Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T21:51:38.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Formative Platforms at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard G. Lesure
Richard G. Lesure*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1553
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent excavations have revealed Early Formative platforms at the site of Paso de la Amada on the coast of Chiapas, Mexico. Platforms supported large, perishable structures up to 22 m long. These structures were not arranged in plaza groups or ceremonial precincts, but were scattered across the site. One of their functions may have been to control or integrate social units within the village, such as neighborhoods or lineages. It remains uncertain, however, whether these large buildings were residences for high-status families or public buildings shared by neighborhood members. From 1400 to 1250 B.C. a number of contemporary platforms probably served similar functions at the site, each in a separate segment of the community. Increasingly, however, these functions were centralized at a single large structure (Mound 6). This centralization persisted until 1100 B.C., when Mound 6 was abandoned and segmental social units emerged once again.

Excavaciones recientes han detectado plataformas del Formativo Temprano, en el sitio de Paso de la Amada en la costa de Chiapas, México. Hechas de barro sin uso de piedra, las plataformas soportaron estructuras grandes y perecederas, hasta de 22 m de largo. No se colocaron las plataformas ni en grupos ni en recintos ceremoniales, sino de una manera dispersa por todo el sitio. Una de sus posibles funciones era controlar o integrar unidades sociales formadas por varias unidades domésticas, quizás barrios o linajes. Queda incierto, sin embargo, si las estructuras grandes fueron las casas de familias de alto rango, o si fueron edificios públicos compartidos por los miembros de los barrios. De 1400 a 1250 a.C. algunas plataformas contemporáneas probablemente tuvieron funciones semejantes en el sitio, posiblemente indicando una organización segmental. Sin embargo, las funciones anteriormente replicadas en varias estructuras grandes fueron centralizadas cada vez más en una sola estructura (el Montículo 6). Esta centralización persistió hasta 1100 a.C., cuando se abandonó el Montículo 6, y surgió de nuevo una organización segmentaria.

Type
Reports
Information
Latin American Antiquity , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 217 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Blake, M. 1991 An Emerging Formative Chiefdom at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. L. Fowler, pp. 27–46. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Blake, M., Lesure, R. G., Feddema, V. L., Hill, W. D., Gosser, D. C., Clark, J. E., and Lowe, R. 1993 Preliminary Report: 1993 Excavations at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. University of British Columbia. Report prepared for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (English version of report to Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México). Copies available from Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Blake, M., Clark, J. E., Ryan, V. L., Feddema, M., and Lesure, R. G. 1994 Early Formative Architecture at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Ceja Tenorio, J. F. 1985 Paso de la Amada: An Early Preclassic Site in the Soconusco, Chiapas. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation No. 49. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1991 The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early Formative. In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. L. Fowler, pp. 13–26. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E. 1994 The Development of Early Formative Rank Societies in the Soconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Clark, J. E., and Blake, M. 1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, pp. 17–30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cliff, M. B. 1988 Domestic Architecture and Origins of Complex Society at Cerros. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by R. R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 199–226. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Coe, M. D., and Diehl, R. A. 1980 In the Land of the Olmec, vol. 1. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Diehl, R. A. 1981 Olmec Architecture: A Comparison of San Lorenzo and La Venta. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 69–81. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Erasmus, C. J. 1965 Monument Building: Some Field Experiments. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21:277–301.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V, and Marcus, J. 1976 Evolution of the Public Building in Formative Oaxaca. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 205–232. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V, and Marcus, J. 1994 Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoir No. 27. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Hannery, K. V., Marcus, J., and Kowalewski, S. 1981 The Preceramic and Formative in the Valley of Oaxaca. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1, Archaeology, edited by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 48–93. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Green, D. F, and Lowe, G. W. 1967 Altamira and Padre Piedra, Early Preclassic Sites in Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation No. 20. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.Google Scholar
Grove, D. C, and Gillespie, S. D. 1992 Ideology and Evolution at the Pre-State Level: Formative Period Mesoamerica. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited by A. A. Demarest and G. W. Conrad, pp. 15–36. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Haviland, W A. 1988 Musical Hammocks at Tikal: Problems with Reconstructing Household Composition. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by R. R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 121–134. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Lee, T. A. Jr. 1989 Chiapas and the Olmec. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 198–226. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lesure, R. G. 1995 Paso de la Amada: Sociopological Dynamics in an Early Formative Community. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Lowe, G. W 1975 The Early Preclassic Barra Phase of Altamira, Chiapas. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation No. 38. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.Google Scholar
Lowe, G. W 1977 The Mixe-Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Lowland Maya. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by R. E. W. Adams, pp. 197–248. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Lowe, G. W 1981 Olmec Horizons Defined in Mound 20, San Isidro, Chiapas. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 231–255. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Lowe, G. W 1989 La presencia olmeca y maya en el Preclásico de Chiapas. In El Preclásico o Formativo: avances y perspectivas, Seminario de Arqueología “Dr. Roman Piña Chan,” edited by M. Carmona Macias, pp. 363–384. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico.Google Scholar
Marcus, J. 1989 Zapotec Chiefdoms and the Nature of Formative Religions. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 148–197. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Matínez Donjuán, G. 1986 Teopantecuanitlán. In Arqueología y etnohistoria del estado de Guerrero, pp. 55–80. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and Government of the State of Guerrero, Mexico, D.F.Google Scholar
Prindiville, M., and Grove, D. C. 1987 The Settlement and Its Architecture. In Ancient Chalcatzingo, edited by D. C. Grove, pp. 63–81. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48:675–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharer, R. J. 1989 Olmec Studies: A Status Report. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 3–7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. 1938 Modern Maya Houses: A Study of Their Archaeological Significance. Publication No. 502. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Whalen, M. E. 1981 Excavations at Santo Domingo Tomaltepec: Evolution of a Formative Community in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoir No. 12. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar