Chapter 2

Interaction and Exchange in Early Formative Western and Central Mesoamerica

New Data from Coastal Oaxaca

Guy David Hepp

The archaeology of Mesoamerica’s Early Formative period (2000–1000 cal BC) is, in many ways, a quest to better understand networks of interaction and exchange encouraging shared sociocultural characteristics that came to distinguish the region in subsequent centuries (e.g., Drennan 1984; Flannery 1968; Joyce 2004; Lesure 2004; Zeitlin 1994). In recent decades, Paul Kirchhoff’s (1943) original list of shared traits for defining Mesoamerica has been revised (e.g., Clark 1991:22) or replaced by one of “shared practices” (Joyce 2004:3). Foremost among these practices, according to Rosemary Joyce (2004:4), were “subsistence production,” “long-distance exchange,” “cosmology and ritual,” and “social stratification.” As Joyce (2004:3) pointed out, the culture area model has largely been laid to rest because it does not help us to distinguish which traits or practices are most important or explain their origins or interconnectedness. Despite these revisions to diffusionist thinking, mounting evidence suggests that many areas of Mesoamerica shared significant sociocultural changes during the Archaic-Formative transition (Clark and Cheetham 2002; Clark et al. 2007). Unfortunately, most of our information about that watershed moment of historical transformation is based on research in only a few regions, including highland Mexico (Flannery and Marcus 2003; MacNeish 1972; Niederberger 1979; Piña Chan 1958), the Gulf Coast (e.g., Arnold 2009; Cyphers and Zurita-Noguera 2012), and the Soconusco region of Chiapas and Guatemala (e.g., Blake and Clark 1999; Clark 2004; Lesure 2011). Increasingly, new research from lowland areas (e.g., Inomata et al. 2013; Lohse 2010) and coastal zones outside of the Gulf Coast and Soconusco hotspots (e.g., Hepp 2015; Joyce and Henderson 2001) has begun to broaden the data set for this time of widespread change. In this chapter, I present evidence for relationships of interaction and exchange held by the people of La Consentida, an Early Formative period village site on the western coast of Oaxaca, Mexico (figure 2.1).

Originally rediscovered by archaeologists in the 1980s (see A. Joyce 1991, 2005), La Consentida is located in Oaxaca’s lower Río Verde Valley. The site has been the focus of concerted investigation since 2008 (Hepp 2011a, 2014, 2015). Six radiocarbon samples (1947–1530 cal BC) from secure contexts such as hearths sealed between platform fill layers and burned food adhering to the interior of a cooking jar from a midden (table 2.1) have demonstrated the site’s early chronological position relative to other Mesoamerican villages (Hepp 2015). A seventh sample, which dates to the Middle Formative (1000–400 cal BC), came from a near-surface context and was likely contaminated by a surface burning event subsequent to site abandonment. Investigations at the site have been coordinated to answer a central research question, namely, what were the nature of and relationships between practices of mobility, subsistence, and social organization at La Consentida during the initial Early Formative period?

Table 2.1. AMS radiocarbon dates from La Consentida^a

^a Calibrated with IntCal 13 curve by OxCal 4.2 and reported with both 1σ and 2σ probability.

^b A. Joyce 2005:17.

Despite the focus that this research has placed on evidence for the establishment of sedentism and changing dietary practices, the analysis of numerous artifact classes has also provided tantalizing evidence that this early village was not an anachronistic isolate, but was instead part of an interregional network of interacting communities. In this chapter, I will place particular emphasis on ceramic and lithic evidence for La Consentida’s relationships of interregional interaction and exchange. This discussion hinges upon describing vessel forms and decorative styles found in the Tlacuache phase (1950–1500 cal BC) ceramic assemblage, the early and well-dated collection of pottery recovered from La Consentida (Hepp 2015). I will argue that the evidence of ceramic style and of obsidian sourcing indicates interaction with central Mexico, highland Oaxaca, and west Mexico. I conclude that the Tlacuache assemblage is an early example of the Red-on-Buff ceramic horizon, a pottery tradition from western Mesoamerica emphasizing jars and simple, geometric decorations painted with red pigment (see Winter 1992:27–28). As a matter of conjecture, I also suggest that La Consentida’s ties to west Mexico evince a broader exchange relationship that saw some of Mesoamerica’s earliest pottery inspired by contact with areas further afield, perhaps including South America (see Ford 1969; Kelly 1980).

