1
A REVIEW OF LA VENTA, TABASCO AND ITS RELEVANCE
TO THE OLMEC PROELEM
William R. Coe and Robert Stuckenrath, Jr.
University of Pennsylvania
Introduction
A detailed review of the reports on excavations at La Venta, Tabasco,
Mexico, has been prompted by various considerations. This remarkable site is
obviously crucial to the whole question of "Olmec culture," "civilization,"
"expansion," and so forth. Anyone concerned with origins of "high culture'
in Mesoamerica, or for that matter in Nuclear America, is bound to take into
account the role which La Venta and the Olmec, or simply Olmec, played. But
Olmec is a somewhat disturbing subject. Too much faith, too much mystique
colors the topic. Then there is the matter of terminology. "Olmec" has been
applied to a people, a complex, a culture, a style, even to an horizon, as
well as to what scoffers feel to be nothing but a rather shaky construct.
As regards La Venta- was this site a pure primary Olmec center, or
was it at least within a Gulf Coastal Olmec "heartland?" Or -was La Venta
rther merely one of a group of exotic coastal "outposts," with the true,
original focus of Olmec in Guerrero or possibly in the Valley of Mexico? Was
Olmec sufficiently early and pervasive or expansive to have been the "mother
culture" as believed by Covarrubias and as enthusiastically elaborated on by
others?  May It not have been instead a late first millenium B.C:   distinctive
(but oddly diffuse) "culture,," the development of which paralleled in time
comparable yet equally distinct developments, each leading towards its own
peculiarly colored but similar complex level which we label "civilization?"
Such questions come to mind and stlck there when one is engaged in
analysis of data derived from what amounts to a competitive site and culture.
In this case we are thinking of Tikal., ttie major central lowland Maya site.
The makeup of Formative or Preclassic Tikal is intricate, sophisticated, and
replete with many Classic characteristics (details are omitted here as they
are not pertinent to this review). The point is that Preclassic Tikal by no
means bears out the assertion on occasion encountered today that "civiliza-
tion" (we see no reason not to apply this well-bruised term to Preclassic
Tikal) in the New World was what amounts to an Olmec innovation. At the
moment it would require semantic, interpretive juggling of the most dubious
order to derive early Tilkal from what is currently known of Olmec. This is
not to deny that Olmec was a far earlier feature on the Mesoamerican scene
than once allowed, even a decade ago, nor is it to contradict the "inter-
nationalism" of Olmec, as evidenced by the impressive distribution of objects
and representations of Olmec style, derivation, or inspiration. Nevertheless,
before Olmec (style, culture, etc.) is placed so high beyond the reach of the
most cautious, articulate critic, it seems useful to review the meaning and
placement in time of at least some of its outstanding features.
There is no better place to do this than within the context of
La Venta. Excavated in 1940, 1942, 1943, and 1955 (with subsequent excava-
tions, evidently unpublished, by PiYa Chan; MacNeish   1960:296), this site
yielded many of the frequently claimed components of Olmec culture, as well
2
as architecture, construction sequence, and radiocarbon dates. The 1955 work,
as is well known, completely revised earlier conclusions by the excavators
which placed La Venta and the elements of its Olmec occupation on an Early
Classic time level. The radiocarbon dates bore out what Wauchope, Covarrubias
and others had emphasized, namely that the site, and by extrapolation Olmec in
general, was Preclassic or Formative in time. The radiocarbon results were
rationalized to produce the conclusion that occupation of La Venta Complex A
spanned the centuries'from approximately 800 to 400B.C. (Drucker, Heizer, and
Squier 1959:264-267; hereafter cited as "DHS 1959").
Within this Middle Preclassic time-span it is understood that Olmec'
culture dominated La Venta and that Olmec religion was present at the time of
the beginning of the site (DHS 1959:269-270). The occupants constructed plat-
forms of clay and adobe in an extremely formal ceremonial layout replete with
quantities of monumental sculptures in Olmec style, as well as huge pavements
in the o2.rn or stylized jaguar heads with or without associated intrusive
offfertory piUes of similarly secreted stone blocks.  Small offerings occurred
in quantities , and these yielded on occasion beautiful examples of Olmec
stone figurlne art as well as other typologically distinct items considered
to-be part. of the Olmec religious complex. But as has been frequently under-
scored9 La Venta. was peculiar in the lack of unequivocal stone-faced architec-
ture, of h'ieroglyphic writing and calendric statements, in the marked paucity
of human burials, and in the peculiar local emphasis on columnrar basalt enclo-
sures or palisades. Despite the presence of many monuments of all shapes and
sizes nothig.g much in the way of context was found for them.
DI; this paper there is no attempt to rise to the bait so amply pro-
vided, we think, In various reconstructions of early Mesoamerica in print.
Our purpotse:i  'is iImited to La Venta, a main fixture in such reconstruc-
tions, and t:o how the La Venta published data were derived, how substantial
they      and to how they have been used by the responsible excavators within
their excavatoion reports and secondary stud'ies.  If "Olmec" as a subject and
a problem is so evidently dependent on La Venta, the certainties and uncer-
tainties emerging from its excavation ought to be focused as sharply as
possible. A great deal depends on this site until more like it are found and
excavated.
One subject for reconsideration here is the physical stratigraphy and
construction sequences at La Venta "Complex A."  Others include the placement
of offerings, both large and small, in construction phases, the carving and
erection-times of monuments, the relationship between architectural construc-
tions and ceramics, and the source and meaning of the La Venta radiocarbon
dates.
Construction Phases
The control of relative time and sequences of building activity at
Complex A are entirely dependent on the control of the plaza-court floors ly-
ing within this major La Venta area. To the south this ceremonial group ter-
minates at Pyramid C-l, the huge, dominant feature of the site; to the north
the group is bounded by the large Mound A-2. The floor sequence in this
group is as follows, from earliest to latest:
3
" "Water-sorted." This term applies to a group of directly superimposed
floors, believed to have been formally laid.  They are described as "Buff and
brown sandy floors, apparently partly water-sorted" (DHS 1959:113). "These
floors mark a series of early sandy clay surfacing layers of the Court- which
were subjected to sheet washing of rainwater. . . ." (DHS 1959:20). These
floors ultimately overlie sterile base drift sands of the island but may also
at times rest on either specially prepared pre-"Water-sorted" sand and/or
clay fills or on occupation fills.
"Wh ite sandyj' This "floor series" variably caps a fill laid on the
"Water-sorted" series; in some instances "White-sandy" was laid directly on
the surface of the prior floor series, The "White sandy" series is-made up
of "white sandy material separated by tan and buff sandy layers.. ..    It
recurs in various parts of the Complex and because of similarities in color,
material, and in stratigraphic position is considered to be a unit" (DHS
1959:90). Its variable coloration is also indicated by the "fine banded
purple, white and brown" floors equivalent to it at one excavation locus (DHS
1959 :66)4.
'Old-rose." The "old-rose colored floor series" is noted as a "con-
tlntous level extending over the entire Court surface" (DHS 1959:87). Never-
theless, considerable variation occurs even within the Court area, let alone
the area south of it (cf. DHS 1959:23, 75). In one instance the floors of
this seri6es are, from earliest to latest, "rose-colored," Ityellow sandy clay,"
"pecl?A'arly colo.red sandy clay" (DHS 1959:87); in another, white, tan, pink
or rose, aad f?nally white (DHS 1959066)o
- "ReMd cIM c ?' The reports never adequately explain this "massive
red clay cap,, about one foot thick, that was laid over the whole complex in-
cludfr.g the extant platforms. It is probably the most perplexing of the
La Venta features. The reader is left with the impression that this "cap" is
the finl Vc>1rml plaza-court surfacing material which was also used to refur-
bish the ext.nt platforms.  Its surface is frequently noted as heavily eroded.
"Surface drift sands" consistently cover the red clay cap.
The published basic sequence at La Venta Complex A can be summarized
as follows.
Surface drift sands (latest)
"Red clay cap"
"Old-rose" floor series (over fill)
"White sandy" floor series (usually over fill)
"Water-sorted" floor series
Sand fills (including cultural material)
Basal drift sands (evidently sterile)
Clay subsoil (sterile)
Complex A has been periodized or phased almost exclusively by the use
of the three floor "series" and the red clay cap. The laying of the "Water-
sorted" series is the principal diagnostic of Phase I, while activities ante-
dating the floor are informally categorized as Pre-Phase I. The "White sandy"
floor series marks Phase II, while Phase III is marked by the "Old-rose"
series. Phase IV is uniformly defined by the deposition of the "'Red clay
cap," as well as by any feature concluded to belong temporally with the depo-
sition of this cap-. A Post-Phase IV is allowed for the accumulation of the
surface drift sands; various cultural activities have been correlated with
this naturally deposited surface layer.
In practice the three floor series and the "red clay cap" are employed
to develop (in the form of numbered phases) almost the entire cultural record
present in Complex A. The floor sequences in various courts or plazas of the
complex are used to date relatively all cultural activity (offertory, archi-
tectural, etc.), irrespective of the relative simplicity or complexity of
mound development in relation to the plaza-court areas. No systematic provi-
sion was made for expressing the superimposed architectural growth stages and
components that culminated in a final structure whose erosion with time pro-
vided the "mound."  A mound in practice at La Venta was not treated as a
"tgrowt.h unit" to be analyzed and periodized initially in its own terms but
rather as a source for data to fatten Complex A phases, whose number diagnos-
tics coincided with the floor series and red clay cap in the plaza-court
areas, Rather than use the latter features to correlate independently
periodized data for each mound or excavation locus, the basic four-fold se-
quence was imposed in situations where the local developmental sequence need
not and in fact did not always mesh or match.
Figure 1 was devised to illustrate in a simple, schematic way, first,
the fout court-plama horizontal features (floor series and cap) and how they
relate Tio and interrelate the growth of structures or platforms (and court
wAs) at m,-st of the excavation locz in Complex A. This composite cross-
section:    ased upon the pub'lshed (Drucker 1952, DHS 1959) sections, de-
scripticns and phase assignments.  Scaie, both' vertical and horzorntal, has
been dis;regarded 'in Flgure 1 and forms have been schematicized as were the
exact reato<s8ip of a Iplatform" to the one overlying it.     (Parenthetically,
there is n%o way of vertically aligning features in such a sectioral presenta-
tion inasmuc.. as a vertical datum #as omitted in the published sections and
the textua.L descrIptions are keyed t-o nothing that is vertically constantO
Any reader of the reports of La Venta excavation data quickly realizes the
problem of checking the authors' observations: one report is in feet, the
others in the metric system; every section seems to differ in published
scale, even contiguous or overlapping sections; if sections do in fact join
or overlap there is no way of telling due to the omission of printed hori-
zontal controls.)
Since the reports provide no formal designations for the sequent con-
structions within each architectural feature, it has been necessary to devise
simple terminology in order to speak of the sequences. Accordingly, each
major "growth unit" in each locus has been designated as a lettered "unit"
(e.g. "1N.E. Plat: Unit A" identifies the earliest non-floor construction at
the Northeast Platform locus; at "Mound A-3" the next to the earliest con-
struction is labeled "Md. A-3: Unit B"v).
Turning to Figure 1 and the matter of control provided by the "Water-
sorted" floor series, this series is seen to underly and to support directly
numerous units at different loci (N.W. Plat:  Unit B; Md. A-3: Unit A; S.
Cent. Plat: Unit A; N.E. Entry: Unit A; E. Wall: Unit B). "Water-sorted"
turns up to or abuts the following features in Figure 1:  N.E. Plat: Unit A;
Md. A-2: Unit A; and a wall remnant in E. Wall0 Unit A. The floor series
seals a problematical feature, N.W. Plat:  Unit A.  In practice the excavators
employed this floor series to mark the inception of Phase IL VWhat the series
sealed was considered to be pre-Phase I- what it directly supported was as-
signed to Phase I, but with important exceptions.
Our first close reading of the excavation section of the 1959 La Venta
report failed to make us realize how these exceptions came about. Certain
structures built-on the "Water-sorted" series were assigned to Phase I (e.g.
Md. A-3:  Unit A- S. Cent. Plato  Unit A), while other platforhms abutted by
thi-s series, or its "equivalent" (DHS 1959.38), were also assigned to Phase I
-(cfo N.E. Plat: Unit A; Md. A-2:  Unit A). To add to confusion, platforms
and other features, though built directly on this floor series, but abutted
by the subsequent Phase II "White sandy" floor series, were assigned consis-
tently to Phase II (cf. N.W. Plat- Unit B; N.E. Entry: Unit A (somewhat un-
certain; DHS 1959 77); E. Wall:  UnRt B).  But Phase II also applied to those
platforms to which the Phase II "Thite sandy" series is directly tied through
floor-platfom ;"tfusionj ' rather than floor "run-under" or "abuttment" (cf, Md.
A-2: Units B, C, D, E; S. Cent. Plat: Unit B; S.W. Plat:   Unit A), A second
reading of the text made it clear that-the excavators were invoking (perhaps
too quietly) an interpretive principle, namely, that although a platform was
built on a floor which serves as a construction level, the floor did not
necessarily serve the newly-built platform as its functional base surface; a
floor subsequently laid on the first one and abutting the new platform is
taken as the base surface for the platform. Alternatively, the old floor
served first as a construction level and then as the base surface for the new
platform, while the subsequent floor was laid durilng the use of the platform.
The mamner in which the original surface and subsequent clay resurfacings of
the platform relate to the two sequent floors (or, here, "floor series") pro-
vides a primary determinant in phasing or simply in isolating the sequential
posiftioon of construction and use.
To help clarify what may have happened at La Venta, we have prepared
a schematic composite section (Figure 2) that combines the north-south sec-
tions through the north sides of the balanced and seemingly twin Northeast
and Northwest Platforms (DHS 19590Figs. 15 and 20). Figure 2 shows in detail
what Figure 1 attempts in part to show in summary fashion. The phase attri-
butions are those of the excavators and agree with those shown in Figure 1.
In Figure 2, N.W. Plat: Unit B, Phase II, is shown built on Phase I
"Water-sorted" while this same floor series abuts the Phase I N.Eo Plat:
Unit A. The inference to be gained from this section and the excavators'
text is that N.W. Plat. Unit B is Phase II because it never employed Phase I
Sater-sorted' as anything more than a construction level,  Proof of this
must lie in how the facing layers of Unit B relate to "Water-sortedt' and the
directly superimposed Phase II "White sandy" floors. We have tried to dupli-
cate accurately in Figure 2 the relationships shown in the published sections,.
The facings have been designated by Arabic numbers to facilitate reference.
The first fact to be established is whether or not NMW. Plat: Unit
Bl arnd N.Eo Plato Unit Al represent true functioning faces of the respective
platforms,  Evidence that they were such is possibly provided by N.E. Plat:
Unit Cl, directly abutted by all but the floor of the "Old-rose" series
6
(Phase III) and thus comparable in this regard to N.E. Plato  Unit Al9
abutted by the Phase I "Water-sorted"l series. But the evidence is not over-
whelming. In short, was the innermost, earliest face of each of these plat-
forms a finished face or simply the surface of the construction core which
was i'mmediately covered by a finish-facing?  The 1959 La Venta report never
openly handles this problem although seriously it infects the whole matter of
meaningful construction phasing in Complex A. If N.W. Plat: Unit Bi was a
finish-facing, Unit B must pertain to Phase I although it certainly continued
to be used and renovated (B2 - B4) during the Phase II accumulation of "White
sandyt floors.
