37
COMMENTARY ON W. R. COE AND ROBERT STUCKENRATH'S REVIEW OF
EXCAVATIONS AT LA VENTA, TABASCO,   E
Philip Drucker and Robert F. Heizer
A play-by-play commentary on the Coe and Stuckenrath review (1964;
cited hereafter as C&S) of our monograph (Drucker, Heizer,and Squier 1959;
cited hereafter as DHS) is called for in addition to Heizer's preliminary
discussion (1964) not only because of the fact that data from La Venta derived
from the report published in 1959 have been drawn on widely in interpretations
of Mesoamerican culture growth, but also because in their review C&S try to
develop the theme that the work at La Venta was much more clumsily done than
was actually the case and that a rather different interpretation of the data
is called for. We make no pretense at having presented the perfect report on
the perfect investigation; we acknowledged in that report that we committed
certain errors. Our intent here is to clarify the category of error--whether
in field method, in interpretation, or in exposition.  Our purpose is to clar-
ify, not to defend or excuse. There is, may it be noted, an additional poten-
tial error in communication of scientific data over which we admit no respon-
sibility, that is the failure of the reader to get the clearly presented point.
While any archaeologist should be able to defend anything he writes,
he cannot always do so after a lapse of years. We claim an "intuition," or
perhaps better, a feeling about the La Venta site which C&S clearly lack,
though this in no way diminishes the propriety of some of their criticisms.
We expect that if we were to sit down and pick apart one of the still to be
published detailed Tikal reports we might be able to ask some pretty tough
questions. Partly this would be for the reason that Coe's intuition or feel-
ing for Tikal is better than ours. Any detailed archaeological report is
probably open to points of challenge. However, since we feel that we have
been rather more right than wrong, we will try here, a full ten years after
the excavation, to answer the main points raised b C&S.
The first consideration of the reviewers of the DHS report (after
some preliminary generalizations as to the significance of La Venta) is that
of the plysical stratigraphy of Complex A, from which we derived our conclu-
sions as to sequences of building activity. The C&S estimate of this phase
of the report, to state it bluntly, is that the work of excavation was incom-
petently done and incorrectly interpreted. When they finally conclude in
this section of the review that our conclusions as to the sequence of major
construction phases were apparently correct, the implication is that we were
pretty lucky. C&S have assured us, both in person and in letters, that their
review of our work is not to be taken as a personal criticism. This we
accept, and wish to respond by stating that our remarks here are directed
solely to their review.
For discussing the problem of field method, the beginning is the best
place to start. When we planned the 1955 investigations at La Venta we knew
we were tackling a difficult project, one for which there was no developed
Standard Operating Procedure. Earth and clay mounds have been excavated be-
fore, but a mound or pyramid, by its external form, provides guides as to
possible approaches. One may sink a shaft from the summit, cut a cross trench,
38
dig a tunnel, drive in against a vertical face, drive in across a corner, or
strip it down in layers--in each case measuring one's capacities in terms of
time and labor against a roughly calculable cubic yardage of ancient construc-
tion. This was not so at La Vtenta. Complex A in our time was essentially
subterranean and of unknown dimensions. Our only important clues derived from
Wedel's work in 1943. That scholar worked under considerable difficulties,
including those of limited time and budget, so that although he demonstrated
the fact of a structural complexity of Complex A he was not able to define
either the horizontal or vertical extent of artificial construction. Wedel
(1952) makes clear that he did not have sufficient time and labor to deter-
mine where or whether he had reached the natural subsoil underlying the man-
made structures.
C&S, in an effort to stress the great amount of work expended in
La Venta investigations, include mention of Stirling's  1941 work (incorrectly
cited in C&S, p. 1, as of 1940) and that by Drucker in 1952, Stirling's work
in 1941 was purely surface reconnaissance plus the scraping away of mostly
post-La Venta soil depositions around stone monuments for purposes of photog-
raphy. Stirling has nowhere implied that it was anything else. Drucker's
(1952) probes into structural masses--made in the course of a few days with a
tiny crew--showed only, as he then tried to make clear, that the incomplete
quadrangles of basalt columns projecting above the mostly sterile aeolian
sands were the superficial markers of probably elaborate archaeological
features.
An additional consideration was that none of us were prepared to make
a career of excavating La Venta. Our personal circumstances, institutional
and financial support, were such that we had to program our efforts toward
accomplishing as much as possible in a single season,  As a consequence we
went prepared to modify and improvise our field methodology as circumstances
demanded. Our original plan of attack involved stripping the drift sand over-
burden from at least one-half of what we assumed was the Court area, then
peeling away layers of whatever structural formations we might encounter in
the classical onionskin method. This, we found, did not work. First, we
learned that the sheer mass of the sand overburden, greater than we had antic-
ipated, was more than we could handle in our one season with our labor force--
at least if we wanted any time left for actual archaeology. Second, clay
materials of the structures did not peel away like onion layers as the book
says they should. On horizontal exposures under the dry season sun the only
cleavage planes they developed were amorphous mainly vertical ones similar to
the columnar soil cracking of natural clay soil formations.  We learned, the
hard way, that the only practical approach was that of trenching to develop,
analyze, and record vertical profiles,  Therefore we laid out trenches to sec-
tion the complex.
We also became involved in the dissection of the Southwest Platform.
This work we began by working against the outer faces of the feature, The
north and east faces were retained so that their inner profiles might serve
as control sections, In addition we retained a north-south central control
section, These are shown in DHS (1959:pl. 1)4). We did not, and indeed could
not, anticipate how large a subterranean feature the Southwest Platform would
turn out to be in terms of excavation and interpretationo The result was
39
that roughly half of our labor force   was devoted to this singe' feature for
most of the digging season.
As the work progressed and the importance and utility of 'vertical
profiles became more and more apparent, we arranged for'the mechanical cut-
ting of the east-west trench by bulldozer.  We should add that the Pemex Com-
pany kindly made available the bulldozer to us for two days, mainly for'the
purpose of 'removing backdirt along the sides of the deep 'manin north-south
trench since we were concerned about the'possibility of a cave-in that might
bury our workmen. the :dozer was also used to set Stela 3 upright.   When.'
these housekeeping tasks were done, there was still enough' free time to cut'
the east-west trench that provided us with-a useful section across the.east
half of the Court.   While' ne'ither of us then considered, nor now considers,
a bulldozer as a useful tool for excavation, we nevertheless took the chance
of destroying something important in order to have a continuous section of
the Court exposed, which would'have otherwise been impossible to secure. The
basalt column tob (Mobnument 7) we did not feel authorized to dismantle.   The
result of our failure to excavate beneath this construction accounts in part
for our incomplete understanding of t'he constructiohal history of Mound A-2.
This brief account of our work is aimed at bringing out the fact that,
the problems of excavation at La Venta Complex A were not routine, and' that
we had to modify and adapt our methodology to cope with the special conditions.
A very important point, too, and one that we' neglected to stress in'the origi-
nal report, was that at the begimning there was no way to foretell just what
sort of structure we were excavating. This fact has been obscured by the ter-
minology "Ceremonial Court," "Court'Plaza," etc.   introduced in the earlier
publications because of the enclosure effect produced by the tops of the rows
of columns projecting above the drift sand. 'As our work' advanced it became
plain that these early designations had luckily correctly described the nature
of the main feature, and so we retained them.'
It also became obvious that the Ceremonial :Co'urt actually' was the
principal structural feature to which-all other'components'of Complex A were
adjuncts or appendages.  C&S's complaint that #la mound in practice at La Venta
was not treated as a 'growth unit' to be analyzed-and periodized'initially in
its own terms but rather as a source for data to fatten Complex A phases"
(C&S:h) indicates that the reviewers do not understand the physical propor-
tions of the structures.'' Perhaps they did not bother to note the dimensions
of the various mounds.  The La Venta' Complex-A "'mounds" were not towe'ring,
majestic masses like the pyramids of Tikal and Piedras Negras.   Rather they
were little bumps in and around the'Court.  The Northwest and Northeast Plat-
forms could not be discerned as elevati'ons prior to removal-of the drift sand
overburden. The Southeast and Southwest" Platf'orms similarly did not appear
to be elevations prior to clearing.  Mound A_-2 was, when Drucker first defor-
ested the tract, a very inconspicuous little knoll   Actully the term   "mound"
is misleading.  The DHS designation of "platform"l is preferable (although we
did refer to'A-2 as a mound," Committing a small sin against terminological
consistency).  Had we called these features si'mply "substructures" this
"independent giant mound" (C&S) idea'might have been aVoided--but then some
careless reader probably'would hive inferred that- they were underneath, not
on top of, the Court. To the careful reade'r our coded designations, A-l-c
through A-l-g, make clear the' subsidiary nature of' these features.
40
To repeat, the Court proper, by which we mean the fills, floors, and
enclosing wall, was the primary and important structure. The platforms were
subsidiary in terms of architectural layout as well as cubic yardage. As
work progressed it became plain that there was no warrant for handling the
platforms independently of the Court. They were built, refurbished, enlarged,
etc. in,connection with similar Court operations; therefore we handled both
excavation and exposition from that approach. Our use of the Court structural
phases as the temporal reference base of the complex was neither the result of
lack of discernment on our part nor of slothful workmanship. The construc-
tional sequence of the Court and its appurtenances--platforms and other sub-
sidiary features--emerged as a result of analysis of the data revealed by
excavation. Had such data indicated that the platforms were the features of
primary significance, we would have directed our major efforts to them rather
than to the Court as a whole.
In passing it may be remarked that C&S neglect to note that we began
to excavate one of the subsidiary features, the Southwest Platform (A-l-e),.
precisely as they insist that it should have been done--"to be analyzed and
periodized initially in its own terms." By great good luck (or perhaps by
some awareness of problem on our part), we foresaw the necessity of retaining
the sections that gave the significant tie-ins with the major Court structure,
and.consequently modified.our approach to leave the interior faces of north-
ern and eastern walls.  The profiles-of these were insurance against possible
loss of data for relating-the "growth unit" to the major architectural feature
of which it was a part.
This brings up a point of order, as.it were, of broad significance in
regard to archaeological methodology and valid criticism of.same.  We consider
it proper to stress the matter for its relevance to the critique here consid-
ered. The essential point is that there is no single "correct technique'? in
archaeology. The fabled camel's-hair brush-and-grapefruit knife method may
be highly effective under certain circumstances, but it would yield no practi-
cal results if applied literally to the excavation of a massive deposit of
low per-yard artifact yield and minimal architectural content like, let us
say, a San Francisco Bay -shell mound. By-the same token, the "independent
growth unit" approach may yield important results when applied to certain
types of sites but that does not imply that it is necessarily the only proper
approach at La Venta.  The real task of the archaeologist in the field is to
devise methods which will extract the greatest possible amount of meaningful
data from the archaeological materials under attack.  Significant results are
the pay-off, regardless of whether obtained through use of a camel's-hair
brush or a bulldozer, or through concentrating on-minor features or major
ones. No critic has the right.to insist that the approach and method that
served him well in one site must be applied to all other excavations.
The constructional sequence of the Court proper and its appendages
(platforms, etc.), which provided us the base for the "phases" which we inter-
preted as of temporal significance, are treated by C&S, but with a certain
constant factor of miscomprehension that provides the reviewers with a source
of ammunition for criticism which is not in. every case pertinent. Since care-
ful rereading of DHS indicates that neither was our methodology faulty on
these points nor our exposition unclear, apparently we have to do here with a
breakdown in .communication due to reader misunderstanding.
41
Our basic interpretation of the evidence revealed by excavations-was
this: Complex A was originally laid out and built according to a definite
plan; it was not a helter-skelter, fortuitous, opportunistic, or accidental
melange of elements. Evidence for this is the thousands of cubic yards (thou-
sands of tons, if you prefer) of material used for the preparation of the base
and the overlying "floors."  Subsequently, in conformity with the generally
recognized Mesoamerican pattern of refurbishing, modifying, and elaborating,
and with the additional effect of gross enlargement, additional masses of fill
and finishing materials were applied and subsidiary features were similarly
added or developed. The evidence of the profile sections was very clear that
such subsequent major enlargements were made three times. We nowhere imply
that the final Phase IV form was envisaged at the inception of construction,
but we do believe that each major enlargement was in itself a planned, not a
haphazard, operation. Evidence for this we shall bring out--or rather rede-
velop, since we said it before in DHS--in subsequent paragraphs.
