SOME INTERIM REMARKS ON THE COE-STUCKENRATH REVIEW
Robert F. Heizez'
University of California, Berkeley
On January 15, 1963, W. R. Coe (one of the authors of the preceding
paper) sent to me the manuscript published here, asklng for comments and pos-
sible corrections.   I was on the point of leaving on a six-months sabbatical
leave, and in fact sailed from San Francisco on Jaruary 28.   I sent a copy of
the manuscrlpt to R. J. Squier -who had participated in the 1955 excavation of
La Venta and who was one of the authors of the DruckerlHeizer-Squier report on
these investigations published as Bulletln 170 of the Bureau of Amerlcan Eth-
nology (referred to here as DHS), and suggested to him that in August 1964 we
spend some time working together in Berkeley with the original field notes and
prepare arn answer to the questlons raised by Coe and Stuckerxrath irn their de-
;ailed i: e;; >; ,{ the z'fj~or: cir A  2   ? wA1 88 4        ..ava n  aid .pui   the papers
togethe-. O C                 -fAradentaVLy, !'as a reae to tisl -:ocedure. $ciiier aaid  I
did work togethier in Aug^:sn in Berkeley and drafted an ooclne of our ansswer,
buts for one reason or another we have fai..led to gev thi?s into finshed form at
th'is time (December 1964). As rd:nlny. since the Kroeber Anthropological So-
c Iey is w.1Uirq'g to print the Cce-StLiAcken ath paper alone,  the Squie.-Heizeac
rejol'der `-ill have tio b-e pr'in.ted separae jly--we ar)tioipate its appearware - n
the next nuwber of the Kroeber Ancthopologicgltal `Oci>`et  Papers.
Th^ese fc'Ii'tw imIng  eaks a<e pr ded  .n -he nope that `.T-Ihey wI."l aid
the reader .n acqu>ring sme pespe.i>. F?st, b .h Scie.        and I are flat-
tered that .,o su h abl e w.-.orkkers "thw,ught. it wo:c-h  heir time t-o read and aria-
lyz?e wiwLh suLh  -sa:.e P report whi.ch we hTad hclpea write;  an. seccnl  we were
someha; di s a; ipti ed tn I-ea:n. that ,he re    i t :art   tained s- m;ay obs!..'r tit. es
uncertamintaes, ard lapses as te r equ?re  7i pages o. typeaci:ipt 0o present
them. Whi`le we were fully '      -cn'ous that ;he:e wheae deI`i-enc-`es ocf rdata, we
were unawar ,e that these were suf2' ci<  io allow the reality cof' t.he i a,ur m ajor
building pxha<,es to be quea;ined  seUicusly.   Cn,mplex A a; the La Venta. sit+e
wSs large, and lte superv sIry c.,t ew  n.;tng of Drwker.e Squie r, and myself
were kept very busy keeping an eye on the excavating   (done by local workers),
drawing profiles,  surveying, maklng notes,  takilng photographs, and engagnrg
in practically  continuous verbal analysis of the    cumulative  picte as it
emerged from day-after-day work. We tried not to neglect observi'ng and noting
things which seemed important,, and as the work continued we moved small gangs
of laborers to this spot or that spot to check points on what we believed was
the pattern that was emerging.  Of course, we did not do enough of this,   but
even if we had had twice the furnds and twice the labor force, the three of us
probably could have done not much more than we actually managed to do in the
spring of 1955. We did feel when we fini'shed that we unrderotood the main his-
tory of the site  itself, but realized    only too well that  there were many
things  about whl'ch we had learned little.  For example,   we were unable to
assign any of the numerous  sculptured monuments to specific bullding phases,
much less even to such vague time div'isions as "'early'" or "late"t in the site's
history.   But these failures were not the result of lack of awareness of the
problems but, as in the case of the sculptured monuments,, to the absence of the
klnds of data rneeded to elucldate them.  The physical. tracing of flcor series
so that each structure could be llneally and actually Connected wftCh at least
one other was not done by us in a systematic fashi'on,   We reallzed then, and
are even more conscious today, that this was important and that only by doing
this could the excavation be said to be well done. But we did not do this in
all cases, partly for the reason that we were short-handed, partly for the
reason that individual floors often thinned out and were replaced by another
of different color and thickness, partly because they were often interrupted
by intrusive offering pits,  and partly because we often did not link up one
structure with another with an excavation which provided a continuous section.