Alignment of the Northwest and Northeast Platform sections in our
Figure 2 serves also to illustrate other significant points. These two struc-
tures are symmetrically placed in relation to the centerline of the Complex
(DHS 1959OFiao )4), They are mapped as of equal form and size. Together
these strcctures contribute heavily to the appearance in Complex A of bisym-
metrcal layout wlth implied coordinated grtowth of balanced or twin struc-
tures. The La Venta report makes considerable use of these aspects,
especially in the cases of the heavily investigated Southwest Platform and
incompletely excavated Southeast Platform.  Our Figure 2 would seem to illus-
traKe that identical or like final products may have evolved in quite dissim-
ilar ways. While the Phase IV end result in Complex A was formal and balanced
in terms of a center line, as all have emphasized, one suspects that the
various surf'ace structures comprising the Complex evolved in disjointed, in-
dependent Lashi on0
The .soor-lilnked construction sequences of two "twin" features in
Figure 2 sihow the manner in which architect.Oual convergence was achieved.
The N.W. Plat-. Unit B significantly postdated N.E. Plat:  Unit A. The lat-
ter underw:nt at least three clay-plaster refacings before being buried by
Unilt B. which was bul'It on "Water-sorted" as was N.W. Plato Unit B. N.E.
Plato  Unit B was refaced twice before the flrst of the "Wnite sandy" series
was laid; it ws rnot refaced during the laying of any of the component floors
of this series.  The current N.W. Plat:  Unit B was contrastingly repeatedly
faced during the laying of successive "White sandy" floors. Presumably, at
some time after N.W. Plat: Unit B4 facing was made, the Unit B platform was
markedly raised with the addition on it of Unit C. That the underlying Unit
B was not completely buried by Unit C and the "Old-rose" series is indicated
by the fact that Units Cl and C2 carry down onto the Unit B face; Unit C thus
appears to have had initially the "White sandy" series as its base surface.
N.E. Plat: Unit B, if we read the section correctly, continued in use during
the early occupation of N.W. Plat: Unit C (i.e. Cl and C2). N.W. Plat:
Unit C3 was added at the same time that the first of the "tOld-rose" series
was fused with it. At this same time N.E. Plato Unit C was built; the base
of its only facing (Cl) fused with the first "Old-rose," floor. Three more
WOld-rosef" floors came to abut the opposite N.W. Plat: Unit C3 by the time
the C4 facing there was added. It was on this fourth "Old-rose" floor that
N.W. Plat: Unit D was built. The opposite N.E. Plat: Unit C had been in
existence since the laying of the first "Old-rose" floor. It was not until
after N.W. Plat: Unit D had been refaced with the D3 layer that the fifth
and latest local "Old-rose" floor was laid. Finally the "red clay cap" was
7
laid over all extant construction at each locus. This presumably was the
only coordinated major activity in the otherwise quite different evolutions
of these important Complex A features.
The preceding "'reading" of Figure 2 is only significant if the follow-
-ing conclusions are pertinent: (1) The use of Complex A court-plaza floors
as determinants of construction sequences of all architectural features in
the Complex is simplistic inasmuch as each floor of each "series" might have
related to and, in many cases, did relate to architecture in different ways
in different loci; (2) If the never-explained system of phasfng in Complex A
was intended only to put in gross sequence (DHS 1959:Table 1) the relative
construction intervals of many somewhat obscure clay platforms, such simple
phasing might be considered valid for the purpose; (3) But since C14 samples
and masses of offerings, many containing representative Olmec-style pieces,
were sequentially ordered on the basis of affiliation with construction
phases, there is potiential danger in employlng too simple a framework; (4) If
the objective is to reconstruct La Venta development in all complex detail
(and such detail surely is present), a more precise approach to sequence than
the one in print will be required; (5) If two symmetrically placed, identi-
cally planed final structures developed in quite different ways (cf. Fig. 2),
it is to be doubted that other balanced, superficially similar exmples (e.g.
Southwest and Southeast Platforms) necessarily evolved in identical, corre-
lated fashion; assymmetrical growth of Complex A should be considered.
A most. useful contribution would be a really detailed correlation of
all La. Venta sectional data (as done briefly in Figure 2). This would illus-
trate to what extent the various floor series were physically traced from one
stLructure -o another. It would clarify the degree to wh'ich floor series were
re-established by typology level, and other means than truly traced continu-
it-y. Moreover, the sect'ion could be coordinated with successive plans of the
Complex. Such plans would not only graphically establish what actually was
Irnvolved 1in local ccnstruction sequence but would reIfy the subject of La
Venta architecture as well.
Admittedly, sections do not necessarily permit preparation of even
broken-line plans except in cases where a feature has been cross-sectioned at
various points, e.g. Northeast Platform (DHS 1959:Fig. 13). But it would be
hard to find another site of this architectural magnitude in which so much
was excavated but so little said clearly if not decisively about architectural
form and detail, possibly even function.
Radiocarbon Dates
Nine charcoal samples have been processed for La Venta Complex A.
The-results of analysis given throughout this section were published by
Drucker, Heizer and Squier (1957, 19599 see also Crane and Griffin 1958). We
know of no other analyses for La Venta.
Five of the nine charcoal samples are indicated (DHS 1959:264-265) to
come from "levels which belong stratigraphically to Phase I."  These five
samples are reviewed here in order of lessening age, followed by review of
the remaining four samples.
8
SAMPLE M535    "Charcoal from Phase I water-sorted floors at north-
east corner of Southwest Platform." 1154 - 300 B.C. (1454 - 854 B.C.) The
location of the sample from "Water-sorted" floors is indicated in Figure 26
of the 1959 publication (DHS). The text (DHS 1959:101) merely notes that
this Water-s'crted  floor series "contained considerable amounts of charcoal"
at the point where M-535 was recovered. One gathers that the charcoal was
not concentrated but rather scattered as part of the floor matrices.    Three
levels or s+rata are indicated in the floor series here (DHS 1959:Fig. 26).
The charcoal presumably comes from one, two, or three levelso .One cannot be
sure.  These three levels,, presumably true floors, may have spanned a consid-
erable amount of time, each with complex but unknown architectural relation-
ships (through run-under abutment, and/or "fusion").   The charcoal was
deposited in the course of laying these floors; the origin of the charcoal is
moot.  It should be evident however that in the absence of evidence of burn-
ing in the spots, charcoal must owe its presence to redepositCion.  Deposition
as '+rtL ol t      O J "iW   or lo?rs  . r s at  a leat secor,dary  liie ch c!ai of M-535
elU y roc.-jes frm some other place an-id Lhus time0  The death and bur-ning of
the matearial(s) responsible for the chlarcoal antedates the ultimate deposi-
tion of thne charcoal (here',  n th'e "Water-scrted" floor series),  We have an
ea s-r l1iit. ,.-pread," 1454 - 854 B.C.
The f?.l dzposition of the M-535 charcoal w-as during Phase I. The
de.rat,in. Ir tsurce of the charcoal is another ratter,    It could ha.ve de-
rv Jed f --I  ir-y (cutting, burn{n    dump,iYang, etc.) essentialily current
Vwith t h * ; ;>@ : $; \*  t  h te floor series oL   rom a%i.7lty significantly earlier
+ 4.              --J I. eithecas, wa  C; ".  o contro  on the age
sYthe w.     s~. Y&tt2SA *AS that  -a s th1is tht: 1,  pzA'-d*d  "le charcoal) at the
tvn.e AX 4,            Nor do we havwNe cci  I on how    g :orAq a substance like
woo. r    j_ E A *If:-'- '   be i :g burned.  -  c:l ILatere deposited.D
.7-?4'  .ter\** ;ret& t Y2r4t- 8 O  tO  :a&~coar;x)2 r t  seemq to be
O.ne t.het    r. ;a + si  kth P-e-F-hse I   Pr Phase I La Vet .ccupator?.
Si-Xe Tce prss:LilXtexists that the sa,.1p. ti, Ga-hered. unselec1i, vely from
two or three sequent "'Water-sorted" levels, there is a good chance the result
is an average of many uncontrollable factors. As in all Carborn-l1   results,
the product must be handled in terms of the fact that there are two out of
three chances that the true age of the sample lies within the gi'ven I-sigma
age spread. But in a particular case, such as this, longer odds might actu-
ally be more realistic.
SAMPLE M-529. "Charcoal from Phase I stage at midpoint of Northeast
Platform in vicinity of Offering No, 15.   Date may or may not refer to time
of offering, but was col-lected to indicate age of Phase I platform fill,"
904 + 300 B.C.   (1204 - 604 B.C.) The evialuation of this sample, just quoted,
is peculiar and becomes increasingly baffling as the reader tries to discover
where the sample comes from and what it is that was supposed to be dated.
Offering No, 15, referred to above, is listed as a bowl "'associated"
with a "considerable amount of charcoal"l; also "it is considered possible
that the vessel may have contained, or iTay have been inverted over, charred
remnants of some burned organic offering" (DHS 1959,I90).    This is the only
reference throughout the text to what might be M-529 beyond that given in the
initial quotation in this section. The rea-der is left to assume that the
9
charcoal, in or under the vessel, was in fact that which supplied the M-529
sample. Matters become worse when one reads that Offering No. 15 pertains to a
"Phase I(?)." Moreover, why does the resulting Cl4 date more likely Itindicate
age of Phase I platform fill" rather than the time of making the offering?
Following the Offering No. 15 clue, the only one at hand, one discovers
(DHS 19590189) that the offering came from "directly under Offering 6." Turning
to the-plan of the offerings found in the Northeast Platform (DHS 1959:Fig. 18),
Offering No. 6 is shown about one foot east of Offering No. 15. The section
(DHS 1959:Fig. 18) shows Offering No. 15 above and to the side of Offering No. 6,
not directly under Offering No. 6, as stated. Superimposition of offerings
could not have occurred if the plan and section are correct. One reads on and
discovers that Offering No. 6 has been assigned to Phase III because it occurred
within a pit cut down into the first platform at this locus (cf. our Figs. 1, 2,
N.E. Plats  Unit A) in the course of laying fill for the Phase III platform here
(N.E. Plat+:  Uinit C). Turning again to the excavators' Figure 18, we find that
Offerlng No. 15 ("Phase I[']") is also shown at the bottom of this same pit.
Nothing i'n text or caption states that Offering No. 15 was not, as depicted in
section, within the limits of the pit, purportedly Phase IIIo
For purposes of trying to clarify matters, we momentarily assume that
M-1529 -was proximate to the Offering No. 15 bowl, One cannot take it for granted
that the charcoal and bowl were simultaneous, ceremonially related deposits, or
a slnge offering. The excavators' evaluation of the sample makes the point
that. tthe date pertains to the construction date of the "Phase I" platform rather
than to the offering. Slnce the noted pit penetrates this platform fill from a
Phase III feature above, it seems likely that the authors were trying to inti-
mate t     hat dhe cha-coal was temporally urassociated with the offering bowl, that
t2  ChaA'ov)l <ame ?>rom beneath thie bowl but below the lowest limits of the pit.
The facmIt. that the text and diagrams are confused on the relationships of Offer-
ings No. 5 and No, 69 as well as on wh*ether the charcoal was in the bowl
(No. 15) or under it, allows a number of possibillties for the deposition of the
chsxrc,al.  If t:.ne sample was run wilth the intention of dating Phase I, the sam-
ple must have been deposited outside the pit. As indicated in our section on
small offerings, the bowl comprising Offering No. 15 cannot have occurred in
this same pit if its dubious date of "Phase I(?)"l is to have any validity.
Whether or not such reasoning physically and temporally associates the deposi-
tion of both bowl and charcoal is too much to contend with here.
As regards derivation of the sample, we have no way of knowing from
where in space and time it came. If found in direct association with the Offer-
ing No. 15 bowl, the sample could derive from recently killed and burned short-
lived substance(s). If charcoal so derived truly occurred within Phase I fill,
it would be hard to imagine a better sample to submit. But we can be sure of
nothing, not even the form or layout of the charcoal providing M-529. With
nothing published to the contrary, one could visualize the charcoal as a concen-
trated but incidental element within Phase I fill. It could derive from Pre-
Phase I activities.  But, as emphasized, nothing occurs in print to assure one
that charcoal and/or offering bowl, above or below Offering No. 6, did not occur
within the pit.  Finally, in discussing Offering No, 6 (Burials and Small Dedi-
catory Offerings) below, the point is made that the pit could have originated
early in Phase IV, rather than the published Phase III.
10
Sample M-529 is problematic as to its ultimate provenience, deposi-
tion dating,, and original source or derivation.   The published recor d is so
contradictory as to suggest considering that the C14 result has no reliable
meaning.   However., the excavators have emphasized on a number of occasirons
that the date is meaningful, that it "'indicates the age of Phase I platform
fill."   (Incidentally one might question that this platform  , i.e. N.E. Plat:
Unit A in Figs. 1, 2 is Phase I; while surely used during Phase I, it a    as
built prior to the laying of the "Water-sorted" floor series; the time inter-
val however is moot.) We have emphasized that this can only be so if the
charcoal is of essentially the same age as the act of filling, that is of
constructing the Phase I Northeast Platform. To be so, the substance ulti-
mately providing M-529 must have died at or close to the time of construction.
The charcoal must be directly associated with the fill.     It is the phasable
act of "filling," not "platform fill" that is being allegedly dated here.      To
repeat, if the excavators were correct in their assessment of what was being
datILed  eyn3* 4 .he charcoal itself), the sample by necesslty occurred below or
beyond X--he L2  sive pit , regardless of what their text and figures elsewhere
show or i?mpAv
Fo:", bltter or for worse, our interprztation of M-529 is that the
3=,;r , 5   tPs Phase I, or subsequen3 t activities of no later date than
the   leyo? 3   the "-ed clay cap," i.e. Phase IV. It is this cap that pro-
vides the only sure seal for the pit in which the sample may have been found.
If in --TIhe -o t  and i;f from currently killed material, it follows that the
e;harcoc.  &>dos 1r1 fa%t date the act of its dlepcsit3on and th1us the digging of
kne: ps':.iS   i^; !w.;.>ijs  case, since the pit pe.z trated a Phase I construction, the
Me1-ing :  te Ls   an upper limit one beyond which Phase I could not have per-
s sei. Tie :esul t    aso serves as aL lower limit date for the deposition of
the Phias;. : IV "fred clay cap.ft
shNg.P>E ;?Y$. iv'Charcoal from depth cLof 120 inches below center of
Noc..bn.4'-4 1 ?l ',-_.:trm. This sample is  'ro 1 fll layer underlying and contempora-
-eoi:. 5I<th Piese  I floors elsewhere i^n the Court area." 714 + 300 B.C.
(1014  - 414  B.C.). The sample is shown to have been collected from an "heavy
olive cleiy" level about 4  feet below the "Water-sorted" floor series (DHS
1959:Fig. 21)o "Considerable charcoal" occurred in this stratum. In the
same layer were floor fragments'which must have been secured from some struc-
ture existing locally" (DHS 1959067).
The charcoal can be inferred to have been incidentally present within
the olive clay. This same stratum contains residue of necessarily prior con-
struction. Both floor fragments and charcoal presumably derived from earlier
activities than the activity responsible for the deposition of the clay
matrix. Lying some four feet beneath the "Water-sortedt' floor series, can
the olive stratum be validly assumed to have been laid in anticipation of
laying the first floor of the series? We think not. In either case, the
charcoal cannot be assumed to have been deliberately placed in the stratum.
It is likely that this charcoal was relatively old at the time of depositing
the clay and had become mixed with the clay by pure chance.
The Cl4 result is better interpreted as pertaining to a time of La
Venta occupation significantly earlier than the laying of the Phase I "Water-
sorted" floor series and all preparatory worko    What was dated was unspecifi-
II
able Pre-Phase I  occupation.  It is assumed that the charcoal is charcoal
because of human rather than other agencies (lightning, forest fire, etc.).
SAMPLE M-532. "Charcoal from earliest (Phase I) construction layers
in Mound A-2 collected from the j-3 and j-5 components." 694 + 300 B.C.
(994 - 394 B.C.). The "j-3" component is indicated in our Figure 1 as Md. A-2:
Unit A. The "j.-51" component is the level abutting this Unit A (i.e. abutting
"j-3"). As indicated, the sample is said to come from these two features.
Yet, when the excavation section is consulted (DHS 1959:Fig. 10), M-532 is
shown as having come from the ?jl-311 platform only (our Unit A). If one
trusts the text rather than the section, the fact is that the sample is from
two temporally distinct-contexts inasmuch as the "j-5" level abuts, secondar-
ily, the "j-3" platform. Thus the collected sample is mixed; it has differ-
ent dates of deposition and in terms of derivation the sample is inherently
uncontrollable. The chatcoal was incidentally rather than deliberately part
of the "J-3'" or "1 -3 + J-5t' f ills.
The fill of the "-3"' platform (our Md. A-2: Unit A) contained not
only charcoal but "'fragments of flooring levels which had been dug up and
mixed in as part of the fill   .   They must have come from some earlier
structure or structures surfaced with colored floors, but where these earlier
structures were is quite unknown" (DHS 1959:37). While this observation al-
most suggests that the demolition material was deliberately placed in the
fill used in `i-3,," one doubts that the excavators intended this to be the
case. Rather,, it seems plausible that both charcoal and demolished old
fJo r-s were incidentally present in aumped material brought here as fill.  If
the fragmente s come from admittedly o:ld constFruction, the charcoal must also
derv ve from old act i'vity.
From the precedlng, it is evident that the charcoal comes from materi-
a'. and acthlvty "lsignificantly" earlier than the time or times of its deposi-
tio.o Agalr., the reader cannot be sure whether it was deposited only in
?-3" or "3 + j5-'   (DHS 1959-37, footnote 5, 264, Fig. 10). As regards
these two components, lj-511 abutting 1J-3, is not claimed by the excavators
to be a floor, let alone "Water-sorted." This feature is interpreted as a
series of fill layers set, if not in Phase I, then as an "initial activity of
the Phase II period" (DHS 1959.44, also 38). But the report equivocates on
this: t"Our reason for assigning [the " j-51" fill layers] to Phase I is that
they appear to be, insofar as level is concerned, either a part of, or a
local equivalent to, the "Water-sorted" floors found elsewhere in the A-1
complex"' (DHS 1959:44). If provably contemporary with "Water-sorted" floors,
the "J-5lf layers would be Phase I. But where this leaves the Phase II
possibility, just quoted, is difficult to say. Turning to the "j-3' platform,
abutted by "j-5," we read (DHS 1959.44) that it belongs to Phase I because
the floor fragments in its hearting are from "Pre-Phase I." This deduction
might be better reversed to read that the floor fragments are Pre-Phase I
because the "j-3" platform was demonstrably Phase I. But the latter was not
convincingly demonstrated. As was discussed in connection with floor and
platform sequences (above), the excavators emphasized the "Water-sorted"
floor series in delineating Phase I. But a platform abutted by this series
or sustained by this series was also assigned to Phase I. If we accept
common level and one would suppose "limited possibilities," as means of
12
linking "Water-sorted" and the "j-5" levels, then a Phase I feature still
abuts i'j-3," the platform, a pre-"Water-sorted tj-5' Phase I" feature,
Where did the M-532 sample come from in excavation? One cannot be
sure from the information in print.   Wnat was the sample intended to date?
We are told Phase I, but discover on careful reading that the excavators
might have meant anything local from Pre-Phase I to early Phase II. Finally,
the original source of the sample does seem t'o antedate its deposition which,
as indicated, could have occurred at two poirnts 'n time.
Despite the many variables here, the chances seem good that the Cl4
result for M-532 sample pertains to Pre-Pnase I (if from "j-3") and more cer-
tainly to activrity no later than the conclusion of Phase I (if from t'j-3 +
j-5" )
-&4i L                                     A ;-I-:3l0  JChlarcoa  fromr leven  fill feor Phase I platform  in
Ml,ourdt{ A        3O  BoC   (9OT h 'Os B.C.X iThis sample immediately pre-
det s st. .zap, icr aD Sample N-532't (DHS 1959C264). The M-531 charcoal was
depo st    In f1ll la,i down before the fill or fills yielding M-532, just
di sctkssed.
_          -h<33 charcoal, was not, found in a lens or hearth, bt ws scat-
tered u:soizrzlo*y thtroughout the sandy fill (DHS 1959:37).  The charcoal was
therefore almost certainly withln the sandy material when it was dug or re-
nmov7d ftr.._ c> ot;-Jer spot to "e spread In the MoundA-2' locus as fill.  The
fCL1ll f? 1 tat  e -nauAt.-a n of Ithis Sample (ab:(vW) notes thcat the fill layer
()li-S S ><irz . 10 ? jr-t) il r for purrpses of feveling an area on which a
Phas2;e I {? 7oat t;Qvs C,  -i;s to be built, WVha-t1 evidence exists to support this inter-
prrtatC<-  rhe          e leVel or^ i="fil  c:u'u 'have been- dieposlted some time be-
lore the   la,7-formii -cas even planned0  This platorm is the `j-3" feature that
@ro'Kded 'chc>tC ~bt'mtale or part of Sample M- 532, jasit dlscussed.  he conclusion
vaz t3v- W'      3' ;latormo mcold bN e on-cidere-d  Pre-P?hase Ill rather than
Since Sample M-531 appears to be Pre-Phase I in terms of both deposi-
tion and derivation, it follows that tne Cl4 result refers to Pre-Phase I
unspecifiable activity. The sample also supplies a lower limit date for all
constructional and ceremonial activity occurring in connection with Mound A-2,
the central north structure of the La Venta Complex A.
SAMPLE M-530.   One sample, said to pertain to Phase II, was submitted.
M-530 was provided with the following specifics:    "Charcoal from bottom of
Phase II pit 68 inches below surface of Northwest Platform."    804 + 300 B.C.
(1104 - 504 B.C.). The bottom of this pit ("No. 39," in DHS 1959:Fig. 21) con-
sisted of a lens of charcoal. Just above and within the pit were two adja-
cent vessels, Offerings Nos. 18 and 19. Judging from the section it seems
likely that the charcoal and pottery vessels comprised a single intrusive
offering.  "There is no question but that [the vessels] were deliberately
placed in the pit before it was entirely filled.    .    (DHS 1959l190-191).
If the pit is Phase II, it is peculiar to find that thie pit-associated
vessels are assigned to "Phase II (?)" (DHS 1959l190-191). This is only one
discrepancy to be contended with in attemptina to assess what M-530 means.
13
Pit No. 3 is shown ln section (DHS 1959 Fig. 21) as cut down into an
earlier pit, Pit No. 2. The latter had penetrated the "Water-sorted" floor
series underlying the mound platform series.  Both pits are thus necessarily
later in time than "Water-sorted" which is the primary marker of Phase I.
The section shows a -level feature, simply labeled "floors,." about two feet
above the "Water-sortedl" level.  If these "floors" were not origina lly pene-
trated by the older Pit No. 2, they were certainly cut by the later Pit No. 3
containing M-530 and the offerings.  To what do these "floors" pertain?
Since the section (DHS 1959:Fig. 21) illustrates conditions close to the
mound center, it is possible that the "floors" are the successive top sur-
faces of a platform construction. The presence of "Water-sorted" here is
expectable inasmuch as this series often ran-under and sustained the first
platforms built at various loci (our Fig. 1). By comparing the differently
scaled sections in the excavators' Figures 20 and 21, one arrives at the
possibility that these "floors" correspond in essential level with the sur-
face of tne early platform bullt on the Phase I "'Water-sorted" series (DHS
1959:cf. FIg. 20, 19 equivalent to N.W. Plat. Unit B in our Figs. 1, 2).
However, floor thickness and fill descriptions do not match in the roughly
in-line but discontinuous sections (DHS 1959:Figs. 20, 21).  If these dis-
crepancies are arbitrarily disregarded, the conclusion is reached that the
crucial Pit No. 3 penetrated a platform built on and over nothing but the
"Water-sorted"t floor series.
This platform was examined at lengith in our discussion of Construc-
tion Phases (above). Although built on the Phase I floor series it was
assigned to Phase II, the excavators having concluded that immediately follow-
ing its construction the first of the Phase II   te    sandy" floor series was
laid up to it and over the "Water-sorted" series.  Our conclusion was that
the record was not sufficiently clear on this point to preclude a Phase I
date for N.W. Plat:  Unit B, though the platform in this case surely contin-
ued in use during the laying of the entire Phase II floor series. A Phase I
rather than Phase II assignment for this the original Unit B platform might
be supported by the following: (1) The Northwest Platform appears to have
been sufficiently trenched to have disclosed some sign of any earlier plat-
form built on "Water-sorted" and thus unambiguously Phase I (DHS 1959:Fig.
19); (2) Since no such platform appeared, it seems unlikely that the North-
west Platform locus would have been featureless during the entire span of
Phase I, keeping in- mind that a platform did exist at the Northeast Platform
locus during this span (cf. our Fig. 2); (3) It follows that the only con-
struction that could have filled at least a part of this Phase I interval in
the Northwest Platform locus was the Unit B platform; (4) This platform
necessarily would have been built during Phase I some time after its incep-
tion. thile this argument seems logical it very likely is specious. For one,
we cannot be sure that the Unit B platform is the one into which Pit No. 3
vas intruded. If it was truly Unit B, we only make the point that considera-
tion of all possibilities and published data does permit limited openness in
the mtter of phasing. It seems likely that some platform, probably Unit B,
of either Phase I or Phase II construction date was disturbed by an intrusive
pit, the origin of which was well above the platform surface. If the plat-
form was built in Phase II times, it follows that the pit and the deposition
of its contents belong to Post-Phase II times. This conclusion then is in
disagreement with the "official" Phase II attribution of the pit (DHS 19590
264; 1957:72; Crane and Griffin 1958:7)
14
Sample M-530, deposited unquestionably later than the Phase I "Water-
sorted" floors, could not have been placed later than the laying of the Phase
IV "Red clay cap'" (DHS 1959:Fig. 21, b). These are the outside depositional
limits for this most important sample. As regards derivation of the sample,
the excavators speculate that the charcoal may represent evidence of burned
offerings (such as copal, feathers, or the like) in the bottom of the pit"
(DHS 1959.68). Could it not be determined whether the "charcoal" was of
wood? Do feathers, copal and the like yield charcoal in the common sense of
the word? Whatever it was that was burned, was it burned within the pit?
Such considerations are critical when trying to establish whether a time in-
terval occurred between the death of the substance (the feature being truly
dated) and its burning, as well as between burning and ultimate deposition in
the intrusive Pit No. 3.
Sample M-530 was inherently the best sample found in Phase I to Phase
; r. -xt.  It was intentionally deposited where found. It cannot have
been -depr;slted earlier than Phase I nor later than Phase IV. Unfortunately
the recoz'd dcoes not support the published statement (or implication) that the
C14 result'C. applies to Phase II alone. While we can be fairly specific as to
+the 1?phase &ate spread" of deposition of the charcoal (i.e. Phase I-Phase IV),
i. ns tmpocsblee to gauge the time interval between substance death and deposi-
t^ X:  .  i  Assuming that this interval was insignificant, the Cl14
result cran be said to apply to unspecifiable human activity somewhere in time
bet,ween Phase I (probably late Phase I as the charcoal was set later than the
hIild,-rig  at  1.y platform) and Phase IV (early in Phase IV, that is just
7 m~~~ cloie "Red c lay cap")
;>    1V of Complex A is allegedly controlled in time by two samples
c.;~cc:Ieco-;erecd from what are believed to be Post-Phase IV contexts..
.M?l:t;E M-533.  "CharcoaL from burned area lying on disturbed Phase IV
*t3^i *6!-; '.''   8zj-st west of limestone slab paving near Northwest Entryway.
Pbas~ Ly >?~?ers to early Post-Complex A activity of people following abandon-
ment of site by builders9' (DHS 1959:265, 78). 174 + 300 B.C. (474 B.C. -
A.D. 126). While the text (DHS 1959:267) states that the sample was "depos-
ited shortly after the drift sand began to accumulate without interruption,"
the fact is that the section showing the location of M-533 (DHS 1959:Fig. 24)
shows a "heavy bed of charcoal of undetermined extent to underlie the drift
sand." The "red clay cap" surface had been "burned to a brick orange from the
action of the open fire" (DHS 1959-77).  In short, nothing in the section nor
In the excavation portion of the text supports the observation elsewhere that
the "drift sands"' had already begun to accumulate by the time of the fire.
This point is important if one is concerned with when in local se-
quence the fire occurred. The laying of the enigmatic "Red clay cap" over
the Complex is the primary marker of Phase IV. Ceremonial activities that
are believed to have immediately preceded the laying of the "cap" are also
attributed to Phase IV. If preliminary offertory activity and construction
are subsumed by Phase IV, surely occupation of the architectural features
composed of red clay must be allowed for. If construction and use are not
to be distinguished by sequent phases, it follows that a La Venta construc-
tion phase must comprehend occupation even though no structural renovation
can be shown to have occurred within the phase, as is the case in Phase IV,
Although admittedly a fine point, the possibility exists that the charcoal
bed, of undetermined extent, was the result of late or terminal Phase IV
activity.
A more significant inquiry is one that questions the source of the
charcoal. We assume that the charcoal derives from wood. May not late
La Venta occupants have availed themselves of structural wooden members of
Phase IV or earlier use and installation dates? We hesitate.here to intro-
duce relevant but unpublished data. Nevertheless, there is at least one in-
stance at Tikal of a Post-Classic hearth having been made on vault debris
within a room of an (Early) Classic temple; the radiocarbon result makes
sense only if the submitted charcoal from the hearth derived from by then
ancient lintel or vault beams that someone took advantage of for ready fuel
(Coe, Shook and Satterthwalte 1961.30, for examples of 19th Century burning
of Classic wooden beams). It is not inconceivable that a similar incident
was responsible for the charcoal yielding La Venta Sample M-533. In this
not impossible case (assuming that wood was used in La Venta construction),
the C14 date would apply to the cutting of the beam or beams, the burning of
which provided the charcoal (again assuming this was wood charcoal and not
feathers or copal; cf. Sample 530). All reasonable possibilities should en-
ter into the evaluation of the La Venta C14 results.
SAMPLE M-528. "Charcoal from tower margin of Post-Phase IV wind-
blown sands in vicinity of Northeast Entryway.  This is definitely of Post-
Complex A date marking a time immediately following abandomnent of the site
by the Phase IV occupants." 444 + 250 B.C. (694 - 194 B.C.). In the midst
of this quoted description the reader is referred to Figure 24 (DHS 1959)o
Figure 24-shows a charcoal layer. On page 77, footnote, one discovers that
this is not the source of M-528, butvf of M-533 (j ust discussed). The quoted
text is the only clue as to the source of M-528 (one doubts that M-528 and
M-533 would have been collected from the same charcoal deposit without the
text advising so).  Inferentially, there were two superficlally located char-
coal deposits in the area of the Northeast Entryway. In discussing M-533 the
point was made that the relationship of its location to the drift sands was
by no means clear from the texto Was M-528 at a higher level than M-533 and
truly within the "lower margin" of the drift sand?  Evidently it was, accord-
ing to the "official" statement as to provenience, although the advertised
section (in Fig. 24) does nothing to support the published provenience of the
sample. The excavators estimate (DHS 1959:267) that both samples were not
deposited until about a century after the end of Phase IV.
Granting that the M-528 charcoal was deposited at a time when the
first sands were being blown over the abandoned site, there is still the
question of what it was that was being burned (we are not told that this was
a hearth or an in situ burning). Again, it might be allowed that the "depre-
dators" of Post-Phase IV took advantage of still available structural wood of
Phase IV or earlier cutting and installation dates.
Both Samples M-528 and M-533 might be interpreted as follows: if
they derive from short-lived material killed or cut and burned close in time
to the times of their deposition, they provide upper limit dates later than
16
which Phase IV "classic" occupation probably did not extend. If depositions
of the samples are certain in terms of sequence of events, but sources of the
samples are problematical, the C14 dates provide a lower limit earlier than
which terminal Phase IV and/or Post-Phase IV activities probably could not
have occurred. Here, "probably" refers to the two-out-of-three chance factor
operating in usual C14 results (at 1-sigma). When chance and numerous basi-
cally uncontrollable "ifs" combine as they do here, what do these two C14
dates mean? Perhaps what the excavators believe them to mean. Perhaps noth-
ing identifiable.
SAMPLE M-536. The last of the La Venta radiocarbon series comes
"from bottom of trench cut into the North Platform of the Great Pyramid.
Charcoal-bearing level consisted of white sands mixed with La Venta Coarse
Paste Buff Ware and Coarse Paste Brown Ware sherds. Phase attribution of
this layer is urinown since we were unable to correlate the Pyramid construc-
tion layers w'lth those in the Ceremonial Court" (DHS 1959:265). 574 + 300
B.C. (874 - 274 B.C.). Elsewhere (Crane and Griffin 1958:7) is the observa-
tion that this sample "Should give the date of the early (perhaps the initial)
construction of the Pyramid."  This contrasts with the following statement:
it v . 0 it is our impression that the trench was excavated into what may be
considered the outermost shell of the Pyramid, that is to say a late stage of
enlargement rather than the hearting of the original structure" (DHS 1959:266-
267).  Thls "i'mpression" evidently supersedes the prior one as to what it was
that was being dated.
Tat charcoal is said to be of wood and to have been apparently scat-
tered rather than concentrated as an offering in the sand stratum. But did
the charcoal enter the sand randomly? The sherds are said to have been
"thrown into [the sand] deliberately, perhaps as a binder,, for the sand was
far too c'cean to have come from an occupation or refuse zone" (DHS 1959:119).
By the same argument, the wood charcoal also en-tered the sand as "binder.1'
It seems clear that the sand stratum was laid down before the final
stage of Pyramid construction, if in fact the Pyramid grew by "construction
phases."  If the sherd and charcoal were provable, deliberate inclusions in
the pristine sand, one would have to assume that both had a common temporal
origin for the C14 result to be meaningful. The associations of Pyramid,
sand stratum, sherds and charcoal would have to be shown to be significant
ones before the C14 date could be considered relevant to anything more than
the death of wood. The radiocarbon result of course can be considered as a
lower limit earlier than which the whole or some portion of the Pyramid prob-
ably could not have been built. Why the sample was submitted is difficult to
understand.
Summay and Re-Interpretation of Dates
The nine samples have been reviewed with attention to published and
precise provenience, deposition in the sequence, known or possible derivation,
and what it is to which each C1 date properly and most probably pertains.
While this critique has at times reached the point of hair-splitting, we feel
that such is warranted by the major role that the allegedly well-dated La
Venta Complex A plays in current Nesoamerican reconstructions.
17
i'The following tabulation summarizes contrasting views as to what was
dated by the nine samples:
Sample        Date
M-535    1454 - 854 B.C.
M-529    1204 - 604 B.C*
M-534    1014   414 B.C.
M-532     994 _ 394 B.C.
M-531     904 - 304 BoCo
M-530    1104 - 504 B.C.
M-533     474 BeC. - A.D.
126
M-528     694    194 B.C.
M-536     874 - 274 B.C.
Original Interpretation
(DHS 1959 :0264-267, Fi g. 79)
Dates Phase I floor series
Dates Phase I platform
fill
Dates Phase I floor series
and underlying fill
Dates Phase I construction
layers
Dates Phase I fill
Dates Phase II pit
Probably dates Post-
Phase IV activity
Definitely dates Post-
Phase IV activity
Might date a Phase
III or IV activity
but no proof
Revised
Interpretation
Dates Pre-Phase I,
or Phase I
Dates Phase I, or
dates Phase II-IV
(prior to red clay
cap)
Dates Pre-Phase I
Good chance that it
dates Pre-Phase I
or Phase I
Dates Pre-Phase I
Dates late Phase I
to early Phase IV
(prior to red clay
cap)
Could date- Post-
Phase IV activity,
or terminal Phase
IV occupation, or
Phase IV or Pre-
Phase IV construc-
tion
Could date Post--
Phase IV activity,
or Phase IV or Pre-
Phase IV construc-
tion
Dates wood that
provided sample
Six of the La Venta samples comprise charcoal found in construction
fills; three (M-530, M-533, M-528) consist of charcoal probably from in situ
burning. Each sample has been reviewed from the standpoints of its phase
assignment, associations, manner of final deposition, and original source.
It would be well to reiterate the obvious, that in each case it is
the organic source of the charcoal that has been primarily dated. We assume,
as did the excavators, that it has been reliably dated. Each charcoal sample,
as must be granted, can have multiple sources. A tree is cut; wood from it
immediately or eventually provides a part or the whole of the carbonized sam-
ple submitted for analysis. We do not know how many organic sources a sample
18
may have, nor the proportion of those sources represented in the sample. If
entirely wood charcoal, we do not know how many trees may have provided the
sample. Another unknown is the point of origin of wood within a tree; there-
fore, there is no way of gauging "post-sample growth" (Satterthwaite and
Ralph 1960:167), by which is meant the growth-time interval between the
"deathtt of the sample source and "death" of the whole tree. Post-sample
growth error, though usually unreckonable, must be taken into account in in-
terpretationo The greater the life-span of the sample source (tree, etc.),
the greater the potential for significant post-sample growth error. While it
is possible to have wood charcoal identified as to contributing genera (or
genus, if the sample is homogenous), there appears to be little reliable data
on the differing life spans of tropical trees0 In an attempt to minimize
post-sample growth error, one would exclude the larger pieces of charcoal in
a C14 sample and submit only the smallest pieces in the hope that the smaller
ones derive from the youngest growth of the tree or trees.
esPt-sample growth ("PSG") errcor is not the only factor to be consid-
ered0 One may not be able to control or specify the intervals between cut-
tling and carbonizatlon and between carbonization and final deposition of the
mat.erial comprising the charcoal sample0  Thls total interval is here termed
the P1acement History ("PH") of the sample0   We ought also to recognize an
"XI' tato represev.n,s the average of t-he death-dates of the original organic
mater'ats comprlsing the sample; if the sample is homogenous material of a
sing1e dea:hdate  9'X" representps that date. In usual. C14 interpretations
. 4 re i  l: c^-: of three chances t4hiat X falls within the I-sigma date-
-s.pre*A ?;>id.-1iSZy^ an<lys's of the sample.
C., It;  k;o:: eamp eIV M-534, w"th a date of i10li  414 B.C., and con-
tz_^<* -ci -A -<-:X @- to zi;retain t;o Pre PIase I activies:  Sirice we are con-
cez^ :-e{ v2^-;7;. d-Kzii Phase I, it follows that this s-ubsequent phase is
be t1 . Wv ..;  IC;  a t  sast pot s-ZvX wT hi in `he given spread., But unless it can
be p7v.:    t  PSG and PH are i.nsignifcant, i   is necessary to conclude that
Phase I ls yom-;nger thian X by the t1me %;alues of PSG and PH. The addition to
X of the sum of PSG and PH increases the chance that Phase I came into being
no earlier than a date closer to 414 B.C. than to 1014 B.C.    If X in fact co-
incides with 414 B.C., the inception of Phase I occurred subsequent to 414
B.C. by the amount of time represented by PSG and PH. If X coincides with
1014 B.C., these same two values serve to position the inception date of'
Phase I as younger than 1014 B.C. The more enviromnentally and culturally
complex the site, and the more intensive its construction, demolition, and
refurbishing, the more the iriherent errors of PSG and PH, as well as X as a
potential average, must be taken into account.
This same Sample M-534 more directly purports to date Pre-Phase I
"activities." The question is whether this is very meaningful. What is
meant is that organic material was acquired probably through human agency
from one or more sources of the same or different death-dates prior to the
date of the layirng of the first "Water-sorted" floor, an event initiating
Phase I. Placement History (PH) has no bearing here, With this one result,
we are by no means assured that La Venta was occupied during the date-spread.
The probability is merely good that some or all of the organic material ulti-
mately providing M-534 was ali've at a point or points within the spread.
19
In order to date Phase I, the excavators averaged five C14 results
(M-535, M-529, M-5349 M-532, M-531) concluded to pertain to this phase, with
a result of 948 - 680 B.C. (814 + 134 B.C.)0 The date 800 B.C. was selected
in round-number fashion for Phase I La Venta construction (DIHS 1959:265).
In order to date Phase I. specifically the laying of the "Water-
sorted" floor series, revised interpretation requires consideration (above)
of Samples M-534 and M-531 which appear to pertain directly to Pre-Phase I.
The maximum spread of these two samples is 1014 - 304 B.C. The chances are
good that the first Phase I floor postdates X, occurring within this date-
spread, by the amount of P5G and PH. Assuming that we are not averaging
horses and apples, we note that the average of M-534 and M-531 is 659 + 212,
that is 871 - 447 B.C. While averaging reduces the tolerance, we are not
sure that it here effectively increases probability.
Phase II is theoretically controlled by Samples M-535, M-534, M-532,
and M-531 (Pre-Phase I, and Pre-Phase I or Phase I),  The maximum spread of
these samples is 1454 - 30k B.C.  It Is maximum spread that we believe to be
meaningful. If averaged, the result is 792 + I 0, or 942 - 642 B.C. Phase
II my be concluded to have begun after X witfhin either spread by the amount
of PSG and PH, -When put in these terms it is obvious that we have a relative
dating for Phase II, but no date.
Sample M-530 is probably the best sample of the nine in that the
charcoal was deposited after laying the "Water-sorted" series and prior to
the deposiltion of the "Red clay cap,."  If the charcoal was truly made up of
mterial In which PSG and PH were of insignificant time, there is a good
probability that charcoal and two pottery vessels were cached at some point
in-the spread 1104 - 504 B.C. The vessels -were made earlier than that point,
but-by how muich time is unknown. The "Red clay cap" may be said to have been
post-X within this spread.
Samples M-533 and M-528 might also have bearing on when this same
nRed clay cap" was laid. The date-spread maximums of the combined samples is
694 B.C. - A.D. 126. The cap was possiblv (or probably, or surely, depending
on one's point of view) laid earlier than X within this date-spread, plus
PSG plus PH. The sum of PSG and PH, although incalculable, theoretically al-
lows X+PSG+PH to be post-A.D. 126. If PSG and/or PH are of considerable time
values, as they well could be in these samples, the true upper limit date for
the cap and Phase IV cannot fall at 694 B.C. If the two samples are averaged
(with no idea of what we are really averaging) the same variables operate
within the date-spread of 504 - 114 B.C. (309 + 195).
Sample M-529 also relates to the deposition of the "Red clay cap" in
that the sample was associated with construction surely no later than the
cap. Thus, laying of cap a post-X within spread 1204 - 604 B.C. + PSG+PH.
Finally, Sample M-536 and the result of its analysis have no recog-
nizable pertinency.
The excavators concluded that the "radiocarbon dates from La Venta
are interpreted O . . as indicating that Complex A was constructed and used -
during approximately the period 800 B.C. to 400 B.C." (DHS 1959:a267),
20
Reassessment of the La Venta C14 dates provides no basis for clear-
cut conclusions beyond one that emphasizes ambiguousness of sample associa-
tion and enormous tolerance in each result. Despite these serious shortcom-
ings, a truly useful and safe conclusion does emerge, namely, that construction
occurred at La Venta during the first millenium B.C., if not earlier and later.
Review, reassignment, attention to "PSG" and like factors, and, even on occa-
Sion hair-splitting, interestingly do not invalidate the commonly trusted 800
to 400 B.C. tirme span for Phases I to IV in Complex A. On the other hand, we
find nothing within the La Venta Ci4 dates to support this pulished conclu-
sion. The tolerances are simply too excessive. Averaging of results, while
reducing the tolerance, raises the problem of whether like data are being
averaged.  Averaging also begs the question of what it is that the result is
supposed to illustrateo All in all, the nine La Venta dates barely control
anything of any substance. A variety of fascinating but eventually pointless
games can be pl.ayed with them,
M    ie:Offersn       Mo sa ea  Pavement+s
A n.: >aLe  feature ancovered d1uring the La Venta work was the presence
oi huge, sqiuarish p"-s intruded Into the Court and/or associated platfo-
n ype   c   ^;Sti>.:;^{e=;Si ons   .  F 'ive  su ch   pits   were   located .   Three   of  these   were   de-
Xr?^gLt.   i,5  2'?  O f:fer i.:ngs;9 "t  (vr M.O . 1 ? n   o4 u   Fig ,  )   the   term   applyi ng  in
z2? casev VNzs. 1, 3) to the multilayered deposit of worked blocks of serpen-
tines and  In ",.^.he third (No. 2) to a single layer of the same objects.  Only
M.O   I n  -    an examp`e of the La Venta se:-pentine mosaic pavements.
o0 Th.     r4 :eni.>nt was notc brouoht int-o tei e.(A->ablished series of numbered
"Palrem-; lo   Nc  misalcs, Patvements Nos. 1 and 2 ("vpvmt.  in Flg. I.), had
beenz ?ocrfv p<ev's.i' y ( 9 3))  FPvmltt  2 was exp-ised bTut not removed to check
v  Ja    - y; cf ~~ayers of serpen ine b it -k: beneath it, What appears to
ha-ve  bee1 i ...: .:   r ._, :. obing  revealed  t.M al  P-vl t  over lay  a  "stone  rubble  and
eO ); h ?wv  f   ( D k e r   XL9 5 ? : r  g '.  - -   l   ) ,  Th Is  "r-u b b le "   w a s   la te r
tD >U s      >,~ .cC.idered to b- ImAa:' t c: identical" w-ith the 1955 exam-
Y ,C-z i  t ;:u  b l ocks  of  secpentin e,o
Any reader of the La Venta reports is bound to be confused as to what
constituted a "Massive Offering."    Only the three 1955  features were so de-
fined,  The diagnostics of this category are indicated to be "large deep
pits" containing what are interpreted as offerings consisting of a "very
great quantity of stone" (DHS 1955:l28)o The authors never make clear whether
the conventionalized jaguar(?) serpentine mosaics are to be considered as
primary or supplementary evidence of such offerings. The same is true of a
"crucIform cache" of celts, which, in four instances, occurred in the fill
overlying the mosaic or layered blocks (DHS 1959:129).
The following tabulation helps to illustrate the components and
associations of these five remarkable features:
21
Cruciform
Assigned     Mosaic     Underlying stone layer     Celt cache
Feature      Phase        Mask         Many      Single         Offering
M.Oo 1        II           X            x                      X(1942-B)
M.O. 2        IV           -                       x           X(1942-C)
M.O.-3        III          -            x          _           X(10)
Pvmte 1       II           X            X?-                    X(1943-E)
Pvmt. 2       IV?          X            ?          ?           Robbed?
The data in this table are to be kept in mind when evaluating various posi-
tive statements and speculations regarding the role of "massive offerings" at
La Venta. For instance, Heizer (1959:180) writes that "installation of a
massive offering [of single or multi-layered 'pavements' of dressed rectangu-
lar blocks of green serpentine] marked the beginning of each of the four con-
struction phases. The strong suggestion exists that these renovations are
cyclic and presumably are associated with a calendar system. Our present
crude chronology, based on radiocarbon dates, would indicate a periodicity of
about 100 years" (see also Heizer 1960:219-220 for more elaborate use of
cycles within the purported 400 years of La Venta construction).  Elsewhere
(DHS 1959o299), one reads that the "known practice of the builders of the La
Venta site in making a mssive offering at the beginning of each phase does
suggest an element of periodicity for the mosaic masks. . Ott The authors
(DHS 1959.299) suggest that further excavation would reveal two new masks to
fil th.e Phase I, III, and IV gaps, assuming that Pavement No. 2, now unas-
signable, could fill one of the three gaps on further investigation. They
further suggest (DHS 1959:46) that serpentine blocks in two ancient trenches
on the north and south sides of the Phase III M.O. 3 stem from a disturbed
and subsequently redeposited (in M.O. 3) postulated Phase I Massive Offering.
Reference to our Figure 1 and preceding table does not verify the
quoted statements that each construction phase was initiated by the placement
of "massive offerings," by which the excavators apparently mean only multi-
or single layered pavements of serpentine blocks (but contrast with given
components of M.O. 1, p. 128), No such offering can as yet be assigned to
Phase I. Two (M.O. 1 and Pvmt. 1, the latter a mosaic mask which very likely
overlies a multi-layered deposit) are assigned to Phase II on the assumption
that-the Southwest Platform, the source of M.O. 1, paralleled in time and
detail the development of the incompletely investigated Southeast Platform,
beneath which Pvmt, 1 was found. The assumption of bisymmetry is not borne
out in the case of the Northeast and Northwest Platforms (our Figs. 1, 2).
A minor point:  in the description of its excavation, M.O. 1 is assigned to a
Phase IIa, not to II, In any case, the excavators might have emphasized,
while generalizing, that on occasion a phase might have been initiated by a
double or dual offering.
"Massive Offering," a term devised for the La Venta data, needs redef-
inition. The excavators apply it in a most inconsistent manner. It should
be evident that five massive offerings have been found to date and that in
each case a large, relatively deep pit had been dug to receive the material.
There are varieties of offertory content, thus varieties of "massive offer-
ing."  Probably all mosaic masks overlie multi-layered serpentine blocks.
22
Non-mosaic offerings consisted of etZher a single layer of blocks or nany
layers. Probably all varieties were directly associated with "supplementary"
offerings of celts arranged in a cruciform pattern. That varieties of mas-
sive offerings marked, singly or doubly, the beginnings of new phases of con-
struct-ion in Complex A remains to be determined. As has been indicated, the
published phasing of Complex A appears to contain a number of non sequiturs.
These, plus patently vague application of "Massive Offering," together with
questions as to the meanirng of the Complex A C14 dates, jointly impair the
usefulness of statements that emphasize the cyclical, dedicatory featuares of
such offerings. They could be all that the excavators conclude them to have
been but the proof has yet to be presented. The Itdedicatoryi" aspect of
cached offerings and tomb-type burials in the context of Mesoamerican ceremo-
nial construction is an important subject. The La Venta massive offerings
very likely fall within the scope of this subject. For this reason alone, a
cautious assessmentE of their role or Loles at La Venta is needed.
The problem remains of ver-fy li-g the mosaic pavements as Olmec prod-
ucts0  There is no question that M.O I as set just prior to laying the
Phase II 1%h1ite sandy" floor series. As indicated, this is the only surely
phased mosaic pavenent found at La Venta, As regards stylistic al?finity, the
polint has been made (DHS 1i95993) that this "very, highaly conventior-alized mask
of the jaguar 0   0 . incorporated most of thne distinctive features repeated in
other Omec representations of this deity.t' The only distinctive elements
clted are tW2he `p'J?>=ed eyebrows of t.he tfiypical Olmec Jaguar representation"
(DHS 19`9,--99).   It strlkes us that it equires considezable     gition to
see plime eyebIrows twlthin the geomk{ri'c Layout of this or any other La Venta
mosaic pavement mask. More important, 'waIs t!. z 7,ruly Olmec about these three
ma sk.s'?  ThA.4A th<ney represent Jaguars in             I,,-:,ace ?asn  is a conclusion, one
sUJspec.s-- *ir,m .-J1 their &ailure +t imrir-E;ss cbse:-:iers ti-at tlhiey are truman or
r PI                      Ia: a--  A (c;-stant in all three i.. tf4e pr*s8.&ce of -,ifour open spaces with
' 4    ; C2e t  r ;ed g e s [r:e pr e e .t!n e -pg ] e .: y. v  ' , g  DHS `9 91% 93). Thou.gh not
c   ev!>.t22 .'n Wi..>s ; Yn .o-<S..a .J,he text, a .fe .ir- vX2I  W.4 . reensaz pr- ;-y ur.usua , even in
Omec           a n, 'a:.alyc sti'..xuyt' of  .ke --nponet.-e.s iaki.g p Olmec. jag'aar-
monster faces in Sculpture fails to record this peculiarity (Drucker '952:
Fig. 58).  It i;  i iso noteworthy that the orientation of the "muzzle" area
is opposite to that in sculptured representation (Drucker l952-Fig. 58). All
in all, a very poor case has been made out that these mosaics, jaguar or not,
conform to any known Olmec standard, tradition, or st9yle. They are extraordi-
rnary and, being so, ought to be fully analyzed without iniiti'al con-viction of
their Olmec affiliation.  Because they mlght be 'early," and because they
occur at La VTenta do not constitute arguments that they are in fact Olmec.
Bur 'als and Small Dedi    .dLicain.
If La Venta was as pivotal as is commonly claimed or implied in the
matter of early Mesoamerican development, one would expect that human burials
would have been found in association wi th ceremonial areas and architecture.
But, it appears that "Clay platform  structures [were] rarely used for burial
but often for ritual offerings" (Heizer 1959 179).  Stirling (19c5W23) how-
ever indicates that things were far better than Heizer ailows, for he speaks
of "lush tombs" and "rich tomb burials" at La Venta. Finally,r the mortuary
aspect of La Venta is greatly amplified -when Heizer (1960m220), in -peaking
of 400 years of spiritual and temporal power of La Venta priests, sees within
23
Phase IV times the "ultimate development of class differences evidenced by
the burial of high priests [in 'large tombs'] within the ceremonial area"
of La Venta.
In hopes of discovering more about these fine tombs, the reader re-
verts to the La Venta excavation reports.  There one reads that the "only
burials uncovered at the site of La Venta were those withln the tomb excava-
ted in 19h2 [i.e. "Tomb A"t] (DHS 1959:162). But, incredibly, within the
same report (po 127) there appears the statement:   "Distinctive to Phase IV
at La Venta are the great tombs represented by Monuments 6, 7, and Feature
A-3-a."  Monument 6 is discovered to be Tomb B, though Monument 6 refers to
the great stone coffer; the coffer has contents confusingly termed Offering
1942-B.  Monument 7 turns out not to be a stele or altar but a chamber or
construction that, Tomb A, made of basalt columns; its contents were collec-
ted as Offering 1942-A.  Feature A-3-a is "Tomb C." while Offering 1943-G
pertaine t'  t.c contents,
The fact is that five i'rich" features (Tombs A-E) uncovered in the
earl,' seasons of excavation were called tombs. The contents of these fea-
tures were assigned numbers as offerings in the 1959 report.  Tombs B, C, D,
and E are sTecifically noted to have beer, completely devoid of t+aces of
human skeletal material (bone, teeth, etc.) (Drucker 1952:27, 64t9 71, 73).
Only Tomb A contained such remains. We have treated B-E as "surrogate buri-
als" (below), following an interpretive lead provrided by Wedel (in Drucker
1L952:6, C473). Although cor4cei'vably symtbo-1lc of human interment, there is
appa:ebi.-Uy ao.ot the slightest proof that3 bodies were ever placed in Tombs B-E.
As regards Tomb A (Mionument 7., Off. 1942-A), human intement was
ind'icated by c1innabar(?) reddened "9tremains of two bundle burials, each prob-
ably conti-.nrn.g at least one individual.  T 'The skeletal material was confined
to a "tmass of soilInters" ten+atively iaenti.fied as pertailning to juvenile long
bones (D      , 1952 2:e23).  Orne  ?bundd1el yi elded deciduous t eeth.  The fione
offerl"gs and association with read pig ment suggests to us a repetition of the
"1surro3ate bria   offertory type discussed below,  We are unable to find
what the reasons were for concluding that these two contiguous deposits at
one end of the "ttomb" chamber were in fact "bundles" let alone why they were
"bundle burials0"  The presence of human skeletal material in offertory or
true non'burial cache contexts is well documented in the Maya area (Coe 1959:
77-78; 1962:h498); the teeth and bone fragments in the Tomb A deposits might
well have been placed where found as symbolic objects thus not the rotted
residue, as assumed in the report, of two funereally buried individuals. We
doubt that any common definition of "eburial" is satisfied by "Tomb A." Des-
pite assertlons to the contrary, an indisputable human interment has yet to
be uncovered at the site. ToirLbs, rich, lush, large or otherwise, are not a
known La Venta trait if "ttomb" is to preserve any common, archaeological mean-
ing. This is not to minimize the importance of the basically enigmatic fea-
tures termed "tombs" at La Venta. They could well be substitutes, as indicated
below, for the "real thing."l (One wonders whether cremation may not have been
customary among the La Venta elite and whether these strange deposits may not
have been the means whereby funerary demands were satisfied.)
Turning to the subject of caches, the term "small dedicatory offering"'
was applled to most of the offerings recovered in 1955 (DHS 1959:133) to dif-
ferentiate them from the "Massive Offerings" previously discussed. If we
omit the misleading "dedicatory," it appears that 49 "small offerings", were
encountered during the La Venta excavations. Eleven of these are indicated
to be probably or surely Post-Phase IV. The remainder are said to fall in
time from Phase I(?) to Phase IV.
The offerings, i.e. cached offerings, of La Venta are here reviewed
for various purposes. In terms of the common proposition that likeness may
indicate contemporaneity, the offerings have been searched for patterns.
Apart from the almost entirely t"floating" sculptured monuments of La Venta,
Olmec style is exclusively evident in certain offertory material (figurines,
engraved celts, etc.). As re-emphasized in this paper (below), the La Venta
monuments offer little tenporal control on Olmec style. Style and time are
here best controlled via the content of offerings. A crucial question is at
what points in the local construction sequence (and in actual time provided
by C14 dates) do objects in or exhibiting unequivocal Olmec style appear?
Sur:zogate B,i:!a4.' rype
)n t;      % C Z`Ype of La Venta offering can be recognized and tentatively
verned tsw-Z^3a~e bzfwtal.A  The nine examples are- Offerings 5, 6, 79 1942-A
Th        9 A 4- L94-Bq e942-Dq 1943-F, 19 3-G. and 1943-L. The 1942-D exam-
p' e Is -   s st:>e as r;he other e6ght.  The pattern (briefly indicated by DHS
19594 ea6>.-i6`4') consists of the depositi on, in a formal arrangenent, of stone
beads, ear^sp-cls, pendants, and occaslonally flgurines or 'maskettes."  These
are aAsaSMged .s.a.A1 :o replicate the layouat of material worn by the deceased.
NOWf,t>-A^?>09 2,. *^ 'f <tke?tal seateria:l onn'jrs. The offertory objects occur
s> D2E A  tde ,-< *X t9hin a marrked layer of  -nnbarb   pture or admixed by clay. One
mA-,:(e.i co '.,  r;c the r:e of clnmabar was Offering 1942-B, within the famed
siorie ccfC-: (I'Monuraent 6"1) another was Offering 1942-D, an apparently scat-
te-^ed tf"erT,3  Contexts differ.  One, as just noted, was in a lidded monu-
naFiS 93& %r^ ;a><e  S.9h42-A was in "Tomb A.," as noted above. 1943-F was covered
7a'd ?orizcntal (;?Tomb El?) whiIe 1943-G was on the floor of
o  ar, ;'etl         t" ("Tomb C's). 1943-L was located within a rectangular
area ? are.tLZi y &eiineated by cinnabar (the feature was first termed "Tomb D").
The remalning examples were simply situated, in construction fills and intru-
sive pits.
Published phase assignments of these "surrogate burial" offerings are
as follows:  Phase I(?),  Offering 7; Phase III, Offerings 5, 6; Phase IV,
1942-A, 1942-B,9 1942-D, 1943-F, 1943-G, 1943-L. The apparent offertory pat-
tern was long-lived if one accepts the published radiocarbon controls on the
Complex A phases.
Offering 7, doubtfully attributed to Phase I, is of exceptional impor-
tance inasmuch as it is possibly the earliest La Venta deposit in which an
object in Olmec style is present. The object is a "maskettel" of a human face
in which the mouth appears to have the basic Olmec conventionalization (DHS
1959:Fig, 43,b).  Offering 7 is shown as occurring in the fill of the earliest
platform at tKe Northeast Platform locus (DHS 1959:Fig. 18). The excavators
specify that it did not occur within a pit dug down into the platform fill
(DHS 1959l171), unlike other proximate offerings (see below). The platform
(N.E. Plat: Unit A in our Figs. 1, 2) is assigned to Phase I (rightly or wrong-
ly, depending on how the abutment of the tWater-sortedtt series is interpreted).
Yet, Offering 7 is "tdoubtfully attributed" to Phase I. Why? No reason is
25
given, althoug  this offering is crucial from the standpoint of offertory
pattem and Olmec style.
Offerings 5 and 6, Phase III, also come from the Northeast Platform.
Both contained Olmec style tmaskettesI (DHS 1959:Fig. 43,a,d).   Both were
found within pits indicated (DHS 1959-Fig. 18) to have been cut down through
the earlier two platforms (N.E. Plato Units A and B, Figs. 1, 2).   In the
case of Offering 5, the point of origin of the associated pit "appeared to be
in the next-to the last structural phase" (DHS 1959:162), i.e. N.E. Plat:
Unit C in our Figure 1. The pit is shown (DHS 1959:Fig. 18) beginning in the
very lowest fill of the Phase III platform. This pit, yieldi-ng Offering 6,
is shown originating in fill just beneath the surface of the same Phase III
platform.  The suggestion gained from text and section is that the pits were
dug during two moments of the Phase III filling operation culminating in the
Phase III platform. -The Offering 5 pit is said to have a   arentl  originated
within this fill (above). The Offering 6 pIt definitely originated within
this fill. but at a point clQse to the Phase III platform (N.E. Plat: Unit C;
our F2gs. 19 2) top surface (DHS l959-i67).   If we accept the earlier plat-
form (N,Eo' Plat: Unit B) as belonging to Phase II, and both pits, as indicated,
were intruded into it, then the two Offerings, 5 and 6, are certainly no
earlier than Phase II. Since the strati graphic origign of Offering 5 was not
clear9 tt shculld at least have been assigned to a "Phase III(?)." How the
origig of <he Offering 6 pit was established is not specified.   When all pub-
lished data are considered, nothing substantial really precludes that these
two Offerings (5 and 6) were intruded into earlier platforms at the time of
depositing the Red clay cap, which, as we have indicated, is treated as the
principal determinant of Phase IV.
