but simple and lacking in appendages such as
handles, feet and spouts occurs in the earliest level. The ware becomes
more distinctive in the second level and a lone solid figurine head9
identified as "Playa de los Muertos or Lenca", occurs, Mound building
begins in the third phase, which also marks the appearance of Usulutgn
ware with nipple tetrapod feet, This phase is considered coeval with mat-
erials recovered from under the ash layer at Cerro Zapote in eastern
Salvador, with the Copan Archaic and, in part, with Early Chukumuk and
Miraflores, mostly on the basis of "identical shapes and treatment of the
Usulutan ware". The "Classic" phase yields Ulua-Yojoa polychrome and
"the idea of a highland sphere typified by 'bold animistic' and lowland
sphere typified by 'bold geometric' is adequately supported here."
One is tempted to draw the southern Mesoamerican boundary as a line
running north from the mouth of the R!ro Negro at the Gulf of Fonseca on
the Pacific coast of Honduras passing through Tegucigalpa and reaching
the north coast of Honduras somewhere east of the mouth of the Ulua
River. This would envelop within the Mesoamerican culture area almost
all of the sequences for which any reasonable argument could be made.
Reports like those of Canby (1951), Shook (1951) and Thompson (1943),
however, define stages by cross-tying pottery and art styles, so that
it is difficult to grasp the character of these "cultures" at different
places. It has not been possible, in the kind of overall effort demanded
by this paper, to employ basic site reports for the kind of information
needed. Most summaries slight general cultural data, especially on the
Formative stage level, .in favor of pottery horizons. Thus, the proposal
I am about to make is based " on the assumption that the kind of impressive
cultural endeavor manifested at sites such as Kaminaljuyu and Cop6n would
not have been overlooked even in summaries despite the characteristic emphasis
on pottery and art styles which features the archaeological accounts from
this region. With the understanding that much less work has been done on the
peripheries of these southern regional centers than has been done in the
heartland of the Southern and Northern Maya, and acknowledging the sometimes
amazing discoveries at places like El Bail), I would agree to a southern boun-
dary of the Mesoamerican climax which is drawn along the edge of the Guate-
mala highlands and terminates on the east in the vicinity of the Rio Ulua,
rather than embracing a collection of sites whose cultural-developmental
reference is indistinct. This boundary is amenable to correction on the
basis of the requirements which have been more or less evident in the review
thus faro
I propose now to summarize the principles involved in drawing the
boundaries of a Mesoamerican culture area with time depth and state the
line this delimitation will take, both on the north and on the south.
1. The mapping of the Mesoamerican culture area attempted here
recognizes that important sites, indeed important regions,
will for the time being remain outside the projected area,
2. The reason for this is the insistence, which I believe to be
methodologically useful, on a criterion of developmenta. rather
than merely chronological time depth, for the included regions-
3. It is more useful, in my opinion9 to leave out areas whose
cultural-developmental profiles can be worked out only by
more archaeology and more pertinent synthesis, rather than
to assume their involvement in the climactic traditions0
When regions are included in a climax area, their special
qualities, and lack of other qualities9 tend to be obscured
because their distinctive configurations are immediately
averaged out with the complex of all other included regions,
It is better to leave questionable regions out, then, and let
the argument develop for, rather than against, inclusion0
21
4. It is obvious from the above that the proposed boundary is not
to be regarded as "permanent"o On the other hand, it should be
treated at any one time as if it -were historical rather than
methodological. Adherence to the arbitrary character of the
outline will develop the contradictions we seek and will clarify
more historical details than could be explained through the use
of a more flexible boundary.
On this basis, the following boundary for the Mesoamerican culture
area with time depth is indicated (see Map 1):
In the west: Guerrero and the Michoacgn "Tarascan" areas cannot be
lumped together, it seems to me, if only because of the striking difference;
in architecture.  The case for an indigenous developmental sequence has not
been made for Guerrero, and I therefore exclude this region from the culture
areao The inclusion of Michoacan is also doubtful, although this region is
by no meanas lacking in a native cultural tradition as Guerrero seems to beo
The elaborate figurine-stone grave-yacata complex appears to give Michoacin
a character of its owno  I suggest including Michoacan, rwith the exception
of the complex manifested at Chupfcuaro. Its marginality to the "Tarascan
area" is emphasized by the different burial complexes.  With Michoacan,
both the western extension and the northwestern limits seem to be fixedo
None of the m"aterial developed north of Michoacgn along the coast speaks
for regional integrity and developmental time depth.
The north: On the central plateau, the Zacatecas and Durango sections
refe'rred to above are in an area which today is inhospitable to native
agriculture.  There may have been oscillation in this respect over the
time period with which we are concernedo  Nevertheless, neither the ar-
chaeolbgical nor the ecological data encourages the notion of a long
occupancy or of a regional culture of integrity.  Michoaczn-like archi-
tectural features suggest a period of migration or colonization which,
compared to the longevity of the culture area as a whole, was probably
brief.  For these reasons I would not include the extensions into
Zacatecas and Durangoo
The northeast: This is the most clearly marked frontier, especially
wth MacNeish's extension of the time depth for the Huasteca area (19541
so that there seems to be no reason to cavil at drawing the line at the
P53nuco,
Here then is the boundary:  In the north, it starts at Tampico on
the Veracruz coast, runs along the Pcnuco River for a short distance,
forms a line along the western boundary of Veracruz to the northern bor-
der of Hidalgo, from where it follows along the state line of Hidalgo
and Mhxico and Michoacan to- the western edge of the plateau. Then the
border runs south afid southast -with the plateau through Michoaccn,
turning south again to the sea along the western border of Oaxacao  In
the south, as indicated above, the border follows the arc of the Guatemala
highlands, turting at the Rfo Ulua and terminating at the mouth of this
river.
22
n.   Zq c
ZC,1    &,
Q%Is
46.
0
t a'
P3  1 3
if?
O/    -
0 ra
J v,
O'   %
ol   PD&&TL,
a
1>
t
(111*1
)OP
4,
3
.4
>     n
o~~
e   -        i
*1
-4    I    a--
'   ,
3 "am, 0  i~~~~
A4
'I
I
a
S
I
I
I
I
m      O
O,     C
a
o3     (
m v
C-
z      rr
-4
w o
;m    4f
0      p
I     U)
U4
'4
. #
Regions of the Co-tradition
The Mesoamerican culture area includes:  (1) The Mexican states of
Veracruz, Hidalgo, Puebla, Tlaxcala, Mexico, Morelos, Michoacin (on the
central plateau), Oaxaca, Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatan and
Qfiintana Roo; and (2) British Honduras, Highland Guatemala and an ad-
jacent strip of Spanish Honduras.  The area likewise takes in Meso-
american culture of unequivocal time-depth. I will deal now with the
geQgraphic subdivisions to which ancient co-traditions may be assigned.
Idea'lly, each internal region should be treated as a small culture
area and its borders established by the same procedure used to fix those
of the major culture area. But in Mesoamerica, as in Peru (see Bennett,
1948), the archaeology is not sufficiently refined to allow us to do this.
We must examine regional sequences and, if they give evidence of relative
climax or of intensity through time, assign the cultural characteristics
of the sites to the surrounding geographic regions which then are said to
be sub-culture areas with time depth,
This methodology is already suggested by charts (Fig. 1) such as
those of Coe and Lathrap (in the previous issue of this journal), Armillas
(1948) and Ekholm (ms. 1955) and, in Holden's grouping of Post-Classic archae-
ology and ethnohistory by geographic regions in her paper in the previous
isSue. The charts presented in Fig, 1, however, do not presume to portray
continuous units. Note that some columns have geographic headings ("Valley
of Mexico", "Oaxaca" or "Guatemala Highlands"), while others are named after
a site C "Kaminaljuyi"),  Now unquestionably all of these are considered by
their authors to have some areal significance beyond the confines of the ex-
cavated sites, even beyond the areal spread from which the sequence was derived.
