Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An exploration of an ancient, esoteric, and relatively ignored class of Preclassic artifacts.
Citation preview
The Hollow Baby Genre: a Preclassic, Pan-Mesoamerican Tradition
by
Hayley Bristow Woodward
May 2013
ARH 379H
Art History Honors
The University of Texas at Austin
___________________________________
Julia Guernsey, Ph.D.
Department of Art History
Supervising Professor
___________________________________
Penelope Davies, Ph.D.
Department of Art History
Second Reader
2
Acknowledgments
This thesis was the product of many agents who guided and supported me throughout the
research and writing process. Firstly, I would like to thank my parents for always encouraging
me through the good times and the bad. Their constant words of encouragement never stopped
flowing, and I love them and thank them for supporting me for the past twenty-two years.
I would like to thank Dr. Kimberly Jones, who provided images of the University of
Texas at Austin hollow baby and facilitated viewing sessions of this object. I am blessed to
attend the University of Texas at Austin, where I have had the opportunity to view and handle
the priceless artifact that I discuss in this thesis. I would like to thank Dr. Michael Love for
providing me with the La Blanca data and images, and for meeting with me and discussing his
thoughts on the UT Austin hollow baby. Sidney Kilgore’s help in scanning my images cannot be
ignored; I am blessed to attend a university where so many resources are at my disposal. I would
also like to thank Gretel Rodriguez and Michael Long for offering their comments and insight on
my topic.
Finally, I would like to give a whole-hearted thanks to Dr. Julia Guernsey. Without her
constant support and invaluable advice, there is no possible way that I could have completed this
thesis. I thank her for always making herself available for me, for introducing me to the wonders
of “glocal,” and for her wise words of direction. Dr. Guernsey has inspired and empowered a
countless number of art history undergraduates, whether their interests are in Mesoamerican art
or another field, to believe that we can do anything because of, and not in spite of, our choice of
an art history degree. I truly thank her for her compassion and belief in undergraduates.
3
Author: Hayley B. Woodward
Title: The Hollow Baby Genre: a Preclassic, Pan-Mesoamerican Tradition
Supervisor: Dr. Julia Guernsey
Abstract
This thesis examines a unique and poorly understood class of figurines from the Early
and Middle Preclassic periods in Mesoamerica, which I define as the “hollow baby genre.” After
outlining the common denominators between figurines in this genre, I will introduce a never-
before-discussed hollow baby in the University of Texas at Austin’s Art and Art History
Collection. This genre has previously been classified as deriving from the “Olmec style” of the
Gulf Coast; however, I will demonstrate how this classification is problematic. I will propose a
new way to view these figurines, which better accommodates the overarching similarities
between hollow babies while acknowledging local variations and adaptations to the basic
figurine genre.
While the precise purpose and meaning of the hollow baby genre can only be speculated,
there is a correlation between hollow babies and elite, domestic spaces based on archeological
findings from Oaxaca, Guerrero, Veracruz, Chiapas, and the Pacific Slope. New data will be
introduced from La Blanca, Guatemala, which further supports my thesis that hollow babies
were implements of elite households. I will discuss the provenience of these contextualized
hollow babies, and how their distribution patterns demonstrate a pan-Mesoamerican tradition.
4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………….. 2
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………... 3
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………… 4
List of Figurines ………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Chapter 1 …………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Chapter 2 …………………………………………………………………………………. 26
Chapter 3 …………………………………………………………………………………. 45
Chapter 4 …………………………………………………………………………………. 60
Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………. 62
References ………………………………………………………………………………… 94
5
List of Figurines
Figure 1: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine (Princeton 1995: Figure 3)
Figure 2: Hollow Baby Figurine (Blomster 1998: Figure 2)
Figure 3: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine (Blomster 2002: Figure 3)
Figure 4: Hollow Baby Figurine with Raised Left Hand (Princeton 1995: Figure 8)
Figure 5: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine with Iconographic Detailing (Princeton 1995:
Figure 10)
Figure 6: Seated Hollow Baby of Atlihuayán, Morelos (Benson and de la Fuente 1996:
Figure 23)
Figure 7: San Lorenzo A Phase Hollow Baby Figurine Head (Coe and Diehl 1980: Figure
326)
Figure 8: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine with Raised Right Arm (Princeton 1995: Figure 7)
Figure 9: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine (Princeton 1995: Figure 2)
Figure 10: Hollow Baby Figurine Holding Ball (Princeton 1995: Figure 132)
Figure 11: University of Texas at Austin Hollow Baby Figurine (Kimberly Jones)
Figure 12: University of Texas at Austin Hollow Baby Figurine, Back View of (Kimberly
Jones)
Figure 13: University of Texas at Austin Hollow Baby Figurine, Side View (Kimberly
Jones)
Figure 14: San Lorenzo Monument 4 (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Figure 2)
Figure 15: Antonio Plaza Monument 1 (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Figure 11)
Figure 16: La Venta Altar 5, side view (Tate 1995: Figure 29)
Figure 17: Mask from Río Pesquero, Veracruz (Princeton 1995: Figure 187)
6
Figure 18: Hollow Baby Figurine with Splayed Legs (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Figure
22)
Figure 19: San Lorenzo Monument 6 (Coe and Diehl 1980: Figure 429)
Figure 20: Hollow Baby Figurine from Etlatongo, Oaxaca (Blomster 1998: Figure 1)
Figure 21: Hollow Baby Seated Figurine from Tlapacoya (Benson and de la Fuente 1996:
Figure 21)
Figure 22: Map of Mesoamerica (Guernsey 2012: Figure 1.1)
Figure 23: Hollow Baby Figurine from Gualupita, Morelos (Vaillant and Vaillant 1934:
Figure 14, Numbers 2 and 3)
Figure 24: Hollow Baby Facial Fragment from Etlatongo, Oaxaca (Blomster 2002: Figure 9)
Figure 25: Head of a Hollow, White-Slipped Clay Figurine from Site 5 at Teopantecuantilán,
Guerrero (Niederberger 1996: Figure 4)
Figure 26: Hollow Baby Head Fragment from San Lorenzo, Veracruz (Coe and Diehl 1980:
Figure 327)
Figure 27: Hollow Baby Head Fragment from Paso de la Amado, Chiapas (Blomster 2002:
Figure 8)
Figure 28: Hollow Baby Fragments from La Blanca, Guatemala (Michael Love)
Figure 29: Old Woman Holding Infant in Lap (Princeton 1995: Figure 5)
Figure 30: Jade Standing Figure Carrying Were-Jaguar Baby (Benson and de la Fuente 1996:
Figure 48)
Figure 31: Figure with Crossed Arms (Princeton 1995: Figure 116)
Figure 32: Jade Figure Holding Head (Princeton 1995: Figure 114)
7
Chapter 1
The Hollow Baby Genre in the Context of the “Olmec Style” and the “Mother Culture”-
“Sister Culture” Debate
In Preclassic Mesoamerica, the hollow baby genre represents a unique and poorly
understood class of figurines. These hollow infant figurines have been labeled a multitude of
names in scholarly discussion, including ceramic “baby-faced” figurines and white hollow baby
dolls (Flannery and Marcus 2000; Niederberger 1996a). Scholars have attempted to understand
the stylistic implications and the possible purposes of hollow baby-faced figurines (Blomster
1998, 2002; Tate 2012), but never has a consensus been decidedly reached. Thus, this artifact
class, characteristic of the Early and Middle Preclassic (or between 1500 – 900 B.C.E. and 900 –
300 B.C.E respectively), is surrounded in mystery. I hope this thesis will alleviate some of the
unknowns of the genre, and will clarify past misconceptions of the genre’s provenience and
purpose. There are four goals of this thesis: to define the hollow baby genre, to conduct a
stylistic analysis of the genre, to carefully outline the hollow baby’s archaeological context, and
to outline possible functions and meanings that the genre embodied in the Preclassic.
In this chapter, I will define the hollow baby genre, which is an encompassing term that I
use to accommodate a range of baby-faced figurines. Labeling this class of figurines as the
“hollow baby genre” is a more neutral way of talking about these objects than the alternative
“Olmec hollow babies,” which implies the superior influence and production supremacy of the
Gulf Coast. After outlining the characteristics of the genre, I will discuss a never-before
documented hollow baby that is part of the collection of the University of Texas at Austin. I will
then explain the hollow baby genre’s place in the “Olmec style” discussion, and its place in the
“mother culture” vs. “sister culture” debate. Finally, I will propose a new perspective to view
8
these objects through, which could potentially be applied to multiple artifact classes in
Mesoamerica.
The Hollow Baby Genre
The hollow baby genre is characterized by infantile effigies that are life-size; they sit
between roughly twenty to forty-two centimeters tall. They sit upright in a variety of postures:
sitting with their suggested hands resting on their knees (Figure 1), with their arms outstretched
(Figure 2), or with a finger in their mouth (Figure 3). There are a few examples of hollow babies
on all fours, in crawling positions. Hollow babies’ bodies depict varying degrees of corpulence;
some are extremely flabby with fleshy stomach folds (Figure 3), while others are more slender
and conical with fewer curves on the torso and limbs (Figure 4). While there is more modeling
present on the front side of the effigies, their backsides are finished and smooth; at least two have
iconographic designs on their backsides (Figure 5), and one wears a jaguar pelt on its backside
(Figure 6). Hands and feet are rendered on the majority of hollow baby figurines (Figure 3),
while some only depict suggested phalanges (Figure 2).
The most attention in artistic and anatomical detail is given to the figurines’ heads, which
is typically disproportionately large compared to the rest of the body, and grooves when viewed
in profile (Figure 7). All hollow baby effigies share particularly expressive facial features (Figure
1, Figure 8, Figure 9), including gaping mouths and dramatically angled eyes. Most have merely
an outline of the eyes, but some have drilled pupils. Many bare incised teeth, attesting to the
level of detail given to the facial features. Many figurines’ facial attributes exhibit seemingly
bellicose and aggressive expressions; however, other figurines demonstrate calmer facial features
(Figure 3). Particular attention is paid to the ears, which are elongated and incised. Their noses
9
are small and dainty, centered on puffy, fleshy cheeks. Hollow babies lack clothing, and most
lack evidence of a biological sex. Some wear helmets or turbans, and some have tufts of hair
(Figure 10). Otherwise, hollow babies are bald.
To create a hollow figurine, the artist punctured firing holes at strategic points on the
body. These holes allowed oxygen to escape while the figurine was fired; without these holes the
clay would combust (Michael Love, personal communication 2012). Most figurines have firing
holes in their ears, on the top or backside of their heads, and at the center of the stomachs, where
the bellybutton would be. After the burnishing process, hollow babies are cloaked in a paste,
either white, cream, orange, gray, or brown (Blomster 2002: 173-174). The firing process will be
discussed in chapter 3.
Hollow babies are attributed predominantly to the Early Preclassic period in
Mesoamerican history, between 1500 and 1000 B.C.E.; however, a few fragmentary remains
have been attributed to the Middle Preclassic Period, between 1000 and 400 B.C.E. (dates from
Pool 2007: Figure 1.4). Whole hollow babies and fragmentary pieces of hollow babies have been
excavated throughout Mesoamerica. The archaeological provenance of contextualized hollow
babies will be discussed in the next chapter, but an understanding of a pan-Mesoamerican
tradition is necessary to understand the variations in style between hollow babies.
From a purely visual perspective, common denominators can be discerned between
hollow babies: the seated position, placement of firing holes, cranial modification, and
expressive facial features. To be classified as a hollow baby, the figurine must display infantile
features; however, many exhibit a hybrid of adult features also. There certainly is a basic figurine
type that shares a suite of attributes, which I label the “hollow baby genre.” However, many
variations of the figurines’ anatomical details and paraphernalia exist, which suggests these
10
figurines were locally adapted throughout Mesoamerica. I think it more productive to view these
hollow babies as a genre, rather than a style, that was shared by numerous sites participating in
an extensive Early and Middle Preclassic communication sphere. I will now discuss a never-
before documented hollow baby, and its place in the hollow baby genre.
A Concrete Example: The University of Texas at Austin Hollow Baby
The University of Texas at Austin currently holds a prime example of an intact hollow
baby in the Department of Art and Art History’s Precolumbian and African collection. These
objects were originally acquired by UT Austin’s Texas Memorial Museum collection from 1930
until 2001. In 2003, the Texas Memorial Museum narrowed their museum’s focus to natural
history, and began transferring their cultural artifacts to other entities in the University of Texas
system. Dr. Steve Bourget, at that time an Associate Professor in the Department of Art and Art
History, requested the transfer of the Mesoamerican, Andean, and African artifacts to the
Department of Art and Art History, and between 2004 and 2008 these objects were moved to the
Art and Art History Collection. The hollow baby is one of 3500 items in the custody of the Art
and Art History Collection (Jones 2012: 2-3). The collection is currently being organized by Dr.
Kimberly Jones, a Lecturer in the Department of Art and Art History and specialist in Andean
art, in order to ensure the preservation and continued exhibition of these invaluable artifacts.
It is remarkable that a whole hollow baby has been quietly sitting in this collection for
such a long time, when these figurines are consistently featured in Olmec art exhibitions and are
exceptionally rare to be preserved in completion. This baby-faced figurine is in excellent
condition and has the potential to aid the research and consideration of this genre of ancient
11
Mesoamerican art. It is my hope that this thesis will usher this notable artifact into the scholarly
realm.
Visual Analysis of the UT Austin Hollow Baby
The UT Austin hollow baby (Figure 11) fits nicely into the hollow baby genre. Compared
to the rest of the body, special attention and detail was paid to the head and physiognomy of the
hollow baby. The head is disproportionately large as it is 10.8 centimeters tall, while the entire
figurine sits 29.5 centimeters tall; therefore, the head composes more than a third of the total
height of the figurine. The figurine’s forehead is unrealistically bulbous, rendering cranial
modification. The hollow baby’s eyes are extremely angled, with punctured pupils and slanted
eyebrows. The punctured pupils are set closer to the bridge of the nose, as opposed to being
centered in the eye socket. The baby’s mouth gaps open, bearing incised teeth and a tongue. A
plump, double chin is created from fleshy folds of skin that extend downwards from the corners
of the baby’s mouth, and the cheeks are equally corpulent. The face is centered with a small,
delicate nose with punctured nostrils. Drastically elongated ears with gages on the lobes frame
the figurine’s head. Red pigment remains in the corners of the eyes, the inside of the ears, around
the lips and inside the mouth. The hollow baby was decapitated, but the head was later
reattached. It is not known whether this breakage occurred anciently or more recently.