Comparing Tlacuache, Barra, and Tierras Largas Ceramic Assemblages

Studying Mesoamerica’s earliest pottery is relevant for improving our understandings of the relationships between technology, subsistence, communal activity, and networks of exchange in the origins of farming villages and political complexity. The Soconusco region’s Barra phase (1900–1700 cal BC) ceramics are generally accepted as the earliest pottery in Pacific coastal Mesoamerica. Barra pottery is “remarkably sophisticated,” is often decorated, and is frequently reminiscent of plants such as gourds (Clark and Blake 1994:25). Clark (2004; Clark and Blake 1994; Clark et al. 2007:25), and others have suggested that these ceramics were instrumental in competitive feasting that promoted social complexity in the Soconusco. In Oaxaca, the Espiridión (1900–1650 cal BC) and Tierras Largas (1650–1500 cal BC) phases—the former of which lacks radiocarbon dates and is now questioned by some as distinct from Tierras Largas, —have previously been recognized as producing the region’s earliest ceramics and some of the first examples of the Red-on-Buff horizon (Flannery and Marcus 1994; Winter 1992:27–28).1 Tlacuache pottery, so far clearly defined only at La Consentida, appears to predate Tierras Largas by two or three centuries (Hepp 2015:table 1.2). A few nearby sites in the lower Río Verde Valley contain redeposited Early Formative materials, and future work should help to refine understandings of early ceramics in the region (see Gillespie 1987; Grove 1988; A. Joyce et al. 2009:349–350; Zárate Morán 1995).

Tlacuache ceramics share with their highland Oaxacan counterparts a vessel form ratio that differs strongly from the more tecomate-emphasizing and decorated Barra tradition. Both the Tlacuache and Tierras Largas assemblages contain fewer phytomorphic (or “plant-like”) vessels than does the Barra assemblage (Clark and Blake 1994; Flannery and Marcus 1994:55–101). Tlacuache ceramics, though apparently contemporaneous with the Barra phase, instead consist mainly of jars, followed in relative emphasis by bowls, bottles, and more specific variants of these basic types (figure 2.2). Tecomates and probable phytomorphs are present at La Consentida, though they are rare. Figure 2.3 demonstrates differences in the relative frequencies of vessel forms between the Tlacuache, Barra, and Tierras Largas phases. Of note are the similarities in vessel form ratios between Tierras Largas and Tlacuache, both of which are quite different from the Barra assemblage, which lacks jars and bottles.2 Important differences between the Tlacuache and Tierras Largas assemblages include the higher percengtages of bottles and tecomates in the former. As the higher frequency of bottles and the presence of grater bowls suggests, the Tlacuache assemblage is more formally diverse than Tierras Largas. Alhough Tierras Largas and Tlacuache ceramics have relatively similar vessel form ratios, the assemblages differ in terms of both plastic and painted decoration styles.

Tlacuache ceramics generally lack the red-painted interior designs of the Tierras Largas assemblage (e.g., Flannery and Marcus 1994:figs. 8.22–8.26). Additionally, “rocker stamping” found on some Tierras Largas vessels (e.g., Flannery and Marcus 1994:fig. 8.18) is absent from the Tlacuache assemblage. Both assemblages share the use of red paint and/or slip for exterior decoration. Vessel forms of greatest similarity between the Tlacuache and Tierras Largas collections are generic types also found among early ceramics of central and western Mesoamerica, rather than particularly diagnostic forms. Statistical analyses demonstrate that ceramics from the Barra, Tierras Largas, and Tlacuache phases differ significantly and demand to be assigned to discrete assemblages.3