However, the parallel columns of the charts suggest that we are dealing with
areal sub-cultures which (1) abut on one another, and (2) together preempt the
entire culture area. While the various authors may believe that such a
construct could be produced, they are not   in the presentations referred
to - particularly interested in such precise outlines.  On the other hand,
the chart reproduced in this paper does constitute an attempt to divide
Mesoamerica into a series of contiguous sub-areas.  Its parallel columns
are an appropriate means for suggesting such an arrangement, in contrast
to the free-standing and not necessarily rectangular columns that would
more accurately represent the others, The distinction between mine and
the other papers is one of problem and of corresponding point of view.
The papers of Coe and Lathrap and Holden are oriented toward reconstruct-
ing Mesoamerican culture history during particular stages; this paper is
concerned with methodology and proposes rigid boundaries, not because they
are "true"or "accurate", but because their arbitrary character and the
arbitrary assumptions on which they are based provide an analytic tool
whereby some problems of history stand out in relief. This said, one
may usefully survey the comparative chart (Fig. 1) to see how proposed
co-tradition units correspond to the regional sequences of the authors
referred to above,
It will be noted that the following constituents of the Mesoamerican
Area Co-tradition are proposed:
23
1  The Mesoamerican Highlands: a) The Western Plateau (defined
earlier and therefore omitted from the sequences to be summar-
ized belw); b) the Valley of Mexico and all of the plateau
south of the northern frontier of Mesoamerica, with the exception
of the Michoacin area and Puebla, which will be referred to as
the Valley of Mexico and vicinity; Puebla, Oaxaca; Chiapas;,
Highland Guatemala.
2.  The Mesoamerican Lowlands: Central Lowlands; Yucatan Peninsula;
EWthern Veracruz-Tabasco; Central Veracruz; Northern Veracruz.
The Valley of Mexico and Vicinity2
The peoples of the north-central part of the Mesoamerican culture area
passed through a development from sniall, scattered village farming (Early
Zacatenco) to an elaborate socio-cultural organization replete with auto-
cratic government, a stratified society, a variety of occupational and local
groupings, organized warfare, spreading hegemonies and refined systems of
tribute and taxationo  Underlying the intricate social structure was a com-
petent subsistence technology based on intensive agriculture, and knowledge
and skills which went beyond the crafts to writing, mathematics and a com-
plex calendrical-astronomical system. The Valley of Mexico represents only
one of eleven regional cultures proposed in this paper. But its character
and history constitute one of the two best-described sub-patterns in
Mesoameritan high civilizationo An account of the cultural developments
in the Valley of Mexico will be given at some length in order to provide
a reference base for the other sequences. A description of this region is
also useful. as a pillar of the proposed Mesoamerican co-traditiono
The earliest known agricultural settlements in the Valley of Mexico
are represented by several sites typified by the earliest phase at
Zacatenco (ca  1500 B.C. by radiocarbon dating).  The first pattern en-
countered is of a maize-growing society in which hunting and collecting
presumably Still play;  a fairly large part.  Pottery and weaving, perhaps
with cotton, are already practicedo The pottery vessels are simple con-
tainers (ollas and basal angle bowls), mostly monochrome (a darlkish red
bay ware) with rather rudimentary decoration,  A characteristic feature
alreadlt in evidence is the hand-modeled clay figurine, and, to a lesser
extent, a complex of small objects such as clay whistles and rattleso  Ear
plugs are shown on the figurines. The stone work includes obsidian blades
struck from prismatic cores and "laurel leaf" projectile points; as well as
a footed, troughed metate. A few jade and turquoise pieces are foundo
We know nothing about the character of the housing at this timeo Burials
are casual and are carried out in diverse ways.
Early Zacatenco, encountered in deep refuse deposits, is considered
to have been a long occupationo In the succeeding phases, the ramification
of pottery vessel shapes and decoration is evident while the utility ware
persists with small modificationo An added emphas$s on ornament occurs,
along with an increase in jade, which was used for pendants, beads, and
24
small celts.  Along with a general proliferation of' figurines and the de-
velopment of new types, the figurine complex is "invaded",by Olmee forms
(Tlatilco)o This represents the first suggestion of outside influences,
aside from some possible early trade contact with the west,
The strong impression of increased cultural development at Ticoman
is provfided by the advent of still other figurine types, the occurrence
of footed vessei forms and polychrome decoration, and the appearance of
flared, hollow-core ear plugs and pottery stamps and seals.  There is
some indication here of a more elaborate ceremonialsmi, although this in-
ferenee is based entirely on portable objects0  Sporadic traces of house
foundations, along with considerable adobe in the deposits, give us solid
evidence for some architectureo
The culture of the Valley of Mexico now seems to increase specta&-
ularly in complexity, chiefly in connection with a burgeoning ceremonial-
ism. South of Mexico City is the circular terraced mound at Cuicuilco,
To the north of the modern capital, in the initial phase of Teotihuacan
the Pyramid of the Sun and that of the Moon were erected,  Other mounds
were built in Morelos and Puebla during this period.  The entr of in-
terest is specifically Teotihuacan and its environs' Here develops a
whole complex of public architecture, both ceremonial (Templa of
Quetzalcoatl) and habitable (the sprawling "apartment house" multiple
dwellings), While the pyramids and temples are the core of the develop-
ment, their setting becomes a kind of urban community. Epic frescoes
occur on some of the bild ings.,
The accompanying ceramic complex, characteristic of Teotihuacan's
third phase  consists of the slab-footed Cylinder tripod vessel, the
florero, the candelero and the paint-on-stucco technique which Lathrap
has referred to,in the previous issue as the X-T traits, along with
the Thin Orange ware of foreign provenience* The major buildings are
of adobe with brick veneer, while the apartment houses are constructed
of rubble masony finished with plaster. Figurines continue, but the
trend toward stylization which has long been evident culminates in the
technique of mold-manufacture., Sculpture seems to play a minor role at
Teotihuacan, aside from the stone "masks",
Along with the ceremonialism-urbanism architectural motif which be-
speaks a major shift away from village life to a more highly organized
and; regulated society, the Teotihuacgn period was characterized by the
rise of ceremonial centers of the same kind, if not on the same scale,
at other points in the Valley of Mexico and vielnity; and by extensive
relations with distant as well as nearby sections of Mesoamerica-.r+
Linne describes in detail a variety of alien wares at Teotihuac6
ranging from West Mexico to the Peten,  At the same time., he calls
attention to a theme which Lathrap has brought out in his paper in the
Previous iss    namely the widespread dispersal of X-T traits throuh
out much -of Mesoamerica, Contemporay archaeologlcal opinion seems to
agree that this "diffusion" was perpetrated by a militant Valley of
Mexico People who introduced their culture to Oaxaca, Highland Guatemala
25
and other regions by the convincing device of actual conquesto  In this
light, the imports at Teotihuacan might be exotic products introduced
into their homeland by the increasingly cosmopolitan Mexicans.