The torso is largely generalized with slight modeling of the upper chest and a slightly
protruding belly. A discrete change in coloration distinguishes the upper chest from the lower
body; the upper muscles are slightly darker than the rest of the figurine. A firing hole emulates a
bellybutton, centered in the middle of the stomach. The arms of the baby rest on the back of its
legs, approximately where the knees would be. The baby’s arms are fatty and robust, with fleshy
12
folds at the armpit and elbow. However, beyond these folds, the limbs are given no distinct
features. There are only suggestions of hands, and the feet have either been intentionally
removed or were never added. While there are no anatomical details present on the figure’s
backside, its back is burnished smoothly which could possibly suggest the figurine was to be
viewed from every angle.
The firing process is demonstrated by firing holes and burnishing marks. The baby has
seven firing holes: one on top of the head, one under each armpit, one where the bellybutton is,
one underneath its bottom, and one on either side of its head, inside its ears. The hole on the top
of the head is intriguing, because it is possible to blow air over it and create a whistling sound.
This potential whistle will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. Black burnishing marks are
present on the figurine’s backside and on the back of its head (Figure 12). The rest of the hollow
figurine is fired in a white-cream slip.
In profile, the figurine appears distorted (Figure 13). Cranial modification causes the head
to groove inward when viewed from the side, so that the top of the head has the widest depth.
When viewed in profile, it is made obvious to the viewer that the front side of the figurine was
more important than the back, because the front has many details and modeling, while the
backside simply slopes down with no particularities besides the grooved head.
When compared to other hollow babies, the UT Austin figurine fits nicely into the genre
of hollow baby-faced figures. The figurine has a cream slip. Similar facial features exist, such as
the slanted eyes, open mouth, long ears, and the cranial modification of the head. The figurine’s
seated position is not unusual in the baby-faced genre (see Blomster 2002: Figure 4; Merrin and
Shildkraut 1985: Object 27; Parsons et al. 1988: Plate 1). While the figure’s face is plump, its
stomach is relatively slender compared to other figurines in the hollow baby genre. However, the
13
variations of robustness or corpulence seen in the hollow baby genre make the UT hollow baby’s
slenderness not atypical (Figure 2, Figure 3). No adornments presently exist on the Art and Art
History Collection hollow baby, unlike many of the other intact baby-faced figurines. However,
there may have been adornments in the time of these object’s use (Benson 1971: 35; Furst 1995:
69; Marcus 2009: 45). There is no extant helmet or turban, no props like a ball, no iconographic
ornamentation, and no tufts of hair atop the figurine’s head; however, there are other hollow
babies that lack these elements also.
The hollow baby genre is easy enough to identify on a visual level, but it must be situated
in the broader context of the Olmec style and its “mother culture” or “sister culture” debate.
These figurines have been traditionally classified as Olmec, or originating from the Gulf Coast,
which is viewed as the center or Olmec “mother culture” by some scholars. However, I argue
that this classification –and its associated assumptions – are misleading. Hollow babies exhibit
variable stylistic influences, and have been excavated throughout Mesoamerica; thus, they are
not exclusive to the Olmec heartland of the Gulf Coast.
“Olmec Style” and Subject Matter
Scholars have defined and understood style in a multiplicity of manners. Meyer Schapiro
finds that style resides in “the constant form … in the art of an individual or a group” (1953:
287). Style corresponds to a particular period and place, and is therefore a product of a specific
culture. The origin of an unknown work of art is deduced by comparing it to another work of an
understood style; if the two works share similar traits, the same culture probably produced both
of them. While this definition of style is useful when the geographic origins of a style are known,
when discussing the “Olmec style,” the topic becomes somewhat muddled. Schapiro also finds
14
that an artist is not restricted to working in only one style, suggesting that styles may overlap and
may not possess a single point of origin. The difficulty in defining the Olmec style is rooted in
the difficulty of defining the boundaries of Olmec culture and the problematic nature of the
“mother culture” theory, which will be discussed later in this chapter. Many scholars have
attempted to address the “Olmec question:” the difficulty of placing spatial and temporal
boundaries on the Olmec culture, acknowledging the problem of identifying Olmec people by
their artifacts and inversely identifying Olmec artifacts by the people who produced them (Clark
and Pye 2000: 218). This tricky interplay between defining the Olmec people and consequently
their artistic style has puzzled many scholars since the genesis of Early Formative archaeology.
While the genesis and diffusion of the Olmec is difficult to define, the art style of the
Early Formative Gulf Coast region, sometimes referred to as “Olman,” is not. Miguel
Covarrubias (1957: 83) eloquently summarized the magnetism of Olmec art: “‘Olmec’ art is
powerful and simple, masterful and original.” Coe (1965b: 747-751) provides a useful summary
of Olmec style, which I summarize here. Coe argues that Olmec art “eschews geometric
abstraction for curvilinear naturalism;” rounded edges reject hard corners and naturalism
triumphs over abstraction (Figure 14). There is a balance and tension in Olmec art’s treatment of
space (from three dimensionality to bas relief) and the “slow rhythm of … lines”, which gives
Olmec art a monumental effect. According to Coe, Olmec art is primitive in nature, and
concentrates on the heavy, solid dimensions of the human body. The Olmec art style is created in
the round, and is to be viewed from every angle (Figure 15). In terms of subject matter, Coe
(1965b: 751) states “Olmec style cannot be separated from its content, or iconography, for its
weird jaguar-baby symbolism is the hallmark of the style;” therefore, all Olmec art is derived
from “were-jaguar” and “baby-faced” imagery. In Chapter 3, I will further discuss the
15
implications of the “were-jaguar” myth. Coe’s definition of the Olmec style is restricted to the
“climax region” of the Gulf Coast, and temporal boundaries are set from 800 - 400 B.C.E.
Like Coe, Beatriz de la Fuente (1981, 1984, 1992) only includes sculpture originating
from the Olmec Heartland in her definition of Olmec style. She (1981: 86) classifies Olmec
sculpture into three subject matter categories: humans (making up the majority of visual
representations), composites of humans and animals, and solely animals. Olmec monumental
style is predominately anchored in a sculpture’s harmonic proportions, while other secondary
characteristics of the Olmec style include three-dimensionality, heaviness, geometry, rhythm,
and rounded edges. Olmec sculptural style is represented through the “golden mean,” which de la
Fuente demonstrates by diagramming the mean’s proportions onto the colossal heads of San
Lorenzo and other full-bodied sculptures. Unlike Coe, de la Fuente recognizes that Olmec art is
anything but primitive; their art is “fully realized, with forms conceived and structured within an
organized world-view.” De la Fuente (1981: 94) expresses that Olmec art “oscillates between
naturalism and abstraction” in order to represent the order of their universe.
Carolyn Tate (1995) builds on Coe’s and de la Fuente’s definitions of Olmec style. She
argues that Olmec art, which includes art produced in and out of the Gulf Coast, portrays mainly
subject matter dealing with shamanism and rulership. Humans are depicted as standing in the
“shaman’s stance,” in a contortionist posture, or with deformed bodies. Sculpture is realized in
the round, but it also holds a flat quality, which allows for relief carving. There is an emphasis on
frontality in sculpture, like depictions of rulers emerging from niches. Decoration of monumental
sculpture is a combination of high and low relief, and ranges from naturalism (realism) to
abstraction (idealism) in nature. Tate (1995: 52) finds that portable objects are conceived more
16
“in-the-round” than monumental sculpture, and that they had the potential to be placed in other
sculptural contexts.
When discussing the hollow baby genre, it is more pertinent to outline Olmec style
characteristics found in small-scale, human effigies. Jeffrey Blomster (2002: 176) names seven
traits of the Olmec style in hollow figurines, as follows
• realistic depiction of the body, with musculature indicated on all sides of the figure
• head as large as the body’ head is elongated, showing cranial modification
• fat, puffy cheeks and jowls
• anatomical details indicated on ears
• trough of L-shaped eyes, generally without pupils, framed by puffy eyelids
• broad, short nose
• downturned, trapezoidal mouth, often with varying levels of anatomical detail indicated
In conclusion, the Olmec art style, whether monumental or portable, emphasizes three-
dimensionality, curvilinear realism, symmetrical idealism, and high and low relief carving.
Although I lay out this foundation of the Olmec style, I will argue that hollow babies are not a
direct derivative of this style. They exhibit a few Olmec stylistic attributes, but it is important to
understand the similarities and differences in style in order to fully comprehend the local
variations of hollow baby figurines.
Fitting the Hollow Baby Genre into the Olmec Style
There are varying degrees of continuity between the Olmec style, other examples of
hollow babies, and the hollow baby in the UT Art and Art History Collection. I will begin with
the continuities. Regarding Blomster’s (2002) definition of attributes of the Olmec style, all
hollow babies have somewhat naturalistic depictions of the body, meaning their torsos are not
unrealistically abstracted. All hollow babies are conceived in the round, perhaps to be seen from
every angle. The iconographic elements on the back of some hollow baby-faced figurines attests
17
to this (Figure 5). The UT Austin hollow baby exhibits Olmec stylistic characteristics, including
a naturalistic body, an elongated head, puffy and fleshy cheeks, and eyes that are framed with
puffy eyelids. Hollow babies do have a curvilinear quality in them, with rounded edges and soft
lines. There are also similarities to monumental Olmec sculpture in these small-scale examples;
La Venta Altar 5 (Figure 16) depicts infant figures with nearly identical grooved heads as this
hollow baby. Some hollow babies render downturned or trapezoidal mouths, similar to Olmec
facial masks (Figure 17, Figure 18). In terms of the use of line and curves, most hollow babies
use curves to create fleshy folds in their stomachs, arms, and chins (Figure 3).
While some hollow babies do exhibit a few Olmec stylistic attributes, I argue that in other
examples of the genre, there are differences between the Olmec style and the hollow baby genre.
Some hollow babies have very “Olmec” facial attributes, including the downturned mouth and
slanted eyes, but others do not. In fact, the UT Austin artifact (Figure 11) is an example of a
hollow baby lacking Olmec style facial characteristics; its mouth is not downturned or
trapezoidal, its pupils are depicted, and the eyes are almond shaped and less slit-like. While some
are slightly stylized, hollow babies are extraordinarily realistic with very little abstraction to the
human body (Figure 2). Olmec art wavers between naturalism and abstraction (Coe 1965b; de la
Fuente 1981, 1984, 1992; Tate 1995); thus it is rare that an entire figurine type would remain on
the naturalistic end of the spectrum and still be considered “Olmec.”
Thus, there appears to be an ambiguous line between what is “Olmec” in the hollow baby
genre, and what is not; some babies are very “Olmec,” while others are not. This variations of
continuity between the Olmec style and different artifacts in the hollow baby genre must be
situated in the context of the “mother culture” v. “sister culture” debate, in order to understand
why these artifacts should not be designated as solely “Olmec.”
18
“Mother Culture” vs. “Sister Culture”
While the “Olmec style” can be defined in terms of the subject matter and artistic style of
monumental and portable arts created in the Olmec heartland, the danger of applying these
stylistic attributes to works of visual culture outside the heartland can lead to false conclusions
about the importance of the Olmec and the scope of their influence. There is evidence of similar
style and subject matter in regions extending as far as Guerrero, Oaxaca, and the Pacific Slope.
For instance, Tate (1995: 48) calls the Kunz Axe, an artifact that derives from the Valley of
Oaxaca, as the “hallmark of Olmec art.”
The continuities in subject matter and style between the art created in the Gulf Coast and
other contemporaneous regions have led many scholars to believe that the Olmec were the
predominant sociopolitical power during the Early and Middle Preclassic periods, and were thus
the major influencer in artistic style throughout Mesoamerica. These scholars believe the Gulf
Coast to be the “mother culture” of Mesoamerica, the place of genesis for art and culture.
Covarrubias (1957) suggests that the Gulf Coast Olmec were the “mother culture” of
Mesoamerica, and their monumental style eventually stimulated the development of the Classic
Maya style over 1000 years later. Coe (1965b) labels Veracruz as the “climax region” of the
Olmec artistic style, and he believes all artifacts outside the Gulf Coast that appear to have
Olmec characteristics were exported from the Gulf Coast.
However, the “mother culture” theory is infused with serious problems, since it assumes
that the Olmec held a higher cultural and political power over many other regional chiefdoms
throughout Mesoamerica. The “sister culture” camp, on the other hand, emphasizes the many
different linguistic groups that flourished during the Preclassic period and communicated with
19
and mutually influenced each other. According to the “sister culture” group, no one culture area
exerted superior influence over any one group. Local chiefdoms throughout Mesoamerica arose
independently, in communication with each other. Grove (1989) determines that the local
variations of similar subjects demonstrate a mutual, shared culture system. While he
acknowledges the Olmec realized their art to the highest monumental level, he suggests that this
equal distribution of artistic styles derived from a shared belief system through Early Preclassic
Mesoamerica. Tate (1995: 54) asserts that the finest examples of Olmec pottery were excavated
in the highlands of Mexico, not in the Heartland. Marcus and Flannery (2000) believe Early
Preclassic cultures were organized by local chiefdoms, and that the Olmec were not superior to
their contemporaneous culture groups.
More recently, scientific analysis has been used to further the dichotomy between these
scholarly positions. Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and petrographic thin-
section analysis (PTSA) testing has been conducted to scientifically prove whether the artifacts
originated from the Gulf Coast were distributed throughout Mesoamerica. Blomster et al (2005:
Table 1) and Neff et al (2006) demonstrate that Olmec style white-paste potteries were
consistently exported from the Gulf Coast to other regional centers across Mesoamerica.