Phase I was identified as a building stage begun by preparation of
what was essentially a foundation. C&S's statement (1964:5) that the water-
sorted 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" is incorrect and confuses the pic-
ture. We specified not once but many times (DHS 1959:27, 37, 61, 70, 77,
121-124) that the complex was constructed on a natural formation consisting
of a low, irregular ridge of massive clay capped by a similarly irregular
layer of aeolian ("drift") sand. Our evidence is that the base structure of
Complex A derives precisely from the fact that the rather straggling natural
formation, sloping gently eastward from its crest and dipping abruptly in
some places to the westward, was carefully graded by removal of drift sand at
the high points and laying down of massive artificial fills in low areas to
provide the flat base for the Court. Given the irregular form of the natural
ridge and the fact that we were not able to excavate the entire structure, we
cannot offer precise figures on volume, but the clear probabilities are that
several thousand tons of material were moved in preparing this foundation.
There is also the evidence of careful grading, possibly for drainage purposes
(DHS 1959:27). The C&S reference to "occupational fills" is incomprehensible.
We found no recognizable occupational (i.e. midden or trash) deposit at any-
point beneath the structural elements, nor did we make any statement that
could be so interpreted. What we did find at certain points were laminated
fragments of clay of various colors, indicating that they had been plastered,
one layer over the other, precisely as certain well-defined "floors" or sur-
faces of subsequent levels of the Court and its platforms. 'We pointed out
the possibility that these floor-shards may have come from pre-Court (i.e.
pre-Phase I) structures demolished in the quest for fill for the foundation
mass. We have no clue as to the location of these pre-Court structures and
so state. We surmised that they may have occurred in the vicinity of the
Court, but in point of fact they may have originally been situated off the
island of La Venta. The interesting fact is that the remnants we found indi-
cate that this same architectural finishing or surfacing technique was in
vogue somewhere in the region before Complex A was begun, and we were at
pains to point this out in our report (DHS 1959:38, 44, 124, 298). A hint,
but nothing more than that, to indicate the source of these earlier construc-
tions as located at La Venta, comes from the casual report by Pina Chin and
Covarrubias (1964:16-24) of their stratigraphic excavations outside the main
42
site area and in which they establish three periods, two of which predate the
La Venta site. No architecture is reported as associated with these earlier
occupations, but there is a possibility that this exists, or did exist. Our
implicit assumption that the Northeast and Northwest Platforms were each
altered on the same occasion may not be correct since there are surely sequen-
tial differences in minor improvements nade on one or the other. But four
major time stages for the two structures can still be read and these four are
at least roughly contemporary. The most difficult thing to interpret is what
C&S label in their Figure 2 as Pre-I in the Northwest Platform--the clay
block underlying the water-sorted floors (DHS 1959:6h-65, Fig. 20). In all
probability we made some faulty stratigraphic observations here to the extent
that we were in 1955, and are still in 1965, unable to satisfactorily explain
what purpose the clay block (labeled "lp" in DHS 1959:65, Fig. 20) served. It
may have been a pre-Phase I platform remnant, or (as suggested in DHS 1959:65
as the sheerest guess) a pedestal for a monument, or a grading device similar
to one which Wedel (1952:67) found earlier, though none of these possibilities
appeal to us and we admit our inability to suggest anything more definite.
Perhaps we should have allotted this clay block with its "painted" (i.e.
colored clay plaster) sloping front more importance than we did, but we did
not want to establish a pre-Phase I stage in the site on such slender and
fragmentary evidence. To have done so would have laid us open to challenge
of why we establ'ished a constructional phase with so little bas'is. It was,
we recall, this kind of thinking that we indulged in at La Venta in 1955, and
we resolved the problem by interpreting the clay block beneath the water-
sorted floors as a puzzling element of the pre-Phase I leveling fills in the
low area in the western half of the Court. Perhaps, as we have suggested
above, the deep leveling fills took longer to lay down than we estimated, and
some sort of clay platform was built and used for a period of time. If there
had been any very substantial number of clay platform structure remnants
(such as the pre-water-sorted floor clay block beneath the Northwest Platform
or the Phase I platform-facing or flooring fragments such as found below the
Northwest Platform, discussed in DHS 1959:67, or as found in layer j-3 in
Mound A-2, discussed in DHS 1959:37-38) we would have granted more formal ter-
minological recognition to an earlier site construction phase. But we did
not read the scanty indications in this way and still see no warrant in doing
so.  La Venta, with its big pyramid and Complex A lying to the north, still
appears to us to be a single unit with an internal coherence. We do not
doubt that there were older (pre-La Venta in the terms just stated) occupa-
tions of the La Venta Island locality, but what bearing these may have had
upon the major site which is called La Venta and which we believe was built
and then underwent three major rebuildings, we do not know.
What we designated as "water-sorted floors" were laid over this
foundation. If the laminated clay fragments previously mentioned were actual-
ly from floor surfaces rather than platform facings, and thus functionally
comparable to those of later Complex A phases, the poorly consolidated sandy
water-sorted floors may have represented an architectural experiment, one
which perhaps did not work out too well.  The clear evidence of washing and
puddling, indicating that the entire enclosed area filled with water during
rainy periods, plus the fact that there was a return to use of more compact
surfacing layers subsequently, hints at this. Throughout the period of field-
work we found the water-sorted floors difficult to interpret, and a great deal
of discussion over the several months we were at La Venta fail-ed to give us an
43
adequate answer. We made no secret of our difficulty in understanding these
layers when we wrote our report (cf. DHS 1959:56, 100-101).
In any case the basic consideration here in connection with the C&S
critique is that we str.essed our'interpretation that the tons of fill loaded
in to provide a level fotmdation for the Court and the water-sorted floors
comprise a structural unit. There are indications that this Phase I work may
have been accomplished fairly rapidly. At no point where our'trenches tran-
sected the Phase I fill used to level off the ridge were there any signs of
erosional surfaces such as might have been formed had incomplete areas of fill
lain exposed to the heavy regional rains for a very long time. The one bit of
evidence to the contrary depends upon interpretation.  If the sheared-off clay
block (DHS 1959:65, Fig. 20, items "p" and "o") is actually a remnant of a
small platform, and not a grading device, the implication would be that it was
erected and utilized during the laying down of the basic fill, suggesting less
rapid progress in the foundation building.
This temporal connection between foundation and prepared surface (fill
and overlying water-sorted floors) is the essential issue in C&S's questioning
the time-relevance of carbon-14 sample No. M-534 from the foundation fill sup-
porting the water-sorted floors beneath the Northwest Platform.  The recovery
of this sample from a point about four feet below the floors does not' dissoci;-'
ate it from the floors aside from the time interval, probably short, during
which the Phase I work was accomplished.  If charcoal suitable for collection
had been noted twice as many feet deep to the westward (where the' mass of the
fill increased rapidly due to the sharp dip of the prestructural natural sur-
face) it still would have referred to Phase I in regard to deposition time,'
at least as long as it came from the artificially formed Court foundation
leveling-fill overlying the original natural surface of the ridge. The cri-
terion here is not absolute depth from the horizontal datum plane but the
lack of any indication of a major time break during construction of the fill.
C&S's failure to understand DHS's basic profile-derived hypothesis, that the
floors alone were not the real structural units but that the fills and direct-
ly overlying floors were so in fact, is the source of many of the errors i'n
their critique.
The placing of the construction of subsidiary features becomes perti-
nent here. At the completion of the basic fill which leveled off the site
preparatory to installation of the first floors, there were, in addition to
the low enclosing red clay embankment, two subsidiary elements built prior to
the laying of the floors--the original Northeast Platform (A-l-f) and the
base of Platform A-2. In continuation, the water-sorted floors were laid.
We have made manifest our interpretation (DHS 1959:27-28) that the areas we
excavated suggest that at this stage the Court was a large enclosed rectangle
with little relief, more like a parade ground than the usual known Mesoameri-
can plaza complex.
In the field we considered the possibility that the base structure of
the Northwest Platform (A-l-g) may not have been a final development of Phase
I construction built directly on the water-sorted floors. The facing covers
of this component where we profiled them clearly belonged to the subsequent
phase of construction, so that one would have to assume that if it was a
Phase I platform base, erected at the close of activities of that epoch, it
44
must have been heavily modified to the extent of removal of its original sur-
facings, at the onset of Phase II activities. We intended to present that
possibility but in the course of revising, rewriting, etc. we lost it. The
potentially significant factor is not the argument offered and then dismissed
as "specious" by C&S (1964:13) but the fact presented in the original report
(DHS 1959:Fig. 20) of the clearly defined horizontal difference in material
between structural depositions A-l-g-l and A-l-g-k. Here, then, is one of
our errors in exposition. We shall attempt to redeem it by revising our
originally published (1959) appraisal to indicate that while the weight of
the evidence relates the earliest platform construction to Phase II, there
is a possibility that it was begun in the later aspects of the Phase I
construction.
There is unmistakable evidence that some Phase I construction activ-
ity continued after the deposition of the water-sorted floors: the initial
construction of the South Central Platform (A-l-c-p). This was a clearly de-
fined low platform which had no detectable distinctively colored finish sur-
facings and which was completely encapsulated by Phase II construction work.
Why should the A-l-g structure have been begun at a later date
(either late Phase I or Phase II) than its "mate" (A-l-f)? There is no
decisive an'swer. One must speculate. All evidence points to the fact that
the Northeast Platform (A-l-f) had some very highly specialized function; the
numerous offerings placed within it make this clear. The symmetrically lo-
cated Northwest Platform (A-l-g) manifestly differed in use. Therefore there
is a distinct possibility that ceremonial patterns were adapted to the archi-
tectural pattern by building the Northwest Platform as a complement to A-l-f,
dedicating it to special ceremonial usages.
The foregoing leads us to C&S's point (1964:7) regarding refinement
of the site chronology. On the one hand they argue for reduction of the
Complex A time span, and on the other for an elaboration of phases into sub-
phases.  It would have been possible for us, on the basis of material at hand,
to present the data relating to sequence as a series of substeps of the major
divisions. For example, in the discussion just offered of Phase I we could
have offered a presentation more or less as follows (reading, in geological
fashion, from top backward in time):
subphase e - Features A-l-c(2) (A-l-g(l)?)
subphase d - Water-sorted floors
subphase c - Features A-2(j3,j4)
Phase I                                    A-1-f
subphase b - Features "grade stakes"
A-l-f(s), (A-l-g(p)?)
A-l-a(a)
subphase a - Massive fill foundation leveling
of natural surface of ridge
Our decision on the matter, rightly or wrongly, was that stich a break-
down would have been ideal had we been able to excavte Complex A 'completely.
However, in view of the fact that there were extensive unexplored areas which
might contain additional minor features whose placing might affect the minu-
tiae of such a breakdown, we decided against it.''. Not only did we regard such
a breakdown as needlessly complicated, but we wanted to avoid the' more serious
fault of presenting, or seeming to present, a more complex sequence than our
basic. data warranted. Some very elaborate sequences, structtiral and culture-
stratigraphic, have been presented on. some rather skimpy data. That, or even
the suggestion of that, we wished'to avoid. Hence our presentation in'terms
of the four major construction periods, Phases I-IV.
The four Phases are demonstrably real and significant. There is noth-
ing simplistic about using them as bases for temporal comparisons within or
beyond the site.  Our original, and present, position is that it is preferable
to rely on a clearly defined series of major developments rather than on a
breakdown into minute, possibly,incomplete,'substages until such time as the
site can be completely dissected. When one is dealing'with a familiar or pre-
dictable kind of archaeological site, one can establish a reference terminol-
ogy for all of the variables--one which is open-ended ih the sense that new
assignations can he made as new finds come to light. T.his is what Coe and
his colleagues have done at Tikal (Shook and Coe 1961),- bit this orocedure is
only feasible under circumstances where one is dealing with known types of
sites. Uaxactun, which lies a few miles from Tikal, would have provided a
model or guide. At the La Venta site we could not do this in advance, and
rather than completely revise our field designations when we were writing up
the report we tended to retain these and to accept or incorporate earlier
designations for features.recorded by Wedel and Drucker. Further, while we
had no plans for returning to.La Venta i'n the immediate future, we believed
that additional work would be carried out eventually--an anticipation which,
unhappily, is now impossible.