We saw, rather, a series of main flooring or surfacing layers which occurred
pretty much throughout the site in the same sequence, and came to regard these
as being the stratigraphic-constructional-functional equi'valents of each other
as they appeared in their expected sequential order as the excavation proceed-
ed.   The fine matchings and tying-in that would be expected of well-trained
and competent archaeologists we seem not to have accomplished. This lapse is
one of the criticisms which Coe and Stuckenrath have made. Some of their
questions we can answer; others we cannot since we do not ha-ve the information.
Coe and Stuc.kenrath pay a good deal of attenticn tc the series of nine
radiocarbon dates (M-528 to M-536) and raise a number of questions about our
interpretation of the nine dates which we intend to discuss at length in our
paper now in preparation. It may be of interest for the reader tc know that
the nine Michigan dates probably do not contain serious laboratory errors.
In 1955 when Drucker returned to Washingtron he divlided two of the charcoal
samples and submitted these two to the USGS radi ocarbon laboratory.  The re-
maining halves were dated by Michigan and designated M-528, M-533.  In Decem-
ber 1964, Dr. W. F. Libby and Dr. R. Berger were kind enough to date the two
samples origina.lly submitted to the USGS labo.L.atcry and whioh Dr. Myer Rubin
returned at my request. The resu'Lts are as fo`ows:
M-528   2560+300 yrs. B.P.   UCLA-90G1  2940+80 yrs. B.P.
M-533 3 2130+300 yrs. B.P.   UCLA-903   2460+80 yTs. B.P.
There s nso space here t O discuss) even briefly, the problems raised
by Coe and StEuckenrath about massi:lvre o,fferings., morsaic pavements, burials,
small dedicatory offerlngs and stone rcnuments.  I can say thaf when Squier
and I publish our comments on the present paper, we will reaffirm our belief
that there were four main and distinguishable building phases (Phases I-IV)
at the La Venta site, and that we will defend most of the assignments of small
and large offerings to the phases originally specified by us. Where we have
queried the phase attribution of an offering or construction feature we will
explain why we did so. In some instances we can now be more certain of the
stratigraphic placement of buried materials about whidh we were earlier doubt-
ful.
The reader will learn that the major purpose of questioning the intra-
site sequence is to cast doubt upon the placement in time of items which can
be identified as done in the Olmec style. Coe and Stuckenrath apparently wish
to have anything that is specifically Olmec to be very late in the history of
the La Venta site and a substantial part of their paper is aimed at trying to
interpret all Olmec traits as belonging to Phase IV. For large sculptured
monuments it is not possible to say that any can be proved beyond doubt to
have been made and placed before Phase IV times, so that we cannot cite these
as evidence of the continuity of Olmec culture through the history of the
site. The same is not true of many of the small lots which were designated
as "tdedicatory caches" or "offerings," nor for some of the large '"pavements"
47
which include both the solid and unpatterned layers of rectangular serpentine
blocks as well as the "mosaic masks" composed of patterned layouts of shaped
serDentine blocks.
The two so-called "mosaic masks" or "jaguar mosaic masks" which were
found in the Southwest and Southeast Platforms are of significance in several
regards to the site's building history and its interpretation. Coe and Stuck-
enrath have queried our conclusion (actually an assumption since we did not
tie the two platforms together with a continuous stratigraphic trench) that
the two platforms were built at the same time. Our belief that the two are
so closely coeval in time as to be contemporaneous was based on what we felt
in 1955., and still believe, to be practical identity between the two features.