According to INAA, Olmec pottery has been discovered in Mazatán, the Valley of Oaxaca, the
Nochixtlán Valley, the Valley of Mexico, Chiapas, and Tehuantepec; however, the samples of
ceramics from these regions did not yield any other region’s ceramics. As the authors also
demonstrated, local variations of these white-paste wares were never imported back into Olmec
heartland. This suggests that Olmec style ceramics, presumably crafted in the Olmec Heartland,
were highly valued by local elites throughout Mesoamerica, since non-Gulf Coast polities did not
trade ceramics between themselves. However, Stoltman et al (2005) and Flannery et al (2005)
20
counter Blomster et al’s (2005) data, suggesting a more equal relationship between Early
Formative polities throughout Mesoamerica. These authors argue that the impreciseness of
INAA testing and the sampling biases of Blomster et al’s study provided false results, and they
believe PTSA testing is more accurate when determining the provenience of clay. After testing
the same ceramic sherds used in Blomster et al’s study, Stoltman et al (2005) and Flannery et al
(2005) determined that a widespread, reciprocal exchange system of pottery was extant
throughout Mesoamerica. According to these scholars, the Olmec’s perceived influence has been
viewed in “hyperbolic terms” (Flannery et al 2005: 11222); the Olmec did not exert an overly
powerful influence on contemporaneous culture groups. Instead, these groups communicated in a
reciprocal manner and mutually influenced each other.
Going “Glocal”
The “mother culture” v. “sister culture” debate has consumed scholars since the
discussion’s genesis. However, I propose that perhaps Mesoamerican scholars are looking at this
phenomenon in the wrong light, through too narrow a lens. The two debates are not mutually
exclusive, as this discussion inherently implies. I do not believe that regional centers in Early and
Middle Preclassic Mesoamerica were under either Olmec cultural domination or were
completely liberated from Olmec artistic style. In this section, I will suggest a new way of
viewing the stylistic diffusion across Mesoamerica in the Preclassic period.
Instead of viewing the hollow baby genre, and Preclassic artifacts in general, as evidence
of either Olmec sociopolitical and cultural dominance or the “sister culture” theory, I will discuss
21
them as a “glocal” genre. Roland Robertson1 (1994, 1995) coined the term “glocalization” in his
numerous discussions on the phenomenon of globalization in the twentieth century.2 As its name
implies, “glocalization” is a “global outlook adapted to local conditions” (Robertson 1995: 28).
Robertson discusses “glocal” as a business model used by international companies; these
companies adapt their basic products to different tastes and traditions in countries around the
world. However, Robertson also finds that “glocalization” is a better term than “globalization,”
because it better reflects the heterogeneity inherent between communities. When discussing the
dichotomy between the global vs. local problem- which appears to be very similar to the “mother
culture” v. “sister culture” debate- Robertson (1995: 29) states:
There is a widespread tendency to regard this [global-local problem] as straightforwardly
involving a polarity, which assumes its most acute form in the claim that we live in a
world of local assertions against globalizing trends, a world in which the very idea of
locality is sometimes cast as a form of opposition or resistance of the hegemonically
global.
While Robertson is referring to the debate of global vs. local in modernity, his model
applies seamlessly to the debate that has frustrated Preclassic scholars for decades. The Olmec
“mother culture” does not have to be mutually exclusive or the polar opposite of the “sister
culture” theory. There can be overlap, and I argue that the hollow baby genre represents this
overlap.
First, I will discuss the seemingly Olmec characteristics present across the hollow baby
genre, because they are undeniable. All hollow babies exhibit cranial modification, discernible
through their elongated and grooved heads. Cranial deformation is a characteristic unique to
1 Robertson (University of Aberdeen) is a leading sociologist in the topic of industrialization,
modernization, and globalization. For further reading on this arguments regarding globalization,
consult Robertson 1992, 1997, and Robertson and White 2002. 2 The original use of “glocalization” traces back to Japanese agricultural practices. Farmers
adapted agricultural techniques to varying locations, depending on that location’s climate and
topography (Robertson 1995: 28).
22
Olmec monumental sculpture, and I will use San Lorenzo Monument 6 as an example to
elucidate this congruency. San Lorenzo Monument 6 (Figure 19) represents an Olmec ruler (Coe
and Diehl 1980: 310). When viewed in profile, this one-meter-tall bust is comparable to the
bulbous, grooved heads present in the hollow baby genre. While cranial deformation is a
convention viewable in figurines and small-scale effigies throughout Mesoamerica, it is
exclusively a Gulf Coast convention when used on a monumental scale (Grove 1989). Thus,
there is a stylistic connection evident between Olmec monumental art and the hollow baby genre.
Of course, this proposition assumes that the Olmec stone artists invented the elongated and
grooved head form. The precarious line must be drawn between what is “Olmec” and what is
not, and since the Olmec were the only Preclassic culture to use elongated heads in monumental
form, I assume for the purposes of this study that they were first to invent this convention.
However, hollow babies between sites are not completely, visually congruous. There is a
range of artistry in the quality of form, and there is a range of stylistic variations and adaptations.
For instance, compare Figure 4, Figure 20, and Figure 11. There is a discernible difference in the
quality of the burnishing process, given the smooth surface of Figure 4, and the less lustrous
surface of the UT Austin hollow baby. Therefore, by comparing the figurines’ physiognomies,
we can see the varying degrees of “Olmec-ness” present in these hollow babies, along with local
variations and adaptations. The range of variation between figurines in the genre demonstrates
that one producer did not make these figurines; many different artisans throughout Mesoamerica
created them, yet they represent the same basic figurine type. Unfortunately, ceramic analysis
has not been completed on the genre, so it is difficult to prove where the workshop loci were
located. Nonetheless, I argue that the term “glocal” takes into account the variations present
23
amongst the genre, while simultaneously acknowledging the shared suite of attributes that
derives from Olmec monumental art.
Blomster’s Group 1 and Group 2
Looking at hollow babies “glocally” can ameliorate past struggles of these figurines’
classification. Blomster (2002) separates hollow babies into two categories: Group 1 hollow
babies and Group 2 figurines. The basic determinant to distinguish these figurines is the presence
or absence of “Olmec” characteristics.
Group 1 is considered the true class of hollow babies (Figure 3, Figure 20), which are
consistently white or cream slipped, smoothly burnished, and exhibits “Olmec” characteristics in
their facial features. Their heads are bulbous, their eyes are slanted, and they have downturned
mouths. Their bodies are stylized, and all the figurines are more standard and less individualized.
Group 1 hollow babies do not display a biological sex and combine infant and adult
characteristics. Blomster (2002: 177-180) argues that Group 1 represent “supra-human or
supernatural qualities”, and are not literal representations of infants.
Group 2 figurines (Figure 10, Figure 21) are not hollow babies according to Blomster; the
objects in this group are hollow figurines that differ from Group 1 in that they have a brown or
gray slip, and were given sparse burnished finishing. There is less modeling in their torsos,
which makes them less naturalistic than Group 1 figurines; their bodies are either robustly fat or
slender. The hollow figurines’ features are less “Olmec” in style; their heads are less elongated
and more realistic, and their eyes are diamond shaped as opposed to Group 1’s slit-like eyes.
They are more likely to wear headgear, normally turbans, and they never have iconographic
elements on their backs. He argues that the hollow figurines are more individualized and
24
humanized than Group 1 hollow babies, so Blomster (2002: 181-182) believes these could have
represented actual people or infants. Since he classifies these figurines as less “Olmec”
stylistically, he believes they are interpretations of Olmec traditions combined with regional
variations to create a distinct style.
While there certainly is varying degrees of quality and “Olmec-ness” present in the
hollow baby genre, there is overlap between the two groups. Some of the Group 2 figurines are
too similar to Group 1 to assuredly mark them as a different genre. Blomster (2002: 182)
categorized the excavated hollow figurine from Tlapacoya into Group 2 (Figure 21); however,
this object exhibits many continuities with Group 1 figurines. It has an “Olmec” downturned
mouth, elongated ears, and sits in an identical position as Group 1 figurines. At San Lorenzo,
only one of three hollow baby figurines was completed in white slip, and these head fragments
are more akin to the Basin of Mexico hollow babies (Tate 2012: 66). This could falsify
Blomster’s argument that hollow figurines are attempting to emulate aspects of Olmec style,
since the Olmec are attributed to the Gulf Coast. It is too difficult to find contrasting indicators of
these two groups, but looking at the genre through a “glocal” lens takes into account the diversity
between the genre, while acknowledging the overarching similarities deriving from Olmec
monumental art.
Conclusions
It is essential to establish the problematic nature of labeling the hollow baby genre as a
convention of the Olmec of the Gulf Coast. Based on the overall disparity of stylistic attributes
between the Olmec style and the hollow baby genre, and the problems resulting from labeling
objects outside the Gulf Coast as “Olmec,” I will not label the hollow baby genre as “Olmec.” In
25
effect, the term “genre” acknowledges a suite of attributes shared by hollow babies, but avoids
the problematic terms “style” and “Olmec.” As I have already discussed, these are loaded and
problematic terms. Instead, I suggest that viewing hollow babies as a “glocal” genre better
accommodates the similarities and differences between figurines at different sites. The next
chapter will delve farther into the hollow babies’ provenance and archaeological context, which
will further prove that there is a disparity between the hollow baby genre and the Olmec style.
26
Chapter 2
Hollow Baby Genre as Implements of Elite Domiciles Across Mesoamerica
I have studied over sixty complete and fragmentary hollow baby figurines, largely
deriving from Jeffrey Blomster’s (2002: Table 1, Table 2, Table 3) analysis of the distribution of
this class of figurines. Using his detailed descriptions of provenience, I have discerned a few
patterns. Firstly, the hollow baby genre is not characteristic of any one region in Mesoamerica;
the genre is distributed across major sites in the Early and Middle Preclassic communication
sphere of Mesoamerica. Secondly, there is a strong correlation between the hollow baby genre
and elite households.
This chapter will begin with a discussion of Preclassic homes in Mesoamerica, which will
demonstrate how archaeologists identify households. I will then turn to a detailed discussion of
the provenience and context of complete hollow babies, which is largely obscured due to looting.
The context of fragmentary remains of hollow babies recovered throughout Mesoamerica will be
outlined; these pieces of figurines are very revealing to the discussion of provenience, since
many have been excavated archaeologically.
What Makes a House a Home?
Before discussing provenience and context, I want to outline the basic determinants of
Preclassic households and the methodology of classifying a space as “elite.” Excavating
households is difficult for many reasons, including the evidence of post-abandonment changes
and the deteriorating nature of materials that constitute a house. Archaeologists identify houses
by a variety of construction features, including floor areas, postholes, possible doorways,
27
hearths, middens, and chunks of daub from the walls of the home. Homes across Mesoamerica
use either whitewash or mud to plaster the walls. Most Preclassic domiciles are square or
rectangle, but some homes along the Soconusco region are round (Flannery 1976a). Early
Preclassic Mesoamerican homes were not made up of a singular building, but instead are formed
from a cluster of features, called “household clusters,” a term coined by Marcus Winter (1976:
25). In the Valley of Oaxaca, a “household cluster” was composed of an interchangeable mix of
bell-shaped pits, graves, ovens, and/or midden deposits. “Household clusters” found at the site of
Salinas La Blanca on the Pacific Slope are made up of a platform with a potential petate (a
sleeping mat), an outdoor hearth, “borrow pits” (pits for procuring daub), and sherd middens
(Flannery 1976b: 32-34). Thus, the determinants of a household vary from region to region.
Interestingly, hollow babies have been excavated in a variety of contexts- deposit pits, middens,
and bell-shaped pits- that are associated with domestic clusters.
Bell shaped pits are deposit structures that are narrow at the opening, but expand
underground to form a conical shape. While originally thought to be storage units for food (Hall,
Haswell, and Oxly 1956), archaeological excavations have yielded many artifacts from these
structures, which implies the pits were used for much more than storage. Bell shaped pits were
not used after its adjoining household was razed or abandoned; therefore, whatever is discovered
in a pit was placed there by the residents of the house and was not added to the pit by later
peoples. Bell shaped pits have been excavated throughout highland Mesoamerica, including
Tierras Largas, San José Mogote, and San Sebastián Abasalo, Oaxaca, Acatepec, Moyotzingo,
and Ajalpan, Puebla, Tlatilco, Morelos, Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, and Las Charcas, Guatemala
(Winter 1976: 25-29). This particular type of deposit pit has yielded many hollow babies from
sites across Mesoamerica.
28
While it is difficult to identify and define “elite” behavior in Preclassic Mesoamerica
(Hirth 1992), it is possible to designate a domicile as “higher status.” A household can be
classified as “elite” based on the size of the domicile’s features, the quality of its artifacts, and
the presence of traded objects. Feature 1, a bell shaped pit at Etlatongo, serves as an example of
how to classify a deposit pit, and its associated household, as elite. Blomster (1998: 319-321)
determines that Feature 1’s large volume and its implements deriving from other regions of
Mesoamerican denote an elite household. Feature 1 was significantly larger than the other bell
shaped pits at the site and throughout the Valley of Oaxaca, and therefore, its users had more
possessions to deposit.
In terms of exchanged materials, elites attempted to control access to valuable, exotic
artifacts within their community in order to reinforce their social status (Hirth 1992). Prestige
goods such as jade and greenstone, turquoise, cotton textiles, obsidian, marble, marine shells,
cacao, and copper were traded between regional centers in Mesoamerica. Thus, the presence of
these goods in a pit indicates that the pit’s users had access to these elite items.
Now that I have briefly discussed the indicators of households and elites, I will turn to an
outline of the archaeological record of the hollow baby genre in higher status domiciles, as
identified by the archaeologists at each site.
Provenience of Complete Hollow Babies
While there are at least forty-three fully complete or nearly complete hollow babies, only
four have an archaeological record and a known provenience. The remaining hollow babies have
been attributed to regions throughout Mesoamerica (Figure 22), including Mexico (Tlatilco,
Tlapacoya), Puebla (Las Bocas), Veracruz (Tenenexpan, Cruz del Milagro), Tabasco, and
29
Guerrero (Zumpango, Xochipala), but the lack of contextual data makes these attributions
problematic and irresolute. While the numerous hollow babies displayed in museums and private
collections may have a place of origin attributed to them, they are technically unprovenienced.