Once Teotihuacdn proper closes down - and the meaning of this is
still unclear - something of the tradition survives at Azcapotzalco and,
possibly, Xochimilcoo A new ceramic tradition, Coyotlatelco, is enoounter-
ed at Teotihuacdn and Azcapotzalco and above floor at Tetitla and Atetelco
near Teotihuacdno Its historic significance is far from clear. Armillas
(personal communication) has suggested that this ware may be an extension
of-the orange ware found throughout the Teottdhuacdn phaseo The ceramics
include geometric red-on-white pottery and mold-made figurines with ex-
uberant headdreases and detachable arms and legs.  It appears to be a long-
lived tradition, for it underlies Mazapan occupations at Tetitla and Ateteico
and also occurs along with Plumbate in the pre-Mazapan levels at Tula, wthose
establishment may date from a period 100 to 300 years after the close of
Teotihuac4n III.  At Tula there follows a new ceramic interval, after which
this site attains its peak with the Mazapan occupationo  This occupation
appearS to indicate the origin of the Toltec culture which, among other
things, left an indelible mark on the culture of the Yucatan Mayao  The
Toltec phase at Tula produces a series of characteristic traits. It is
of more interest for our present purposes to note the existence in the
Valley of Mexico of a p'owerful cultural configuration, between
Teotihuacln and the Aztec climax; one which made a strong impression on
subsequent Mesoamerican history.
A surface layer of Aztec II sherds, overlying the ruins of Tula,
speaks of another period of cultural fluctuations in the Valley of Mexicoo
These fluctuations mark the era of local cultures which characterize the
region after Teotihuac5n and which in turn are followed by another power-
ful development of more general significanceo A final interval of local-
ism is concluded by the emergence of Texcoco, Tenochtitl&n and the Aztec
Enpire which wras destroyed tWy the Spaniards. For illustrative purposes,
one might compare the post-Classic period in Mesoamerica with the "declines"
which intervened between regional classic cultures in Peru and the
Tiahuanaco horizon and again between the spread of Tiahuanaco and the
Inca. Unlike the classic Peruvian cultures, however, Teotihuacin influ-
ence overflowed its original regional confines and spread to the far
reaches of the Mesoamerican areao  In contrast to the Andes, Mesoamerica
had two horizons comparable with Tiahuanaco. The ebb and flow of power-
ful and influential blimaxes in the Valley of Mexico demonstrates that,9
developmentally, this particular sub-area did not follow the pattern seen
in Peru or, for that matter, in the Maya sub-area of Mesoamerica,
Puebla: We hear of Puebla early in the record of the Valley of
Mexico, When the Spaniards arrived in Mesoamerica, the giant site of
Cholula was a flourishing metropolis and a manufacturing center for many
importing districts. Its archaeologyr is as cosmopolitan in character as
it is incompletely worked out. Noguera aligns Teotihuacin and "Zapotecan"
strains in the artifacts with the tombs and other excavational levels at
Tehuacdno He postulates an early Zapotec cultural phase of "late Archaic
26L
period" and takes this to mean that Oaxacan culture derived its stiulus
frun a migration of Zapotecan people frcm the north. This migration took
place, Noguera suggests, during the time when the Teotihuacgn culture was
Just emerging in the Valley of Mexico. According to his account of what
happened thereafter, the Oaxacan Zapotec flourished and expanded and later
returned  to Tehuacin, this time froln the south0 Now they felt the impact
of a developed Teotihlacin culture. Noguera does not believe that
Mexicans from Teotihuacdn occupied the Tehuacgn site; their influence on
the local culture represents an acculturation of the resident Zapotec,
The pyramid at Cholula underwent successive reconstructions, The
last three periods equate in time with Aztec I-V and are characterized
primarily by Mixteca-Puebla polychrome pottery0  This is a key area which
cannot yet be fully described, but which played a crucial role in the
culture history of highland Mesoamerica as is generally agreed, by vir-
tue of its position as a bridge between the powerful climaxes in the
Valley of Mexico and those of Oaxaca and the G3uatemala highlands0 It
seems reasonable, therefore, to keep this region separate instead of
combining it with a northern or southern region.  In the first place,
Puebla does Seem to play a characteristic role all1-.ts owno In the
second place, recognizing it aq a distinct region allows us a more
clearcut operational field for the understanding of the widespread Meso-
american diffusions.
Oaxaca: Daxaca, if only because of its cultural precocity, deserves
to stanT5 itself.   The earliest horizon so far described here, which
is probably coeval w'ith Tlatilco in the Valley of Mexico, shows a well-
developed architecture, mural art, and evidence of the "Olmec influence"
observed in the northo  This initial phase,which has been named Monte
Albin I has a long duration and provides numerous cultural cross-ties
with Southern Yeracruz-Tabasco, with the Guatemala highlands and with
Cuicuilco-Ticoman in the Valley of Mexico, although its preponderant
affinities are Mayoid rather than Mexicano  The introduction of writing
and the calendar may perhaps be referred to the earlier part of Monte
Albin r. Evolved structures and the Danzantes murals are features of
the early complex. The Monte Albdn II phasewhich emerged after foreign
cultural influence had begun to diffuse into Oaxaca9 shows specific
affinities with Holmul I in the Maya area. Mexican influence becomes
dominant wth the transition to Monte Alb&n III, and it-seems that the
so-called Teotihuacgn "X-T complex" equates here with the initial part
of Tzakol in the Maya areao  This would make the appearance of the com-
plex in Oaxaca earlier than the arrival of Mexican traits in Guatemalao
The material from Monte Albcn provides an invaluable clue to the direc-
tion of movement, and tends to confirm the view of a cultural flow from
the Valley of Mexico to the south and easto
Already in Monte Albcn II9 vaulted construction appears and early
forms of the diagnostic Zapotecan funerary urns are found. The exuberant
elaboration of these and other features following the impact of Mexican
X-T traits in Monte AlbAn III marks the culmination of this site as a
ceremonial center. From then on, the site is a cemetery whose most
27
recent levels contain '-the 'magnificently furnished' Mixtc gaves. a`''' -The cere'
monial center of' Coiktlahuaca- the graves at" Monte A1b'n tohthe south-in the
Valley of Oakaca, and the-Mixteca-Pu6bla pottery horizons in Puebla emphasize
the overlapping florescences in the culture history of Oaxaca.  Parallels with
the later history of Peru suggest themselves.
Mixtec codices represent one of the important manifestations of writing.
An earlier beginning in Oaxaca gives the writing-calendar complex an apparently
longer span here than in the Peten. This area provides an important part of
the evidence now being collected to show that the origins of the Central Maya
writing and calendar must be sought outside Guatemala, The coincidental oc-
currence of Olmecoid art features and early stelae in several places, but with
a special concentration in the Olmec hearth in Southern Veracruz-Tabasco,
suggests that Oaxaca and the Central Maya area were both recipients of this
complex, possibly from the Olmec,  If this is so, it is rather remarkable that
the Olmec penetration of the Valley of Mexico did not also bring the calendar
and writing to the early time horizon there. Perhaps we are confronted with
cultural configurations of differential receptivity in these several areas.