Ceramics from one La Consentida midden in particular (LC12 H-F4) consisted almost entirely (93%) of jars, most of which are globular in form. The rapid deposition of the context is indicated by cross-fitting fragments from as much as 60 cm apart in excavated depth.4 Vessels from this area (e.g., figure 2.4) appear formally similar to Tierras Largas phase globular jars (Flannery and Marcus 1994:frontispiece A, 45–101; Rámirez Urrea 1993:figs. 48, 57–59). Some Tierras Largas jars have rounded bases, however, while most Tlacuache vessel bases are flatter (see Rámirez Urrea 1993:figs. 36, 38). Undecorated semispherical bowls from this same midden (figure 2.5a) are also similar to Tierras Largas examples. Neither the jars nor the bowls are very diagnostic Early Formative vessels, however. Tlacuache jars are also similar to some from Tlatilco (e.g., Piña Chan 1958:figs. 36.c, 41.b) and Zohapilco (Niederberger 1976:lám. LIX). Four small fragments of finely burnished and slipped “kidney-shaped bowls” (figure 2.5b) from another midden (LC12 E-F9-s1) also appear similar to Tierras Largas vessels (cf. Flannery and Marcus 1994:fig. 7.2). Again, such bowls are not a particularly diagnostic type, as they also appear at Zohapilco (Niederberger 1976:lám. LII.16, 25, lám. LIV.16, foto 37) and at Tlatilco (Piña Chan 1958:fig. 40j, lám. 21).

Relatively little is known about Purrón phase (1900–1680 cal BC) pottery from the Tehuacán Valley (though see Clark and Gosser 1995; García Cook and Merino Carrión 2005). The few remains of this tradition that have been recovered show close parallels with Espiridión and Tierras Largas, and thus also with Tlacuache. Particular similarities between Tlacuache and Purrón appear in the form of globular jars (e.g., García Cook and Merino Carrión 2005:fig. 2), which are also the vessels showing most similarity between Tlacuache and the Early Formative highland Oaxacan wares. Key differences between Tlacuache and Purrón pottery include the apparently higher percentage of tecomates among the latter (García Cook and Merino Carrión 2005), and the greater prevalence of decorated or slipped vessels and the significant numbers of ceramic figurines associated with the former (Hepp 2015:ch. 7).

The similarities between coastal and highland undecorated utilitarian cooking jars and semispherical bowls, despite marked dissimilarity between the decorated vessels of these traditions, deserve some explanation. For example, contrast the style of some decorated Tlacuache wares (figure 2.6) with those from the Tierras Largas phase (Flannery and Marcus 1994:figs. 8.22–8.27, 8.30, 8.31, and 8.34; Rámirez Urrea 1993:figs. 62–65). One interpretation of this discrepancy is that only La Consentida’s utilitarian wares adhered to traditions of manufacture shared with highland Oaxacan and central Mexican communities. Isabel Kelly (1980; see also Anawalt 1998) suggested that there may have been an extensive interaction network involving trade along the Pacific coast of Mesoamerica. Such a network, likely utilizing watercraft, could explain why decorated wares from early coastal sites such as La Consentida share more in common with traditions far to the west than they do with highland Oaxacan ceramics. If fancy serving vessels such as decorated bowls and bottles were meant for public display employing motifs meaningful to visitors from nearby and distant coastal zones sharing in that decorative tradition, it could also explain why such vessels appear in probable feasting middens (e.g., LC12 E-F16 through E-F9) rather than in cooking middens (LC12 H-F4). I will revisit the issue of interaction with west Mexico in a separate section below.