Looting has been a common practice in Mesoamerica throughout the first half of the 20th
century. Blomster (2002: 183) elucidates this issue by citing the problematic nature of figurines
“originating” from Las Bocas. Many hollow babies have been attributed to Las Bocas, Puebla
because the site had a reputation of yielding some of the most beautiful examples of Preclassic
effigies (Coe 1965a: 105), hollow and solid alike. However, the site was heavily looted in the
1960s, and collectors who bought these objects completed their transactions at secondary
locations, without visiting Las Bocas. Looters attributed their figurines to Las Bocas because of
its reputation, yet there is no way of knowing whether the figurines actually were recovered from
the site (Grove 1996: 108-109). Because of the dangers of mislabeling or misrepresenting this
information, I will only focus on complete hollow babies who have a definitive archaeological
record.
Before discussing the archaeological record, it is crucial to describe the paucity of these
figurines in the corpus of Early and Middle Preclassic art. Hollow figurines are relatively rare
compared to solid ones (Blomster 2002: 172). At San Lorenzo, only four out of sixty San
Lorenzo A phase head fragments are hollow, making up four percent (Coe and Diehl 1980: 264-
267). At Tlapacoya, only four percent of all figurine fragments were hollow (Niederberger 1976:
210-213). Within this group of hollow figurines, the hollow baby genre is even more rare. The
skill of craftsmanship, which will be discussed further in Chapter 4, reveals that the genre had to
be produced by adept artisans, and thus is not a ubiquitous figurine class in every Mesoamerican
village.
30
While most hollow babies lack provenience due to looting, four nearly complete hollow
babies have been archaeologically excavated: two in Gualupita, Morelos in the Basin of Mexico
(Vaillant and Vaillant 1934: Figure 14, Numbers 2 and 3), one in Tlapacoya in the Basin of
Mexico (National Gallery of Art 1996: Figure 21), and one in Etlatongo, Oaxaca (Blomster
1998: Figure 1). Another hollow baby has been salvaged during road construction in Atlihuayán
(Piña Chán and López González 1952:), thus its region of origin is known but not its
archaeological context. Amongst these five hollow babies, context is ambiguous and does not
present a pattern.
These four archaeologically excavated hollow babies include two discovered in
Gualupita, Morelos by the Vaillants (Figure 23). During their excavations, a complete baby was
found in a burial, with its severed head placed between the legs of an adult skeleton. This burial
was composed of several skeletons, skulls, other human bones, a few pieces of pottery, and one
set of beads; therefore, there is no extraordinary evidence that indicates that this hollow baby was
associated with elites. Another broken hollow baby figurine and a baby-faced head were
recovered in a possible burial area according to the Vaillants, although this is would be difficult
to firmly establish since this area of Gualupita had been heavily disturbed before excavations
took place and it contained Aztec artifacts in a tertiary context (Blomster 1998: 311). There is
another hollow figurine that has been largely ignored by scholars when discussing the hollow
baby genre (Vaillant and Vaillant 1934: Figure 15, middle figure). This figurine was created with
much less finesse than the other two hollow babies at Gualupita. This figurine’s head is
disproportionately large compared to the body, as if its head was not created for this particular
body. But the figurine appears in a seated position, has tufts of hair, and has facial details such as
incised teeth, which are all akin to the genre. The stylistic differences between the hollow baby
31
genre and this particular figurine make its classification as a “hollow baby” problematic, but it is
worth noting. There is no context provided for this figurine.
The archaeological contexts of the Tlapacoya (Figure 21) and Atlihuayán (Figure 6) baby
figurine offer little contribution to this discussion. Paul Tolstoy excavated the fragments of the
hollow baby from Tlapacoya in 1963 (Ochoa 1996: 185). According to Tolstoy and Paradis
(1970: 347), these fragments were discovered in household refuse, but it is not definite whether
this trash could be classified as “elite” or not. The fragments were later reassembled to form the
complete hollow baby viewed today in the Museo Nacional de Antropología; however at the
moment of their excavation, they were originally in a fragmentary state. It is presumed that the
household refuse deposit that the hollow baby was excavated from was previously disturbed;
thus, this artifact offers little contribution to the discussion of context. As previously mentioned,
the Atlihuayán hollow baby was salvaged during construction (Piña Chán and López González
1952), so the archaeological context was obliterated. This hollow baby is peculiar because it is
the only figurine to wear a garment on its body, a jaguar pelt, which covers the backside of the
figurine.
The only complete hollow baby whose context is well understood is the one excavated
during the 1992 excavation of Etlatongo, in the Mixteca Alta of Oaxaca by Jeffrey Blomster
(1998). The artifacts procured at Etlatongo reveal that the site was apart of the interregional
communication sphere of the Early Preclassic; for instance, two obsidian blades discovered in
the same context as the hollow baby originated from the regions of Veracruz and Puebla
(Blomster 1998: 321). This nearly complete figurine (Figure 20) aligns with the hollow baby
genre quite nicely; the figurine sits upright with its arms splayed out, and its head is nearly as
long as its torso. The firing holes are congruous with the pattern seen in the hollow baby genre;
32
there are holes in the ears, at the mouth, and where the bellybutton would be. There is substantial
breakage across the top of the head and at the ends of the limbs, but there is enough evidence to
conclude, that the figurine would be included in the hollow baby genre.
The context of this hollow baby provided by Blomster (1998) demonstrates its
association with a higher status domicile. This hollow baby was discovered in Feature 1, a bell-
shaped pit located next to a household floor. Feature 1 is threefold the size of other bell shaped
pits at Etlatongo, and it is nearly double the size of typical Early Preclassic bell shaped pits in
Oaxaca. In addition, Feature 1 held 2,548 ceramic sherds, the most in the Valley of Oaxaca and
nearly 800 more than the next highest yielding pit at Tierras Largas. Blomster believes the size
and capacity of Feature 1 reveals that the family who used this pit had a higher necessity for
storage. This need is most likely explained by the family possessing more goods than they have
room for in their home. The hollow baby was discovered near the bottom of the feature, with an
obsidian blade penetrating the figurine’s right side by its shoulder. In addition to the obsidian
blade, the other occupants of the lower level of Feature 1 include a whole seashell, a solid
figurine fragment, a skeleton of a canine, and a ceramic tube. It is not specified whether the
obsidian blade under the hollow baby’s arm was one of the blades which originated from
Veracruz and Puebla. The seashell is a rarity at Etlatongo, and indicates that the users of the pit
had a role in the pan-Mesoamerican exchange network. Given its size, capacity, and artifacts,
Etlatongo Feature 1 can be classified as an elite-associated assemblage.
The UT Austin hollow baby’s label in the Art and Art History Collection attributes the
figurine to Veracruz, Mexico. However, there is no archaeological context for the University of
Texas at Austin hollow baby because there is no documentation of the object’s past life before it
was donated to the Texas Memorial Museum (Jones 2012: 3). The author of the label may have
33
assumed the hollow baby originated from Veracruz, since that is considered the “Olmec
Heartland.” However, as discussed in Chapter 1, this presumption is incorrect when discussing
intact hollow babies because the hollow baby genre is not stylistically or geographically
exclusive to the Gulf Coast. Unfortunately, the hollow baby in the Art and Art History Collection
is not able to ameliorate the discussion of complete hollow baby distribution.
Considering only the five hollow babies with a true provenience, it could be interpreted
that the hollow baby genre is exclusive to the Highlands of Mexico. Indeed, it has been
suggested (Marcus and Flannery 1994: 388, 2000: 16; Reilly 1995: 27) that hollow babies are a
convention of the Central Mexican highlands. However, given the small proportion of found
hollow babies to the large number of unprovenienced figurines, this information may very well
by skewed. An analysis of the locations of hollow baby fragments will further prove how this
information may be skewed and how the hollow baby genre is a characteristic of many
Mesoamerican regional centers.
Fragmentary Hollow Babies
While there are only four nearly complete, excavated hollow babies, a multitude of
fragments have been recovered at sites throughout the Oaxaca Valley, Guerrero, the Basin of
Mexico, the Gulf Coast, Chiapas, and the Soconusco region. All of these sites were local
regional centers; in fact it is atypical to discover hollow baby fragments in smaller, subsidiary
centers (Blomster 1998). The archaeological provenience of fragments demonstrates that the
hollow baby genre has been discovered throughout Mesoamerica and thus is a pan-
Mesoamerican tradition.
34
While the archaeological context of complete hollow babies is ambiguous and seemingly
unrelated between sites, fragments demonstrate a relatively consistent pattern of context. I argue
that there is a remarkable correlation between hollow baby fragments and elite domiciles,
whether found inside the home, or in middens in close proximity to the household. Thus, the
hollow baby genre was a possession of wealthy, elite members of Mesoamerican society. While
Blomster (1998) has suggested that hollow babies were implements of elite households, I
reaffirm this assertion with the new data from La Blanca and a careful look at other hollow baby
fragments from across Mesoamerica. The fragments discussed in this section are not an
exhaustive list of hollow baby fragments, a task that has yet to be done and that was beyond the
goals of this thesis; however, my study has proven there are hollow baby fragments discovered
throughout Mesoamerica.
Tierras Largas, San José Mogote, and Etlatongo, Oaxaca
Throughout the Valley of Oaxaca, there are multiple examples of hollow baby fragments
present in or associated with high status homes, during the Early Preclassic period, with a few
instances during the Middle Preclassic period. The archaeological work of Joyce Marcus (1998)
and Jeffrey Blomster (1998 and 2002) provides the most complete records of Early and Middle
Preclassic Oaxacan excavations pertaining to this study. For my discussion of the fragments
found at Tierras Largas and San José Mogote, I reference Marcus (1998), and for the Etlatongo
fragments I reference Blomster (2002). The fragments found in Oaxaca seem to outnumber those
of other regional centers.
At Tierras Largas, Oaxaca, there is one instance of a hollow baby fragment in an elite
household, Household Unit LSJ-1. The fragment (Figure 14.34, Specimen 10) was in a bell-
35
shaped pit; thus the original context is lost but it is assuredly associated with a home nonetheless.
This fragment is not in white slip, but Atoyac Yellow-white slip, characteristic of San José Phase
ceramics in Oaxaca. The domicile had multiple bell-shaped pits and two ovens, which indicated
the elite status of the residents. Tierras Largas has two other instances of hollow baby fragments
(Figure 8.38, Specimens 1-3 and Figure 14.15 Specimens 65-66) in secondary contexts
associated with households, but it cannot be assuredly said that these homes were of higher
status.
San José Mogote was the largest and most powerful center in the San José Phase (1150-
850 B.C.E.) in the Valley of Oaxaca. According to Marcus and Flannery (1996:88-89), San José
Mogote yielded more imported pottery than its surrounding hamlets, including black pottery,
marine shells, and obsidian; thus, it participated in the interregional communication sphere of
Early Formative Mesoamerica and was a center for economic exchange. At San José Mogote,
multiple hollow baby fragments have been discovered in a geographic relationship with elite
households. Four hollow baby-faced fragments (Figure 12.15 Specimen 1, Figure 12.22
Specimen 13-15) have been excavated at the Zone D midden in Area A of San José Mogote. The
higher proportion of figurines depicting rulers and the hollow baby fragments led Marcus to
associate Zone D with elites. In Household Unit C3, five hollow baby fragments (including
Figure 127.7 Specimen 11-12) have been excavated in the house. The household is known to be
higher status because of the higher proportions of crafting materials, including seashells,
magnetite, and mirrors, and because two basins used for domestic ritual were recovered here
(145-146, 151-152). In House 16 of Area B, a single hollow fragment was discovered. This
home has a burial with jade beads and earspools, and there are higher distributions of deer bone,
pearl oysters, Spondylus shells, stingray spines, otoliths, and imported pottery than other homes
36
in San José Mogote; thus the domicile likely held high status residents. There are seventeen other
hollow baby fragments in San José Mogote, all of which are either in middens, bell-shaped pits,
or homes.
It must be noted that one fragment of a hollow baby was excavated on the floor of a
lower status domicile, House 13 of Area A. This home had less evidence of crafting, imported
pottery, and animal bones (Marcus 1998: 160). While the proportion of elite homes with hollow
babies far outnumbers that of poorer homes, it is interesting to note, since the same situation is
present at La Blanca. Perhaps hollow babies were mainly implements of high status peoples, and
lower status people attempted to copy the convention and perpetuate an air of class and
distinction about themselves. Or perhaps these lower status residents had a social connection
with their elite neighbors, signified by their fragment of a prestige fragment. The implied social
relationships of figurine fragments will be discussed in Chapter 4.
Etlatongo is the site of excavation for one of the rare complete hollow babies, but it has
also produced many fragmentary hollow baby pieces associated with households, as Blomster
(2002: 188-189) outlines. A facial fragment exposing a downturned mouth was found in a large
pit with a secondary refuse associated with higher-status residents (Figure 24). This is the second
find that associates hollow babies with elite domiciles at Etlatongo in the Early Preclassic. Other
fragments have been excavated in bell shaped pits, which also have elite implications (Blomster
2002: 189).
Teopantecuanitlán, Guerrero
From 1200 to 600 B.C.E, Teopantecuanitlán flourished in the western Mesoamerican
region of Guerrero. The regional center exhibits many examples of monumental architecture,
37
including the Recinto complex, a canal, a dam, and monumental tombs. Stylistically, the
monuments of Teopantecuanitlán resemble sculpture of the Pacific Slope, attesting to the
interconnected relationships between regional centers throughout Mesoamerica in the Early and
Middle Preclassic (Martínez Donjuán 1986, 1995, 2001). Niederberger (1996a: 95) believes the
high densities of luxury goods and evidence indicate that the site was a player in a pan-
Mesoamerican trade route, and that Teopantecuanitlán could not simply be a marginal site in the
backwaters of the Early Preclassic culture. It was the principal regional center in Guerrero in the
Early and Middle Preclassic, and a center on the exchange routes of economic goods (Martínez
Donjuán 2001: 201; Niederberger 1996a: 101-102).