It is also possible that the Olmec "intrusion" into the Valley of Mexico is
an importation while that into the southern and southeastern area represents
an early migrational stratum,
ChiaDas: This political division is among the least knon provinces of
Mesoamerica, Spotty archaeology suggests that Chiapas should be split according
to its topographical affinities with the coastal plain on the Gulf Coast side,
with the Guatemala Highlands, and with the Pacific Coast of Guatemala, re-
ipectively. This apportionment will perhaps ultimately take place. There is,
indeed, no reason to maintain the integrity of a modern political division for
a Mesoamerican area co-tradition which refers to prehistoric times, Neverthe-
less, the other alternative would be to let the contradictory affinities of
Chiapas receive more clarification before assigning its territory to other
regions. I person'ally tend to favor the second alternative,
Highland Guatemala: The history of the Highland Guatemala region is one
of halcyon days in the early period an  of an ulimate defensive retrenchment
before the Conquest, Here, during the Las Chareas phase, we can recognize
a pre-architectural "village-farming" stages, but Coe has pointed out quite
specifically how rich an early farming culture this iso It is of interest to
note the presence here of "Type A" figurines and, as a feature peculiar to
this region and time horizon, the mushroom-zshaped sculptures,
The archaeology shows a nice cultural development in terms of cross-ties
with sequences such as Usulutan and Wnubbin-footedf veossels in Providencia and
the beginnings of mound construction elsewhere, These features grow in impor-
tance during the subsequent Miraflores phase, suggesting a progression of
considerable refinement compared with the "Chicanel" interpolation between Mamom
and the initiation of architeqtural construction at Uaxactun. At any rate,
Miraflores is the most florescent mound building period in the whole Kaminalju-
yu sequence and echoes of its characteristic features (which include the con-
struction of log tombs, stone vessels, a variety of pottery wares, and many mush-
room stones) sound through the Guatemala highlands and along the Pacific
28
alopes of Guatemala and Chiapas. The basic affinities of the Guatemalan
Highlands during this time appear to be with El Salvador.
The following Santa Clara phase is a kind retrenchment. The Southern
highlands have, during the period just described, remained isolated from the
Valley of Mexico. But now (Esperanza) there comes a thorough penetration of
the OX-T complex" and a Mexicanization of Highland Guatemala culture.  The
general feeling among archaeologists is that an invasion took place, although
the local peoples were not extirpated, Regional tradition in the utility
wares continues, although the showy objects and architecture are Mexican of
Teotihuacdn pattern. The period marked by magnificently furnished tombs is
coeval with the era of Mexican contacts, The early ebullience expressed in
Miraflores (while the highlands were isolated from Teotihuacan) and the
persistence of utility wares which are indigenous to the region, suggest that
the notion of invasion should be regarded merely as a working hypothesis.
An alternative explanation of the growth of Mexican influence is the possi-
bility of the kind of wholesale importation, extending even to architecture,
which might be characteristic of a prosperous and successful "nouveau riche"
culture. While the relative plausibility of the invasion hypothesis is
incontestable, it may be instructive to consider that we have perhaps not
sufficiently understood the meaning of trait diffusion if we insist on the
impossibility of even major importations by means other than physical con-
quest, It is interesting, though, that in Highland Guatemala the X-T
traits do not appear as an antecedent catalyst but come in the midst of the
full bloom of Esperanza.
The culture history of the Guatemala Highlands extends past the Plum-
bate-Fine Orange horizon to Conquest times, I wish to call attention here
only to the late#Mexicanization on the Plumbate horizon, and to the with-
drawal to fortified sites during the period before the Conquest.
2-aos Central Lowlands
A history of the Peten-Honduras area, the region in which Maya culture
attained its most eloquent expression, is virtually out of the question in
the ordinary sense of a continuous account. From the earliest Mamom levels -
believed to be roughly coeval with the early village farming culture in the
Valley of Mexico, which they resemble in many ways -- to the sudden break
in the archaeological record for the Peten, important cultural developments
of vast interest to the present account occurred. Unfortunately, however,
the weight of exploration here has directed attention to the grandiose
architecture and fabulously elaborated art, at the expense of both a refined
chronological account and an understanding of the life of the society as a
whole prior to periods covered in ethno-historic accounts, With respect to
the latter these reports ranging from native codices to accounts such as
Landa's, do allow considerable projection backward in time, But ultimately
the picture is static rather than continuous. There are excellent suggestions
that the society was relatively conservative and that the Central Maya were
favored in the elaboration of their culture by relative isolation, Even
29
conceding that the range of socioocultural change was in fact small, it is
highly important that an account in more refined units be worked out in the
future, one on which a continuous chronicle could be based.
Lowland Maya civilization in the Peten-Honduras region developed by
elaboration of a settled agriculatural base identified at Mamom (Uaxactun)
and other early-horizon sites. The basic similarity to the Valley of Mexico
is made clear by the presence of some hunting, figurines and bird whistles
made from clay, emphasis on monochrome pottery, and the absence of supports
on the pottery, as well as by other shared traita, A subsequent period is
the ill-defined Chicanel,  This may relate, Janus-like, both to Mamom "vil-
lage agricultureW and the phases of elaborate architecture, and dated monu-
ments, This is evidently the phase into which that curiously isolated ex-
pression of a modest formative culture anchored late in time called the
Cop6r Archaic fits. Nothing yet found locally gives the antecedent culture;
the Cop6n acropolis rests directly on the archaic remains* It is "late"
by virtue of the presence of Usulutan ware which characterizes many sites
in and around the southern part of Mesoamerica. The Cop&n Archaic tra-
dition is attributed in its origin to Salvador, The marginal site of Playa
de los Muertos shows many Tlatilco-like items such as stirrup-spout forms
and evolved figurines of a type established in the Valley of Mexico as well,
I mention these details to express the direction of relationships with dif-
ferent areas manifest in the Preclassic stage at Pet6n-flonduras, as we11 as
the very fact of ramified ties with other areas. As in the Valley of Mexico,
however, these incursions of foreign elements, whether imported or brought
in by foreign peoples, become part of a differentiating regional culture
profile instead of tending to make different areas uniform.
Once dated monuments and pyramid mounds appear, a period estimated at
about 600 years must be described in terms of a collection of traits. But
perhaps Longyear's reconstruction of history at CopSn will provide an il-
lustrative model, The Archaic, so-called, is late with respect to Mamom,
Longyear suggests that the people lived in thatched huts clustered in groups
corresponding to the family band and that maize and game were relied upon
for subsistence, Lagyear deprecates "trade" here, considering the figurines
as Wcuriosities" brought back by travelers, This would not, however, explain
the strong emphasis on Usulutan in the CopSn Archaic complex, Tlatilco-like
influences are more prevalent, in general, at other eastern and southeastern
siteas though perhaps such alien Mexican items as appear below the Copin
acropolis were received from an intermediate station closer at hand than
the Valley of Mexico.
Despite the apparently sudden transition to a wholly different level
of social life suggested by the construction of the acropolis, local wares
of the Archaic persist on the later level, although now the complex is
dominated by polychrome basal flange bowls, tripod vases and swollen sup-
ports described as "mammiformaW  Numerous obsidian blades, metates and manos9
extended burials in graves or slab cists (recalling some manifestation of
this sort of thing at El Arbolillo?) are part of the complexe The burials
are accompanied by offerings, Longyear finds his      U   mach    for the
30
Aichaic-acropolis transition in an advanced Maya people of the Guatemalan
PetnGwho drifted into the area bringing the polychrome basal flange bowls
.nd tripod vases, a priesthood associated with ceremonial centers, and an
attendint stratified social organization with considerable division of labor.
The local populace remained but was subordinated to the invaders0  They were
trained by the priestly leaders and specialists from the Guatemalan Pet6n
to work on the ceremonial centers, This culture change represents a consoli-
dation and preparation for the erection of the first dated stela at Copan.