Phase II was characterized by the deposition of what we designated'
the "White Sandy floor series". in the Court.  This set of surfacing layers
represent, apparently, a return to the inferred pre-Phase I pattern of' sur-
facing structures.  The white sandy floors consisted of' laminated layers of
compact clays m'ixed with a high percentage of sand. The layers were actually
of various colors alternated with layers' of a clear, bright white material
which, in the profiles, gave the horizon its distinctive color cast. It was
not possible to determine if the white layers were ac'tually used as surfaces
so that at one time the general effect of the Court was a large expanse of
white, subsequently given some other color, then whitened again, as though
the white material was a. sort of primer coating or backing for the colored
layers.  In any event, there was clear evidence of purposeful selection of
these surfacing layers. The'white layers themselves were of a clear, un-
stained white very rare in local natural clay formations noted by us.  Its
sand content too was probably intentionally added, using specially selected
white sand. Natural clay formations at La Venta--those forming the subsoil
of most of the island--contain small amounts of ver-y fine, powder-y sand, but
nothing in amount or texture like that of the white sandy layers.
The colored -layers of these surfacings also gave clear evidence of'
special selection. Like the white layers, they were of clays with considerable
sand. Most were browns and tans in color, but some of them, in certain areas,
were very unusual. There were areas--horizontal extent and pattern unknown--
in which dark purple clays were used. We also noted and commented upon the
occurrences, at two points intersected by our trenches, where the principal
constituent of the surfacing layer was coarsely ground green serpentine.
These expanses of serpentine fused with bright yellow facings on certain plat-
forms so that when freshly applied the Court must have had a rather gala, not
to say gaudy, appearance. The detailed color combinations of Court floor and
platforms were not worked out by us. This we should have done, but it would
have necessitated taking time we could not afford from direct supervisory
chores or training of an unskilled crew in the tracking of thin layers with
trowels. Without any intent to apologize or depreciate our efforts, we re-
mind the reader that the entire 1955 La Venta dig was overseen by only three
archaeologists, two of them tyros in Mesoamerica.
The white sandy floors, like the "Old Rose" floor series of the suc-
ceeding phase (Phase III), were encountered at the same vertical level (allow-
ing for some intentional grading in its deposition) in all the Court profiles,
except underneath platforms and where patently removed by ancient pit intru-
sions. Having seen several hundred feet of it, we then assumed, and still do,
that it was the diagnostic surfacing layer associated with the second major
constructional phase.
Two things must be noted here. The first is that in areas where dis-
tinctive and unusual colors were used (the purples, green serpentine, etc.
previously mentioned), we believe for special decorative purposes, the under-
lying companion layers were the usual white-brown-white etc. found elsewhere
at the same level with the same distinctive angular sand additive, so that
identification was no problem.  The second point, one stressed by C&S in
attacking our identification of this surfacing series, is that while single
individual surfacing layers could at places be traced without a break for
many feet along a profile, some dwindled away at certain points or were re-
placed by others of different color.  At some places the series was five
layers thick, at others six or eight. Such variations were clearly due to
wear and restoration. It is not at all difficult to see why there should
have been irregular wear on horizontal surfaces; erosion during heavy rains
must have caused some removal despite the carefully planned drainage system.
Anything less than perfect grading would leave occasional slight depressions
where water would stand and discolor the clay surface. Human traffic as well
must have had effect. We have no clues as to just what activities were
carried out on the Court surfaces, but it is reasonable to expect that there
may have been enough of them to leave some marks on certain floor areas. The
indications of erosion and wear of the floors and on parts of platforms as
well, and the signs of patching and repair, were the real bases for our specu-
lations as to frequent if not continuous maintenance activities of the Court
and its features.
The white sandy floors lay directly over a great part of the Court,
on the surfacings of the preceding phase, with no intervening fill. However,
considerable construction activity preceded the laying of these floors. This
took the form of the enlargement of the enclosing wall through addition of a
solid adobe brick structure, enlargement of existing platforms with quantities
47
of clay fill prior to resurfacing, and the construction of those strange fea-
tures, the Southwest and Southeast Platforms.
C&S make a very determined attack on the asserted contemporaneity of
the twin structures as part of their attempt to destroy the picture of system-
atic construction of the Complex. They have few logical grounds for so doing.
One point they hammer at is the "partial" excavation of the Southeast Plat-
form. This is irresponsible criticism. Wedel did not "partially" excavate
the main portion of the structure, he excavated it quite thoroughly, down to
and including the serpentine mosaic. He did not dig out the huge "basement"
under the mask. We made a serious omission in not tying in our Court sec-
tions with his excavation to nail down the Phase II dating.    But nonetheless,
comparison of the two excavations shows such a deta'iled correspondence of
structural detail that.it becomes ridiculous to question that the two,plat-
forms were built according to the identical plan--therefore as companion
structures (as accords with their' architectural'si,tuation in reference to the
Court) and therefore at the same period (cf. Heizer 1964 for further discus-
sion). 'Both were capped. with large rectangular blocks built of adobe bricks
laid in heavy clay mortar.  The type of adobe was the same in both ca.ses, as
was the fact that mortar of contrasting color (to the adobes) was used.    This
adobe brick in clay mortar of differing color construction is, incidentally,
identical to the Phase II adobe construction of the Court wall.    Beneath the
adobe brickwork in both instances was a clay fill.   This fill overlay, also
in both cases, was a clay of different color which enveloped (i.e. served as
base as well as covered over) a remarkably intricate serpentine block mosaic.
Be it noted that the vertical measurements of these elements in both struc-
tures correspond very closely. As to the mosaics themselves, whether they
are interpreted as depictions of jaguars or not, they are so nearly identical
in size,  form, and material (as Heizer 19614 has noted) that it is inconceiv-
able that they were not designed and executed simultaneously. Wedel's brief
check of structural materials beneath the mosaic revealed a base of heavy
clay and stone, indicating that in all probability a similar massive stone
and clay fill exists in the Southeast as, in the Southwest Platform.. About
1958. the mosaic in the Southeast Platform '(which had been left, intact after
exposure by Wedel) was removed and transferred to an open-air spot in the.
Parque Olmeca in Villahermosa. About the same time the Southwest Platform'
mosaic, which had in 1955  been shipped,by truck to Mexico City and recon-
structed in the patio of the old Museo Nacional on Moneda, was shipp-ed to.
Villahermosa and installed in the Parque Olmeca. Both are now in a very bad
state of preservation.  We. assume that .the removal of the mosaic in the South-
east Platform was done solely for the purpose of recovery and that no detailed
observations were made of the relationship of the pit's constructioral ele-
ments to layers northward in the Court or westward to the centerline.
C&S accept our demonstration. that the Southwest Platform belonged-to
Phase II so that there is no question about that. period attribution.   In sug-
gesting a different phase allocation of..the.Southeast Platform, they overlook
an additional very important lead: that the Phase II Court,wall construction
also involved use, of large quantities of the identical kind of adobe brick-
work. The phase-attribution of the adobe wall is not subject to question
either. We thus, have three major features in which this adobe brick in; heavy
mortar construction was used.   To date this technique is.unique in Mesoameri-
can archaeology.  Two of these features are Phase II beyond a shadow of a
48
doubt. Unless one is deliberately trying to prove something else regardless
of evidence, it would be reasonable to accept the adobe brickwork as a diag-
nostic trait of Phase II even without the virtual identity of detail of the
Southwest and Southeast Platforms.
Phase III involved deposition of a quantity of fill over the Court
itself and, in addition, the rebuilding of most of the subfeatures. The old
rose floor series sealed over most of the Phase III construction of which it
was a part. The remarks made as to identification of the white sandy floor
series apply to the old rose series. There is no room for doubt that it was
correctly identified wherever it occurred. We made note (DHS 1959) that the
critical distinguishing feature of this floor series was the unusual shade of
the layers (which alternated with white clay layers) that we refer to as "Old
Rose,"  We have never seen, then or since, in exposures of clay deposits in
the region any clay material at all similar. It seems most probable, after
consideration, that the old rose layers were not a natural material at all,
but rather a specially prepared pigment. We noted in the original report,
and here emphasize once more, that this detail of coloration was very plainly
an important aspect of Complex A architecture. Even fill material was obvi-
ously selected and constituted of special soils, principally undisturbed ones.
No midden refuse has been noted as used to add bulk to other fill materials
at any point observed by us. The old rose floor series, like the earlier one,
provided evidence for the interpretation of fairly regular maintenance and
repair.
The final, Phase IV, structural epoch at La Venta began with the
application of a renovating fill of red clay over the Court floor, walls,
platforms, etc. The material of this fill was remarkably uniform in color
wherever found in the Complex, which means that it also was carefully se-
lected. C&S profess not to understand the nature of this layer. We made
this easy for them by retaining a field designation for the layer of fill
that we had acquired the habit of using:  "the red clay cap."  However, we
defined explicitly that the evidence pointed to the fact that this layer had
been a carefully deposited fill, over the Court and its features, which
raised their level somewhat and must have been finished off with specially
prepared surfacing materials. The critics' picturesque reference to the layer
as "a great red blanket pulled over the site" (C&S 1965:34) is, to be blunt,
expressive imagery but at the same time uninformed criticism. We stressed
time and time again (DHS 1959:55, 60, 78, 108, 117) that we believed this fill
had originally been deposited in orderly fashion, level and smooth over the
Court floor, with a regularity that produced well defined horizontal and ver-
tical (and/or regularly battered) surfaces on platforms, the Court wall, etc.
A-t the time we encountered this layer, however, its entire exposed surface
had been heavily eroded. Anyone taking the trouble to check on the average
annual rainfall in the southern Veracruz-Tabasco region (cf. Sanders 1953:41)
can understand how this came about. It was only after the aeolian sands
gradually came to cover the site that the erosion which had demolished the
upper and outer surfaces of the red clay fill--those giving, we assume, regu-
larity of form to the architectural features--was finally stopped. This
aspect of the red clay cap that C&S treat as a mysterious phenomenon made
clear to us that the ancient La Ventans must have been almost constantly occu-
pied with maintenance and repair to preserve the clean, uneroded surfaces of
the Court and its adjuncts.
49
C&S deplore the fact that there is little said specifically about
"architecture" of Complex A (cf. Westheim 1952)o Our rejoinder is, "What
more can be said about it?" La Vtenta architecture cannot be compared with
Egyptian, Graeco-Roman, or even Lowland Mayan.   There were no columns, arches
(corbelled or other), plinths, lintels, or clerestories. There was only what
we constantly emphasized in DHS (1959): a fairly large, enclosed rectangular
area,, laid out according to plan and containing a few very low but neatly
built platforms, simple or stepped, some of which had more subterranean than
above-ground mass. The architectural niceties of these constructions we
brought out clearly: the large, overall symmetry, not only of Complex A but
of other La Venta components (a point which C&S denr because it does not fit
their theories); the evidence for synchronic elaboration and modification of
structures; the evidence of use of special techniques for leveling and/or
grading; the carefully designed and well executed drainage patterns within
the Court; the use of specially selected earth materials both for fill and
surface finishings; the rather strange use of carefully prepared imported
stone; dressed stones set in courses for decorative, not architecturally
functional, effect; and the similarly nonfunctional use (in the architectural
sense of support of integrated structural masses, the exception being Feature
A-2-a) of the heavy imported basalt columns.   This was Ja Venta architecture.
We presented all the detail we could define on these points in our original
report.  We did not assemble this material in a single chapter under the head-
ing of "Architecture,," but, after all, one expects the scholarly reader to do
a little work.
C&S, in their effort to demolish La Venta as of nmderate antiquity
and as a manifestation of a particular Mesoamerican culture, deny the possi-
bility of cultural continuity from Phase I to Phase IV of Complex A. Be it
noted that they do not disprove that continuity existed--they simply deny it.