There have been multiple hollow baby fragments excavated at Teopantecuanitlán.
Nierderberger (1996a: 100) claims there are many whole hollow babies found in the Lomeríos
domestic unit in Teopantecuanitlán, however only one hollow head fragment is illustrated
(Figure 25). Niederberger claims the hollow baby figurines have plump limbs and torsos,
detailed hands and feet, and some possess crossed eyes. While the degree to which this
illustrated fragment aligns with the hollow baby genre has been contested (Blomster 1998: 312),
I argue that the photograph’s vantage point does in fact depict a hollow baby. The head displays
almond-shaped eyes, puffy lips, elongated ears, and a bulbous forehead. Thus, the fragment is
certainly of the hollow baby genre, and the inclusion of Teopantecuanitlán is valid in our
discussion of the distribution of figurine fragments.
Niederberger (1996a: 100-102) suggests the occupants of Lomeríos were members of
higher status society because of high-valued personal adornments found in the complex.
Exchanged materials from other sites across Mesoamerica have been found in the Lomeríos
group, and there is also evidence that this household group worked in collection, craft
38
specialization, and redistribution of marine shells from the Pacific Coast. There is a high density
of conch shells in the unit, which further indicate the wealth of the residents since
Teopantecuanitlán is not in close proximity to the sea. In another distinct geographical region
during the Early and Middle Preclassic, hollow baby figurines are connected archaeologically to
the domestic spaces of elites.
The “Olmec Heartland,” Veracruz
As previously mentioned, the Olmec of the Gulf Coast have been considered to be the
“mother culture” of Mesoamerica; however, I believe this label gives the Olmec people too much
credit for the artistic and cultural development of regions throughout Mesoamerica. While the
aspects of the Olmec art style are visible throughout Middle America, it does not mean the
Olmec held a superior sociopolitical power.
There are a fair number of hollow baby fragments from the “Olmec Heartland,” although
they are still as rare in this region as they are across Mesoamerica. Unfortunately, none of the
hollow baby fragments excavated from San Lorenzo, La Venta, or Tres Zapotes were recovered
from households; nearly all of them are from redeposited fills and thus have lost their original
context. There are no documented complete hollow babies with a recorded archaeological
context in the Gulf Coast; however, Ann Cyphers (cited in Blomster 2002, personal
communication 2002) has excavated a whole hollow baby figurine at San Lorenzo.
San Lorenzo was the major Olmec regional polity in the Early Preclassic. The importance
of this site can be demonstrated by the parallel florescence of the Olmec culture with the birth of
monumental sculpture at the San Lorenzo. San Lorenzo has yielded six hollow baby fragments
from the Yale excavations of the site from 1964-1968, as summarized by Coe and Diehl (1980).
39
Five of the six are head fragments. The earliest fragment (Coe and Diehl 1980: Figure 292),
created during the Bajío Phase (1350-1250 B.C.E), is a white-slipped leg fragment, with fingers
atop the knee. Three head fragments (Figure 7, Figure 26) come from San Lorenzo A Phase
(1150-1050 B.C.E.). Two hollow head fragments (Coe and Diehl: Figure 347, 351) are of the
San Lorenzo B Phase (1050-900 B.C.E.). None of these fragments have a primary context; they
were nearly all excavated from fills thought to hold household refuse (Coe and Diehl 1980: 260).
Outside San Lorenzo, the hollow baby fragments were excavated in contexts that cannot
support the association between the hollow baby genre and elite domiciles. A hollow baby head
was recovered at the site of Tres Zapotes in a redeposited platform fill (Weiant 1943: Plate 19,
Figure 5). La Venta has yielded two fragments, both of which were discovered in more public
contexts, rather than a private household fill. A fragment of a face was excavated from a mound
fill, in close proximity to a public space with stone monuments (Gallegos Gómora 1990:
Photograph 1). Another facial fragment was discovered near Stela 1 (Joyce and Knox 1931: 17).
Paso de la Amado, Chiapas, and La Blanca, Guatemala
The correlation between hollow babies and elite households stretches into Chiapas and
the Soconusco region. Richard Lesure’s personal communication with Blomster reveals that
hollow baby genre fragments discovered at Paso de la Amado are connected with a high status
midden (Figure 27). These fragments are associated with Mound 1 at the site, which is associated
with the Cherla Phase (1200-1100 B.C.E.).
From 900-600 B.C.E., the Middle Preclassic site of La Blanca experienced a political and
economic florescence resulting in the regional center’s predominance as the largest and most
powerful sociopolitical site of the Soconusco region. Monumental art and architecture, including
40
the construction of one of the earliest earthen pyramids in Mesoamerica, stone sculpture, and a
quatrefoil altar, flourished as social class distinctions grew (Love and Guernsey 2011). While a
stronger sense of rulership and public ritual was certainly crucial to La Blanca’s rise to
prominence, domestic ritual continued to be practiced by multiple households, attested by the
thousands of figurines discovered in domestic contexts. The artifacts of domestic spaces
represent the constructed identities and individual goals of the residents of La Blanca (Love and
Guernsey 2011).
La Blanca has yielded six hollow baby figurine fragments (Figure 28) found in
association with elite households, which have never before been documented or analyzed. A
series of hollow fragments were excavated in Operation 37, which is associated with the elite
residence of Mound 9 (Love personal communication 2012). Operation 37 is diagonally adjacent
to Operation 32, an elite residence near the center of the site which holds Monument 3, the
quatrefoil altar (Love and Guernsey 2006). Operation 32 yielded high-density counts of animal
bone, obsidian, greenstone, and figurine fragments, thus supporting its elite associations. Mound
9, the home to both Operation 32 and 37, is in close proximity to the great earthen mound
temple, so it is possible that Mound 9 was associated with public ritual as well as a private space.
The refuse, burials, and hearths discovered on Mound 9 demonstrate that this area of La Blanca
was a residence (Love and Guernsey 2006: 7). Operation 37 contains the largest density of
greenstone comparative to the other operations of La Blanca, by nearly threefold (Love, personal
communication 2012). Greenstone was an indicator of elite status; therefore, preliminary
evidence indexes that Operation 37 held elite associations.
However, a contrasting piece of evidence is extant. A possible hollow baby figurine has
been discovered in Operation 34, which lies on the marshy, non-elite periphery of La Blanca
41
(Love, personal communication, 2012). This situation of non-elites holding a prestige item
parallels that of San José Mogote House 13. Again, this hollow figurine poses a challenge for
interpreting these effigies as implements of the elites, but perhaps these non-elites were
attempting to imitate the conventions of their higher-status neighbors for their own person ritual.
Another possible explanation is that there was a social relationship between the elites and non-
elites at La Blanca, evinced by the sharing of fragments. More excavations must be completed to
discover if there are more baby fragments in other peripheral areas of La Blanca.
While the majority of the hollow baby fragments discussed thus far have been attributed
to the Early Preclassic, the La Blanca hollow figurines are assuredly products of the Middle
Preclassic, since that is when the site came to florescence. Therefore, there is evidence that in
certain regions of Mesoamerica, the hollow baby genre continued to be utilized in elite domiciles
from the end of the Early, and into the Middle Preclassic. However, the hollow baby genre
remains predominantly a convention used in the Early Preclassic.
Conclusions
There is substantial evidence of a pattern between the hollow baby genre and elite
households throughout Mesoamerica, as Blomster (1998) previously observed. Yet, there are a
large number of hollow baby genre fragments that I have not mentioned that were not excavated
in association with higher-status homes or usage, including fragments from Gualupita (Vaillant
1934: Figure 10, Number 3), Morelos and Tlapacoya-Zohapilco, Mexico (Niederberger 1976:
Foto 29, 30, 32). Some examples I cited, including all the fragments of the Gulf Coast and a few
examples from the Valley of Oaxaca, also refute this argument. However, almost all of these
fragments that were discovered in redeposited pits, refuse, and other secondary and tertiary
42
contexts. Therefore, it is entirely possible that these fragments were originally utilized by elites
in the home. While this does not necessarily help my argument, these decontextualized hollow
babies cannot hinder it either; it is simply not known where their original context lay. It would be
false for me to argue that every complete and fragmentary hollow baby is associated with elite
households, but there is a strong correlation nonetheless.
In the entire corpus of the hollow baby genre, there are only three instances where hollow
baby figurines were discovered in a primary context not associated either with households of the
elites, or secondary refuse fills. The complete hollow baby at Gualupita was discovered in a
burial (Vaillant and Vaillant 1934:50), and the fragments from La Venta were recovered from
public spaces in relation to monumental art (Gallegos Gómora 1990: Photograph 1; Joyce and
Knox 1931: 17). In these contexts, it is inconclusive whether the Gualupita burials were elite, but
surely the elites of La Venta controlled the art and architecture of public spaces. Therefore, while
we do not certainly know who deposited the La Venta hollow baby fragments, there is a strong
likelihood that the space was connected with elites. While these occurrences counter my
argument, they are in the great minority. Only three out of the over sixty hollow babies that I
have studied, both complete and fragmentary, have been discovered in different contexts besides
households and secondary refuse.
It is also remarkable that every site that has yielded a hollow baby has been a relatively
large regional center, and all of them have evidence of interregional communication between
other chiefdoms in Mesoamerica. Hollow babies have not been recovered in small hamlets,
although this could be due to lack of investigation or recording. Another pattern that is nearly
completely consistent is that both whole and fragmentary hollow babies are exclusive to the
Early Preclassic and the beginnings of the Middle Preclassic.
43
The provenience of the hollow baby genre further offers interesting insight into the
“mother culture” vs. “sister culture” debate discussed in Chapter 2. What is assuredly known,
because of this analysis, is that the hollow baby genre is a convention used across Mesoamerica.
“Mother culturists” would interpret this as exemplifying the scope of influence of the Olmec;
hollow babies, which have been characterized as “Olmec” by so many scholars, were replicated
by artisans throughout Mesoamerica to mimic an Olmec stylistic convention. “Sister culturists”
would refute this, and instead claim the genre was mutually utilized throughout Mesoamerica,
because it was a convention of all regional centers rather than one originating with the Olmec.
Without delving into too much detail, the hollow baby fragments from San Lorenzo are
temporally congruent with those of the Valley of Oaxaca; three of the San Lorenzo fragments are
from the San Lorenzo A Phase (1150-1050 B.C.E.) (Coe and Diehl 1980: 258), and nearly all the
fragments from San José Mogote and Tierras Largas are from the San José Phase (1150-850
B.C.E.) (Marcus and Flannery 1996: 93). I suggest that considering their temporal consistency of
complete and fragmentary hollow babies, and the genre’s occurrence throughout Mesoamerica
evinces the hollow baby genre’s “glocal-ness.” While hollow babies certainly were used in the
Olmec Heartland, their distribution patterns demonstrate a pan-Mesoamerican tradition, which
was surely caused by the dynamic communication sphere of the Early and Middle Preclassic and
local adaptations and variations on a pan-Mesoamerican model. In other words, hollow babies
had a wide distribution that would be described as “global” but also, in my opinion, probably
held “local” meanings and significance.
In conclusion, what can be assuredly said about the hollow baby genre is this: it is a pan-
Mesoamerican tradition, it appears to be is exclusive to large, regional centers engaged in Early
and Middle Preclassic communication sphere, and there is a strong correlation between the genre
44
and elite households. I will now turn to the possible meanings and explanations the of the hollow
baby genre.
45
Chapter 3
Possible Interpretations of the Hollow Baby Genre
After discussing its “glocal” style and elite associations in the archaeological record, the
next necessary question to delve into is the meaning and significance of the hollow baby genre.
These figurines are intriguing to say the least, from their combination of adult and infantile
features, their lack of a biological sex, and their frequent fragmentation.
Figurines are abundant in Preclassic Mesoamerica, and they have been interpreted in a
multitude of manners.3 Figurines are rarely hollow, and are typically small (Blomster 2002: 172).
As I have already mentioned, figurines are typical of households (Guernsey 2012: 102-103),
while the hollow baby genre in particular seems closely associated with elite households and
activity. Solid and hollow figurines alike are also discovered in either caches or burials in some
regions of Mesoamerica (Marcus 2009). In a number of regions, figurines have been associated
with curing rituals (Follensbee 2000: 65-88), fertility cults (Rands and Rands 1965), ancestor
veneration (Flannery and Marcus 1976; Grove and Gillespie 2002; Marcus 1998, 1999, 2009;
Marcus and Flannery 1994), and life cycles (Cyphers 1993; Joyce 2003; Lesure 1997). Figurines
have also been interpreted as manifestations of social processes and relationships (Long 2011:
83). The validity of these interpretations will not be discussed in this thesis; instead, I will focus
solely on the possible meanings and functions for the hollow baby genre through a discussion of
four of its unique traits: its higher craft specialization, frequent fragmentation, apparent lack of a
sex or gender, and the combination of infant and adult anatomical features. The considerable
corpus of infant imagery in Early and Middle Preclassic art will be discussed in terms of
3 The tradition of figurine creation spanning Mesoamerican history has been addressed in detail
in Halperin et al (2009).
46
similarity to the hollow baby genre, and in other scholar’s explanations. I will conclude with an
outline of other scholars’ interpretations of the hollow baby genre. The goal of this chapter is
simply to summarize and evaluate past rationales, and I will steer away from making definite
explanations of my own. Nonetheless, I do address how some of the possible meanings assigned
to hollow babies make sense in terms of my assertions, based on the data from La Blanca and
that put forth by previous scholars, that hollow babies seem to be associated with elite ritual,
since they are attributed to higher status residences.
Craft Specialization
The production of the hollow baby genre requires a high level of craft specialization,
which demonstrates that there was high value associated with these figurines. Thus, the hollow
baby genre was most likely in the possession of wealthy, elite members of Mesoamerican
society. Hollow babies are composed of six distinct parts, the head, two arms, two legs, and the
torso, which are modeled separately and then welded together. Firing holes would be placed at
the back of the head, under the arms, and at the center of the stomach. These pieces would be
smoothed over, dried, and then covered with the slip (Pohorilenko 1990: 85). After the slip is
applied, the figurines would be burnished to varying degrees of shine (Blomster 2002: 177).