The peak of Petgn-Honduras civilization is usually correlated with the
Appearance of the dated stelae which, however widely they occur elsewhere,
are nevertheless one of the most powerful themes in the climactic cultural
configuration of this region, Centers flourish from the Usamacinta drainage
to Co%n. How these centers were related is not clear.    Some authorities
believe that the standardised monument dating strongly suggests coordination
with, but not necessarily control by, a single center, A transition to
local styles, according to Longyear, obliterates the basal flange. There
are suggestions of an incursion of X-T traits in the Highland and Lowland
Maya area after the first third of the Tzakol periodo Longyear notes that
the general distribution of flanged bowls and tripod vases characteristic
of early Classic Maya gradually disappears, and local styles intensify and
gain character, Perhaps this "breakdown of centralized control," or tempo-
rary dislocation, is consequent on integration of alien culture elements
before an ultimate florescent outburst,
The full classic at Copan, continuing Longyearts reconstruction, sees
the completion of the acropolis and the building of outlying additions, and
the proliferation of dated monuments, Copador is the dominant polychrome
pottery at Copan, although trade wares and other trade objects are in consi-
derable evidence, Despite the obvious geographic isolation of the Central
laya area, the local available natural resources contrasted with the raw
materials of the multitude of objects found here leave no doubt that this
period carried on much trade with many parts of Mesoamerica. Jade is an
especially important diagnostic in this connection, for its absence locally
and the abundance of its occurrence in the archaeological sites provide a
striking contrast and a clue as to the dependence of this region on trade
for many of the things out of which the configuration is shaped. Corbelled
vault architecture, stucco facing on rubble fill, ball courts, stucco and
stone relief, sweat houses, glyphic writing, an intense expression of
zathematic-calendrical-astronomical activity and extensive record-keeping --
as well as the characteristic ceramic modes and art style -- are outstanding
elements in the complex characteristic of the Classic (Tzakol-Tepeu)
culmination of Central Maya culture,
The dramatic picture of a sudden abandonment of the Central Maya centers
is somewhat modified by Longyear in his account of what happened at Copano
Here, he believes, the priests and upper classes abandoned the main body of
the populace, Left without the leaders required to maintain this highly
structured society, the people dispersed into village clusters not far from
the old cities or ceremonial centers, To these they kept returning, apparent-
ly ceremonially, as is indicated by burials in the rooms, It is in the room
31
deposits referred to the period when the Copaneros went back to live near
their fields that the pottery sequence breaks sharply and Plumbate appears.
To the extent that Plumbate is a sensitive horizon marker, we may infer that
at a time when the Valley of Mexico still had a long course of history before
it, Maya civilization in this Central region had already collapsed.
2mb: Yucatan Peninsula
Thompson (1940) calls attention to the Yucatan peninsula as a region
within which there existed stylistic subdivisions (Puuc, Chenes) which he
attributed not to sequential development in time but rather to the co-existence
in the area of groups which had wandered in from different cultural hearths
and established themselves in the savannas and scrub forests, He suggests
that the Puuc-Etzna-Xcalukin complex may have diffused from southwestern
Campeche, wan archaeological lacuna."
Brainerd (1951) subsequently reported the definition of a dozen or so
chronologically consecutive phases, the first three of which he called
"Formative" and the rest of which were distributed through the "Yucatan Re-
gional and Florescent" periods and subdivisions of the Mexican period. He
found the Early Formative at Mani Cenote, the Middle Formative at Santa Rosa
Xtampak and Dzibilnocac (Chenes sites in northwestern Campeche). Late
Formative materials came from the latter two sites and from Chichen Itz4,
YaxUna, Holactun, and Mayapan. Brainerd states:
The occurrence of Formative pottery in Yucatan sites,
as explored by this survey, may be characterized as
light but remarkably consistent. With a partial excep-
tion of the Puuc sites, every major ruin sampled showed
pure or nearly pure Late Formative deposits in the bottom
of the trenches (1951).
He goes on to note that there probably was a large, well distributed popula-
tion in Yucatan in the Late Formative period and that "the locations of
Formative sites were clung to with surprising tenacity by the late Maya
peoples0w
The Late Formative here apparently was coeval with the Uaxactun
phases Mamom and Chicanel (Early Formative seems to have no cross-ties).
The Regional and Florescent appear to have been coeval with the Petdn Classic,
The initial phase of the Mexican period corresponded to the Toltec occupation
of Chich6n Itzi, while its last phase is represented by Mayapan?
The occurrence of such a very early horizon as the Yucatan Early Forma-
tive m not yet recognizeable as part of the Mesoamerican Formative pattern
is an important piece of evidence. Brainerd suggests an early time horizon
for the development of ceremonial centers and theocratic societies in Yucatan.
He contrasts the feeling of an unbroken succession here with the abruptness of
32
the onset of the Initial Series period in the Pet6n9 although he notes that
the appearance of stelae and vaults in the latter region may mark the change
'better.
This'appears, then, to be an area of very long and consistent occupation',
as wel' as 'of a'someiwhat early appearance of 'the ceremonial 'complex (though'not
.f1th6e stela- so far as is yet known) relative to'the Pet&no 'We may be'getting
dl8ee' - to- the origins of Maya culture in time and space as''we move toward
Tabasco' and Veracruz. The coastal belt would' then be hearth and channel for
May6id spread. The increasing demands for a very early dating of La Venta-
TfeseZapotes may possibly derive some support from Brainerd's results.  In
any case, Thompson's suggestion that Puuc originated in southwestern Campeche
seems to have been made largely because that area was little understood at
the time-of writing (1940).  This hypothesis seems to be less necessary to-
d4y, although Brainerd too finds less consistency in the evidence from Pauc
sites. Thi-s area appears, in any event, to have had a long chronolbgical
history with an extended early period of cultural progress, followed by a
1000year-lonig tlorescence, and then by the invasions, realignments, and sub-
sequent decline.
* * * * * *
I shall not dwell on the particular details of these regions, except to
develop a bit further the note on which the Yucatan sketch ended, The zone
along the Gulf of Mexico has already suggested itself to various writers as
a corridor of movement for Maya peoples, considering the early time horizons
for Huasteca culture in northern Veracruz. Now, with Brainerd's materials,
it appears that another locale for early developments exists in Yucatan. It
io of utmost importance, therefore, tkz.t -we keep the intervening districts
distinct for closer investigation. For these methodological reasons, and
because of the distinctive character of the Olmec-La Venta and Tajin culture
climaxes, the suggestion here made is for a separate regional status for
South Veracruz and Tabasco9 for Central Veracruz, and for Northern Veracruz,
The foregoing summaries of the proposed regions offer a sketchy outline,
drawing on materials referring to the history of the regions, to their separate
traditions, and to their relations with other areas. The attempt has been
to outline general configurations, rather than to spot particulars as evidence
for'- a' "demonstration."  Only a very tentative case can be made for the sub-
divisions described in terms of their climax patterns. 'But-ITthihk--that,
with the exception of Chiapas and - 'iaebla, we can see a separate developmental
configuration for each of the regions and it only remains to list them here
in geographic terms (see also Map 1).
1, Highland Mesoamerica
a. The Valley of Mexico and Vicinity (Mexico, Morelos,
Tlaxcala, Hidalgo)
bo Puebla
c, Oaxaca
d. The Western Plateau (Highland Michoacan)
e. Chiapas
f. Highland Guatemala
33
2. Lowland Mesoamerica
a. Central Lowlands (Lowlands from Usumacinta drainage through
the Peten and British Honduras to the Ulua River, in Spanish
Honduras)
b. Yucatan Peninsula (Yucatan, Campeche and Quintana Roo)
c. Southern Veracruz-Tabasco
d. Central Voracruz
e. Northern Veracruz
III, TE CO-TRADITION: CONCEPT AND PROBLEMS
Among the difficulties which stand out in my own surveys of the litera-
ture on Mesoamerican archaeology, and in the various papers appearing in the
previous issue, are a problem of temporal period alignment and a problem
in alignment of developmental stages. Not only are these problems deeply
interwoven, but they represent a picture of how methodological biases can
intensify the difficulties of historical reconstruction. Among the compli-
cations presented.by the culture historical picture of Mesoamerica are the
fact that "Classic" traits show up in the Nformativel period, and the fact
that it has become questionable whether the Valley of Mexico "had a post-
Classic". It is evident that these complications bring out clearly the
need to overcome biases of interest both as to area and aspects of culture
surveyed, Perhaps the argument is worth reviewing if we wish to distinguish
the methodological issues more clearly. The point of departure for the
evolution of the problems mentioned above are, it seems to me, the following
traditional positions in Mesoamerican archaeology:
1, The Mesoamerican "Classic" was presented on the model of the
Central Maya beginning with the earliest Initial Series markers in that
area and ending with the abandonment of the Peten sites.
2. The whole stage-time structure, in my opinion, was organized around
this fulcrum, making the developmental stage equivalent to the time period,
The fact that the Classic Maya complex included date4 manuments encouraged
this,  Thus, once-any correlation was established with Ithe Chriatian calendar,
absolute dates for the upper and lower limits of the "Classic Period-Stage"
were seto
3. Even if we assume that the stage and the period designated as Classic
coincided for the Central Maya, it is clear there was no Justification to
extend this stage-time equivalence to other regions in Mesoamerica, Neverthe-
less, Spinden's "Archaic" was now accorded an absolute upper limit date by
horizon-marker cross-ties, without considering or acknowledging that the
Central Maya stage implications were also being transferred in their entirety,
This is the source of sebsequent discussions which sought to demonstrate that
"Classic traits" at this or that place "occurred in the Archaic."
4. The assumption, which was prevalent for a time, that Maya history
involved an abandonment of the Petgn and an outright mass movement and implanta-
34
tion' 6f Maya high'culture 'in the Yucatan or Northern May area gave rise'to
the notion'of a Post-Classic; and,here too the time limits were set precisely
by the last dated monuments in the Petgn and environs. This notion of the
Post-Classic was again defined in terms of the Maya, but this time referring
to the Northern Maya, whose late history was placed after that of the Central
Maya. Here, too, because a lower limit absolute date was available, this
limit and the stage idea wedded to it were wholly transferred to the horizon
line of Plumbate distribution.
Most arguments over the existence of a Post-Classic stage in a parti-
cular region can be traced to this assumption0 We are now examining this
coiception of the late time period in areas like the Valley of Mexico, where
the argument for a Post-Classic stage needs reconsiderationo In order to be
reestablished or reaffirmed it seems to require the scrupulous application
of developmental criteria alone; by now a great deal of evidence has to be
re-evaluated.
These issues are certainly relevant to the discussion here of the kind
of problems for which the area co-tradition is methodologically appropriate0
This fact will become even clearer as we mention some questions to which the
area co-tradition applies0
The questions raised in Mesoamerican culture history are largely histori-
cal rather than processual. One reason for this is our preconception that
history (i.e., trade, migration, conquest, and invention)       ns the pheno-
mena suggested by archaeology0  My contention is that this bias is really
tailored to a pessimistic assumption that archaeology can never deal with
real cultures," and that therefore we must limit ourselves to tracing dis-
persals of traits0 Thus, we talk about the spread of Olmec influence, of
influences from Teotihuacan, and of the diffusion of a Plumbate horizon fol-
lowed by oscillating periods of still other Mexican invasionso We always
assume that where these influences are not found they were not present0  I
think this a dangerous assumption, not vindicated in ethnological theories
or studies which distinguish acculturation as "achieved diffusion0"
The point of these examples is not to deny the reality of the problems
posed in Mesoamerican culture history0 Unless we want to be totally -- and
uselessly -- skeptical, we must assume that these patterns of culture spread
are real0  But we have to recognize at the same time that our task is to
render these problems more specific, to develop the suggestive evidence
more sensitively in behalf of an enriched culture historical account.
In order to do this, we have ato accept the fact that much more than
historical accident is involved in the events of culture contacto We have
to understand the nature of a culture configuration bettero We have to attain
greater knowledge of the kinds of process, and of the course of proesss
relative to varying configurations of culture0. The complexity of the task is
further increased by the need to translate the lessons of ethnology into
the common denominators of archaeological data0
One crucial part of the job is to get real unlts of culture history,
which means viewing archaeological assemblages from the point of view of
35
configuirations, not'trait lists. Another important part is to trace the
distribution of traits more accurately in space and time. For the former
problem, that'of tracing out real cultural unitasin space and time, the notion
of thie tradition'is a 'useful model.  For 'the latter, a strict4application of
all' archaeological techniques " of stratigraphy and seriation, together with 'a
clearly'conceived and rigorously applied model represented by the hoizon, is
essential.
Th-e question now arises: Where does the area co-tradition methodology
help and in'what-ways? To answer this we must consider what kind of analytic
model is involved.  I believe it can be shown that the whole notion    the
culture area, its constituents and their interconnections -- are really exten-
sions of the Tradition Concept. Traditions exist on many levels of complexity.
When we speak of a pottery tradition, we may be talking about a technique of
manufacture, a persistent decorative device, a characteristic vessel shape,
or a combination of these elements0 It is important, in any case, that we
have an identifiable characteristic or complex of characteristics which, in a
given area, shows persistence through time. It is not alone the nature of
the unit but also its stubborn "holding on in time" while other expressions
are relatively transitory which gives it meaning.
Depending on the frame of reference with which we are concerned9 the
unit may be simple or complex, the time may be relatively short or relatively
long. A culture area -- the sort of definition offered earlier in this paper
of the Mesoamerican area -- is a large spatial framework, The maize agricul-
ture-pottery-writing complex asserted to represent its distinguishing con-
figuration is the corresponding unit which may be called "the tradition of
the Mesoamerican culture area."
Again, in the regional descriptions, the regions compared with one
another are segregated on analogous lines, and united during certain time
periods by a spatial spread. The same method is followed for entities of
lesser complexity until one deals with a specific min    l unit like bay ware
in the Valley of Mexico area. (In connection with the procedure followed in
this paper, by the way, it is only correct to say that the regional "tradi-
tionsw vis-a-vis one another have not been as rigidly described in these
terms as they should have been.)
The same "gestalt" approach prevails in the notion of the horizon style
as a consistent pattern of smaller trait units -- although here again there
are degrees of complexity, theoretically, which correlate with the time units
involved. The horizon style9 then, conceptually, is really the tradition idea
applied to time rather than space, And its application for analytic purposes
is absolutely analagous with the ideal demarcation lines on a schematized
geologic chart. It structures time by being used as if it had not time
depth itself.
It is perfectly clear then that this methodology of the area'co-tradition
relates to arranging the data for analytic purposes. What can such arrange-w
ment of data in space and time do for us? Basically, it is designed to answer
questions on the basis of "where," and "when" and "what,"  It is excluded from
36
answering directly questions based on "how" and "why,,"  The how-and-why ques-
tions are processual questions and contribute to historical explanations by
indicating the range of possibilities inherent in a particular set of cultural
postulates. The area co-tradition concept can clarify time alignments, show
something about the historicity and the geography of cultures, point to ori-
gins of spreading traits and complexes, and reveal the extent and degree of
interpenetration of cultural modes0  It can indicate, for example, whether
"The Valley of Mexico and vicinity" should be a larger area or a smaller.