Although some of La Consentida’s ceramics suggest interaction with highland Oaxaca and western Mexico, other vessels are of a style whose interregional affiliations are more difficult to trace. Small grater bowls from the site (figure 2.7) come in various forms, including as rounded conical bowls with flat bottoms and (more rarely) as conical bowls with pouring spouts, as square bowls, and as semispherical bowls. Some examples exhibit considerable use wear. The two most complete of these ashtray-sized vessels were recovered as offerings with children’s burials. These grater bowls are not totally without counterparts in other regions. Vessels bearing similar weaving-inspired incised motifs are found in highland Oaxaca (Flannery and Marcus 1994:figs. 12.142 and 12.143; Marcus and Flannery 1996:96), at Cantón Corralito (Cheetham 2010:180), and elsewhere. For example, Rosenswig (2010:157–159) discussed grater bowls from the Soconusco region as a vessel type specific to the Middle Formative Conchas phase (1000–850 cal BC). Although Conchas phase grater bowls and Tlacuache grater bowls share the basic feature of interior incision, Conchas examples are larger, have more complex silhouette shapes, and sometimes lack incisions extending across the entire interior bottom of the vessel. This leads me to infer that their uses may have differed. Also unlike the Conchas phase examples, Tlacuache grater bowls lack applique supports. Geometric designs on Formative period vessels in various regions sometimes appear on the exterior of vessels (e.g., Cheetham 2010:180), while Tlacuache grater bowls bear their incisions on the interior base and sometimes on the interior wall all the way to the rim. Grove (1984:42, 80–81, 103) has also discussed bowls with interior incising from Chalcatzingo. Notably, these bowls appear to have been decorative rather than utilitarian (at least as pertains to their incised designs) and have rounded bottoms. Like the Conchas phase examples, the Chalcatzingo vessels do not represent good analogs for La Consentida’s grater bowls, which were in some cases extensively used to grate, and even to pour (see figure 2.7b), some substance or substances.

Formative period grater bowls with interior incising are also found in highland Oaxaca, but are rare, executed in gray rather than brown paste, and occur in later phases such as San José and Guadalupe (see Flannery and Marcus 1994:figs. 12.74, 12.101). Perhaps the best-known examples of grater bowls among later Oaxacan ceramics can be found in the G-12 type of the Pe (500–100 BC) and Nisa (100 BC–AD 200) phases (see Caso et al. 1967:fig. 130b; A. Joyce 2010:150, 187, fig. 5.7c). Much later examples also occur in the Xoo phase (AD 500–800), and these again tend to be gray wares (Martínez López et al. 2000:165–166). The bowl shown in figure 2.7a has rim notching similar to that of some nongrater Tierras Largas phase semispherical bowls (cf. Flannery and Marcus 1994:fig. 8.9). Some of the interior-incised bowls at Tlatilco (e.g., Piña Chan 1958:figs. 38a, 38b, see also geometric designs demonstrated in fig. 47) have incisions similar to Tlacuache grater bowls, though the examples from La Consentida appear smaller and lack tripod supports. As with the Tlatilco examples, Zohapilco bowls with interior incision in geometric patterns are somewhat similar to Tlacuache grater bowls (Niederberger 1976:láms. XXXVI, XLV.22, and LI). Despite minor similarities with decorative patterns on vessels from other regions, the La Consentida grater bowls seem to be a relatively distinctive type. Regarding comparison with west Mexico (see discussion below), Kelly (1980:31) noted that both the Capacha and Opeño phase (approx. 1450–1150 cal BC) ceramics lack grater bowls.