Some hollow babies appear to be very lustrous, others seem to have lost their shine through the
centuries, while others may not have been burnished very finely and never had a shiny surface.
Compared to hollow figurines, solid figurines are much simpler to create. They are
consistently smaller in scale than hollow figurines, and they are easier to fire, since the artisan
does not need to worry about the clay combusting if the firing temperature became too hot. Solid
figurines were typically modeled by hand, either free form or with molds, and thus an artisan
47
with a lower level of expertise could easily create them. The small proportion of hollow figurines
to solid ones also reveals the skill and prestige required to produce hollow figurines over solids
ones.
The extensive skill set required to create hollow babies suggests that specialists were
needed for the production of the genre (Clark 1994; Lesure and Blake 2002). An average Early
Preclassic craftsman did not produce the figurines (Blomster 1998: 322), but instead a skilled,
trained artisan would have. Higher status members of society would have had the resources to be
able to commission these prestige items. Therefore, I argue that given their high level of craft
specialization, hollow babies were implements of pan-Mesoamerican elites.
Why Fragments?
Fragments of solid and hollow figurines alike are found in abundance throughout
Preclassic Mesoamerica, always in higher frequencies than intact figurines (Arroyo 2002; Coe
and Diehl 1980: 260-263; Marcus 1998). While many hollow babies have been preserved intact,
there is a large assemblage of fragments discovered throughout Mesoamerica, as I have already
discussed. According to Blomster (2002: Table 1, 2, 3), there are over forty intact and complete
hollow babies, while there are only twenty-five hollow baby fragments. However, I think it
possible that there are more unaccounted fragments of hollow baby figurines, given the more
complicated nature of labeling merely a small piece of a figurine as apart of the genre compared
to recognizing it in complete figurines. Hollow baby figurine fragments are often mistaken for
ceramic vessel fragments during excavations (Michael Love, personal communication, 2013).
The UT Austin hollow baby itself appears to have a severed head that was later reattached; no
48
documentation provided with the UT object indicates when this reattachment occurred, but it
presumably was done in modern times.
The abundance of solid and hollow figurine fragments may be explained by the Olmec
concept of pars pro toto, the notion that “each part preserves and represents the potency of the
whole” (Long 2011: 85). While this phenomenon can be viewed on the small-scale level in
figurines, pars pro toto is manifested in large-scale, monumental sculpture also. The most
obvious and representative example of this phenomenon is the San Lorenzo colossal heads, in
which the head of a ruler represents the embodied spirit of the personage (Coe 1977: 186-188;
Grove 1981: 65-67). Under this logic, a piece of a hollow baby leg or torso would serve as a
synecdoche for the whole body.
Solely considering solid figurines, there is evidence that solid figurines were purposefully
created to be broken in the future, evinced by the addition of limbs in structurally weak positions
(Long 2011: 94), and the fact that some figurines are broken at strong points on the body, such as
across the head and across the stomach (Follensbee 2009: 89). Coe (1961: 225) suggests that
figurines were ritually interred by their primary users. The evidence that hollow figurines may
have been broken before deposited supports the notion that figurines were purposefully broken
(Blomster 1998: 320). Long (2011) argues that solid figurines were ritually broken to be
distributed to members of a community as a means of social connection, and thus fragments
represented interpersonal relationships. He outlines several non-Precolumbian instances of ritual
breakage, including occurrences in Neolithic Greece and Medieval Europe. I suggest the ritual
breakage of an effigy could equate to Christians breaking bread during communion; the breaking
and distribution of bread symbolizing the body of Christ creates a sense of belonging within the
congregation, since the churchgoers collectively share this experience.
49
Unfortunately, very little research has been conducted on the breakage of hollow
figurines. Nonetheless, I think it plausible that hollow baby figurines were broken to fulfill
similar purposes of forging interpersonal relationships as seen in solid figurines. I suggest that
hollow baby fragments could have represented a means of social inclusion. For instance, while
there are six hollow baby fragments at elite Mound 9 of La Blanca, one fragment was discovered
in the marshy, non-elite residence of Operation 34. Given the implications of solid figurines
fragments in intra-group relationships outlined by Long, perhaps this hollow baby fragment was
given to the commoner occupants of Operation 34 by an elite of Mound 9 in order to unite the
community by distributing elite goods to non-elite residents. This pars pro toto gift could have
increased a notion of inclusivity by all members of La Blanca society, whether they held power
and sway or lived a simple life on the outskirts of the community. This embracing societal
practice could explain the existence of hollow baby fragments in lower status domiciles, as at La
Blanca and at San José Mogote (Marcus 1998: 160).
The notion that hollow baby fragments were ritually interred and distributed through
breakage can help us understand the hollow baby genre, and the rarity of hollow figurine
fragments comparative to solid ones attests to the importance that hollow baby fragments would
have held in the eyes of their possessors.
Sex and Gender: Neutral, Dual, or Incomprehensible?
The hollow baby genre bears no evidence of genitalia. Secondary sexual characteristics
are also difficult to discern. Slight pectoral muscles shape the figurines’ chest, and some scholars
(Niederberger 1996c: 186; Princeton 1995) have concluded that these fleshy muscles classify the
figurines as male. I argue that these secondary sexual characteristics are not substantial enough
50
to be either classified as female breasts or as male pectorals. In addition to the lack of sexual
traits, the figurine’s gender is difficult to ascertain. Gender differs from sex in that it is socially
constructed, not biologically determined (Prince 2005: 29). For instance, hairstyle can be an
indicator of gender, in which society dictates which hairstyles are characteristic of different
sexes. The majority of hollow babies are bald; however, some have tufts of hair atop their heads
(see Berrin and Fields 2010: Plate 132) and others wear helmets or turbans (Figure 8).
Unfortunately, these hairstyles and accoutrements are not revealing of the hollow baby genre’s
associated gender. The seeming lack of a sex or gender is somewhat unusual, given that most
solid Preclassic figurines depict females (Follensbee 2000, 2009; Joyce 2000). There are multiple
possible explanations for this apparent lack of a sex and gender: hollow babies are either
unsexed, dual-sexed, evidence of their sex or gender did not survive the test of time, or it was not
viewed as significant to their meaning.
The belief that the hollow baby genre is unsexed has been explained in multiple manners.
Coe (1965a: 105) has interpreted the lack of a biological sex as a means of representing eunuchs,
while others believe the lack of genitalia embodies children born with sex-negating diseases
(Covarrubias 1957: 58). It is also possible that the hollow baby figurines transcended traditional
gender roles by intentionally denying these figurines genitalia. Blomster (2002: 177) asserts that
the lack of a sex demonstrates that hollow babies are “supra-human or supernatural.” Assuming
these figurines are gender neutral, Joyce (2000: 29) offers an explanation: “[figurines] may better
be understood as media for presenting an aspect of human identity that is independent of sharply
marked dichotomous sexes, a sexually neutral human image.” Therefore, the lack of evident
sexual organs or gender traits in hollow babies may reveal that these figurines were used in
identity creation. There is an argument to be made against attempting to label a sex or gender
51
based on the absence of features. Follensbee (2000: 9-18, 2009: 79) determines the problematic
nature of classifying gender by the lack of sex features rather than the features that are present;
thus, it might not be productive to view the lack of sexual characteristics as indicative of an
unsexed effigy.
Rather than thinking of this class of figurines as unsexed, some scholars (Furst 1995: 69)
have embraced the thought that Early and Middle Preclassic effigies embody both male and
female sexual and gender characteristics. Cultures throughout Mesoamerican history understand
a duality of gender in certain spiritual personages, whether they be ancestors or creator gods
(Guernsey 2012: 156). For example, the Quiché Maya word for diviners translates to “mother-
father.” Tzotzil speakers cannot separate the prayers for their ancestors by gender; when they
pray, they pray to “Sir Father-Madam Mother” (Vogt 1190: 19). While the dual-gendered
personages are typical of other Mesoamerican cultures, it extremely difficult to prove the hollow
baby genre represents both male and female counterparts, since we do not definitely know
whether the genre exhibits ancestors or supernatural gods.
While I am unable to ascertain the sex or gender of the hollow baby- or even whether it
constitutes a dual-gendered notion or alternatively, the lack of gender- that does not exclude the
possibility that ancient producers, viewers, and users understood a particular sex to be embodied
in hollow babies. Benson (1971: 35), Furst (1995: 69), and Marcus (2009: 45) believe it is
possible that Early Preclassic sculpture may have been dressed in removable clothing over the
sculptures’ genitalia. If these figurines were dressed, then there would be no need for genitalia to
be depicted and perhaps we are chasing the carrot on a stick by attempting to discern a gender
through observation. While I am not asserting that hollow babies were used as dolls, it is
interesting to note that if we remove the clothing and hair from dolls in our current culture, there
52
is no sex evident, as noted by Robicsek (1983: 17). Viewing these effigies in the manner in
which they were preserved in bell shaped pits and middens does not necessarily represent the
true intentions of the Early Preclassic artists who created them. I do not want to limit these
effigies to how they currently appear in the modern era; the figurines could have been viewed
and perceived in a drastically different manner in Early Preclassic Mesoamerica, compared to
how they are found in archeological contexts or displayed in museum exhibitions.
So how can this discussion relate to our journey of determining the hollow baby genre’s
meaning and function? I propose there are two diverging possible interpretations: the hollow
baby genre was either unsexed in Preclassic Mesoamerica, and thus represented some sort of
supernatural or otherworldly effigy, or it had an associated gender in its primary context that
does not survive today, which can be indicative of either a literal representation of a human, or
perhaps a gendered god. Of course, there is no definite way to prove either case, or any other
explanation for that matter, and thus we should keep an open mind when discussing sex and
gender in the genre.
Hybrid between Adult and Infantile Features
The hollow baby genre is unusual in that it represents both infant and adult physical
features. Hollow babies have scrunched-up, “crying” faces (Figure 1), hold a finger in their
mouth like a baby would (Figure 3), and there are even hollow babies in crawling positions (see
Princeton 1995: Figure 1). However, most baby effigies have overlapping adult and infantile
features. For instance, Figure 1 has a screeching baby face, but its facial features are more
developed. Therefore, there is a hybridity of adult and baby characteristics evident in the hollow
baby genre.
53
This hybrid effigy was an intentional creation. Early Preclassic artisans had the capability
to create either solely adult of solely infant representations, and thus this hybridity is a conscious
choice by the producers (Blomster 1998: 321; Princeton 1995: 128). But why create a part-infant,
part-adult figurine, especially created out of fine materials and with a higher level of
craftsmanship? Perhaps the hollow baby genre depicts supernaturals, and their human form is
evinced between adult and infantile form. If we assume that hollow babies are representative of
some sort of life cycle phenomenon, then the figurines could be transcending from infant to adult
stages in life. This would imply that the figurines demonstrate literal personages. This is a
difficult question to answer, and there is little research regarding the combination of infantile and
adult features in the scholarly realm.
Infant Imagery & Implications
Infant imagery proliferates in Early and Middle Preclassic art, manifesting itself in a
variety of media such as stone monuments, small-scale jadeite effigies, and ceramic sculptures.
Many of these infant figures, whether represented inertly or active, resemble the hollow baby
genre. La Venta Altar 5 (Figure 16) depicts four infants on either side of the frontal image of a
ruler holding an inert infant in its lap. Two have grooved heads, very similar to the cranial
deformation evident in hollow babies. The other two have cleft heads, a symbol of supernatural
associations (de la Fuente 1996: 162). Babies are held in the laps of multiple seated figurines in
Early Preclassic art, including the Las Limas Figure (see Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Figure
9), the “grandmother” effigies of Xochipala, Guerrero and Las Bocas, Puebla (Figure 29), and
tiny stone figurines which only stand between five and eleven centimeters tall (Princeton 1995:
Figure 33 and 34). Standing figures also hold infants, as seen in Figure 30.
54
These infants bear great resemblances to the hollow baby genre. Their heads appear to be
unrealistically large and disproportionate compared to the torsos, many have downturned
mouths, and all lack a biological sex. There are differences extant though; for example, there is a
contrast between the inert positions of infants depicted in the arms of humans and the seemingly
vivacious facial expressions and positions of hollow babies. Another difference lies in the typical
cleft heads seen in inert infants, like that of the jade figurine and the two active babies on La
Venta Altar 5.
While baby imagery is abundant, the meaning of infant representations remains unclear.
Many scholars interpret these inert babies as supernaturals, deities of rain and lightning, and
crucial to mythology and ritual (Princeton 1995: 159; Follensbee 2006). According to Coe
(1965a: 105), their facial expressions represent that of the “were-jaguar,” having characteristics
of a hybrid between man and jaguar. Niederberger (1996c: 186) asserts that, according to some
Mesoamerican groups, there is the belief that before an infant learned to speak a comprehensible
language, they could communicate with the gods and thus were sacred to ancient
Mesoamericans. Infants held by adult figures could represent an eminent child sacrifice or
ancestor veneration ritual (Princeton 1995: 128; Benson 1996b: 211; de la Fuente 1992: 124;
Follensbee 2006). Tate (1995: 65) asserts that the subject of inert infants in Olmec art represents
grand mal or temporal lobe epilepsy, which leaves children appearing to be temporarily dead.
This medical condition, according to Tate, was interpreted by Mesoamerican as shamanic death
and resurrection.
Other infant effigies are presented on their own, independent of an adult bearer.
Embryonic figures crouch in the fetal position, such as Figures 31 and 32. Carolyn Tate (2012)
argues that embryos, fetuses, and infants are the central themes of Olmec art, because they
55
equate humans to blossoming maize seeds. These crouching figures originally were thought to
represent dwarves or hunchbacks; however, Tate and Bendersky (1999) assert that the bodily
proportions of these effigies represent fetuses from twelve to thirty weeks of age. Like hollow
babies, these fetus representations are fully viable and animate, yet they were at a liminal
moment in their development, between fetus and infant. Prenatal imagery is obviously not the
same as hollow babies, which sit upright, and exhibit adult features; however, it is interesting to
note Tate’s assertion that Early and Middle Preclassic artisans expressed knowledge of and
interest in fetal development.