Tne  surogate burial"Q type of offering may have been so traditional-
ized that It persisted over four construction phases.  The four phases con-
ceivably occupied far less time than assigned them by the excavators. On the
other hand, the very uniqueness of this offertory pattem might argue that it
occupied a short time-span. However, there are too many local variables at
this time to be able to reconstruct the history of this particular pattern.
Moreover, the published record too often thwarts attempts to find out what
evidence allows a particular phase attribution.
Celts and mirror type. 1Offerings consisting of nothing but plain celts and a
single solid concave mirror (ilmenite, magnetite, etc.) occur as follows:,
Offerings 9, 119 1943-E, 1943~.N, while the two components occur with other
materials in Offerings 1942-A, and 1943-F.  All occurrences, exclusive or not,
are attributed to Phase IV with the exception of 1943-E, Phase II, and 1943-N,
Phase IV or Post-Phase IV. The marked exception to a consistent Phase IV dat-
ing for this odd offertory type (and for the impressive mirrors themselves) is
Offering 1943-Eg assigned to Phase II (DHS 1959:App. 1). This is a "cruciform
deposit" associated with a potential "Massive Offering" which we have indi-
cated has been illogically left as "Pavement No. 1,11 Southeast Platform. We
have also emphasized that the Phase II attribution is entirely based on the
unproved assumption that the incompletely excavated Southeast Platform tempor-
ally and constructionally duplicated the fully studied, seemingly twin South-
west Platform. Offering 1943-E was within fill directly overlying a mosaic
mask, Pavement No. 1 ,' Its "twin" offering in the Southeast Platform would be
Offering 1942-E (Phase II, Qr IIa) actually found as tttwo small caches"t pro-
viding a total of six celts and.no mirror (Wedel, in Drucker 1952:31 note
26
that 20 celts and 1 mirror comprised Offering 1943-E). To reiterate, the bal-
anced structures, the 'Northwest and Northeast Platforms, did not, according to
published sectilons, duplicate each other's development (our Figs. 1, 2).     This
fact, when applied to the Southwest and Southeast platforms and when coupled
with the fact of offertory discrepancies, allows one to question a Phase II
"datingg for Offering 1943-E. The likeness of "tcelts and mirror" offerings
and their predominant Phase IV dating could just as well argue a similar dat-
ing for Offering 1943-E and, by associational extension, the underlying massive
mosaic mask as well.
Offering 1943-N, the remaining exception to a Phase IV position for
this offertory type, is unusual in the fact that the celts were so rough as to
require the term ' pseudo celts," or serpentine objects thought to resemble
celts.  These were found six meters south of the temporally uncontrolled
mosaic Pvmt. 2.   One wonders,  in view of Offering 1943-E (relating to Pvmt. 1;
see above), whether Offering 1943-N might not be a "displaced" correlate of
the urndated Pimt. 2.  Offering 19h3-N is uncontrolled by Complex A floors
(Wedel, in Drucker 1952:75). In view of this, why in subsequent years attempt
to date it at all ("IV or Post-IV"; DHS 1959:App. 1)? Phase assignment, loose
as it is, is still too definite.    It is a "guesstimate."   It might have been a
reasoned conclusion if the temporal or phase distribution of such offerings
had been considered.   The independent dating of "pseudocelts" might also have
been given thought.   In this respect, we note that Offering 1   with 20 "roughly
made pseudocelts of serpentine" (DHS 1959:133), is assigned to Phase III on
the grounds t .hat it is immediately sealed by the unbroken "Old-rose" floor
series.  G.17z- this fac-t., one might hesitantly buf more rationally assign the
cache in question, Offering 1943-N, to Phase III, as the earliest- example of
celts (albe't "nseudocelts") and a mirror as an offering, rather than to Phase
IV or Post-PFhase IV. We believe that a good case can be made out for this
special type of offering being entirely Phase IV in the local sequence.
Ofrin      featuring stone figurines.   Serpentine and jade human figurines have
the fl2olloig offertory distribution and phase dating at La Venta:      Offerings
3 (Phase II), 4  (Phase III), 1942-A (Phase IV), 1942-B (Phase IV), 1942-D
(Phase IV), 1943-G (Phase IV), and 1943-M (Phase IV).     Offerings 1942-A, 1942-
B, 1942-D, and 1943-G have been previously dealt with as "surrogate burials";
all are properly attributed to Phase IV. Offering 3 consisted of one complete
figurine, another slightly incomplete, and a third represented only by a frag-
ment of an arm, together with many jade ornaments, others of crystal, as well
as four small canoe-like perforated jade objects. Offering 4 consists of the
serpentine and jade figurines and elongate celt-like jades that had been
placed vertically to form a remarkable scene. Offering 1943-M is the only
reputed offering that contained nothing but figurines, here of serpentine.
No one to our knowledge has studied all La Venta small stone figurines
(to say nothing of those like them from all over the map) from the standpoint
of types and varieties. To do so here, even for La Vente, would go far beyond
the already swollen limits of this revriew. While there is diversity among the
La Venta site figurines, all display sufficient traits to specify them as in
Olmec style.   Many show features that relate them to the "classic" specimens
so prized publicly and privately.    The main problem here is to review the pub-
lished evidence for the relative dating of the ultimate deposition at La Venta
of figurines in Olmec style, variable as this may be.
27
As Drucker has pointed out (DHS 1959:161)s the date (local phase) of
deposition of a figurine as an offering provildes an "upper-limit" date for
its manufacture. Various figurines have been found at the site in fragmentary
condition, suggesting that they had been long venerated by the time they were
cached. We cannot temporally control manufacture at La Venta (an assumption)
except by controlling the final deposition of products and possessions.
The exceptions to an otherwise exclusive Phase IV assignment for such
La Venta figurines are Offerings 3 and 4 (Phases II and III respectively).
Offering 3, in the South-Central Platform, the contents of which have
been briefly noted, was disturbed by bulldozing, precluding knowledge of its
precise layout (DHS 1959:146).  "The location, however, could be determined
with some precision because of the fact that the offering had been covered
over with some sort of cap of yellow clay. The northern part of this clay
envelope remained in situ in the trench wall" (DHS l959; note that a similar
ye,Llow ,-ay !!seal" was encourtered inf Offering 5; DHS l959:l614).  The excava-
tion repoZrt on the Platform briefly notes the presence of Offerlng 3: the
"tofferlng appears to have been deposited" at the time of adding a platform
layer referable to Phase II (DHF 1959:22, cf. Figs. 7, 8, p. 27). The layer
referred to would seem to pertain to S. Cent. Plat: Unit B in Figure 1 (cor-
relation of the various mound sections is extremely difficult).  Inasmuch as
this is in,-dicated as the earliest occurrence of the Olmec style figurine at
La Venta5 it is somewhat remarkable that it has received such casual treat-
ment in ?-n nt.  How certain, considering the bu.ldozing, is the Phase II
at? u<* oaY O.-As noted, the offering "appears" to have been set during Phase
II~ .C^;.;:5t^^r c as if there was so-ie uncertainty about it.  If so, the
reasons for doubt might have been usefully statedo
O~i-ThjJ^g L4 assigned tz Pase     cons, c;cmsists of celts and figurines
set~ 1Arght- Xn a  ifelke scene. Five of the sixteen figurines were lacking
par+t at &'ie 4.t?ime they were offered (DES "9599Table 4).  The group appeared
at trhe bottom of a pit opening at tne surface of the "Old-rose" floor series
(the laying of the first of whi?Ch marks the inception of Phase III).  The
figuriiaes and celts stood embedded in two sand strata locally running con-
tinuously underneath the "Old-rose" floors. The upper layer of sand mounded
about, if not over, the pieces forming the scene. The strata, mounding, and
position of the pieces indicated to the excavators that the offering had been
made prior to laying the "Old-rose" floors; floor fragments resulting from
the cutting of the pit indicated that the earliest of the four "Old-rose"
floors was the one initially sealing the deposit. The pit was cut through
the latest "Old-rose" floor so that the offering might be inspected, implying
accurate records as to the location of the offering. The hole was "almost
exactly the same size as that of the figurine layout, and was centered very
accurately directly above it" (DHS 1959:154). That the pit was not dug
through the latest floor to place the offering rather than to "inspect" it is
indicated by the basically "tundisturbed" condition of the two sand strata in
which the objects occurred (DHS 1959:154). Following inspection, the pit was
refilled but evidently left unpatched. Its location was obvious to the ex-
cavators.
The key supports of a Phase III rather than a Phase IV dating for
Offering 4 are the mounding of the upper sand stratum over the scene and
tapering off beyond the pit limits, as well as the "undisturbed" condition of
the two strata. Yet, if the pit is interpreted as an inspection hole, the
28
upper sand stratum would have had to have been disturbed to reveal at least
the heads of the figurines.  The crucial section, Figure 39 (DHS  1959) dis-
agrees with the text: in section, the upper stratum is shown continuous over
the heads of the figurines; the text (DHS 1959:154) states that this "hole was
dug down to the level of the heads of the figurines and the tips of the celts
and then refilled."t The pit limits are shown in broken-line in the section,
the continuous white sand stratum over the figurines in solid-line.   To con-
form to published interpretation of events, the pit conventionally should be
in solid-line, the stratum over the figurines in broken-line. pDid the pit
actually disturb the white sand? Moreover, one would like to know the consis-
tency of this white sand and the underlying reddish-brown sand. Were the
strata of a texture that would permit insertion from above of the vertically
placed objects comprising the scene? Nothing in print really precludes the
possibility that the white sand was removed within- the pit outlines, the
cache objects inserted into the reddish-brown sand, then the white sand re-
p.laced,, wtd ',.he ptC fll.ed.
We read that the offering was recorded and excavated under what may
not have been the best of circumstances (DHS 1959:152).   One wonders to what
extent, if any, the crucial Figure 39 was drawn to fit interpretation.   Was
it dra:wn during excawvati on, or drawn subsecuently to conform to features
apparen' in photographs (compare DHS 1959:Fig. 39, P1. 39)? The strongest
support for the excavators' interpretation (i.e. Phase III installation and
later Itinspection hole") is, as noted, the conformation of the white sand
st-eatumn.  9It ;nOst irterestingly, irx the -master section (DHS 1959:Fig. 17),
the sand s.-rat<:  does not mound but appears as an unremarkable fill layer
thro^ugho<J.  t=e whiole area of Offering 4. In other words, the master section
do3es nt.o ,t,z,n,f,rm a Ph.ase III attri5^butn Ts section could be used to infer
that the vfe:>g w;a s placed thrcugh the latest ?Old-rose"! floor and then
sea.ed L.- `-,1h "Red c.Lay cap11 (Phase IV). This was the excavators' I'first
hr), -i -Q?  DHS  9 5' 9591 5h) 4  It may have been the correct one.
FPiiall.'y  a thlird sect?nl (DRi: 19.59Fi9g. 16) shows Offering 4 as com-
pletely w/ithin the level white sand stratum, with no "inspection hole."  There
are thus very real reasons for doubting that the published dating of Offering
h is as certain as claimed.
In summary, jade and serpentine figurines were a marked feature of
Phase IV La Venta offerings. We have discussed the two published exceptions
in the matter of dating, Offerings 3 and4h. In the first case, one almost
has to take it on faith that the offering pertains to Phase II while, in the
second case, one is faced by a choice between two very real possibilities,
each leading to a different conclusion as to dating (i.e. Phase III, or Phase
IV).
Celt ype    Offerings exclusively made up of jade and/or serpentine celts
were as follows: Offerings 2 (Phase III), 2a (Phase III), 8 (Phase III), 10
(Phase III), 13 and 1943-B (Phase III), 1942-C (Phase IV), 1942-E (Phase II),
1943-D (Phase III), and 1943-H (Phase IV). The single offering consisting of
ttpseudo-celts"t only was Offering 1 (Phase III). Celts occur with other ob-
jects in offerings of the "celt and mirror type" (above) as well as in "surro-
gate burials," and "offerings featuring stone figurines.11
29
The earliest "delt type" offering Is indicated to be 1942-E (Phase
II). Consisting of six plain serpentine exmLples, It was located within the
Southeast Platform In fill overlying the mosaic Pavement No. 1. For reasons
already given In a number of contexts, phase assignments of features associ-
ated with this Platform are based on untested assumptions. At the very least,
this offering should be, we think, assigned to a tPhase II(?)."
Offering 2 with a Phase III datlng (DHS 1959l135), contained five
decorated celts. 6ne of these showed a notched head profile face in "abso-
lutely classic conventional Olmec style" (DHS 1959ol42, Fig. 35,!). The
description of the offering does not Indicate any possibility of doubt as to
phase-dating. Nevertheless, the excavation portion of the report almost
explicitly allows for uncertainty. The offering occurred Immediately in
front of Mound A-2 In an area of heavy offertory actlvity and disturbance.
The "fOld-rose"l floor series (apparently only three floors here) occurs south
of the offering (DH5 1959tFig. 10). As the floor series moves north, contin-
uity Is broken by the Monument 13 pit. Directly north of this pit, a short
section of floors appears, three tlmes thicker and triple In number the "Old-
rose" floors south of the pit. Thls unusually thick series Is shown overly-
ing Offering 2. The text (DM3 1959t4l) assumes that south and north of the
Monument 13 pit the same floor serles Is present. No evidence Is given that
the lowest three floors of the thick, north section are typologically identi-
cal to the three to the south, nor, If traced about the Intervening pit, that
the three surfaces were physically llnked and thus the same. The offering
was nevertheless said to be intruded through the "lowermost" floors of the
north thick series (DM5 1959:41).  Yet, t,he excavators coment that "It was
not possible for us to determine . . . whether the offering was Intruded
through the entixre floor series or only part of them. The problem Is a minor
one, however, since we can be certain that Offering 2 dates from the period
of the old-rose floors" (DHMS 195294l). The problem Is not minor. Their con-
clusion leads to an unequlvocal Phase III dating for a cache possessing a
superb Olmec feature. First of all, the north series of floors camot be
convincingly shown to be the same as the "Old-rose" series to the south.
Implausible as It may sound, the north ones might represent a "laminated
patch" for an offertory pit (No. 2) Intruded durlng or at the moment of
abandonment of the "Old-rose" level of Complex A. If put through all the
north "floors," the cache would pertain to Phase IV, Inasmuch as 6iie IV is
marked by the deposition of the "Red clay cap" over all features of later
date than the laying of the latest "Old-rose" floor. In summarizing the
Phase III sequence of the general context of this offering, the excavators
make the point that the laying of the "Old-rose" series and the contemporary
construction and renovation of platforms "bring the phase [l.e. III] to a
close"' (DHS 1959L45). If the cache was Intruded Into this floor series dur-
ing the use of the latest of the serles, the offertory act must then post-
date Phase III#
The excavation portion of the report reveals the problematic stratig-
raphy of Offoring 2, We ftol the situation to be even more uncontrolled than
allowed there.  It Is unfortunate that the excavators' doubts were not pqa-
phrased in the section 4evoted to of ferngs (always more palatable and thus
Influential to readers than dry oxccAvation data), All In all1, a good cae
oovld b~e made for Offering 2 havng been immediately made prior to the deposi-
tion Qf the '"Red clay cap  and thus an early feature of Phase IV (if we cor-
??tly underetand the approach to phasing at La Venta).
30
To save space, we do not review the dating or phasing of the remaining
"celt offerings.1t These have been indicated as belonging within Phases III
and IV.  The important fact is that none of these remaining caches contain
items fully or partially in "Olmec style."
Pottery vessel offeri   .  Seventeen offerings were encountered at La Venta
that consisted of pottery vessels. Ten of these were assigned to Post-Phase
IV as they were found within the surface drift sands (Offerings 1943-A, 20
through 27, and 19)43-0, the latter within the sands but possibly of Phase IV).
The surface sand deposits contained vessels, spottily identified with
such tags as "Crude Reddish-buff ware,t' and "'Red-slipped Buff ware." One
Post-Phase IV offering, No. 25, contained a bowl that "conforms to a striking
degree with the La Venta Fine Paste Gray ware" previously defined by Drucker
(DHe 1959:223-22)4). The excavators suggest that this specimen was deposited
very shortly after the abandonrent following on Phase IV, or possibly the
ware ca+tL>ued to be made in Post-Pnase IV times. In short, Offering No. 25
raises an important question as to the time-span of a particular ware of the
La Venta ceramic "complex."
Thurnfiog to pottery offerings in arch,itectural contexts, seven were
recoveredL:  Offerings 14 (Phase III(?)), 15 (Phase I(?)), 16 (Indeterminate,
Phase I(?)), 17 (Indeterminate, Phase I(?)), 18 (Phase II(?)), 19 (Phase II(?)),
and 1943-C (III)*
A-e Offerings 1)4, 15, and 16 as early as even the questioned Phase I
assignntens iply? Th-e three come from the Northwest Platform. Offering 14,
made -up of slx vessels (Fine Paste Buff ware, Fine Paste Black ware, Fine
Paste Orance warze) was found within the hearting of the earliest platform
(Figs. 1, ?.E. Plas: Unit A). If this platform is a valid component of
Phase I (Se.* Q staceo pp. 2 et se                 the offering surely cannot
have been ieC.> ited earlier than. Phase I. However, the "tpostioon of the ves-
sels O O . suuggested that they had been placed in the bottom of a small pit"
(OHS 1959:187). The pit edges could not be defined and accordingly it could
not be settled whether the offering pertains to Phase II or Phase III. Offer-
ing 14 is shown in Figure 18 (DHS 1959) as occurring within the limits of a
broken-line pit. Is this the pit in question? This Offering 14 appears in
this section associated with Offering 5 within the same pit.   Yet, Offering 5,
as previously discussed under "Surrogate Burials," is allegedly Phase III
without a question mark. We conclude that it would be hard to find a more
confusing and confused section than that in Figure 18 of the 1959 report. As
previously noted, nothing in text or sections precludes the possibility that
this pit had been cut through the local Phase III platform (Figs. 1, 2: N.E.
Plat: Unit C) at the time of laying the Phase IV ttRed clay cap.1t The offer-
ing surely postdates the ItWater-sortedtt floor series and antedates. the depo-
sition of the "Red clay cap."
Offering 15, Phase I(?), of a Coarse Brown ware bowl was previously
discussed in connection with radiocarbon Sample M-529. The clues as to when
this offering was made and to what did it relate were found to be so mislead-
ing that the only reasonable "dating" for the offering is Phase I, or Phase
Il-Phase IV.
Offerings 16 and 17 (Indeterminate, Phase I(?)) also come from this
same Northeast Platform. Each consisted of a rectangular Coarse Brown ware
31
vessel ("a distinctive Olmec type") (D1-s 19590190).  The reasons for indeter-
minateness of Phase-dating are not indicated in the description of the offer-
ings. Their positions are shown in the section (DHS 1959:Fig. 18). They are
not shown encompassed by intrusive pit or pits, but lie well within the
hearting of the earliest platform (our Unit A; cf. Figs. 1, 2). The excava-
tion report does not deal with these offerings beyond mentionlng that they
are "doubtfully attributed to Phase I" (DHS 1959:61, 124).  If, as the excava-
tors indicate, this early platform belongs to Phase I, why should not the
caches unequivocally belong to the same phase? What was "indeterminate" about
their provenience and deposition?
Offerings Nos. 18 and 19 consisted of a Coarse Brown ware bowl and a
White-Rimmed Coarse Black ware bowl (possible method of manufacture of latter
discussed by Foster 1960:213). They have been attributed to Phase II(?)
(DHS 1959:190-191).  Both were in a pit intruded into early hearting of the
NA.h'3s  P>'forra. Tis .ame p3i, No. 3 was the soue         o  radiocarbon
Sample p30, prevlously dis.cussed. O^r review of the proverience and associa-
tions of the sample led to the conclusion that the sample, pit, and necessar-
ily t-ohese twNo caches belong to a time no later than the deposition of the
'tRed iLay cap9 that is, Phliase IV, and no earlier than the first "Water-
sor+et" f'oor, the laying of which miarks Phase I.
Offering 1943-C, attributed to Phase III, was found overlying Massive
Offering 3, within the pit of the latter and sealed by the intact "Old-rose"
flocr se.eI'  wn'ch marks Phase IIIo. The cache consisted of two pottery ves-
sels (D:'ucker 195S2:39; DHS l959 App. 1r)  No data are given on ware  On e
vessel 'was rinverted over the other, but wlthout known contents.  There appears
to be no reason to quesstion the phase assignment of this offering .
This brief revlew of offerings feathrurng pottery has been oriented to
phas\e ass.sgnzMents of' the offerings and tfhe waLes represented in them.  Realiz-
ing Ithat the Complex A excavations yielded little ceramic material beyond
cached spezimens, we feel it mandatory that at least the constructionally
sequential status of each offerixng be specified as objectively as the record
allows. The assumption may or may not be correct that little time intervened
between the manufacture and deposition of a White-Rimmed Black ware vessel or
one of Fine Paste buff ware. The control of deposition, first in terms of
local "phases," and secondly through radiocarbon dating, is bound to have im-
port in comparative ceramic studies. Increasingly La Venta (and Tres Zapotes)
are being turned to in order to substantiate ceramic conclusions elsewhere,
particularly in southern Mesoamerica. One would imagine that a well controlled
series of pottery caches spanning the era of Complex A construction would do
much to clarify the at present muddled picture of La Venta as well as Tres
Zapotes ceramic development, based on material approximating occupation debris
(Drucker 1943, 1952). While a small sample of cached vessels was, as indica-
ted, recovered in Complex A constructions, we have tried here to show that
various deposits are severely problematic as to phase affiliation, in some
cases, probably far more so than their excavators indicated in print.
It mlght be useful to add here that three "'s-urrogate burial" offerings
(Nos. 5, 1943-G, 1943-L) with mixed contents did contain pottery. Offering 5
was assigned to Phase III, the other two to Phase IV. Offering 5 was reviewed,
with the conclusion that there are grounds for questioning its published phase,
assignment; a Phase IV dating is a possibility worth considering.  The Offer-
32
ing 5 vessels, either two or three in number (Drucker 1952:164, Figs. 41i, 42,
a), include Fine Paste Buff-Orange ware and Brown ware. Coarse Buff ware and
Foarse Brown ware(?) (sic) occurred in the Phase IV Offering No. 1943-G
(Drucker 1952:70, FigsTT8b, 19f) while the single vessel in Phase IV, Offer-
ing 1943-L, could not be specifTed.
Stone Monuments
Forty La Venta objects were assigned to the catch-all.category of
"'monuments" (DHS 1959:229, App. 2). Here we are first of all concerned with
those "monuments" whose ultimate position can be correlated with La Venta con..-
struction phases, particularly those monuments exhibiting specific Olmec
characteri sti cs .
Monument 6 is the famed lidded carved "coffer," or Tomb B, the con-
tents cf wh'-h became Offering No. 1942-B. The coffer or stone box was evi-
dently set follcwlwng the placing of Massive Offering No. 2 and just before the
depositvon of the "tRed clay cap" over Mound A-2. The setting of this monument
then can be said to be ttdedicatory" to the final major renovation of the Mound
A-2 structure0  The coffer was fashioned no later than this but nothing beyond
this upper 1 mit dating and stylistic considerations governs its time of manu-
facture0 As will be shown, this is the only major La Venta object that can be
associated wixth La Venta construction.  There is nothing in Drucker's discus-
sion of its :arved face that would depreciate it as an excellent example of
Olmec style (Drucker 1952:178) .
Monuments 7 and 24 are published (DHI; 1959:229) as other examples that
were sealed by the Red clay cap and thus Phase IV. Monument 7 is the #Tomb A"
basalt colrumn construction and thus principally architectural in significance.
Monument 24 designates a fragmentary shaped basalt slab found in an area of
"considerabLe disturbance,It but still considered to be of Phase IV deposition
(DHS l9590 04), There is nothing about it to characterize it as stylistically
or specifically Olmec.
Monument 25 appears also to be a candidate.  This stela-l ike incomplete
stone, seemingly carved in good Olmec style, occurred in a line with the appar-
ently intentionally upside-down oriented Monuments 26 and 27 (DES 1959:120,
208). The three monuments are concluxded to have been erected "in shallow holes
with backs braced against a shelflike bank cut into the main Pyramid mass."
However, tTwo limestone flakes serving as shims under Monument 25 suggest that
the setting of the sculpture dates from Phase IV" (DHS 1959:206). The reason-
ing here is obscure. The fact that limestone slabs seem to be fairly frequent
in connection with Phase IV (D2H1; 1959:126) architectural features may have led
to this suggested date.
Returning to the Monument 6 "coffer," it appears to be the only iphas-
ablet' major La Venta object found to date that has stylistic import. One
outstanding problem in La Venta archaeology has been to rationalize superficial
positions of many fine major sculptures but to control temporally the deliber-
ate mutilation.
With the noted exceptions of Monuments 6, 7, and 24, all other monu-
ments from the Complex A area "lay entirely above the Phase IV clay surface
[i.e. "Red clay cap"] or were mounted in clay but protruded for most of their
length above the clay surface" (DHS 1959:229). One supposes that "mounted in
clay" refers to intrusion of the monuments into the extant "*Red clay cap" (the
33
only illustrated example however seems to be Monument 13, in DHS 1959:Fig. 10).
The excavators go on to infer that it was "customary" at La Venta "to raise
and re'erect the stone monuments when the periodic alterations were made to the
site.  This practice was followed during Phase IV, leavring all the monuments
fully exposed when the site was abandoned except for those that were inten-
tionally buried" (DHIS 1959:229-230, 259). The destruction and mutilation of
monuments is attributed to Post-Phase IV occupants. It is never quite stated
as such, but the excavators evidently attribute the ultimate location of the
monuments to the Phase IV occupants.   In this case, were the Phase IV occu-
pants also responsible for the peculiar upside-down setting-of Monuments 26
and 27 (see above)? This problem is never handled.
Did the La Venta monuments work their way up through time through a
process of construction, ultimately to emerge in association with the "Red
clay cap"t era of occupation and ceremonialism as proposed in print? Only
uThMv: 1on guides the suggestion that an odd c?y featur e, sealed by the
"Water-so-:ted" floor series (DHIS 1959>65, 259, Fig. 20; also our Figs. 1, 2,
N.W. Plat-e Unit A), "may have been a pedestal for a monument long since re-
moved."t If evidence for the carvling and erection of monuments at La Venta
during Phase III and earlier times was found, we cannot find it in print.
Unless there is a style progression evident in the carved La Venta monuments,
a good Case could be made out for their origins and original placement within
Phase IV times. But only the carved "1coffer,'t Monument 6, can be proved to
be of Phase IV times, and it is neither a stela nor an altar.
Th-e 'Ilmestone shim" argument, previously noted, is a peculiar way of
a RPase IV erection. date for Monument 25 where found; it and the
two nassociated" upside-down monuments were sintruded into the side of the
Great Pyramid. It seems more plausi*ble that they owe their alignment and
locaticn to Post-Phase IV activit'-y. Stela 5 is alsc said to be associated
with t imeskone iris (DHS 1959:126). Wlth rio sig n of carving, its description
mere!vy su   gestLs that it is  a fragment  of a stela (Stirling 194i3:52). Stone
types, such as greenschist, common i:'L Phvase IV architectural contexts, are
used to pro--r.de various monuments, including ner 5, with a suggested Phase
IV date of fashioning (DHS 19592126).
In summary, we ctan find no evidence for the carving and positioning
of major monolithic objects, in Olmec style or not, prior to the inception of
Phase IV times. There is no direct evidence through excavation that would
support the published assertion that La Venta monuments, found in superficial
circumstances, were carved and positioned in times earlier than Phase IV.
Until stylistic considerations prove otherwise, one might argue that such
monuments were exclusively Phase IV products. Supposing this to be so, it is
not unreasonable to assume that they were carved and positioned in associa-
tion with ItRed clay cap" platforms, whatever happened to them thereafter.
D is Cussion and Conclusions
During the course of writing this review, a glossy-paper advertisement
arrived on our desk from a New York dealer in Pre-Columbian art.    It illus-
trates, presumably for sale, a superb object with the caption "Olmec jade
figurine/ La Venta: ca. 800 B.C." Di;sregarding the question of whether or
not the piece really comes from La Venta, the leaflet is in fine agreement
with current dating and interpretaticon
34
We have tried here to be fair in our appraisal of what the excavation
record really allows. In this case, fairness centers on searching for outside
limits of certainty and probability. Not to allow a plus-or-minus where
properly due in historical calculation must undercut the discipline that is
the basic ingredient of archaeology. The La Venta "facts" had better be rea-
soned and then conscientiously used with full regard to their probability or
lack of it, before entering infectious recreations of what happened in history,
here, of Mesoamerica. Too much depends on La Venta. Archaeological interpre-
tation might profitably flag itself down for occasional inspectFion of the
"truths"' that the contributing facts purport to be. For some, it is only a
hop from La Venta to primal civilization in Mesoamerica. We merely suggest
that the point of departure might be more accurately surveyed.
The Complex A construction phases, four in number, are not easily
understood.  The basic ingredient in phasing was the plaza-court floor "tser-
ies.tt Ir p-;ublished usage, a phase seems to have been initiated with the lay-
ing of the first floor of a series. The phase persisted throughout the inter-
val of adding floors to produce the total series. The phase further encom-
passed the building of clay platforms on the floors as well as the resurfacing
of the platform faces and tops. The (undefined) concept of Phase at La Venta
must assume that renovations to court and platforms were sufficient to span
the time interval between the start of one phase and the start of the subse-
quient one. No allowance is made for occupation during which construction did
not locally take place. It is especially difficult to handle Phase IV without
providing for occupation or use of wthatever the "Red clay cap" comprised.
We read of a t?Water-sortedt' floor serlies that must have taken time to
accumulate. It; is on the surface of the latest of this series that some early
Dlatfomrxs were built and interpreted as though the constituent surfaces of the
series had never related to prior platforms through "run-under," "fus ion," and
"abutment." The 1959 report never really handled systematically these three
floor-structure relationships and their bearing on phasing.   All in all, the
constructior sequence in each structural locus was grossly simplified by con-
densing it to fit the four-phase sequence governed by the plaza-court area of
Complex A. Quantification of superimposed platform features was precluded by
the failure to designate the constituent platforms in a systematic, tangible
way.
It is our impression that a great deal could have been said about La
Venta architecture and detail but the reports fail to do so. The architecture
has been barely rationalized in print. Knowledge of it seems largely to have
been incidental to excavation for other things. A case in point is the ubiq-
uitous ItRed clay cap." It is almost treated as a great red blanket pulled
over the site just before the night of its oblivion. Yet this is the archi-
tecture, along with basalt columns and the like, that mark the obvious heyday
of La Venta, so-called Phase IV.
Anyone concerned with the reality of La Venta influence on the develop-
ment of early high culture in Mesoamerica might profitably attempt to assess
independently the architectural growth data latent in publications on the site.
It is all very well to emphasize the formal layout of Complex A, its bisymmetry
in relation to a centerline, the huge Pyramid (unexcavated and assumed, prob-
ably ri ghtly, to belong to "classic"t times at the site), and so forth. But
such enphasis could be misleading without taking into account the architectural
whole of Complex A. For instance, the well-noted formal arrangement of the
Complex may have emerged at least in part from a quite assymmetric earlier
development. It would be well to keep in mind the unrelated fashion in vhich
the Northeast and Northwest Platforms (Fig. 2) came eventually to look alike.