Given consistencies in the form and placement of the interior incisions of the Tlacuache grater bowls, it seems certain that they served some food-processing or crafting need. Because the complex, incised designs in these bowls were carefully executed (likely drawing inspiration from the geometric patterns of woven basketry), their artistic value must also have been significant. The fact that two examples (figures 2.7a and b) were recovered with child burials may suggest that grater bowls were used to process children’s food and perhaps aided in weaning.5 Notably, the children buried with La Consentida’s two most complete grater bowls were of weaning age, according to the onset of linear enamel hypoplasias identified in the overall population (Hepp et al. 2017). A future absorbed residue analysis may be the only way to definitively identify the uses of these vessels (see Morell-Hart et al. 2014; Seinfeld et al. 2009). The Ojochi (1750–1550 cal BC) and Bajío phase ceramics of the Gulf Coast are combined into a single phase by some researchers (e.g., Arnold 2003; Rodríguez Martínez et al. 1997:82 [cited in Arnold 2003]). These ceramics (YPM ANT 255088, 255093, 255099, 255101, 255105, 255109; 255207, 255221) include long-necked bottles, sherd disks, zoned and impressed banded decoration, globular jars, decorated tecomates, and phytomorphs that appear similar to some Tlacuache wares (figure 2.8).6 Powis and colleagues (2011:8597, 8599) noted that an Ojochi bottle and a Bajío “necked jar” and “open bowl” tested positive for cacao. Bottles emulating plants, bearing “geometric designs painted in red,” and which were used for cacao consumption have also been identified in the coastal Honduran Ocotillo phase (Joyce and Henderson 2007:645). Bottles from La Consentida generally resemble these cacao vessels, though residue analysis is necessary to identify their uses. As demonstrated by Powis and colleagues (2007, 2008), some early Soconusco ceramics were also used for cacao, emphasizing that chocolate was widely consumed in the Early Formative regardless of specific vessel types used to contain it.

Additional parallels between the La Consentida ceramics and those from other Early Formative sites are evident. The probable effigy vessel shown in figure 2.9, for instance, appears to be similar to one discussed by Piña Chan (1958:32) from a burial at Tlatilco. A few bottles from Tlatilco (e.g., Piña Chan 1958:figs. 34i, j, k, 35v, w, 37ñ, o, p, r, s, 39y, z, a¹, b¹, 43r, 44k, 46f) also resemble Tlacuache bottles. Although some of the bold, geometric designs of the Tlatilco vessels are reminiscent of Tlacuache examples, the Olmec-inspired iconography found at Tlatilco is absent at La Consentida, as the site’s entire occupation appears to predate the Olmecoid horizon. Similar bottles were also recovered at Zohapilco, and likely date to the Manantial phase (approx. 1250–1050 cal BC; Niederberger 1976:lám. XXXVI.11, 12).

Early radiocarbon dates from La Consentida are unequivocally associated with both mounded earthen architecture and pottery. For example, carbonized food remains from the interior of a jar fragment found in a primary midden deposit returned an AMS radiocarbon date of 3419 ± 36 (AA104836; carbonized food; δ13C, −15.5) or 1876–1626 cal BC (see table 2.1). These early dates for the Tlacuache assemblage, when considered in conjunction with basic differences between it and the Barra assemblage, force us to question the argument that Mesoamerica’s earliest ceramics were introduced from Central America along the Pacific coast of Chiapas and Guatemala (Clark and Blake 1994; Lowe 2007). Certainly, early Central American ceramics are likely candidates for influencing some of Mesoamerica’s first potters (see Bradley 1994; Hoopes 1994). In addition to those southeastwardly connections, however, a very early ceramic tradition seems to have appeared west of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec by at least 1900 cal BC. As I will discuss below, Tlacuache ceramics seem to exemplify the Red-on-Buff horizon, rather than the Early Formative Soconusco tradition incorporating pottery from the Barra and Locona (1700–1550 cal BC) phases (see Clark 1991; Winter 1992:27–28). These Red-on-Buff and Soconusco ceramic macrotraditions may relate to broad patterns of cultural and linguistic distribution (Clark 1991; Josserand et al. 1984; Winter 1992; Winter and Sánchez Santiago 2014a).

Ceramic Evidence for a Pacific Coastal Interaction Network

Decades ago, Kelly (1980:37) suggested that archaeologists should explore what she believed was a Formative period Pacific coastal interaction sphere in western Mesoamerica, which perhaps brought ceramic technology and decorative inspiration northward out of lower Central America and South America. Citing evidence for a broadly dispersed ceramic tradition with ties to the Capacha phase, Kelly believed that west Mexican decorative motifs likely had Formative period counterparts in coastal zones further to the southeast. She noted (37) that Capacha may have been merely one of several “landfalls along the Pacific coast” of this tradition and that a lack of information from early deposits in other coastal areas (such as Oaxaca and Guerrero) represented a challenge to understanding that potential interaction network. Decorative elements found in La Consentida’s Tlacuache phase ceramics may be related to this poorly defined western macrotradition.