Interpreting the Hollow Baby Genre
Sixty years ago, the scholarly consensus was that hollow babies represented the “were-
jaguar” myth, meaning the effigies represent the infant offspring of a jaguar and a woman (Coe
1965a, 1965b, Covarrubias 1957). The “were-jaguar” myth is derived from Early Preclassic cave
paintings and monuments which depict possible intercourse between a human and a jaguar
(Grove 1968: Figure 13), and the offspring of this pairing embodied special powers and served as
a deity of lightning and rain. Therefore, hollow babies were perceived as sacred. Hollow babies
were reasoned to be “were-jaguar” infants because the “abstract” nature of their physiognomies,
which were considered otherworldly and unnatural (Coe 1965b). However, the “were-jaguar”
interpretation is largely rejected in more contemporary scholarship (Joralemon 1981: 176; de la
Fuente 1981: 92).
Other explanations abound. Due to the lack of genitalia and the thick, fleshy necks, other
scholars (Robiscek 1983) have argued that hollow babies represented children with a suite of
genetic diseases, including down syndrome or other diseases which negate sex organs in infants.
56
Other scholars have suggested that hollow babies represent chaneques, or mischievous dwarfs
that play tricks on innocent bystanders (Covarrubias 1957: 57). This interpretation could overlap
with the functions of Olmec dwarf figurines, which I will not discuss in this thesis. Hollow
babies have been associated with ancestor lineage rituals and infant cults (Niederberger 1996b:
184). The predominant point of convergence for many of these theses is that hollow babies
represent some form of a supernatural, otherworldly being (Blomster 1998: 322, 2002: 177;
Robiscek 1983). This can be explained by the hollow baby genre’s combination of infant and
adult characteristics, lack of primary sexual characteristics, and the rarity of these figurines in
Preclassic Mesoamerican society. The only contrasting point to a supernatural implication is
Clark’s argument (1994: 420-424) that hollow figurines represented chiefs or rulers; however,
Clark discusses hollow figurines, not specifically hollow babies, when making this assertion. In
addition, Robiscek (1983) interprets the figurine class as merely literal representations of well-
fed infants.
Needless to say, a scholarly consensus of the function and meaning of the hollow baby
genre has yet to be reached. I propose that hollow babies are certainly otherworldly, given their
lack of a biological sex, and held significance in their societies, given the implications of the
fragmentation process (Long 2011) and the high level of skill required to produce them. The
archaeological record only bolsters this argument, since it demonstrates the genre’s widespread
distribution, yet its relative paucity compared to solid figurines. It has been suggested that hollow
babies- and figurines in general- are used in personal domestic ritual (Follensbee 2009: 89; Tate
2012). This interpretation is derived from careful contemplation of practical uses for the hollow
baby genre, and I think this is the best explanation for the functions of the genre.
57
Blomster discusses how hollow babies are used in ritual; however, he does not believe
the genre was utilized solely in private, domestic ritual. Blomster (1998: 322) asserts that hollow
babies represent a hybrid of infants and supernatural:
Hollow babies may depict the union achieved through human communion with the
supernatural or, specifically, with those humans capable of receiving or interacting with
such forces. The individuals or officiates in contact with these forces have been
transformed, revealing within them a basic manifestation of the supernatural.
He asserts that the genre was used more regularly in public ceremonies and rituals than
solid figurines, and he believes the hollow baby uncovered at Etlatongo was used as ritual
paraphernalia along with the other implements discovered in the same bell-shaped pit. Blomster
argues that hollow babies were status items among elites in a time of burgeoning social
complexity and power stratification throughout Mesoamerica, which can be attested by the rarity
of hollow babies compared to solid figurines and their association with high status households.
Therefore, according to Blomster, the hollow baby at Etlatongo is evidence of a new
accoutrement in a pan-Mesoamerican regional cult, meaning the figurine represents Etlatongo’s
participation in the Mesoamerican elites’ tradition of using hollow babies as apart of ritual
devotion. Joralemon (1981: 176) suggests that hollow babies could have been placed in the laps
of other effigies in sculptural tableau, or perhaps could have been held by personages during
ceremonies or rituals.
I would like to call attention an interesting, although perhaps unintentional, features of
the UT Austin hollow baby. If one blows lightly across the hole on the top of the hollow baby, it
produces a whistling sound. This phenomenon has not been documented in other hollow babies
of which I am aware, and it may not be intentional but, rather, the result of purely practical firing
techniques. Lopiparo and Hendon (2009) find that whistles and figurines were used in Terminal
Classic rituals in the Ulúa valley of Honduras, and Guernsey (2012) also documents examples
58
from the Preclassic. However, in all these examples, the scale is considerably different, with
whistles being smaller and more easily held in the hands than the larger, unwieldy hollow babies.
Nonetheless, this point is at least worth noting given the widespread use of whistles in ritual
practices was a widespread phenomenon elsewhere in Mesoamerica.
Elaborating on Blomster’s thesis that hollow babies were used as ritual paraphernalia,
Tate (2012: 69-73) proposes that hollow babies were domestic devotional items and that elite
families curated hollow babies as ritual objects to communicate with the supernatural realm and
their ancestors (see Blomster 1998: 322). She believes Preclassic hollow babies may be
antecedents to the modern Niñopa baby Jesus of Xochimilco; wealthy families serve as stewards
to this holy infant effigy, which comes at a great monetary cost but inversely delivers a “life-
bestowing” force to the family (Tate 2012: 73). Tate supports her argument by noting similarities
between the contexts of the Niñopa and the Etlatongo hollow baby. Since this tradition dates
back 500 years, Tate believes there could be continuity between the Niñopa and Precolumbian
infant imagery; however this interesting practice is exposed to the dangers of disjunction since
the hollow baby genre is 3500 years old.
While there appears to be a strong indication that the hollow baby genre was used in elite,
domestic ritual, it is difficult to prove that there is only one overarching function of this figurine
class. While possible primary functions of this class of figurines may be postulated based on
archaeological evidence, household implements could have served different purposes for
different families, between and within settlement centers. While the hollow baby genre was
assuredly widely dispersed and used throughout Mesoamerica, it more difficult to say with
complete confidence that these figurines were used at La Blanca in the exact same manner as
they were used in the Oaxaca. On a community level, the genre could represent different
59
functions and implications to different users. In the previously mentioned case of the outlier
hollow baby fragment at La Blanca’s Operation 34, the figurine fragment probably held a
different significance to the impoverished family living on the outskirts of the community than to
the elites of Mound 9. In chapter 1, I suggested that Roland Robertson’s term “glocal” serves as
an explanation for the stylistic fusion of both “global,” meaning Olmec, and “local”
characteristics. “Glocal” (in itself a multivocal word) can apply to the varying functions that
hollow babies served in different regional centers, and within communities. Given that hollow
babies were probably used as ritual objects in the home, Krige and Krige (1943: 241) outline this
problematic phenomenon with regards to religious practice more generally:
There are considerable differences from one family to another in the conduct of religious
rites and the nature of shrines and, since religion is primarily a family concern, few
people know what their neighbors do.
Therefore, while we can speculate about the primary utility of the hollow baby, we
cannot assuredly determine how each Early or Middle Preclassic family viewed these figurines,
and it is beyond the scope of this thesis to resolve this problem. Whether representative of
ancestor rituals, supernaturals, or literal infants, what can assuredly be said about hollow babies
is that they are closely associated with elite domiciles and elite ritual practices across
Mesoamerica.
60
Chapter 5
Conclusions
While there are many unknowns surrounding the hollow baby genre, a careful study of
the provenience of the genre’s fragments reveals that there is a strong correlation between the
hollow baby genre and elite domiciles, whether they be recovered from house floors, bell shaped
pits, or middens. Another apparent attribute of the genre, based on available archaeological
evidence, is that it is characteristic of large, regional centers throughout Mesoamerica, and these
sites were all a part of a pan-Mesoamerican communication sphere and trading system. Thus, I
argue that the genre was closely associated with- and perhaps even controlled by- the elite
members of Mesoamerican society. As such, I believe that the genre served as a “status symbol,”
given its rarity compared to solid figurines and its frequent possession by elites.
Thinking of the hollow baby genre as “glocal” ameliorates the inherent problems of
resolving either the “mother culture” or “sister culture” dilemma. Thinking “glocally” allows us
to view the genre as a combination of global and local stylistic characteristics, and as embodying
multiple possible functions between and within communities. I believe that thinking “glocally”
can alleviate many of the problems that scholars face today when dealing with Precolumbian art
and archaeology, and it should be used more frequently. It is a multivocal word that accounts for
overlap between styles and functions, and it acknowledges the intrinsic differences between
communities and the overarching influences of the surrounding world.
Another predominant goal of this thesis was to introduce the hollow baby in the Art and
Art History Collection at the University of Texas at Austin into the scholarly realm. It is an
extremely well preserved example, and while no documentation of its archeological context
61
exists, it still constitutes an important model to further support the consistency in conventions
used in the hollow baby genre. My hope is that this thesis will usher this artifact into the
scholarly realm, so that more research can be conducted to better understand the genre.
Although this thesis contributes evidence in support of the suggestion that the hollow
baby genre was an implement of elite households, a concrete purpose of the genre is difficult to
ascertain, and the point of genesis for hollow babies’ artistic style is also difficult to discern.
Ceramic analysis, such the processes of instrumental neutron activation analysis and
petrographic thin-section analysis, could help scholars better understand the provenience of the
clay used in the genre. This provenience could reveal possible production loci of the genre, and
consequently the genre’s distribution patterns. I would strongly encourage that this type of
analysis be implemented in order to better understand if hollow babies were traded amongst
elites in Mesoamerica, or were created by local specialists and remained in their place of
production until interment.
It is my hope that this thesis has brought to light some of the issues surrounding the
hollow baby genre, and provided some new data and potential approaches to the many questions
surrounding them. What can assuredly be said about the hollow baby genre is that it was an
important yet relatively rare object that was used by individuals, probably elite, at numerous
Mesoamerican regional centers in the Early and Middle Preclassic.
62
Figures
Figure 1: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine (Princeton 1995: Figure 3)
63
Figure 2: Hollow Baby Figurine (Blomster 1998: Figure 2)
64
Figure 3: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine (Blomster 2002: Figure 3)
65
Figure 4: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine with Raised Left Hand (Princeton 1995: Figure 8)
66
Figure 5: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine with Iconographic Detailing (Princeton 1995:
Figure 10)
67
Figure 6: Seated Hollow Baby of Atlihuayán, Morelos (Benson and de la Fuente 1996:
Figure 23)
68
Figure 7: San Lorenzo A Phase Hollow Baby Figurine Head (Coe and Diehl 1980: Figure
326)
69
Figure 8: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine with Raised Right Arm (Princeton 1995: Figure 7)
70
Figure 9: Seated Hollow Baby Figurine (Princeton 1995: Figure 2)
71
Figure 10: Hollow Baby Figurine Holding Ball (Princeton 1995: Figure 132)
72
Figure 11: University of Texas at Austin Hollow Baby Figurine (Kimberly Jones)
73
Figure 12: University of Texas at Austin Hollow Baby Figurine, Back View (Kimberly
Jones)
74
Figure 13: University of Texas at Austin Hollow Baby Figurine, Side View (Kimberly
Jones)
75
Figure 14: San Lorenzo Monument 4 (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Figure 2)
76
Figure 15: Antonio Plaza Monument 1 (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Figure 11)
77
Figure 16: La Venta Altar 5, side view (Tate 1995: Figure 29)
78
Figure 17: Mask from Río Pesquero, Veracruz (Princeton 1995: Figure 187)
79
Figure 18: Hollow Baby Figurine with Splayed Legs (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: Figure
22)
80
Figure 19: San Lorenzo Monument 6 (Coe and Diehl 1980: Figure 429)
81
Figure 20: Hollow Baby Figurine from Etlatongo, Oaxaca (Blomster 1998: Figure 1)
82
Figure 21: Hollow Baby Seated Figurine from Tlapacoya (Benson and de la Fuente 1996:
Figure 21)
83
Figure 22: Map of Mesoamerica (Guernsey 2012: Figure 1.1)
84
Figure 23: Hollow Baby Figurine from Gualupita, Morelos (Vaillant and Vaillant 1934:
Figure 14, Numbers 2 and 3)
85
Figure 24: Hollow Baby Facial Fragment from Etlatongo, Oaxaca (Blomster 2002: Figure
9)
86
Figure 25: Head of a Hollow, White-Slipped Clay Figurine from Site 5 at
Teopantecuantilán, Guerrero (Niederberger 1996: Figure 4)
87
Figure 26: Hollow Baby Head Fragment from San Lorenzo, Veracruz (Coe and Diehl 1980:
Figure 327)
88
Figure 27: Hollow Baby Head Fragment from Paso de la Amado, Chiapas (Blomster 2002:
Figure 8)
89
Figure 28: Hollow Baby Fragments from La Blanca, Guatemala (Michael Love)
90
Figure 29: Old Woman Holding Infant in Lap (Princeton 1995: Figure 5)
91
Figure 30: Jade Standing Figure Carrying Were-Jaguar Baby (Benson and de la Fuente
1996: Figure 48)
92
Figure 31: Figure with Crossed Arms (Princeton 1995: Figure 116)
93
Figure 32: Jade Figure Holding Head (Princeton 1995: Figure 114)
94
References
Arroyo, Bárbara.
2002. Appendix I: Classification of La Blanca Figurines. In Early Complex Society in
Pacific Guatemala: Settlements and Chronology of the Rio Naranjo, Guatemala,
ed. Michael W. Love, pp. 205-235. Papers of the New World Archaeological
Foundation 66. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
Benson, Elizabeth P.
1971. An Olmec Figurine at Dumbarton Oaks. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and
Archaeology 8. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
1996a. History of Olmec Investigations. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, eds. Elizabeth
P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 17-27. Washington, DC: National Gallery
of Art.