If we were to use Heizer's suggested century-long construction phase inter-
vals, the locus of the Southwest Platform (Fig. 1) was apparently blank for a
hundred years or so before construction was initiated in Phase II,
The Complex A phases are crucial to the whole matter of La Venta cul-
ture development.  Though purportedly constructional, these phases came to
subsume all physically associated features. No culture category (offerings,
"tombs,t, etc.) can be reviewed without confronting these phases. The sequence
of laying court "floor series" cane to control as much as possible. We doubt
very much that the intricate, .unbalanced growth of Complex A can be usefully
compressed into four phases.  For the four phases to be fundamentally valid,
it Is necessary to assume, in the absence of verifying overall sections, that
"tOld rose" was truly "Old rose" in another locale, or,, even with a section,
within a few feet (cf. Offering 2, ttcelt type"t of offering). But the logic
of common level, or typology, in lieu of physical continuity, becomes increas-
ingly speculative as the value of what the floor relates to increases (e.g.
a cache of celts, some of i-hich are engraved in "classic Olmec style"). To
repeat, floor-based phases are only as substantial as the control imposed on
them in excavation and reporting.
The subject of Olmec architecture at La Venta cannot exist unless La
Venta architecture emerges three-dimensionaslly. A proper query is one that
asks at what point in time (or in local phases) did Complex A become architec-
turally Olmec. If one wishes to reason ciorcularly, it is possible to claim
that Phase I platforms, large as they were (which was how large?) were Olmec
construictions because "substantial ceremonial-public architecture" is an in-
gredient of OcIvilization" and Olmec is civilization in Middle Formative
times. It is difficult to see how the question can be answered without deter-
mining at what point in the local sequence did Olmec art style manifest itself
in Complex A.
Cached offerings, "massive" and t1minor,'t have been reviewed at length
with various aims in mind. As noted, each Complex A phase (how substantial
these phases is the question) may have been initially ceremonialized by the
installation of a "Massive Offering" but there are a number of problems to be
solved before asserting this as a fact. Relatively small offerings were most
plentiful in Phase IV contexts, Certain exceptions to this dating involving
objects in Olmec style, were reviewed. Questions were raised as to the valid-
ity of these pre-Phase IV assignments. Phasing of offerings containing items
in clear Olmec style is particularly crucial. Such items cluster in Phase IV
offerings. We have discussed in detail the evidence for earlier phased offer-
ings containing Olmec style objects (Offerings 2 - 7). We have concluded that
the published phase assignments are in all cases problematic to one degree or
another. The possibility is repeatedly raised that most if not all exceptions
pertain to Phase IV ceremonial activity. It has been further emphasized that
human burials, in the usual sense of the term, have yet to be discovered at
the site.
The La Venta publications were checked without success to discover
whether La Venta monuments in Olmec style could be attributed to a time earlier
36
than Phase IV. Indeed it is even difficult to assign any such monument, beyond
the famed Monument 6 "Icoffer,t to Phase IV. There are grounds however for see-
ing Phase IV as a time of exceptional activity in the matter of monuments.
The subject of the architectural associations of ceramics is a difficult
one. There can be no question that examples of Fine Paste and Coarse wares,
established by Drucker in his study of occupation debris, were employed in or
as offerings during Phase IV and probably earlier, though the latter still re-
quires considerable proof. We realize that Drucker's sherd collections have
been, or continue to be, under restudy. This study presumably will reveal the
temporal relationships between the Complex A cached vessels and the La Venta
midden(?) material. Our review here is not intended to suggest that the pro-
duction of the already published "tclassic" La Venta wares was restricted to a
time-span equal to that of the construction Phase IV. All we say is that the
Complex A excavation record provides little basis for specifying the tr^ue
phase-sparis oi4f the various wares that entered offerings.
Since the La Venta radiocarbon dates are extensively used for various
purposes In Mesoanerican reconstructions, the dates ha.ve been cautiously re-
viewed. Each sample and result has been studied as to placement history, asso-
oiations, orgi nal source, and interpretation. Our conclusion `s that the nine
dates have very limited pert.inency when so examined. On reconsideration, these
dates neit her confirm. nor nullify the generally accepted 800 - 400 B.C. span
for Complex A.. The dates merey make it highly likely that this Complex A was
the scene of cnnst.ruction during the first milleaniun B.C., if notrZ .^efore and
after.  The c.-.ru_ncton to make the most of these Cl4 dates is understandable.
However, .^..s difficult to see how they car be used for anything more momen-
tous if th1 zr of high probability is not to be deflected.   La Vent.a was a
Formativ74e ilre. The real prob'lem is at what point in time did it take on or
develop vpec?ilPzed attributes that require inclusion of La Ven'ta in any com-
prehensive, even casual consideration of early Mesoamerlcan cultural evolution.
Phase IV gives every indication of having been a multi-faceted climax
of a perlod of occupation and construction, but a period of truly indetermin-
ate length. The time-span of Phase IV is moot. The location of radiocarbon
Sample M-533 was ideal *for terminally dating Phase IV. The date spread (h74
B.C. - A.D. 126) resulting from its analysis would so apply, within chance
limits, were it not for the uncertainty of what source or sources provided
the charcoal. The inclination is to assume that short-lived organic material
provided the charcoal and that no significant interval occurred between the
death of the material and its deposition where found as charcoal. On the
other hand, we have sugoested the possibility that Phase IV or Pre-Phase IV
structural members may have been salvaged and bumed to provide the sample.
This suggestion permits potentially si gnificant error that, if great enough,
could place terminal Phase IV in post-A.D. 126 times. Speculation of this
order would be pointless were it not for the fact that Phase IV marked a time
of intensive major and minor offertory activity. It has been suggested here
that the carving and positioning of monuments in Olmec style belong entirely
to th'is phase. Wi'thin this same phase the great basalt column features came
into being. Everything points to Phase IV La Venta having been a major Olmec
center.
Was La Venta Olmec prior to Phase IV?   One purpose of this review has
been to search for incontrovertible evidence that Phase IV was a florescence
37
of previously Olmec La Venta. Massiave Offerings, so-called "jaguar" mosaic
pavements and Celt caCheS are demonstrably early in a relatilve sense at
Complex A. Low rectangular clay platforms were present in Phase I and prob-
ably Pre-Phase I times as well. Ceramrics and figurines occur in Pre-Phase I
context (MacNeish 1960:296).   However, it is only "jaguar"t mosaic pavements,
going back in time to Phase II, that embody allegedly Olmec stylistic traits.
Perhaps obtuseness interferes with our acceptance of the conviction that these
mosaic pavemaents really are conventionalized full-face jaguar heads and that
they really do incorporate "most of th  e distinctive features repeated in other
Olmec representatives of this deity't (DHS 1 959993).   We do feel that the sub-
ject matter and style of these ttmaskstt are quite speculative. Because of
this, it is hard to emphasize them as unequivocal evidence of Olmec presecce
in Pre-Phase IV La Venta. Potentially the best case for depositional earli-
ness at La Venta of objects or features in Olmec style is the jade "maskette"t
from Offering 2 (DHS 1959:Fig. 43,b); why this offering was dubiously assigned
;- t->csld be explained . If   it could be proved that this offering be-
1 J .A 0  1 L  ve trfe o  ons  tructing a Phase I platform, a strong case could be
rna4ei ad  Phase I La Venta was Olmec, or at least receptive to Olmec influ-
Ic aR nd p-oducts. All offerings producing engraved celts and stone figurines
In Gi e  s tyll e that allegedly come from Pre-Phase IV deposits, are, on close
>.xe<$  ;on, stratigraphically problematic to one degree or another.     La
!    se: "  also faUed to produce evidence of large sculptures 'n Olmec style prior
to the advent of Phase IV.   To say that small Jade and serpentine Olmec figu-
r riies w h missing parts at the time of their caching comprises evridence of
A gr.z azutly ear ier manufacture is to raise the question of what isignifi-
'ark7Lv   a r'ts t,,   time  How long after manufacture does "veneration" result
t   2c& -~e_a c1zvrIne lrimbs?
In short;, the excavation data on review seem to underscore to a great-
et d-gren than previously that Phase IV encompasses the bulk, if not the
't>.cI;:S  O^j; ' mec La Venta cuilture (or the La Venta variety of Olmec culture).
:4nA;   azr~s u  work at the site yielded little, perhaps rno straightforward
.; 9. *     p *i<t,,   ene at the site prior to Phase IV.  A further season there
. I     "a> prooi  of earlier Olmec presence but the record at hand is all
that we have to go on now.
The La Venta radiocarbon results are most accommodating. One can
argue that Phases I to IV spanned little time because offerings large and
small were too patterned not to occupy a short time-span; or they were tradi-
tionalized, and pattern, in order to be tradition, requires considerable time.
It can be argued that the Phase I to Phase IV constructions required centuries
for superpositions and renovations to have taken place. Conversely, there is
nothing 'in these phases of construction that would require more than a century
to achieve (after all, they are clay platforms).     Finally, the crucial Phase
IV, can be pinned down where one pleases or where outside evidence dictates
within a period perhaps as long as a half millennium.
It has not been the Durpose of this paper to review how data from
sites beyond La Venta may or may not mesh and independently control La Venta.
It is our impression that the La Venta data comprise a pivotal reference
point in Preclassic comparisons; La Venta helps make sense of data from other
sites and not the other way around. If true, then scrutiny of the La Venta
facts and fancies has been especially warranted.
38
It would be very easy to conclude as follows:  La Venta was a fairly
short-lived maverick site that finally got on the Olmec track of civilization
in a very big way in very late Formative, even Proto-Class ic, times; that
Olmec, as generally thought of, was as late on the Mesoamerican scene as Com-
plex A Phase IV; and that this scene already contained emergent civilization
In various regions. Such a conclusion, facile and irreverent sounding as it
may be, is not, we think, contradicted by La Venta as now known. But neither
does La Venta, as presented here, contradict the theory of Olmec as the "mother-
culture" and progenitor of Mesoamerican civilization. Nor does.it by any means
substantiate it. The ilhole problem comes down to the actual date of Phase IV,
to where Offerings 2 and 4 sequentially belong, to mosaic pavements as truly
four-eyed Olmec jaguars, and so on and so forth. We doubt that La Venta should
play the interpretive role that it does until such questions have been recog-
nized and independently searched, if not answered.
REFERENCES
COE, W. R.
1959   Piedras Negras archaeology:  artifacts, caches and burials. Museum
Monographs. Philadelphia, The University Museum.
1962   A sunmary of excavation and research at Tikal, Guatemala:   1956-61.
American Antiquity 27:479-507.
COE9 W. R.o Eo M. SHOOK, and L. SATERTHWAITE
1961   The carved wooden lintels of Tikal. Tikal Reports, No. 6. Museum
Monographs.  Philadelphia, The University Museum.
CRANE, H. R. and J. B. GRIFFIN
1958   University of Michigan radiocarbon dates II.  Science 127:1098-1105.
FOSTER, G. Ml
i$6O   Archaeological implications of modern pottery of Acatlan, Puebla,
Maeico . American Antiquity 26:0205-214.
DRLJCKER, PO
1952   La Venta, Tabasco:  a study of Olmec ceramics and art.  Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 153.
DRUCKER, P., R. F. HEIZE, and R. J. SQUIER
1957   Radiocarbon dates from La Venta, Tabasco. Science 126:72-73.
1959   Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955.  Bureau of American Ethnol-
ogy, Bulletin 170 (cited in the text as DHS).
HEIZER, R. F.
1959   Specific and generic characteristics of Olmec culture. Actas del
XXXIII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas 2:178-182.
1960   Agriculture and the theocratic state in lowland soutxheastern Mexico.
American Antiquity 26:215-222.
MacNEISH, R. S.
1960   Review of Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955, by Drucker,
Heizer and Squier. American Antiquity 26:296-297.
SATTERTHWAITE, L. and E. K. RALPIH
1960   New radiocarbon dates and the Maya correlation problem. American
Antiquity 26:165-184.
39
STIRLING,
1943
M. W.
Stone monuments of southern Mexicoo  Bureau of American Ethnology,
Bulletin 138.
Certain papers bearing on the interpretation of La Venta have not been util-
ized in this critique (e.g. R. F. Heizer, 1961, Inferences on the nature of
Olmec society based upon data from the La Venta site, Kroeber Anthropological
Society Papers No. 25:h3-57). Such omissions do not alter materially the
factual basis of our critique.
PIGU1E 1
Relationships of' La Venta Complex A arch-
itecture and floors. This is a schematic
selective cross-section, without vertical
and horizontal scale. Based on Drucker,
Heizer and Squier l99:Figs. 6, 9-12, l-
18, 20, 2L, 26-28, and text, and on
Drucker 1952:Figs. 18, 19, 21, and text.
Roman numerals are published construction
phases; letters are of' architectural units
used in this reriew.
Abbreviations:
'Plat" * Platform
hINd?t :: Mound
!?Pvmt?; = Pavement
ttI?.O.II = Massive Offering
The Northwest and Northeast Platforms are
shown in detail in Figure 2.
S. CENT. PLAT.
MD. A-2
N.E. ENTRY.
E. WALL
RED CLAY CAP
OLD -ROSE
WHITE SANDY
- WATER-SORTED
lOT
I-. - ___________________
I- -
I
/
-=          K-=                   III
M.O. 3
N.W    PLAT.                     N. E. PLATO                      S. W. PLAT.
S.E. PLAT.                 MD. A-3
%_ _ _I
PVMTL2
A
fla
-I I.
I                           I
I                           I
                           I
M.O. 1               PVMT. 1
I
w
%
- -
B
A
M.O. 2
PRE4   A
b
I
A
*0 IL  W  'd   I  I r i  O) 4-  O 1 4.  I  lz 4-  4 -1i               1                |
4-)  4- 4N        V O   Y *  U)  1 4-) OCA)_
V)            IL) O4     4-) 9m v)  I~OO< R
C)       0            14  0                                       ui g  <9  A
O @ @ ^  t t @ @ @  tQ 2 @  mv I) 0  tt CA
{t. 0   >       9        tH o                      |                          ^
v )  C\   CA)        t tn  n  A g o  4 I =l
LI 01   0 t XX*  4-  a)  4                                                   F D
U  @   >  t  Q~l,  4)  | v  * -4  4 -  U)               __
C\j        %l     P, Li  f  sW t) 4-)  ; 0  CO  Ci  )I         |
a3~~~~~~~4 %4 it  rq t @O@g
X~~~~~~~r    *,r    tA 0 @  }*  @*  HI||(_
i    w       0n (n -1-  4 )   r4vu
0   ti       4- (n        4- t   @H (  L,QI               J
4- UX@      S   U 4- = iH @     e.
O- co     U) c    o  To  w  V) r,.  n@@  -X=n/.
4-- IL  ONo  W  a)  4- @  o  W  4-  >                                ..
V) u)          -r 4-          CZ ~@ ; 9 Q
(o      co        4 o   o  W  4. 4  4 X/.                             .
v ) 4-  o       .,r  Qv *H  r4  w  v1*  ) *Hrq
V-  ) 4-)  4-) tn  4- Q   )  0 4  t4 W                                                   *
O O $v l   w 9    t4 WL :S  $4 0 C)MX@ O r-     /..
UZ Q QsV}; U~~~)  V) O  v- 4-)4-) tt 4- 0                :     :           l     J
cM     f#> s- I I \ ./ _~~N   M
ui        .            ...
43
CY
:<
_- C4
F=4