Wedel, in excavating the Southeast Platform in 19142, did not do as complete a
dissection as we did in the Southwest Platform in 1955, so we cannot compare
all of the elements of each construction.   Superficially the two platforms are
twins--they occupy positions equidistant from the centerline on the southern
margln of the Court; each was evidenced on the surface as a low adobe brick
platform whose border was ringed by a rectangle of upright basalt columns;
with the two sub-brickwork fills were cruciform celt caches; beneath the brick-
work in each was a fill of the same color, consistency, and thickness; below
this fill were almost identical "mosaics" of serpentine blocks (one of 485,
one of 497 blocks), and; beneath the mosaics was a thick "foundation" or bed
of rough serpentine quarry blocks set in clay mortar. If one compares the two
mosaics (DHS:Fig. 29; Wedel 1952:Fig. 20) he will see that they are so much
alike that they may be called practically identical. If the two mosaics are
separated 'in timre as regards their deposition, their remarkable similarity
speaks for an uninterrupted and highly specific formal continuity.    While this
is not impossible, it is difficult to believe that two features so nearly sim-
ilar could be separated in time by as much as a year or ten years or a genera-
tion or whatever brief span of time might be assumed necessary for exact de-
tails cf a complicated buried feature to be forgotten. These were our
thoughts in 1955, and they remain ours in 19614.
As for the mosaic which is generally similar that was found by Wedel
in the centerline trench in 1942 and called by him Pavement No. 2, we have
guessed that it dates from Phase IV, but we were and are at the moment not
certain of this attribution.   As excavators of the site, we believe it most
probable that it is assignable to Phase IV, and if this be so, its differen-
ces from the similar mosaics in the two platforms can be looked at as evidence
of stylistic change over time. We will discuss this in detail later.
The authors challenge our identification of the mosaic in the South-
west Platform, which was excavated in 1955, as representing the jaguar face,
as well as our interpretation of the several features such as eyes, nose,
mouth, and central notch. Here we are relieved to be able to say that the
mosaic "masks" from the first constituted for us a difficult problem of rep-
resentational intent by their makers.   Heizer and Squier preferred, as the
merest beginners in Mexican archaeology, to leave this matter to our senior
colleague, Drucker, who had thoucht more about the Olmec art style than we
had. Drucker also was puzzled by the mosaic masks, but because we all saw
or sensed the La Venta site as a manifestation of the continuity of the same
group, and because the Olmec art style was abundantly evidenced, we perhaps
too easily assumed that the mosaics were representations of the jaguar. In
1942 Wedel had guessed (Wedel 1952:56) that the Southeast Platform mosaic
48
represented "apparently, a conventionalized jaguar mask." This suggestion,
however tentatively stated by him, may have influenced us and may have been
the source of our conclusion that the mosaics portrayed the jaguar. Now we
can say that we modify the unqualified opinion that these are Olmec jaguars
and take the position that they may be, or may not be.    It was obvious to
Coe and Stuckenrath that we had failed to examine the question of continuity
of Olmec art style evidence in the site's history, and this we also admit.
But, on reviewing this matter, we find some quite obvious stylistic connec-
tions between the mosaics with designs on engraved celts from the La Venta
site, and by this means believe we can show that the unique mosaics are
linked and contemporaneous with undoubted examples of the developed Olmec
art style.
Figure 1 a shows the layout of the mosaic from the Southwest Platform.
It is shown here In reversed position to that in which it was presented by us
in pubZlcation (DHS:Fig. 29) and in its present position we believe it to be
correct. Here we are probably in agreement wlth Coe and Stuckenrath, as well
as with M. Coe (n.d.). First, the notch should be a forehead, and not a chin
cleft; second, the "headdress" or "plumes" (DHS: 93) or "appendages" (Drucker
1952-58-59) look better as pendant decorations than as upright "plumes." In-
deed, these four elements strongly suggest a ser1es of stone beads, longitud-
irially drilled, strung together with cords. If this be their stimulus, they
probably hung around the neck, and this suggests that the mosaic is in fact
some sort of facial representation, though not necessarily, we repeat, that
of the jaguar.  However, the forehead n,otch suggests a feline and therefore
the jaguar, wJhich is usually represented in Olmec art as having such a fore-
head notch or Cleft, is not ru led out.