1996b. Standing Figure Carrying Were-Jaguar Baby. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico,
eds. Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 211. Washington, DC:
National Gallery of Art.
Benson, Elizabeth P., and Beatriz de la Fuente, eds.
1996. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
Berrin, Kathleen, and Virginia M. Fields, eds.
2010. Olmec: Colossal Masterworks of Ancient Mexico. San Francisco: Fine Arts
Museums of San Francisco.
Blomster, Jeffrey P.
1998. Context, Cult, and Early Formative Public Ritual in the Mixteca Alta: Analysis of a
Hollow Baby Figurine from Etlatongo, Oaxaca. In Ancient Mesoamerica
9(2):309-326
2002. What and Where is Olmec Style? Regional Perspectives on Hollow Figurines in
Early Formative Mesoamerica. In Ancient Mesoamerica 13(2):171-195.
Blomster, Jeffrey P., Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock.
2005. Olmec Pottery Production and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined Through
Elemental Analysis. Science 307: 1068-1072.
Clark, John E.
1994. The Development of Early Formative Rank Societies in the Soconusco, Chiapas,
Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Clark, John E., and Mary E. Pye.
2000. The Pacific Coast and the Olmec Question. In Olmec Art and Archeology in
Mesoamerica, eds. John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 217-251. Studies in the
History of Art, no. 58. Washington, DC: Center for Advanced Study in the Visual
Arts, National Gallery of Art.
95
Coe, Michael D.
1961. La Victoria: An Early Site on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. 53.
Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
1965a. The Jaguar’s Children: Pre-Classic Central Mexico. New York: Museum of
Primitive Art.
1965b. The Olmec Style and Its Distribution. In Handbook of Middle American Indians,
vol. 3, part 2, ed. Robert Wauchope, pp. 739-775. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
1977. Olmec and Maya: A Study in Relationships. In The Origins of Maya Civilization,
ed. Richard E. W. Adams, pp. 183-195. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Coe, Michael D., and Richard Diehl.
1980. In the Land of the Olmec. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Covarrubias, Miguel.
1957. Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Cyphers, Ann.
1993. Women, rituals, and social dynamics at ancient Chalcatzingo. Latin American
Antiquity 4: 209-224.
de la Fuente, Beatriz.
1981. Toward a Conception of Monumental Olmec Art. In The Olmec and Their
Neighbors, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 83-94. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks.
1984 Los hombres de piedra: escultura olmeca, 2d ed. Mexico City: Instituto de
Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
1992. Order and Nature in Olmec Art. In The Ancient Americas: Art from Sacred
Landscapes, ed. Richard F. Townsend, pp. 120-133. Chicago: Art Institute of
Chicago.
1996. San Martín Pajapan Monument 1 – Crouching Figure with Headdress and
Ceremonial Bar. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, eds. Elizabeth P. Benson and
Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 162. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
Flannery, Kent V.
1976a. The Early Mesoamerican House. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, ed. Kent V.
Flannery, pp. 16-24. New York: Academic Press.
1976b. The Early Formative Household Cluster on the Guatemalan Pacific Coast. In The
Early Mesoamerican Village, ed. Kent V. Flannery, pp. 31-34. New York:
Academic Press.
Flannery, Kent V., A. K. Balkansky, G. M. Feinman, D. C. Grove, J. Marcus, E. M. Redmond,
R. G. Reynolds, R. J. Sharer, C. S. Spencer, and J. Yaeger.
96
2005. Implications of New Petrographic Anaylsis for the Olmec “Mother Culture”
Model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 11219-11223.
Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus.
1976. Formative Oaxaca and the Zapotec Cosmos. American Scientist 64 (4): 374-383.
1994. Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Prehistory and Human
Ecology of the Valley of Oaxaca, Vol. 10. Memoirs of the Museum of
Anthropology, No. 27. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
2000. Formative Mesoamerican Chiefdoms and the Myth of the “Mother Culture.”
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 1-37.
Follensbee, Billie J. A.
2000. Sex and Gender in Olmec Art and Archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Art History and Archaeology, University of Maryland, College Park.
2006. The Child and the Childlike in Olmec Art and Archaeology. In The Social
Experience of Childhood in Ancient Mesoamerica, eds. Traci Ardren and Scott R.
Hutson, pp. 249-280. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
2009. Formative Period Gulf Coast Ceramic Figurines: The Key to Identifying Sex,
Gender, and Age Groups in Gulf Coast Olmec Imagery. In Mesoamerican
Figurines: Small-Scale Indices of Large-Scale Social Phenomena, eds. Christina
T. Halperin, Katherine A. Faust, Rhonda Taube, and Aurore Giguet, pp. 77-118.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Furst, Peter T.
1995. Shamanism, Transformation, and Olmec Art. In The Olmec World: Ritual and
Rulership, pp. 69-82. Princeton: The Art Museum, Princeton University.
Gallegos Gómora, M. Judith.
1990. Excavaciones en la Estructura D-7 en La Venta, Tabasco. Arqueología 3: 17-24.
Grove, David C.
1968. Chalcatzingo, Morelos, Mexico: A Re-appraisal of the Olmec Rock Carvings.
American Antiquity 33: 468-491.
1981. Olmec Monuments: Mutilation as a Clue to Meaning. In The Olmec and their
Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson,
pp. 48-68. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
1989. Olmec: What’s in a Name? In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, eds. Robert J.
Sharer, David C. Grove. pp. 8-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1996. Archaeological Contexts of Olmec Art Outside of the Gulf Coast. In Olmec Art of
Ancient Mexico, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 105-117.
Washington DC: National Gallery of Art.
Grove, David C., and Susan D. Gillespie.
2002. Middle Formative Domestic Ritual at Chalcatzingo, Morelos. In Domestic Ritual in
Ancient Mesoamerica, ed. Patricia Plunket, pp. 11-19. Cotsen Institute of
97
Archaeology Monograph 46. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of
California.
Guernsey, Julia.
2012. Sculpture and Social Dynamics in Preclassic Mesoamerica. Cambridge:
Cambridge University of Press.
Hall, D. W., G. A. Hawsell, and T. A. Oxley
1956. Underground Storage of Grain. British Colonial Office, Pest Information
Laboratory, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. London: H. M.
Stationery Office.
Halperin, Christina T, Katherine A. Faust, Rhonda Taube, and Aurore Giguet, eds.
2009. Mesoamerican Figurines: Small-Scale Indices of Large-Scale Social Phenomena.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Hirth, Kenneth.
1992. Interregional Exchange as Elite Behavior: An Evolutionary Perspective. In
Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, eds. Diane Z. Chase and
Arlen F. Chase, pp. 18-29. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Jones, Kimberly.
2012. Proposal for the Art and Art History Collection. Unpublished manuscript in the
Department of Art and Art Histrory, University of Texas at Austin.
Joralemon, David P.
1981. The Old Woman and the Child: Themes in the Iconography of Preclassic
Mesoamerica. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew
W. Stirling, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 163-180. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks.
Joyce, Rosemary A.
2000. Gender and Power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
2003. Making Something of Herself: Embodiment in Life and Death at Playa de los
Muertos, Honduras. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13: 248-261.
Joyce, T. A., and H. A. Knox
1931. Sculpted Figurines from Vera Cruz State, Mexico. Man XXXI: 17. Plate B.
Krige, Eileen J., and Jacob D. Krige
1943. The Realm of a Rain-Queen: A Study of the Pattern of Lovedu Society. London:
Oxford University Press.
Lesure, Richard G.
98
1997. Figurines and Social Identities in Early Sedentary Societies of Coastal Chiapas,
Mexico, 1550-800 b.c. In Women in Prehistory: North America and
Mesoamerica, eds. Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 227-248.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lesure, Richard G., and Michael Blake.
2002. Interpretive Challenges in the Study of Early Complexity: Economy, Ritual, and
Architecture at Paso de la Amada, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 21: 1-24.
Long, Michael J.
2011. Tab Figurines and Social Identity at Middle Preclassic La Blanca. Master’s thesis,
Department of Art and Art History, University of Texas at Austin.
Lopiparo, Jeanne, and Julia A. Hendon.
2009. Honduran Figurines and Whistles in Social Context: Production, Use, and Meaning
in the Ulúa Valley. In Mesoamerican Figurines: Small-Scale Indices of Large-
Scale Social Phenomena, eds. Christina T. Halperin, Katherine A. Faust, Rhonda
Taube, and Aurore Giguet, pp. 51-76. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Love, Michael, and Julia Guernsey.
2006. The Context and Associations of Monument 3 from La Blanca, Guatemala.
Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI),
Crystal River, FL. http://www.famsi.org/reports/05051/index.html.
2011. La Blanca and the Soconusco Middle Formative. In Formative Period Soconusco,
ed. Richard Lesure. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Marcus, Joyce.
1998. Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca: Figurine-Making, Divination, Death, and
the Ancestors. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology no. 33. Ann Arbor:
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
1999. Men’s and Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca. In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic
Mesoamerica, eds. David C. Grove and Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 67-96.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
2009. Rethinking Figurines. In Mesoamerican Figurines: Small-Scale Indices of Large-
Scale Social Phenomena, eds. Christina T. Halperin, Katherine A. Faust, Rhonda
Taube, and Aurore Giguet, pp. 25-50. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Marcus, Joyce, and Kent V. Flannery.
1996. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley.
New Aspects of Antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson.
Martínez Donjuán, Guadalupe.
1986. Teopantecuanitlan. In Arqueología y étnohistoria del estado de Guerrero, pp. 55-
82. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
1995. Teopantecuanitlan. Arqueología Mexicana 2 (12): 58-62.
99
2001. Teopantecuanitlan. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures, vol. 3,
ed. David Carraso, pp. 200-201. Translated by Scott Sessions. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Merrin, Edward H., and Linda Shildkraut.
1985. Pre-Columbian Masterpieces: Mexico, Peru, Central America, American Indian.
New York: Edward H. Merrin Gallery.
Neff, H., J. P. Blomster, M. D. Glascock, R. L. Bishop, M. J. Blackman, M. D. Coe, R. A. Diehl,
S. D. Houston, A. A. Joyce, C. P. Lipo, B. L. Stark, and M. Winter.
2006. Methodological Issues in the Provenance Investigation of Early Formative
Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 17: 54-56.
Neiderberger, Christine B.
1976. Zohapilco: Cinco milenios de ocupación humana en un sitio lacustre de la Cuenca
de México. Colección Cientifíca 30. Ciudad Mexico: Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Hsitoria.
1996a. Olmec Horizon Guerrero. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, ed. Elizabeth P.
Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 95-103. Washington DC: National Gallery
of Art.
1996b. Hollow Seated Figure with Fats Cheeks and Splayed Legs. In Olmec Art of
Ancient Mexico, eds. Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 184.
Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
1996c. Hollow Seated Figure with Splayed Legs. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, eds.
Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 186. Washington, DC: National
Gallery of Art.
Ochoa, Patricia.
1996. Hollow Seated Figure with Upraised Arm. In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, eds.
Elizabeth P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 185. Washington DC: National
Gallery of Art.
Parsons, Lee A., John B. Carlson, and Peter D. Joralemon.
1988. The Face of Ancient Mesoamerica. Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art.
Piña Chan, Román, and Valentín López González.
1952. Excavations en Atlihuayán, Morelos. Tlatoani 1(1): 12-15.
Pohorilenko, Anatole.
1990. The Structure and Periodization of the Olmec Representational System. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans.
Pool, Christopher A.
2007. Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
100
Prince, Virginia.
2005. Sex vs. Gender. International Journal of Transgenderism 8(4): 29-32.
Princeton, The Art Museum.
1995. The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Rands, Robert L., and Barbara C. Rands.
1965. Pottery Figurines of the Maya Lowlands. In Handbook of Middle American
Indians, vol. 2, eds. Robert Wauchope and Gordon Willey, pp. 535-560. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Reilly, Kent F III.
1995. Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World. In The Olmec World: Ritual and
Rulership, pp. 27-46. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Robertson, Roland.
1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage Productions.
1994. Globalization or glocalization? Journal of International Communication 1(1): 33-
52.
1995. Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity. In Global
Modernities, eds. Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson, pp. 25-
44. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
1997. Social Theory, Cultural Relatively ad the Problem of Globality. In Culture,
Globalization and the World-System: Contemporary Conditions for the
Representation of Identity, ed. Anthony D. King, pp. 69-91. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Robertson, Roland, and Kathleen M. White.
2002. Globality and Modernity. London: Sage Productions.
Robiscek, Francis.
1983. Of Olmec Babies and Were-Jaguars. Mexicon 5(1): 7-19.
Schapiro, Meyer.
1953. Style. In Anthropology Today, ed. A. L. Kroeber, pp. 287-312. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Stoltman, J. B., J. Marcus, K. V. Flannery, J. H. Burton, and R. G. Moyle.
2005. Petrographic Evidence Shows That Pottery Exchange Between the Olmec and
Their Neighbors Was Two-Way. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 102: 11213-11218.
Tate, Carolyn E.
1995. Art in Olmec Culture. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership, pp. 47-67.
Princeton: The Art Museum, Princeton University.
101
2012. Reconsidering Olmec Visual Culture: The Unborn, Women, and Creation. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Tate, Carolyn E., George Bendersky
1999. Olmec Sculptures of the Human Fetus. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine
42(3): 303-332.
Tolstoy, Paul, and Louise I. Paradis.
1970. Early and Middle Preclassic Culture in the Basin of Mexico. Science 167(3917):
344-351.
Vaillant, Susannah B., and George C. Vaillant.
1934. Excavations at Gualupita. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History 35, Pt. 1. New York: American Museum of Natural History.
Vogt, Evon Z.
1990. The Zinacantecos of Mexico: A Modern Maya Way of Life, 2d ed. Fort Worth, TX:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Weiant, Clarence W.
1943. An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 139. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Winter, Marcus C.
1976. The Archaeological Household Cluster in the Valley of Oaxaca. In The Early
Mesoamerican Village, ed. Kent V. Flannery, pp. 25-31. New York: Academic
Press.