One of our reasons for presenting (or rather re-presenting, since
aside from a few minor flubs we spelled it all out in DHS 1959) these data on
Complex A structures and phases is exactly this, to present the evidence for
continuity of structural patterns. Such continuity we interpret as indicative
of cultural continuity on the grounds that construction and development of the
architectural features was not aimless but rather was purposefully oriented
activity in the sense that the end result in the form of the Court and its
subsidiary features had some specific purpose which we postulate as ceremonial.
A cultural change of significance should consequently have left its marks in
the form of either (1) abandonment of the site, or (2) drastic modification
of original plans to adapt the locale for the new and different ceremonials.
It is to be noted that we shall not discuss here types of offerings
since C&S have challenged the positioning of certain of these. This problem
will be discussed subsequently.
One significant construction trait consists in the building, with
selected materials, of foundations and/or f'ills with systematic grading as
provision for drainage. All fills and their floor series shQwed this feature,
except of course the heavily eroded Phase IV fill (the red clay cap). The
meaning, of course, is that the fundamental plan from the beginning is that
the Court was intended to be an enclosed area except for drainage outlets.
While no original Phase IV surfaces remain, the elaboration of the wall
(including the setting of rows of basalt columns) demonstrates perpetuation
of this basic plan. Hence the significant point here is that from first to
last-the Court was designed to be an enclosed area.  Engineering skills were
required to keep the structure from being a fishpond for half of each year.
A matter whose complete import is not clear is the obvious insistence
throughout use of Complex A of especially selected materials. Clean, sterile
clays and sands were invariably used although this by ordinary horse sense
must have meant expenditure of more labor in searching out and transporting
the material. This is so well defined a pattern at La Venta that in the few
instances in which a mixture such as charcoal, etc. occurs in the fill it be-
comes reasonable to assume that such material was intentionally deposited.
(The fragments of surfacing materials, i.e. "floors," from pre-Phase I in-
cluded in some phase structures form an exception of sorts but nonetheless
are remnants of ceremonial structures, not ordinary occupational levels.)
This stress on use of selected materials would seem of scant value were it
not for the fact that throughout Mesoamerica the usual custom seems to have
been to collect fill from the nearest and/or easiest-to-dig deposits. Conse-
quently most Mesoamerican mounds and pyramids provide abundant quantities of
earlier sherds and other cultural debris. Why there should have been this
emphasis on use of clean, sterile soils is a mystery, but it was a pattern
noted from Phase I to Phase IV; in fact, in the final phase the concept seems
to have been carried to the extreme by bringing in fill of a single specific
color. What occurs to us both, who are familiar with the distinctive person-
ality of the Indians of northwestern California, is a possible parallel in
outlook between these recent peoples and the La Ventans in terms of attitudes
toward contamination and ritual purity. We do not insist upon the parallel
(the interested reader can learn the details for California in Kroeber 1959,
and Goldschmidt 1951), but the basic ideas of hard work as purificatory in a
religious sense, and clean fills as more desirable than refuse deposits for
use in a sacred place does suggest the possibility of a similar motivation
for these peculiarities of La Venta construction, Lest the reader try to
read something we do not intend into this, we hasten to specify that we are
not trying to establish cultural tie-ins between La Venta and the North
Pacific Coast--what we stress is the fact that elsewhere in the world the
human mind has conceived of a correlation:  hard labor + cleanliness a sanc-
tity.
We emphasized in the original report (DHS 1959), and repeat in these
pages, the hitherto unique stress on use of specially selected, often vividly
colored surfacing materials for covering floors and platforms. This pattern,
interestingly enough, can be noted from pre-Phase I times in the surfacing
fragments found at certain points in Phase I fill. We cannot demonstrate it
in Phase IV due to the eroded condition of the fill (the red clay cap).  In
view of the marked emphasis during Phase IV activity of utilizing clay of one
certain color only, we seem justified in assuming that Phase IV surfaces were
similarly decorated.
Use of imported stone (basalt and serpentine and various metamorphic
types) occurs consistently from Phase II through Phase IV. There were a vari-
ety of forms, that is to say intentionally worked types--the neatly finished
basalt facing blocks, the "chipped" blocks, the carefully ground and polished
serpentine blocks, and so on, up to and including the partially worked basalt
columns. The mere statement that stone was used is not very impressive.
What is impressive is that all this stone, and the quantities ran into the
thousands of tons (cf. DHS 1959:97,   ss   , was imported over long distances.
Our authority, G. Curtis (1959:284ff , cites a rough figure of 100 kilometers
(60 miles) from La Venta to the nearest possible source of serpentines and
other metamorphic rocks. Bitter experience has shown us that the minimum fac-
tor for converting airline to trail distance in this region is x3 (by water,
in the meandering coastal streams, it is x5) which gives at least 300 kilome-
ters (180 miles) of trail distance for transportation of this material. The
source of the basalts is now known (Williams and Heizer 1965). The signifi-
cance of this is that it means (apart from the inferences as to social struc-
ture of the La Ventans) that there must have been communication, trade, etc.
with the same distant regions.
In resume, there are a series of aspects of Complex A construction
that indicate continuity of purpose and of external relationships that cover
the period of structural activity at Complex A, so that it is far more reason-
able to assume that there was cultural continuity throughout the Phase I -
Phase IV period of La Venta.
C&S devote considerable space to the suite of nine radiocarbon dates
derived from wood charcoal. These were originally published by us in Science
(126:72-73, 1957) and subsequently in DHS (1959:264-267)o First, we should
say that we collected the charcoal samples in 1955 with what we thought was
reasonable care, and interpreted the dates as objectively as we could. It is
scarcely necessary to point out that we were ourselves surprised at the age
determinations since they were rather older than we had guessed they might be.
However, we assumed that a series of nine dates derived from wood charcoal
collected during a single excavation and run at the same time by one labora-
tory, which exhibited reasonable internal consistency and conformity to their
stratigraphic position, were acceptable. Without going into details, we can
say now, ten years later, that the La Venta dates (samples M-528 through
M-536) fit quite well with a number of non-La Venta Middle Preclassic radio-
carbon dated. culture levels in Mesoamerica. They seem to be, in other words,
of the correct order of magnitude, and thus have not been shown in the past
decade to be markedly out of line with what would be expected.
We do not, of course, think that the M-528/536 tadiocarbon dates
accurately pinpoint specific events in the history of the site.   What we have
already written demonstrates that we believed only that we were dating the
site as having been built and used during the first millennium B.C. When we
came to the moment of truth and decided that Complex A dated from 800 to 400
B.C., we were only trying to make a reasonable decision based upon a series
of dates which (according to statistical probability having one chance in
three of being incorrect) ranged from 1454 B.C. to 126 A.D. (DHS 1959:264-
267). C&S themselves accept (1964:20) the dates (assuming as we did that the
laboratory determinations are reliable) as indicating "that construction
occurred at La Venta during the first millennium B.C., if not earlier and
later." If we went further than C&S were willing to go in deciding that La
Venta history was probably intra- rather than pre- or post-first millennium
B.C., then that is how we saw the dates. It has already been pointed out
(Heizer 1964) that additional portions of samples M-531 and M-533 were dated
in early 1965 at UCLA (Berger, Fergusson and Libby 1965:345-346), and that
the ages, while not the same, are not so different as to encourage us to deny
the conclusions reached by us earlier as to the radiocarbon-derived age of
La Venta. Sample IULA-902 is part of sample M-531. Sample UCLA-903 is part
of sample M-533. The ages are shown below.
Sample
UCLA-902          2940 + 80 (3020-2860 B.Po; 990 B.C;.)
M-531             2560 + 300 (2860-2260 B.P.; 610 B.C.)
UCLA-903          2460 + 80 (2540-2380 B.Po; 510 B.C.)
M-533             2130 _ 300 (2430-1830 B.P.o 180 B.C.)
-These ages and dates of these two sample sets are all different, it
is true, but we feel that they all support the main conclusion of La Venta's
floruit as being in the first millennium. Actually, we are ourselves unable
to compare the two pairs of dates in any meaningful way since we know nothing
about the preparatory cleaning procedures, instrumentation,or computation em-
ployed at Michigan in 1957 or UCLA in 1964. In 1964 Squier collected charcoal
samples from a test pit in the occupation deposits outside and beyond (and
therefore unassociated with) Complex A. From a "burned soil zone" which he
equates with the La Venta Complex A period, an age of 2560 + 240 B.Po (700
B.C.) was determined (sample UCLA 788B)o While it is tempting to accept this
date as supporting the M-528/536 and UCLA 902/903 dates, two stratigraphically
inferior samples collected by Squier gave impossibly old ages of 1810 B.C.
and 7800 B.C., so there is a good chance that Squier's 1964 sample series is
badly fouled up.
We will not attempt here (though we may later make the effort) to dis-
cuss in detail the questions which C&S raise with reference to each of the
samples collected in 1955. A few points may be important to note, however.
Sample M-535 was taken, according to our notes, from all three levels shown
in DHS 1959, Figure 26 (cf. C&S 1964h8). The wood charcoal constituting sam-
ple M-535 was in the form of small, sharp-edged bits which we supposed came
from small wood such as limbs or branches or medium-sized stems. We assumed
that the charcoal came from recently cleared and recently burned areas of
second growth, and was reasonably contemporaneous with the laying of the
water-sorted floors; we cannot prove this, but this is what we felt was prob-
ably the situationo We have, admittedly, no control on the age of the wood,
but the same can be said about almost  y charcoal in any site. There is
always the possibility that the charcoal we found came from wooden objects
made a thousand years before, kept as sacred heirlooms, then burned and mixed
with floors or fills--but we think the possibility is a remote one. The pres-
ervation of soft wood lying on the ground at La Venta is a very short-term
process since rot and termites attack it immediately. We would guess that
one or two years would be the average lifetime of fallen wood lying on the
ground. Fallen woods, on the other hand, may resist rot, termites and ants,
and weather for up to 50 years, but this would probably be the maximum. Pres-
ervation for really long periods of time in the form of architectural beams
or lintels, as at Tikal, seems improbable.  If protected under a thatch roof
and kept reasonably dry such woods might last indefinltely. Wood in this
form is also attacked in the La Venta area, and there is no evidence for
ancient architecture employing such beams. It is not impossible that timber-
built "temples" existed at La Venta, but we found no evidence of any sort
which could be so interpreted. All in all, our guess that the charcoal in
fills was fairly contemporaneous with the time of placement of those fills
strikes us as a good one, though as C&S say (1964:20) such speculation soon
becomes a pointless game. The matter boils down to their guess as against
ours. In Mesoamerica, radiocarbon dating seems not to have worked as well
for clarification of archaeological time sequences as in some other parts of
the world. Thus the large number of C-14 dates secured from C'uicuilco and
Teotihuacan have not provided us with a good chronology, and at Tikal a great
many radiocarbon dates have proved to be quite unhelpful for purposes of cul-
tural sequencing. Perhaps La Venta is another of these great sites for which
we have a number of dates but no clear guidelines as to how they should be
interpreted. Only further excavation, charcoal collecting, and its dating
from La Venta, Tres Zapotes, and San Lorenzo will give us the tertium ln qid
which is required to permit a sound and defensible radiocarbon-dated chio6nol-
ogy for the Olmec area.
The queries about sample M-529 we believe have been largely answered
by our remarks on the corrections of Figure 18 in DHS (1959). Most simply,
Offering 15 has nothing to do with the pit in question, and we now say that
we believe that M-529 does date from Phase I at La Venta. With reference to
M-534 (C&S 196h:10), we cannot answer the many questions which C&S pose, but
we believe the leveling fills beneath the Northwest Platform immediately pre-
ceded the laying of the water-sorted floors. Assuming that the charcoal is
not ancient material whose existence long predated the act of loading in the
fills, the charcoal would not be "significantly earlier" than the Phase I
floors.  C&S may be right, but so also may we be correct.  The reader will
have to make his own choice. Unfortunately the La Ventans did not build
large fires in the Court, cover the coals, and thus provide us with indubita-
ble phase-connected carbon samples. Sample M-532's description is admittedly
confusing and we must explain that the charcoal from layers j-5 and j-3 (DHS
1959:Fig. 10) were lumped and that this was not fully shown in the figure
referred to. Both, in our opinion, are from Phase I depositions. Sample
M-530 was of wood charcoal (DIIS 1959:264) and not anything else, despite our
rather confused description (DHS 1959:68). The pits in the Northwest Plat-
form were difficult for us to interpret, both as to age (i.e. phase) and
function, and we believe that a Phase II attribution is a probable one but
cannot be certain. Figure 24 in DHS is faulty in not showing the presence of
a very thin layer of clean sand under the charcoal layer lying on top of the
Phase IV red clay. On the spot in 1955 we agreed that some interval of time
had elapsed since the abandonment of the site and the building of the fire as
evidenced by the eroded red clay surface and the thin sand layer. We were
willing to hazard the guess that abandonment had occurred about 400 B.C., but
would agree that the date might well be earlier, though hardly later, as
judged from M-528.