Now let us turn to certaln items frcom the La Venta site that appear
to us to show stylistic similarities to the three mosaic masks (Pavement No.
2; Southwest Platform mosaic; Southeast Platform mosaic),  These items are
the five stone celt engravings shown in Figure I b-f. Figure 1 b Is from
Mound A-2, Offering 1942-C (Drucker 1952l165; DHS:2T3-214) and here one sees
the frontal notch or cleft, the vertical It.inealIv nose, and four circles or
discs whose identification is doubtful, but may be suggested as eyes (the two
upper circles) and mouth or discs (labrets?) affixed to the face near each
end of the mouth (cf. DHS.Fig. 43 a,b--the two lower circles). Above the
frontal cleft or notch is a flowerClTke element which may be a forehead or
head decoration, but whose exact identification is unknown. Figure 1 c also
from Offering 1942-C is basically similar. This offering dates, we believe,
from Phase IV. Figure 1 d comes from Offering No. 2 (DHS:141) and is again
similar, but has two engraved elements which may represent eyebrows, or a
halved or divided element eqluivalent to the inverted U below the forehead
notch of the mosaic mask. Finally, Figure 1 e also from Offering No. 2, shows
a cross-legged and masked(?) man whose head is shown in profile. On the side
of the face are two discs o.r circles, and on the forehead, probably to be
interpreted as part of a mask, is a band whose lower border bears notching.
The engraving is certainly no great work of art, but because of its similarity
both to the design shown in Figure 1 d and to the three mosaic masks, deserves
to be considered as stylistically related.  Now, an interesting association in
Offering No. 2 with the engraved celts shown in Figure 1 d, e, is the engraved
design on another celt shown in Figure 1 f and which is surery in the best
tradition of Olmec style (cf. DHS:Fig. 367. We do not feel that we are press-
ing too hard to argue that the.Phase 11 mosaic masks in the Southwest and
49
Southeast Platforms can be stylistically affiliated with the engraved designs
from Offering No. 2 which we have attributed to Phase IIIo   A complex series
of additional resemblances could be pointed out, but we believe enough evi-
dence has been given to show a connection between the Phase II mosaic masks
and the Phase III and Phase IV engraved celts. Our argument here on continu-
ity, we should remind the reader, is based upon our continued adherence to the
four-phase sequence interpretation of construction periods. When we have the
Olmec style occurring in Phases II, III and IV, we therefore refer to this as
evidence of the Olmec continuum at the La Venta site. We still believe it
probable that the Jade "maskette" from Offering No. 7 (DHS:Fig. 43b, p. 171)
dates from Phase I, and that the two figurines from Offering No. 3(DHS?Ple
26, p. 146) date from Phase II. These pieces support the view of Olmec occu-
pation through the whole period of use of the La Venta site. I cannot refrain
from digressing to refer (Fig. 1 ) to the "votive axe" illustrated by Covar-
rubias (1957:Fig. 32) since it is so similar to some from La Venta, and to
point out that this piece provides a direct link with the La Venta period and
the votive axes which do not occur at La Venta. When Coe and Stuckenrath
question either or both the four building periods (our "phases") and the cor-
rectness of the phase attribution of the various offerings, their argument
can then take the direction of questioning ihether there is anything that is
undoubtedly representative of the Olmec style earlier than Phase IV. It is
on this i'ssue that the matter rests and until Squ'ier-and I provide our counter-
argument which will generally take the form of a defense of our position pub-
lished in Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 170, the reader must choose
between our earlier published statements and the Coe-Stuckenrath alternatives.
Since I am taking the responsibility for this preliminary statement,
it provides me with an opportunity to clarify a matter which I am alone
responslble for.  This deals with what I had in mind in writing the three
papers mentioned by Coe and $tuckenrath (Heizer 1960, 1961, 1962) and des-
cribed by them as "infectious re-zreations" and which concern my efforts to
reconstruct the socio-religious-economic structure of La Venta culture. These
articles were attempts to push beyond the facts of archaeology in order to try,
to get some idea of the organization and motivation of the La Venta population.