In this sense, it contributes to culture historical reconstruction by making
available better organized data against which to project ideas that involve
process. These ideas are obtained from the study of living people. If such
studies were ideally pursued, we would know what a trait is. We do not, as
yet, but there are many things we do know, specifically and generally, about
the conditions of cultural exhaustion, selective borrowing, the relationship
of certain kinds of social stratification to certain kinds of economic-techno-
logical factors, the fact of different world views and their relationship to
different language structures and different subsistence patterns, We should
draw on the information we have, and we should develop specific and explicit
atalogies, so that we may render conscious and explicit the ethnologic principles
involved in many of these decisions concerning migration, conquest and other
agents of diffusion.
The concept of developmental stages cross-cuts the distinction I have
made here between history and process, since it purports to describe histori-
cal realities while assuming quite correctly that there are regularities which
may be derived from the study of history and applied to the analysis of the
progress of a culture through time. These regularities are not, as Rowe has
implied in a quotation cited above, simple-minded determinants in a single
direction.  Rather, they are an expression of the belief, supported by ethno-
logical and prehistorical data, that there are cultural systems, each of which
has a range of potential, Within that range, to be sure, there is ample room
for selection, presenting numerous possibilities for different development.
But even with respect to accidents, the system represented by a given culture
is selective in the degree and character of its response,
In conclusion, I want to say that the notion of developmental stages
is useful as a culture historical tool for two reasons. To the degree that
it is descriptive, it outlines the different courses of development, as among
the regions of a culture area (Valley of Mexico vs. Pet6n-Honduras, for example.)
Only when we see such differences can we try to explain them, This gives us
another means of approach in describing the course of history, To the degree
that it is explanatory, it provides us with an additional tool for understand-
ing the "why" of history,
It is here that problems of history and process conjoin; it is here that
ethnology and prehistory have much to offer each other; it is here that
plausible answers to the "how" and the "why" of history reside, To the extent
that it contributes to the whole by refining the data, the area co-tradition
is a useful and sophisticated methodology.
37
TABLE 2,
(Kirchhoff, 1943)
GENERAL SUMMARY OF TRAITS COMMON TO NESOAMERICA
AND OTHER CULTURAL AREAS OF AMERICA;
AND
TRAITS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF THEIR ABSENCE IN MESOAMERICA
So.      So.   Mleso-  Chib-          Ama-
Eatamer.               cha      Andes   zonia
Cultivation                  x       x      x       x        x      x
Ceramics                     x       x      x       x        x      x
Corki                        x       x      x       x        x      x
Beans                        x       x      x       x        x      x
Squash                       x       x      x       x        x      x
Human Sacrifice              x        o     x       x        x      o
Potato                       x        o     x       x        x      x
Blowgun                      x        o     x       x        x      x
Head Trophies                x        o     x       x        x      x
Cannibalism                  x        o     x       x        o      x
Confession                  x         o     x       o        x      x
Male Cultivation             o        x     x       x        x      0
Stone, Clay Construction     o       x      x       x        x      o
Sandals                      o       x      x       x        x      0
Cotton                       o       x      x       x        x      x
Terracing Cultivation        o        0     x       x        x      0
Hanging Bridges              o        0     x       x        x      0
Gourd Rafts                  o        0     x       x        x      0
Sweet Cassava                o        o     x       x        x      x
Chile (aji)                  o        o     x                x      x
38
tA        0
-4
rn
M                           r.        4
n 0                      M
P.- 11                   >
>
3
M
(LA
0
>             L4
rn
tA
-4             <..                                                                          0
M              c
C)                                                                                     rli
fv
IX
Ix
K
%-.00
CA
-4
74              M
30,            JJM
Li
iK
0
N
>
fq
74                                  74
31,
%A
tn
CN
L.OW/L AN D-S
HI GHLANDS
So.      So.   Meso-   Chib-           Ama-
East     West   amer    cha     Andes   zonia
Pineapple                    o        o      x       x        x     x
Avocado                      o        o      x       x        x      x
Papaya                       o        o      x       x        x     x
Zapote                       o        o      x       x        x      x
Spondia                      o        o      x       x        x      x
Fattened Vols Dog            o        o      x       x        x      x
Duck                         o        o      x       x        x      x
Woven Shields                o        o      o       x        x      x
Lances                       o        o      x       x        x      x
Metallurgy                   o        o      x       x        x      x
Stone paved roads            o        o      x       x        x      x
Markets                      o        o      x       x        x      x
Calpulli-Ayllu               o        o      x       o        x      0
Heart Removal                o        o      x       o        x      o
Blood Sprinkling of
Sanctuaries                  o        o      x       o        x      o
Basket Blowing Fan           o        o      x       o        0      x
Plate Griddles               0        o      x       0        0      x
Rubber Ball Game             o        o      x       o        o      x
Wood Drum,
Languettes                   o        o      x       o        o      x
Adorning Ear Edge            x        o      0       x        0      0
Matrilineal Clans            x        x      o       x        o      x
Drinking Ground-             x        x      o       x        o      x
Up Bones
Poisoned Weapons             o        x      0       x        0      x
39
So.
East
Coca
Palm Tree Cultivation
0
0
So.
West
Meso-
amer.
o      0
o      o
Chib-
cha
x
Ama-
Andes   zonia
x      0
x
x - present.
o - absent.
NOTES
1. Ekholm (1940)offered a summary of the archaeology of northern and western
Mexico; and I am indebted to Professor Willey for making available notes
which allow me to bring Ekholm's picture up to date and specify many things
more exactly.
2. I have made liberal use, in the pages which follow, of the summaries of
archaeological data by Coe, Lathrap, and Holden which appeared in the
previous issue of this journal. The materials used are for the most
part of a general nature and the specific references used in each case
will not be cited here.
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Armillas, Pedro
1948       A sequence of cultural development in Mesoamericao  In
A Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology, ed. Wendell Co
Bennett, pp. 105-12. Society for American Archaeology
Memoir 4, Menashao
Bennett, Wendell C.
1948       ThM ' Peruvian co-tradition.  In A Reappraisal of Peruvian
OAchaeolog", ed. Wendell C. Bennett, pp. 1-7o Society for
American Archaeology Memoir 4, Menasha.
Bennett, Wendell Co and Junius B. Bird
1949       Andean culture historyo  American Museum of Natural History.,
Handbook Series, No 15    New York.
Brainerd, George
1951       Early ceramic horizons in Yucatan.  The Civilizations of
Ancient America, ed. Sol Tax, pp. 72-78. SelectedPapers
of the 29th International Congress of Americanists, Vol. 1.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Brew, J.O. and Watson Sith
1954       Comments on "Southwestern Cultural Interrelationships and
the question of area co-tradition", by Joe Ben Wheat.
American Anthropologist 56: 586-89. Menashao
Canby, Joel S5
1951       Possible chronological implications of the long ceramic
sequence recovered at Yarmuela, Spanish Honduras* The
Civilizations of Ancient America, edo Sol Tax, pp. 79-85.