The reference by C&S (1964:15) to "examples of 19th century burn'ing
of Classic wooden beams" at Tikal must be in error since the passage referred
to skips about between alternative possibilities to account for beams which
are, themselves, missing and no evidence is given of chicleros having been
the pyromaniacal culprits. We feel that burning of ancient beams to account
for La Venta dated charcoal is not a "reasonable probability." In the case
of M-528, a "reasonable possibility" is that some milpero here burned a pile
of cut wood preparatory to planting a field of corn in the abandoned Court
area. Sample M-536 tells us, we acknowledge, practically nothing. It dates
some event, chronologically unplaced, in the history of the La Venta pyramid.
Our guess, quite unwarranted at the time we sent the samples to the Michigan
laboratory, and commented on by us in Science (126:72-73, 1957) was without
any foundation--in fact, it was a bad guess. We tried to make amends for
this in a later publication (DHS 1959:265-267), but our critics have not ig-
nored the opportunity to belt us a good one for having changed oufr minds. As
to why we submitted the sample in the first place, we were flying blind in
1955 as regards chronology and we naturally submitted a carbon sample from
the pyramid because we were curious about anything which might help to orient
us, in any part of the site, in time. C&S, being naturally more analytical
and self-critical, would have suppressed their curiosity and (assuming that
they found out no more than we did about the pyramid) would have (also assum-
ing, of course, some curiosity) felt self-righteous in their self-denial in
not submitting the sample for dating. But we were, on the other hand, anx-
ious to learn anything we could find out, and did not feel that we were impos-
ing upon our sponsors in submitting the sample for age determination.
Finally, when we come to the tabulation (C&S 196h:17) of what we or
C&S think about the La Venta radiocarbon dates, the reader may want to know
that we are not here defending our opinions (DHS 1959:264-267) as to phase
attribution of any of the nine samples as inalienable, and that we concede we
could have done better in providing discussion of alternatives of interpreta-
tion. However, aside from oi.r original error with regard to the pyramid sam-
p-le (M-536) we see a relatively good correlation between our stratigraphic-
phase placement of samples and their ages (cf. DHS 1959:Fig. 79), and warn
the reader that obfuscation, rather than enlightenment, awaits him if he
tries to make sense out of C&S's reinterpretation of the dates.
Massive Offerings
What we designated as Massive Offerings (DHS 1959:128ff., passim)
present something of a problem of interpretation since so far as we know they
are unique. C&S (1964:21-22) call for redefinition of the term. We feel
that our definition (DHS 1959:128) was as clear and as specific as our data
would permit.  "The characteristics of these massive offerings . . . seemed
to be that large pits were dug to receive them, and the offerings themselves
consist of very great quantities of stone." Even after ten years of reflec-
tion there seems to be little we can add to this definition. C&S deliberately
confuse the picture by supposing a distinction between the mosaics and the
massive offerings. This means they did not read, or misread, our clear state-
ments in reference to feature A-l-e, to the effect that the mosaic and the
underlying twenty-eight layers of stone were constructed as a single operation
and consequently were regarded by us as a single unit: MO 1 (DHS 1959:102,
128). We have no basis for suggesting, since there was no evidence to that
effect, that large depositions of stonework inevitably must be accompanied by
mosaics. Our MO 2 and MO 3 differed considerably in detail from MO 1 (the
Southwest Platform mosaic and underlying layers of stone). In point of fact,
MO 2 and MO 3 could themselves be referred to as mosaics--layouts of shaped
stones (in both cases serpentine) carefully set in something approximating
orderly geometric patterns. MO 2 comprised a single layer of such stones,
MO 3, six layers. The essential classificatory principle for grouping these
varied depositions together had nothing to do with the absolute tonnage of
mineralogical material nor the particular figures it formed as deposited, how-
ever. The determinant was expressed in our definition that a large pit had
been dug, a considerable quantity of rock was promptly deposited, and then
the whole partly-loaded excavation was immediately filled in.
Our mistake in this regard was in terminology; we neglected to clarify
the nomenclature matter, to include the mosaic of A-l-d with the stone-laden
base that presumably underlies it as MO 4, and to specify that the mosaic
desigrated "Pavement 2" by Wedel was to be called MO 5. We indicated, at
least to fair-minded readers (DHS 1959:128), that we intended such a synonony
but did not spell it out.
Different among themselves as MO 1 and MO 3 are, they are all large
quantities of i'mported stone, carefully arranged, not dumped, in a special
large, deep pit, then promptly covered up. Two of these features and the
matching partner to MO 1 (the 1943 discovery, MO 4) had obviously been placed
with relation to them in the pitfill cruciform celt offerings. Drucker found
two lots of three serpentine celts each (DHS 1959:273, 1942-E). He definitely
recalls that the two lots were at approximately the same level and not far
apart. They could not have been far apart and have been encountered in the
small test pit. He did not recognize the two lots as being in a pattern rela-
tionship at the time. If they were, they could have been only two arms of an
incomplete and small arrangement, not entirely comparable to the celt layouts
associated with MO's 2, 3, and 4. Nevertheless, we regard this detail of
supplementary celt offerings (in three out of the four cases elaborate cruci-
form patterns) as confirmatory of the basic unity of type of the four Massive
Offerings.
All four of these peculiar depositions are precisely placed in our
site chronology. MO 1 and MO 4, bases of the twin Southwest and Southeast
Platforms, refer to Phase II.  MO 3 is Phase III, and MO 2 is Phase IV.
There is no question at all about these phase assigmnents. Even C&S cannot
attack the contemporaneity of the Southwest and Southeast Platforms, and thus
MO 1--MO 4, except by illogical questioning, previously discussed, and by
their effort to confuse the situation (cf. C&S 1964:Fig. 2) by attempting to
distinguish between the temporally united mosaics and the subterranean stone
layers of these same features.
An additional mosaic, MO 5, discovered in 1943 by Wedel and referred
to as Pavement No. 2, cannot be dated with any reliance. We suggested (DHS
1959:l23) the possibility of a Phase IV dating. Both in form and deposition
this feature is slightly aberrant. Here, as archaeologists familiar with the
site, we made a guess.  It is only an inference, but we think it one of high
probability. The four tpendants" or decorative features on the lower margin
of the Southwest and Southeast Platforms mosaics do not seem to be duplicated
in engravling or sculpture at La Venta, and these elements do not occur in
Wedel's Pavement No. 2 (also referred to as MO 5) which is somewhat different
in other respects from the platform mosaics. The central vertical rectangle
in the platform mosaics (perhaps to be interpreted as the nose if these
mosaics do portray faces) is missing in Pavement No. 2, and there is no evi-
dence in the published illustrations that would lead one to suggest that such
a rectangle once existed but had been filled in with stone blocks; it simply
lacks the feature. A further difference is that the four small crenelated
elements are made of blocks, while the equivalent elements in form in the
mosaic in MO 5 are formed by the space left vacant by the blocks; in crude
terms, one is the negative of the other,  By and large the MO 5 mosaic is
simpler and more crude than the almost identical pair of mosaics in the South-
west and Southeast Platforms. We do not draw any conclusions from this, but
merely indicate awareness of these differences while at the same time reaf-
firming our belief that the MO 5 mosaic shows a non-accidental and strong
stylistic connection with the two platform mosaics,  These differences are of
such magnitude that some time difference probably is involved in their deposi-
tion. Since the mosaics in the Southwest and Southeast Platforms are Phase
II, the MO 5 mosaic could be Phase III or, as we have already opined, Phase
IV. We still feel that Phase IV is the best guess for reasons already set
forth (DHS 1959).
The Massive Offerings, it may be noted, contribute substantially to
our hypothesis of cultural continuity of the Complex during the Phases II to
IV. We found no comparable feature referable to Phase I, although we sug-
gested (DHS 1959:39-4O, 131) the possibility that a large quantity of reused
serpentine blocks, found redeposited around MO 3, may have represented an
early (possibly Phase I) offering intruded upon by the later deposition. We
are not going to belabor this hypothesis, however.  We feel that to do so is
unnecessary.  Phase-Massive Offering tie-ins are unquestionable during Phases
II through IV. It is reasonable to accept the possibility that the obviously
superfluous stone blocks reinterred around MO 3 very likely came from an ear-
lier Massive Offering deposition, and that such offering may have derived
from Phase I times.
Burials and Small Offerings
C&S are rather critical regarding our discussion of the data on
"burials," etombs," etc. at La Venta. They have a right to be, for we made
some blunders in presentation of data. We disclaim responsibility for errors
presented in Stirling's early popular articles and the like, but we should
have cleared up these points in our 1959 report. Furthermore, we made at
least one major foul-up on this topic in the report; we still cannot under-
stand how it survived revision, checking, and editing processes. This is our
statement (DHS 1959:127, cited by C&S 1964:23) in regard to the existence of
"'great tombs" in Phase IV. We offer apologies to our critics and to anyone
else we may have confused on this point (cf. Heizer 1964).
There is no point at all in trying to explain how we made this partic-
ular error in our presentation. We shall, rather, set the record straight as
to the actually observed situation at La Venta.
First, in the course of the various investigations at La Venta on
which data are available to us (Drucker 1952, Wedel 1952, DHS 1959), no, and
we repeat no, primary interments have been found in relation to or apart from
offerings. The o      evidence of relationship of human skeletal remains with
offertory materials was that found in 1942 in "'Monument 7'1 in connection with
the offering tabulated in DHS (1959:272) as 1942-Ao
Offering 1942-A was collected by Stirling, who took direct persoral
charge of operations at that time. The pressure of time (Stirling visited
the site en route to a Mesa Redonda conference) hampered excavation. Drucker,
as an onlooker, cannot recall any significant details as to arrangement, etc.
of the specimens except for one thing--the two lots of obviously human osseous
remains were definitely within the lens of cinnabar dust that contained the
jade artifacts.  They were not, repeat not, "at one end of the tomb chamber"
(C&S 1964h:23). Drucker subsequently referred to the two lots of bony materi-
als as "bundle burials" with no intent to confuse; he assumed that almost
everybody understood what the term means--a secondary deposition (not primary
interment) of occeous materials from which most or all of the soft tissues
have been removed by weathering or by chemical or mechanical means (or any
combination thereof, e.g. hot sun and buzzards) so that the bones were obvi-
ously not in articulation or even in normal order when uncovered. The two
lots of human bones in question were obviously remnants collected and redepos-
ited after some such cleaning process. They were very incomplete, and con-
sisted mainly of long bones, ribs, and the like, arranged compactly with
their long axes parallel, manifestly having been tied or packaged for conven-
ience in handling.
It was not possible to determine whether the osseous remains were the
primary or secondary components of the offering. The fact remains that the
two bundle burials (we decline to change this designation) represent the only
instances of dep.osition of human remains encountered in the total excavations
at La Venta. Let it be noted on the record that this statement includes
Drucker's scattered but fairly extensive tests of occupational deposits as
well. In no other instances--popular articles and our own unfortunate flub
to the contrary--was there the slightest trace of human remains associated
with, or separate from, any other feature or subfeature.
At this point Drucker wishes to note that he has had the opportunity
before 1955 to observe several interments dating from archaeological times
that had been made in the highly acid clay soils of the region. The osseous
material is attacked by soil acids until it becomes putty-soft, but it appar-
ently never completely dissolves to the point of total disappearance.   Harder
areas--the surfaces of long bones and portions of the skull--even retain a
sheen. Tooth caps are practically indestructible. If osseous remains had
been deposited, enough evidence could have been noted of them to affirm the
fact even in these tropical soils, although the condition of such remains
might make a physical anthropologist weep.