I tried to approach this subject with the words of my teacher, Alfred Kroeber,
in mind when he wrote (Kroeber 1923:l25):
Now and then it seems permissible for the student to leave off his daily
association with specific facts and rise above them on the gyroscope of
his imagination to discover- if a broader view may not give him new in-
sights into their relations, or alter his conception of their setting in
the larger landscape of nature as a whole.   Such flights indeed appear
almost incumbent on him at intervals if his occupation with his materials
is close and unremitting. The requirement which integrity imposes on
these ventures is that knowledge and fancy, fact and fabrication, be
kept as distinct as possible, lest one come to pass for the other.
I now see in the cold glow of criticism that which I did not in the
warmth of enthusiasm, namely that I failed to observe the proper measurg of
"integrity"t which Kroeber recommended in not making it sufficiently clear
where I was quoting fact and where I was interpreting it. Thus, by treating
as literal fact the calculated floruit of the La Venta site as 8004400 B.C.,
and dividing this LOO year span by the number of building periods (four), a
nice round number of 100 years per phase was secured, and from this flowed
Legend for Figure 1
a, mosaic mask In Southwest Platform, La Venta site
(after DHS:Fis. 28). Hachured areas are unfilled}
open areas are stone blocks.
b, engraved celt from Offering 1942-C, La Vents site.
cs engraved celt from Offering 1942-C, La Venta site.
d, engraved colt from Offering No. 2, La Vents site
(after DHSiFig. 35c).
e, engraving on celt from Offering No. 2, La Venta
site (after DHSsFig. 35b).
f, engraved design on celt from Offering No. 2s La
Venta site (after DHS:Fig, 35e).
9, "vrotive axe," unknown provrenience (after Covarrubias
1957:*Fig. 32, lower right) .
b          c
d
a
SCALE IN FEET
f
e
rather too easily the suggestion of calendrically-derived periodic renovations.
In fact, these are the sheerest guesses9 and they all rest upon shaky assump-
tions--they should not be considered as anything else. On another matter I am
surely guilty of stretching what could be at best called only possible evidence
into what the uncritical reader would take to be archaeological fact in refer-
ring to 'ttombs" at La Venta. In the DHS report we were not only vague about
whether there were actual tombs in the site9 but on a few occasions we were
inconsistent in assuming that there were (DHS-127) and arguing in other places
that there may not have been any. These confusions were due simply to the
nature of the evidence which allowed one to argue that some feattires were actu-
ally burial tombs, and others were "surrogate interments." I am only trying
to make it clear here that the three papers referred to are properly to be
looked upon as essays in looking beyond the mere facts, and that they were
written because I had thought about the subject and believed, not that they
were accurate reconstructions, but that such attempts had value in bringing
the faots of dhe dead past Into an animated vlew of people living and doing
things.  If my imaginatlon was too lively, or if I treated obscure evidence
as fact, then tVhat is a reflection on my judgment, but for using my imagina-
tion I do not make any apologies.
My remarks, already running to greater length than I had anticipated,
will close with the reminder that the defendants have not yet submitted their
testimony to the court.
REFERENCES
COE, M. D.
n.d.   The Olmec style and its distributions.  Article to appear in the
Handbook of Middle American Indians.
COVARRU?IAS, M.
1957   Indian art of Mexico and Central Amerlca. New York, Alfred Knopf.
DRUCKER, P.
1952   La Venta Tabasco:  a study of Olmec ceramics and art.  Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 153.
HEIZER, R. F.
1960   Agriculture and the theocratic state in lowland southeastern
Mexico. American Antiquity 26:215-222.
1961   Inferences on the nature of Olmec society based upon data from
the La Venta Site. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 25:
43-57.
1962   The possible sociopolitical structure of the La Venta Olmecs.
Akten des 34 Internationalen Amerikanisten-Kongresses. Wien, 18-
25 Juli, 1960. Horn-Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger.
KROEEER, A. L.
1923   The history of native culture in California. University of Cali-
fornia Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20:125-
1h2.
WEDEL , W. R.
1952   Structural investigations [at the La Venta site] in 1943. Bureau
of American Ethnology, Bulletin 153.34-79.