Selected Papers of the 29th International Congress of
Americanists, Vol. 1. Chicago9 University of Chicago Presso
Caso, Alfonso
1953       New World culture history: lMiddle Americao  In Anthro-
pology Today, by Alfred L. Kroeber and others, pp. 226-
370 Chicago, University of Chicago Presso
41
Covarrubias, Miguel
1946       Mexico South, The Isthmus of Tehuantepec. New York.
Drucker, P.
1952       La Venta, Tabasco, a study of Olmec ceramics and art.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 153*  Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.*C.
Ekholm, Gordon F.
1940       The archaeology of northern and western Mexico. In The
Maya and Their Neighbours, pp. 320-30. New York.
1942       Excavations at Guasavo, Sinaloa, Mexico. Anthropological
Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 38, No.
2. New York.
1944       Excavations at Tampico and Panuco in the Huasteca, Mexico.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History 38, No. 5:321-509. New York.
James, Preston E.
1942       Latin America. New York.
Kidder, Alfred V.
1936       Speculations on New World prehistory.  In Essays in Anthro-
pology Honoring A.L. Kroeber, ppo 143-52.  Berkeley.
1940       Archaeological problems of the Highland Maya.  In The Maya
and Their Neighbours, pp. 117-26. New York.
1946       Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Americanr Antiquity
11t65-75. Menasha...
1950       The archaeological importance of Guatemalao  Smithsonian
Report for 1949, pp. 349-58. Washington, D.C.
1953       Some key problems of New World prehistory. Peabody Museum
Library, Harvard University, Pamphlet. Cambridge, Mass.
Kirchhoff, Paul
1943       Mesoamericao  Acta Americana 1:92-107.
42
tirchhoff, Paul
1952       Mesoamerica.  In Heritage of Conquest, edo Sol Tax, pp.
17-30. Glencoe, Illo
Kluckhohn, Clyde
1940       The conceptual structure in Middle American studies.  In
The Maya and Their Neighbours, ed. C.L. Hay and others, pp.
41-51. New York.
Kroeber, A. Lo
1930       Cultural relations between North and South Americao
23rd International Congress of Americanists, ppo 5-23.
New Yorko
1939       Cultural and natural areas of native North America.
University of California Publications in American Archae-
ology and Ethnology 38. Berkeleyo
1940       The present status of Americanistic problems. In The
Maya and Their Neighbours, edo CoLo Hay and others, ppo
46o-91. New Yorko
1944       Peruvian archaeology in 1942. Viking Fund Publications
in Anthropology, No. 4. New York.
Linne, S.
1934       Archaeological researches at Teotihuacan, Mexicoo  Ethno-
graphical Museum of Sweden, No, lo Stockholm.
1942       Mexican highland cultures: archaeological researches at
Teotihuacan, Calpulalpan and Chalchicomula in 1934-35.
Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, noso, No, 7. Stockholm,
.Longyear, John l., III
1940       The ethnological significance of Copan pottery.  In The
Maya and Their Neighbours, edo CoLo Hay and others, pp.
268-71. New Yorko
1951       A historical interpretation of Copan archaeology. The
Civilizations of Ancient America, edo Sol Tax, ppo 86-92.
Selected Papers of the 29th International Congress of
Americanists, Voo lo Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
43
Longyear, John M.., III
1952       Copan ceramics, a study of southeastern Maya pottery.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publ. 597. Washington,
D.C.
Lothrop, S.K.
1939       The southeastern frontier of the Maya. American Anthro-
pologist 41:42-55. Menasha.
MacNeish, Richard S.
1954       An early archaeological site near Panuco, Vera Cruz.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s.
442, Pto 5. Philadelphia.
Martin, Paul S.
1954       Comments on Rouse's article on the area co-tradition.
American Antiquity, 20:160.  Menashao
Martin, Paul S. and JoBo Rinaldo
1951       The Southwestern co-tradition.  Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 7:215-29. Albuquerque.
Noguera, Edward
1940       Excavations at Tehuacan. In the Maya and Their Neighbours,
ed. C.L. Hay and others, pp. 306-19. New Yorko
Osbo rne, Douglas
1943       An archaeologic reconnaissance in southeastern Michoacan,
Mexico, American Antiquity 9:59-73.
Palerm, Angel
1955       The agricultural basis of urban civilization in Mesoamerica.
In Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative Studyo Pan
American Union, Washington, DoCo
44
Phillips, Philip and GoRo Willey
1953       Method and theory in American archaeology I: an operational
basis for culture-historical integrationo American Anthro-
pologist 55:615-33. Menasha.
Rouse, Irving
1954       On the use of the concept of area co-tradition. American
Antiquity 19:221-26.  Menasha,
Rowe, John H.
1950       Review of "Andean Culture History", by Wendell C0 Bennett
and Junius Bo Bird. American Antiquity 16:170-71,
Menashao
1951       Andean culture history:  an apology and clarificationo
American Antiquity 16:3560
Sears, Paul B.
1951       Pollen profiles and culture horizons in the Basin of
Mexico. The Civilizations of Ancient America, ed. Sol
Tax, pp. 57-62. Selected Papers of the 29th Inter-
national Congress of Americanists, Volo 1. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Shook, E.M.
1951       The present status of reaearch pn the pre-classic horizon
in Guatemala. The Civilizations of Ancient America, ed.
Sol Tax, pp. 93-100o Selected Papers of the 29th Inter--.
national Congress of Americanists, Vol. lo Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Thompson, JO Eric
1940       Archaeological problems of the Lowland Maya.  In The
Maya and Their Neighbours, ed. CoLo Hay and others, pp.
126-39. New York.
1943       A trial survey of the southern Maya area.  American Antiquity
9:106-34. Menasha.
1945       A survey of the northern Maya areao  American Antiquity
11: 2-24. Menasha.
45
VaiUlant, George C.
1939       History and stratigraphy in the Valley of Mexico. Smith-
sonian Annual Report for 1938, ppo 521-30o Washington, D*C.
1940       Patterns in Middle American archaeology.  In The Maya and
Their Neighbours, ed. CoLo Hay and others, pp. 295-305.
New Yorko
Wauchope, Robert
1948       Excavations at Zacualpa, Guatemalao - Middle American Re-
search Institute, Tulane University, Publ. 14.
1950       A tentative sequence of pre-classic ceraiics in Middle
America. Middle American Research Records, Middle American
Research Institute, Tulane University 1, No. 14.
lWheat, Joe Ben
1954       Southwestern cultural interrelationships and the question
of area co-tradition. American Anthropologist 56:576-86.
Menasha.
Willey, Gordon R.
1945       Horizon styles and pottery traditions in Peruvian archae-
ology. American Antiquity l1:49-56a Menashao
1948       Functional analysis of "horizon styles" in Peruvian archae-
ology. In A Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology., ed.
Wendell C. Bennett, pp. 8-15W Society for American Archae-
ology Memoir 4. Menasha.
4
1951a      South American archaic relations:  additional comment,
American Antiquity 16:354-55o Menasha.
1951b      Peruvian horizon styles. American Antiquity 16:353-54.
Menashao
1954a      Tradition trend in ceramic developmento  American Antiquity
20:9-15. Menashao
1954b      Comments on "Southwestern cultural interrestions1ips and
the question of area co-tradition", by Joe Ben Wheato
American Anthropologist 56:589-90o  Menashao
46
Willey, Gordon R.
1955       The interrelated rise of the native cultures of Middle and
South America. In New Interpretations of Aboriginal American
Culture History. 75th Anniversary Volume of the Anthropo-
logical Society of Washington.
Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips
1955       Method and Theory in American archaeology II: historical-
developmental interpretation. American Anthropologist
57: 723-819. Menasha.
47
40