It was, in part, the foregoing information that led Wedel to his
hypothesis as to the "surrogate burial" pattern at La Venta. It might be
noted in passing that the bundle burials of Offerlng 1942-A, whether of major
or secondary importance in relation to the offering, suggest a primary burial
pattern (e.g. exposure) that might account for the lack of burials at La
Venta. C&S's suggestion regarding cremation can be dismissed on the grounds
that enough survey and testing has been done at La Venta and other localities
in the region so that, had this custom been2practiced, evidence for it cer-
tainly should have been found and none has.
In fine, despite the slip of the pen in our (DHS 1959:127) passage
(properly designated by C&S as "incredible"), the only association of human
remains with offerings, structures, or the ceremonial area in general was
that of Offering 1942-A. In that lone instance it is impossible, partly
because of circumstances of excavation, to determine whether the bundles of
bone were the central features of the deposit or were themselves the offer-
ings. The "surrogate burial" or psuedo-burial pattern is demonstrated by
enough examples to establish it as a definite pattern, but one whose meaning
in terms of La Venta culture is unknown to us. There is no way to determine
at present whether the peculiar surrogate burial depos'itions were meant to
represent interments of certain indi\tiduals. For all we know, they may have
been the manifestations of some memorial rite or the ceremonial interment of
supernatural beings who were believed to "die" periodically to be resurrected,
or they may have had some still more intricate meaning. What we do object to
is the statement by C&S (1964:22) that "one would expect that human burials
would have been found in association with ceremonial areas and architecture."
This is an assumption made, in our opinion, without warrant. It does, how-
ever, demonstrate a bias on their Dart, as we shall Doint out, that motivates
their attack on the La Venta work. We remorted the facts as we found them;
we were not forcing our data to try to "find" all features of Mesoamerican
culture natterns at La Venta. In short, we were not out to Dresent La Venta
as the Mesoamerican "mother-culture."  The fact is we specifically disavowed
adherence to the current mother-culture cult (DHS 1959:262). Hence we were
under no compulsion to force our data, on burials or anything else, into any
preconceived not'ion as to basic Mesoamerican patterns. Rather we were im-
pressed by the, to date, unique nature of a variety of La Venta features--
architecture, buried stone "pavements," concave mirrors, and all the rest.
In their review of the small offerings C&S (1964:1) register their
objection to our designation of the site, in its Phase I to Phase IV manifes-
tation, as "Olmec."  The wJord Olmec, as they point out with some justice (al-
though the point is not original with them) has been used in a rather fuzzy
fashion at times. Not by us, however. We have designated as "Olmec" one
specific art style (long recognized as distinctive but first defined in pre-
cise terms by Drucker 1952) and other cultural materials--structures, ceram-
ics, and all the rest--found in direct association with this style.  There
appears to be no serious logical flaw in this application of the term. C&S,
however, attempt to whittle away the point of "association." That is, unable
to offer a reasonable argument to the effect that materials unquestionably
pertaining to "Olmec" artistic norms had no relationship to the La Venta
structures, they attempt to reduce the art style-structural relationships to
the final (IV) phase. Thus, by inference, La Venta began as a manifestation
of some unspecified culture component which received an influx of alien Olmec
traits--objects in the specific artistic tradition and concepts of the art
style itself--in Phase IV. This is not only nonsense but it involves an un-
scholarly attempt to misinterpret basic data.
The C&S review was oood for us in the sense that it pointed out the
error of our ways, which we shall endeavor to remedy from here on. One of
these was false modesty, which led us to cut a question mark after the Phase
I designation of Offering 7 with its unquestionably "Olmec" jade maskette,
and to phrase its situation bv saying the offering "appears to have been de-
posited . . . during the Phase I construction."  We seem to have been trying
to indicate an icy impartialitv, leaning over backwards to avoid the sugges-
tion of forcing our material. Actually this was not proper presentation.    By
adopting the convention of adding a question mark we thought we were being
objective. We now see that our attempt to short cut the obscurities by ques-
tioning the phase attribution has been misunderstood. What we should have
done was to make a decision and explain in detail what reservations we had
and what the data deficiencies were. We have both not only done a fair amount
of archaeology but we have also seen a fair amount of the work that other ar-
chaeologists have done, and we know that all sorts of obscurities are pre-
sented which are glossed over as insoluble at the moment in order to proceed
with the work at hand. Often these unsolved elements of the puzzle are ig-
nored because the main outline comes through with satisfactory clarity. We
were, in short, acting like a bunch of beginning students learning technique
under the critical tutelage of a wise old professor who would stand for noth-
ing less than perfection in whatever, or however much, was attempted. We do
not have to explain further because we think that Coe is an archaeologist
with enough experience to know what we mean. We will try here to indicate
why we questioned the phase placement of offerings, since our critics seem to
have taken our question marks as indications of a degree of uncertainty which
we actually did not feel or intend to indicate.
In point of fact, there was no doubt at all as to the phase attribu-
tion of Offering 7. It was not in an intrusive pit; all that we saw allows
us to say definitely that it was laid out during the construction of the
Phase I fill of the Northeast Platform (A-l-Tf).   It was then covered by un-
broken and undisturbed (until we came along) masses of Phase I fill. No ques-
tion narks were needed, or indeed had any place in our presentation of these
facts. Offering 7, with its distinctively Olmec jade maskette (DHS 1959:Pl.
40) was deposited on its prepared "bed" of orange colored sandy clay with
very small amounts of cinnabar during the Phase I construction. There is,
consequently, no question at all that objects of Olmec art style were in use
at La Venta in Phase I times.
Other Phase I small offerings consisted of the pottery vessels con-
tained in Offerings 15, 16, and 17. The phase allocations of these specimens,
which were enclosed in undisturbed primary depositions of Phase I fill, is
subject to no doubt. We ourselves are to blame for injecting doubt by plac-
ing the needless question marks--intended to indicate not real doubt but
scholarly impartiality--to signify that we were not really squeezing or pres-
suring the data to get early associations. The honest fact is that we did
not really comprehend at first the fact that there was a pattern at La Venta
involving deposition of objects during the process of construction and elabo-
ration of features such as the platforms and the like. We were looking for
evidence of pits--and found some, including some tremendously big pits--but
the evidence is clear that there were two distinct patterns for the deposi-
tion of "offerings" in the structures. One was that of placement on comple-
tion by means of an intrusive pit--a sort of E     facto operation--and the
other, the novel feature, that of deposition during the actual con-struction.
The Phase I ceramic materials provide a specific and definite tie-in
with the La Venta pottery patterns described by Drucker (1952). Whether his
descriptions of the 1942 pottery collections from occupation deposits (the
gratuitous reclassification by C&S 196h:31 of these as "approximating occupa-
tional debris" is just that since there is no doubt whatsoever as to the fact
that the 1942 strati-trenches were in accumulations of occupational refuse)
may not be as refined as some might like, the hard fact is that the 1955
60
specimens (Offerings 15, 16, and 17) could be identified in terms of the 1952
descriptions of pottery types, thus definitely linking the ceramic sequence
to the architectural features.
Phase II small offerings were few; that is, of course, those that
were recovered in the course of the excavations. They consisted, in addition
to Offering 3, of the probably incomplete celt deposition (DHS 1959:273,
1942E) and the cruciform layout of celts with a mirror found and collected in
1943 by Wedel. We have already clarified the illogically disputed question
as to the temporal allocation of the Southeast Platform (A-l-d). There are
no reasonable grounds for doubting that it was constructed in Phase II as was
its twin feature, the Southwest Platform (A-l-e).    The principal difference
between the two that C&S can find to harp about is the difference in the
offerings--that in the Southwest Platform being smaller (six celts rather
than twenty), and was possibly incomplete. The well-formed cruciform celt
layout of the Southeast Platform (A-l-d), with the mirror, establishes a very
significant link between Phase II and Phase IV where two other cruciform lay-
outs of celts accompanied by the technologically remarkable La Venta mirrors
were found.  This, we note in passing, is apparently why C&S strain the data
as best they can to try to deny the obvious symmetry, structural equivalence,
and contemporaneity of the Southeast and Southwest Platforms.
Offering 3 was also Phase II.   C&S (1964:27) stress the "uncertainty"
as though that quality had to do with phase allocation. Actually we have no
doubts at all as to the phase of this lot of materials; the only uncertainty--
loss of information if you please--concerns the in situ arrangement of the
specimens.  This, we regret to say was lost; the bulldozer took it out.     How-
ever, this does not mean that there is any real question at all about the
original location of the specimens.   It is worthwhile to note two significant
facts here. First, we did not leave the excavation of the "bulldozed trench"
entirely to the untender mercies of the dozer jockey. One or the other of us
walked back and forth during the three days of the machine operation, watch-
ing constantly. Because of this we were able to stop the bulldozer the mo-
ment after it rooted out the offering in question. The second point is, as
anyone who has operated a bulldozer or worked along with one knows, in driv-
ing a one hundred foot trench through heavy soil, one does not drive the
blade deep on each cut. Should he do so in a trench, where the blade cannot
slough off load at the ends he would get stuck, even with a D-8 such as we
used. A good operator will handle the blade to skim off about an inch or two
of soil at the most on each cut. Therefore when the blue and green of the
jade objects and the red cinnabar matrix rolled off in front of the blade the
tractor was stopped and the source of the materials was determined. The
offering had been sealed over with a thin but distinctive vivid yellow clay,
chunks of which were mixed with the jade specimens and bits of which adhered
to some of them. The remnant of this yellow clay cap appeared as a flattened
ellipse in a section of the trench wall a short distance behind the point at
which the specimens had been noted. This deposit had been unequivocally
placed in a mass of Phase II fill, with no trace whatsoever (in the profile
containing the remnant of yellow clay seal) of an intrusive pit.    Consequently
there is to us no doubt as to the temporal placing of Offering 3 as Phase II.
In Phase III both Offerings 5 and 6 occurred in pits whose points of
origin lay within the Phase III fill of the Northeast Platform (A-l-f)
61
(DHS 19590162-171)o There exists no reason whatsoever to believe that these
pits could have originated in the Phase IV layer, no matter how greatly C&S
wish to alter their temporal position.
We do, however, concede the validity of C&S's complaint regarding
DHS's Figure 18, with its clumsy attempt to superimpose the outlines of the
Offerlng 5 and 6 pits on a diagram indicating the levels at which the North-
east Platform offerings were found. These pit outlines injected an impres-
sion of a third dimension into a two-dimension diagram--bad presentation, we
admit. The fact remains that reference to companion diagram Figure 14 (the
horizontal of the platform) should make clear that, for example, Offerings 1l
and 15 could not possibly have been contained in the Offering 5 and 6 pits,
is not sufficient. C&S could not be expected to straighten this out for them-
selves. Our fault.
Another offering belonging to Phase III whose place is challenged by
C&S is the remarkable figurine-and-celt assemblage designated as Offering 4.
Here, once more, our own errors of presentation left us wide open to sharp
criticism. We stand firm on the textual description of the stratigraphic sit-
uation of the offering:  that it was deposited during the placement of the
Phase III fill, carefully covered with a layer of distinctive, clean white
sand that extended for some distance all around the offering, was sealed over
by a brown sandy fill, and then by the old rose colored floor series. In
late Phase III times, but prior to deposition of the Phase IV fill, an inspec-
tion hole was cut through the overlying old rose floors which at that time
marked the Court floor, and then refilled.
This inspection hole, with its interesting implications of possibili-
ties of some sort of record-keeping, or even accurately drawn plans of place-
ment of this (and perhaps other?) offerings, is what gave us trouble.   That,
and our diagrams (DHS 1959:Figs. 16, 17, 39).  The fact is that we relied
heavily on our draftsman, who had participated in the excavations, to the
extent that we believed that he understood the presentation Droblems involved.
If he did not, as the drawings show, it was not his fault but ours.   We should
have proofread the diagrams with at least the care that C&S did. As a conse-
quence we must specify here that DHS's Figures 16 and. 17 are generalized pres-
entations of profile sections, in the main correct, but their depiction of
Offering h is inaccurate in precise detail.
DHS's Figure 39 is about as good a two-d.imensional representation of
a three-dimensional situation as could be drawn. The upper surface line of
the white sand actually represents the line visible in profile behind the
figurines. Precisely over them it was irregular, where the tips of the heads
had been exposed for inspection. The lower margin of the inspection pit, as
depicted, is a generalization also, for it was actually irregular, exposing
the pits of the celts and the tips only of the heads of the figurines. The
real pay-off is the photograph (DHS 1959:Pl. 31, left) which shows unequiv-
ocally the mounding of the white sand layer over the figurines and the unbro-
ken continuation of this same layer, dipping but continuous, well out past
the margins of the inspection hole. We have, we might add, other and unpub-
lished photographs of this offering taken in situ.
62
C&S's suggestion (1964:28) that the figurines might have been pushed
down into place through the undisturbed white sand layer is nothing else than
silly. Neither you nor I nor the current Olympic shotput or weight lifter
champion can push a two-inch-wide blunt object seven inches deep into compact,
enclosed sand by hand. Almost anyone could drive such an object down out of
sight with a longhandled maul, but the obviously careful and close placing of
the specimens makes it highly dubious that such heavyhanded methods were used
for positioning the figurines.   Too, the celts would have had to have been
placed bit, not poll, down to drive them in by this method.
The total result of this reappraisal is that Offering 4 was just what,
and temporally where, we said it was: La Venta, late Phase III. Thus during
Phase III there were not only various Olmec figurines (C&S can scarcely chal-
lenge their Olmec style characteristics) kicking around the site but among
these were some old beat-up specimens. All of which makes C&S's thesis that
Olmec art popped up suddenly at the end of La Venta, in Phase IV, hard to
accept. If the archaeological expert who was not at La Venta in 1955 thinks
he is a better judge of what we saw than we are, then he should be allowed to
have his opinion. And that is where we will have to leave the matter of
Offering h.
There is one more point that must be noted in regard to pre-Phase IV
art of Olmec type. Our critics agree with us (one of the few points on which
they do) that Massive Offeri ng 1, by which we mean both the mosaic and the
tons of stone and clay substructure (C&S 1964:22 try to distinguish between
the two) belongs to Phase II. What might be called a large figurine or small
statuette was found in the same clay envelope as the mosaic, apparently an
accidental inclusion (DHS 1959:95, 211-212, Fig. 63). The head had been
knocked off long ago, so the object is not "pretty"' and no one has paid much
attention to it.  We ourselves erroneously said that it was not placeable
stylistically. That is not so. The posture, the smooth sweep of line of
shoulders and thighs, the impressionistic but undistorted handling of the
hands, the concave pit (for attaching a small copy of a mirror?) on the chest,
the impressionistic modeling of the back (not shown in figures but mentioned
in the text), leave no doubt that it is of the classic Olmec art tradition.
That makes another Phase II piece of Olmec art. We apologize for not having
made the point clear earlier.
The matter of temporal placing of the stone monuments merits little
comment. Almost all that can be said about it has been said. C&S are cor-
rect when they point out that so far none of these objects has been placed as
earlier than Phase IV. They are correct to date; that does not mean their
statement will never be disproved. Since 1955 there has occurred at La Venta
a treasure hunt of remarkable proportions. Perhaps our excavation encouraged
the almost total destruction of Complex A by bulldozers, but the failure to
protect the site from depredation can scarcely be laid against us. We exca-
vated under terms of a contract with INAH, and it was the responsibility of
that organization to safeguard the site after we left. In subsequent brief
visits to the site, we have heard stories, perhaps exaggerated and perhaps
not, of large numbers of jade figurines and stone sculptures pillaged and
sold for large prices by treasure seekers. The Parque Olmeca in Villahermosa
contains a number of sculptures reported to have been dug up at La Venta
since 1955, and we believe this since none of these were either at La Venta
63
or Villahermosa in that year. We mention the rape of La Venta here to say
that while there is a possibility that some undisturbed remnants of Complex A
may exist, it would be a literally herculean project to remove the disturbed
earth, relocate one's self, and salvage the still undug portions of the site.
In the meanwhile the destruction proceeds, and we are increasingly unlikely
to ever learn anything about the phase placement of the larger stone sculpture
style at La Venta. A hint that firm association of monumental art in Olmec
style with earlier phases may eventually be found is suggested by use of im-
ported stone in the form of basalt "facing blocks" (as well as stone of meta-
morphic type from other sources) as early as Phase II times, This stone is
significant for two reasons:  (1) it demonstrates contact with regions at
some distance where such basalts occur; and (2) it demonstrates developed
technology in stone-working, in cutting and dressing this difficult material.
We remind the reader of the Phase II basalt statuette mentioned in the last
paragraph.
The matter of re-use, misuse, mutilation, etc. of monuments in post-
La Venta times we leave to the dialecticians to speculate about. The only
point to note here is that originally we differed on the matter of Monuments
25, 26, and 27.  One of us believed that their positioning and reuse were
post-Olmec on the grounds that the upside-down posture of Monuments 26 and 27
implied lack of understanding of the symbolism of the intricate low relief
designs. We meant-to offer this alternative but it got lost in revision and
editing (DHS 1959:204-209).
The time seems to have come for summing up, drawing a few conclusions,
and even for proposing an idea or two of our own.
First of all, we shall admit that we did not like the C&S review, but
that it was probably good for us. It brought to light some serious errors we
had committed. These were mainly in the area of presentation, but were none-
theless significant since proper communication of scientific data is as impor-
tant as field and laboratory methodology and interpretation. To this extent
we are grateful to our critics that they have shown us the error of our ways,
although we feel they might have been at times more kindly about it.
Careful reappraisal, however, indicates that once our faults of expo-
sition are cleared up, the La Venta work stands. The significant breakdown
into four sequential constructional phases (Phases I-IV) cannot be challenged.
If C&S would like to splinterize, that is a matter of taste; we did not feel
that the data available warranted a breakdown into sub or sub-sub phases, or
that anything of significance would emerge from such splinterlzing.   The cul-
tural continuity of Complex A, a point we did not beat the drums for in the
original report, also stands out clearly. Since C&S mounted a strong attack
on this point, chiefly through attempts to refute allocations of objects
referable to the Olmec art style to all but Phase IV deposits, it may be
worthwhile to spell out evidences of this continuity.   Since C&S have chal-
lenged the occurrence of Olmec style artifacts, surrogate burial, etc. in pre-
Phase IV levels, we shall not use these items although we have demonstrated
to our own satisfaction the critics' objections lack of validity.
Phases
I     II     III    IV
Symmetrically designed enclosure           x      x      x      x
Fills of selected clean clays, sands       x      x      x      x
Planned leveling, drainage                 x      x      x       ?
Massive Offerings (deposited
subterraneously)                               x      x      x
Cruciform celt offering                    -      x      x       x
Importation of large amounts of stone      -      x      x      x
"Facing blocks"                                   x      x       -
Facing and floor surfacing of
selected materials                      x      x      x       ?
Low symmetrical platforms                  x      x      x       x
This brief chart makes clear that there are a series of significant
features,, mostly related to the "architectural pattern" that C&S worry about
so, that carry through all or most of the La Venta phases. The traits are of
varying significance, and perhaps weights. The item referring to use of
stone, for example, has special socio-political significance--it means not
only use of stone per se but implies knowledge of distant regions, organized
systems of transport, etc. The peculiar cruciform layout of celt offerings
must have some ritual significance. Drucker has wanted for a long time to
get his hands on a Nautical Almanac to see if the mean declination of the
Southern Cross in the May-June evening sky does not tie in with the "Center
Line" orientation not only of Complex A but also with the main features of
La Venta. If someone wants to go way out on the limb to try to relate the
cruciform celt pattern to the Southern Cross, conspicuous in the evening sky
in May (i.e. at milpa planting time), we will cheer him on and be glad to
hear if he finds a connection. In any case the cruciform layout of celts,
presumably as offerings, carried on for a long time at La Venta.
The fact that this set of traits persisted at La Venta throughout the
four periods, that is, was renewed on each restoration of the site (though
each time with modifications), we regard as of more than just casual interest.
We interpret this fact as of najor significance, that is to say, that what it
means to us is that the Court was originally constructed as the scene for the
performance of certain specific ceremonials. There is no possible way to de-
termine just what sort of rituals they were, but the fact is that the mainte-
nance of the basic architectural pattern of a graded, well-drained enclosure
containing various small platforms indicates that essentially the same rituals
were performed throughout the use of the site. What the significance of
changes in color scheme meant--when certain platforms were painted yellow in-
stead of purple, or when the Court floor was done in old rose instead of white
or green--we know not. But we can guess that the emphasis on elaborate color
schemes, changes from one to another garish decor, had some purpose, and such
purpose was in vogue throughout use of the site.  This, to us, suggests that
the ceremonial patterns, i.e. the manifestations of religious belief, contin-
ued from the inception of construction of Complex A until the site's obvious
abandonment after Phase IV, when the constant maintenance program that had
kept the features neat and orderly stopped, so that erosion took its toll of
the final elaborate constructions, completely washing away painted surfaces,
and washing and gullying the fill, the red clay cap, into an irregular expanse
of hummocks and depressions. But from Phase I to the end of Phase IV there
was obvious continuity. For this reason more than any other we feel obliged
to resist C&S's effort to distort stratigraphic evidence to place all objects
of Olmec type in Phase IV (cf. Heizer 1964). Our assumption is that these
objects had some specific ceremonial significances and that, as the evidence
really shows, they were part of the Complex A pattern from first to last (we
have them present from Phase II through Phase IV, and extrapolate their pres-
ence in Phase I). We feel justified, therefore, in calling La Venta an
"Olmec" site in the sense that it is one of the few places where objects per-
taining to the Olmec artistic pattern have been found directly associated
with architectural and occupational materials. The pottery offerings (such
as Offerings 15, 16, etc.) clearly belong to categories of wares defined from
the o ccupat i ona 1deposits.
La Venta was an Olmec site during the time represented by Phases I
thro    IV.  We stand pat on that.
There was, throughout our analysis of the review, something that
bothered us.  The impression grew that the reviewers were trying to do some-
thing more than make a scholarly appraisal of the DHS report.  They seemed to
be trying to prove something all the time. So we. went back and reread their
introduction, and there we nailed down the basis of our discomfiture. The
payoff is where, after listing some of the broad problems of the so-called
"Olmec problem," they say (p. 1), "Such problems come to mlnd and stick there
when one is engaged in the analysis of data derived from what amounts to a.
competitive site and culture.  [Italics ours.]  In this case we are. thinking
of Tikal, the major gentral lowland Maya site."  This passage is remarkable
in its implications.  We are aware of no data, archaeological, traditional,
or other, that indicates that there was any direct competition between ancient
La Venta and ancient Tikal.  DHS were not competing, either. We were not try-
ing to find the oldest, or the prettiest, or the most of anything. Our goal
was simply to find out as much as we could about La Venta.
As far as the "mother-culture" concept goes, C&S should have whetted
their knife for someon, else. We were on record (1959-262) as opposing the
"mother-culture" idea .  As much as we are reluctant to agree with our crit-
ics, we, as they, do not believe it probable that lowland Maya culture de-
rived from La Venta or from Olmec in general. Looked at broadly, the "mother-
culture" concept is decidedly simpliste. It compares to the long discarded
view that.Graeco-Roman culture was the source, the "mother-culture" if you
choose, of modern Western civilization--a theory few culture historians will
accept nowadays: doing a simple problem in arithmetic, remembering the day
of the week, drinking a cocktail, consulting the calendar, eating a piece of
toast, using a fork, smoking a cigarette, tieing your shoelace, and recalling
when you last went to church, among other things, will show you why.
Until someone comes up with a better hypothesis, we still favor the
idea of Mesoamerican culture growth as derived from some ancient, simple, and
widespread pattern centering on maize culture, religious beliefs centered on
this economic mainstay, a pattern of preparing special places for the ceremo-
nial observances, emphasis on ceramics, etc. that came to be widespread in
Mesoamerica and which as well, as it developed, broke into two strains--Low-
land and Highland. Localized proliferations of these rather simple and
66
generalized patterns, which are the only ones that could justifiably be re-
ferred to as "mother-cultures, and subsequent cross-fertilization, that is,
diffusion and local re-elaboration, would have been the main factors in cul-
ture growth.  That cultural cross-fertilization has occurred abundantly cannot
be challenged. Why should the La Venta Olmec, in their stoneless land, have
gone to the trouble of importing basalts and serpentines to make the "facing
blocks" they set in their clay structures with no other function than that of
adornment? This practice probably represents an attempt to copy stone mason-
ry construction (though not necessarily, we hasten to add, that of Tikal).
The Olmec doubtless contributed to various groups with whom they were in con-
tact--lowland Maya of the Chontalpa region, Oaxacan, and Chiapanecan groups
of the regions from which they got metamorphic rock and jade, and with the
Valley of Mexico.   The idea of Tlatilco as an outpost, or colony if you pre-
fer, is not so hard to accept.   There are abundant evidences in culture his-
tory of small groups splitting off from their congeners to migrate to distant
lands: take, for example, the Huasteca, of Mayan linguistic affiliation; the
various enclaves of Mexicano-speaking groups in Central America; the Oregon
and northern California Athabascan-speaking groups; and on and on. As the
result of such cross-stimulation and local elaboration, in our view, there
developed the various major cultures of what we refer to as Mesoamerica--
Highland Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Valley of Mexico, Lowland Maya, Olmec,
Totonac, Huastec, and a host of minor patterns.
We have now come nearly, but not quite, to the end of our rejoinder
to the review by C&S of our monograph. We take the opportunity to offer a
few general remarks. C&S, we believe, did not write this piece to show us up
as inferior archaeologists as much as to demonstrate that we were sloppy re-
porters and faulty interpreters.   To us, these are all the same thing. We
never implied either that we had performed a perfect archaeological investiga-
tion or that our report at the time, or in future, would provide all the an-
swers to the archaeology of the La Venta site. We did the best we could with
a small staff and under not easy conditions. If one surveys the literature
on Mesoamerican archaeology, we believe that our report stands as one of the
more conscientious and careful examples. The bogey-man which C&S raise about
La Venta (or Olmec) being one of the earliest examples of the Classic t!ype of
culture is unfair--at the time we published our report, and still today in
1965, this is precisely where La Venta stands in the comparative picture of
Mesoamerican cultural development. Whether it will continue to occupy this
position we do not know, nor do we care, but their effort to deny our funda-
mental demonstration that La Venta is Olmec, that it dates from early,in the
first millennium B.C., and that it progressed through four stages of construc-
tion has, in our opinion, failed.   C&S make it clear that they do not like to
take for granted the conclusions we reached on the La Venta Olmecs.     That is
their privilege, and they are kept company by other qualified students such
as Sanders (1962:3h-43), but at the same time we also have our voluntary and
independent adherents such as A. Caso (1965), M. D. Coe (1962), E. Wolf (1959:
70-71).
We have tried to be objective and forthright in this rejoinder to C&S,
and in order that our present opinion not be misunderstood, we wish to say
that we disagree with C&S's (1964:38) opinion that La Venta "was a fairly
short-lived maverick site," but (granting a probable four century floruite
for the site entitles it to be classed as long-lived) was, rather, one of a
67
series of regional sites of the Olmec culture. Even though we do not now
know how to chronologically seriate San Lorenzo, La Venta, Tres Zapotes,
Laguna de los Cerros, and a number of other Olmec sites, the fact remains
that Olmec sites abound and some of them are Middle Preclassic in time. We
are not impressed with any efforts made to date to seriate the najor Veracruz-
Tabasco Olmec sites on the basis of stylistic analysis of the art style.
The ultimate question remains to each student of Mesoamerican pre-
history: "How do I decide where to place La Venta in the larger scheme?"
The answer is simply this:  "tTake time to read Drucker (1952), IllS (1959),C&S
(1964), Heizer (1964), and the present rejoinder, and make up your own mind."
We believe that our description of La Venta archaeology is objective and fac-
tual. Where doubts occurred to us, we admitted these. We also made some er-
rors, both of commission and omission, and we have tried here to point these
out. We have not found it either easy or pleasant to dig through cold field
notes which are ten years old, and it is perhaps only natural for us to feel
that we were being put on the defensive in many instances where this was un-
justified.
La Venta itself, except for the pyramid, is now so badly disrupted
that it cannot be re-excavated. But there are other Olmec sites, and work is
now beginning on these, so some of the questions which C&S raise will proba-
bly be answered by work still to be done. If our own work at La Venta in
1955, published in 1959, questioned in 196h, and defended in 1965 helps to
illuminate the course of cultural development in prehistoric times in Meso-
america, we ask no more.
NOTES
1The sample referred to as M-528 by Heizer (1964:h6) should have read
M-5310 The age of 2560 + 300 B.P. is correct for M-531 and not for M-528.
Samples M-531, M-533, UCLA-902, and UCLA-903 are also discussed, with correct
designations, in Berger et al (1965:345-346).
2Cremation at Tres Zapotes is demonstrably part of the quite late,
intrusively post-TZ Soncautla period.
'Lest such a pattern of "offering" seem impossible, we point to a
similar one common in our own culture in past decades, when the ceremony of
laying of the "cornerstone" of some important edifice often involved deposi-
tion of various contemporary artifacts--a local newspaper of the date, and
like mementoes.
Offerings placed beneath temple structures and other constructions
and beneath stelae in the Maya area are well known, and the same situation
has been observed in dedicatory caches beneath foundations of buildings in
Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria. Luckenbill (1924:100) in a translation of one
of the records left by Sennacherib, writes:  "A stela with my name inscribed
I wrote and buried 160 tipku deep in the terrace, and left it deep down in
the foundation for the days to come." We are, of course, not suggesting any
historical connection between the La Venta Olmecs and the eastern Mediterra-
nean civilizations, but cite these instances only because they suggest some
68
historically conscious motivation may have been involved in the Olmec offer-
ings, both of snall objects and of the "massive offering" variety.
4W. R. Coe (1965:18) has more recently disavowed his belief in any
hypothesis that Preclassic Tikal was due to Olmec influence.
5Caso (1965:11, 44-48) takes issue with our crediting Covarrubias
with the mother-culture idea (cf. DHS 1959:297) and indicates thit he is the
father of the proposal (Caso 1942).
REFERENCES
BERGER, R.,
1965
CASO, A.
1942
G. J. FERGUSSON, and W. F. LIBBY
UCLA Radiocarbon Dates IV. Radiocarbon, Vol. 7:336-371.
Definicion y Extension del Complejo "Olmeca."  In Mayas y Olmecas,
Segunda reunion de mesa redonda sobre problenas antropologicas de
Mexico y Centro America, pp. 43-h6. Sociedad Mexicana de
Antropologla, Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas.
1965   Existio un Imperio Olmeca? Memoria de el Colegio Nacional 5,
No. 3, for 1964, pp. 1-52. Mexico City.
COE, M. D.
1962
COE, W. R.
1965
Mexico. Praeger, New York.
Tilial, Guatemala, and Emergent Maya Civilization. Science,
Vol. 147:1h01-1h19.
COE, W. R. and R. STUCKENRATH, Jr.
1964   A review of La Venta, Tabasco, and its relevance to the Olmec
problem. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, No. 31:1-44.
(Cited here as C&S.)
CURTIS, G.
1959
The petrology of artifacts and architectural stone at La Venta.
In Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955, Arpendix 4:284-289.
ureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 170. Washington, D.C.
DRUCKER, PHILIP
1952   La Venta, Tabasco: a study of Olmec ceramics and art.
American Ethnology, Bulletin 153. Washington, D.C.
DRUCKER, P., R. F. HEIZER, and R. J. SQUIER
1959   Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955.
nology, Bulletin 170. Washington, D.C.
GOLDSCHMIDT, W. R.
1951   Ethics and the structure of society: al
tion to the sociology of knowledge. Am
53:506-524.
Bureau of
Bureau of American Eth-
(Cited herein as DHS.)
n ethnological contribu-
erican Anthropology, Vol.
HE IZER, ROBERT F.
1964   Some interim remarks on the Coe-Stuckenrath rev'iew.
Anthropologi cal Society Papers, No. 31:45-50.
Kroeber
69
KROEBER, A.
1959
L1CKENBILL,
1924
L.
Yurok national character. In Ethnographic Interpretations: 7-11.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology, Vol. 47, No. 3:236-2h0. Berkeley.
D. D.
The annals of Sennacherib. Oriental Institute Publications, Vol.
2. University of Chicago Press.
PI!A CHRN, R. and L. COVARRUBIAS
1964   El pueblo del jaguar. Mexico City, pp. 16-24.
SANDERS, W. T.
1953   The anthropogeography of central Veracruz. In Huastecos Totonacos
y sus vecinos. I. Bernal and E. Davalos H., eds. Sociedad
Mexicana de Antropologia. M1exico.
1962   Cultural ecology of nuclear Mesoamerica. American Anthropology,
Vol. 64:34-43.
SHOOK, E.
1961
WEDEL, W.
1952
WESTHEIM,
1952
WILLIAMS,
1965
Wa.F, E.
1959
M. and W. R. COE
Tikal: numeration, terminology and objectives, report No. 5:1-14.
In Tikal Reports, Nos. 5-10. University Museum Monographs, Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia.
R.
Structural investigations [at the La Venta site] in 1943. Bureau
of American Ethnology, Bulletin 153:34-79. Washington, D.C.
P.
La inexistente arquitectura de La Venta. Humanismo, No. 4:47-50.
Mexico.
HOWEL and ROBERT F. HEIZER
Sources of rocks used in Olmec monuments. Contributions of the
University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 1:
1-40. Berkeley.
Sons of the shaking earth. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
70
Comment by Coe and Stuckenrath written in November, 1965 after reading preced-
ing typescript copy of Drucker and Heizer's Commentary.
The preceding paper by Drucker and Heizer has been read by us with
care (and some disappointment), compared with our review (C&S) of the 1959
study of La Venta (DHS), and, finally, restudied in terms of DHS. There is
so clearly nothing to be gained bv further haggling. The true score is incal-
culable.
We do continue to hold responsible review, whatever its purpose, to
be of value. The "bias" of our review, so underscored by Drucker and Heizer
here, is, of course, exactly that.  It is clearly conceded throughout our re-
view:  "Let us stop and look at the evidence once more, for the magnitude of
the issues makes it worthwhile." Drucker and Heizer surely have the right to
claim that we were at times intemperate, obfuscatory, and picayune--in fact,
an inexcusable nuisance in our review. Moreover, we could not avoid implicit
criticism (occasionally emerging as overt) of the excavations and interpreta-
tions without impinging upon the judgment of the participants. We regret
only the allegations of irresponsibility in our review and leave the reader
to find our criticisms real and founded, as well as to judge whether or not
our purpose was as senseless and indiscrete as Drucker and Heizer protest.
Reviews and interplaying rejoinders inevitably become a round robin
of wistful clarification by faithful reiteration. We will leave our comments
at that, if only to avoid pages of confusing,cross-referenced "corrections"
that really can be of no additional help to the reader.
Final comment (not to be taken as the last word) on the controversy, written
by Heizer after reading Coe and Stuckenrath's comment printed supra.
Drucker and I agree that while the question and retort game could be
played indefinitely, all parties presently concerned have had their say, and
that not much is to be gained by continuing the argument.
What is most to be regretted, and this has nothing to do with the
present exchange of opinions and views, is that the La Venta site which we
left in May, 1955, could have been excavated again not only to learn new
facts, but to verify or correct conclusions which we reached, were it not for
the fact that the site has been so torn up by jade hunters that this is now
impossible. The INAH cannot be blamed, and we state this lest our earlier
remarks be so interpreted as to indicate that we hold this organization re-
sponsible. With such limited funds for scientific research and caretaking
responsibilities, the Institute could not be expected to have guarded the
site effectively. Perhaps one of the benefits of the C&S and D&H exchange
will be to help nake responsible parties aware of the vulnerability of these
major sites, and the necessity for effectively protecting them for the future.
We agree with Coe and Stuckenrath that the reader should judge the
matter on the central issues (i.e. excavation data and their interpretations)
and not let overtones of bias, personality, emotional reaction, etc. influence
his decisions.