Although decorated vessels are relatively rare at La Consentida, various middens have provided a good sample of the decorative styles used at the site. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for including La Consentida in a broad Pacific coastal interaction area with distant western traditions can be found in the “sunburst” decorations on some vessels of Colima’s Capacha phase bottles and jars (figure 2.10) and on several decorated fragments from La Consentida (figure 2.11). At La Consentida, sunburst designs appear on bottles (e.g., figure 2.11a, which represents a probable bottle fragment from an eroded or redeposited midden context) and on other sherds from unidentified vessel types. Although different in form than the elaborate “stirrup” bottles and jars of the Capacha phase, the decoration on Tlacuache bottles nonetheless bears a striking similarity to some Capacha examples (see Kelly 1974, 1980:figs. 15–19, 21, 24, 25; Mountjoy 1994, 1998:fig. 2). The most elaborate Capacha vessels (e.g., figure 2.10b) may come from later deposits than more basic forms and often lack good provenience due to the looting of tombs and other burials (Kelly 1974, 1980; Mountjoy 1994). While some Capacha forms are not recognized in the Tlacuache collection, a few fragments of composite silhouette or “belted” vessels (e.g., figure 2.12) indicate that more complex vessels existed at La Consentida but are not well understood due to fragmentation. Impressed, teardrop-shaped dots or dashes (e.g., figure 2.6f) on Tlacuache vessels are also similar to some Capacha designs and those on Middle Formative ceramics from Jalisco’s Mascota Valley (see Kelly 1974, 1980:figs. 18, 21, 26, 29; Mountjoy 2012:figs. 119, 280).

Mountjoy (1994, 2006; personal communication 2015) has voiced skepticism regarding the early dates originally attributed to Capacha by Kelly and has suggested that the phase belongs instead to the Middle Formative. Kelly (1974, 1980:4, 18–19) herself described the dismal conditions under which the dating for the phase was secured. Mountjoy agrees that similarities between the Tlacuache and Capacha sunburst designs are suggestive of possible interaction between the two regions, however. La Consentida’s early dates indicate that a direct association between Capacha and Tlacuache is unlikely, even if Kelly’s initial dates are accepted without Mountjoy’s modifications. I do not argue that La Consentida’s ceramics represent direct contact with or importation of ceramics from west Mexico, or vice versa. Rather, I agree with Kelly (1980:37; see also Anawalt 1998) that certain decorative styles among Pacific coastal traditions beg further investigation into a possible interaction network including these regions and exemplifying early Red-on-Buff pottery (Clark 1991; Winter 1992:27–28). The earliest ceramics from much of Pacific coastal Mesoamerica (west of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec) are poorly understood, and it may be that a more systematic study of them would indicate that ceramic traditions in the intervening areas between Oaxaca and west Mexico share even more in common with the Tlacuache phase (see Brush 1965, 1969; Kelly 1980; Mountjoy 1994; Williams 2007).

Although the Tlacuache sunburst motif is similar to that found on some Capacha wares, a more general similarity can be seen between the simple, bold, geometric and impressed decorative style of the La Consentida vessels and those of both the Capacha and Opeño phases (e.g., Kelly 1980:fig. 30; Mountjoy 1994; Oliveros 1974; Williams 2007). Unfortunately, the friable, sandy medium brown paste from which many Tlacuache wares were constructed means that sherds tend to be small and eroded, leaving designs rarely visible in their entirety. Nevertheless, when they are somewhat well preserved, these vessels are notable for their finely slipped and burnished surfaces and geometric, impressed designs. In general, the Tlacuache phase decorative motifs seem to have at least as much in common with west Mexican ceramics as they do with Barra or Tierras Largas phase wares (Clark and Blake 1994; Flannery and Marcus 1994).

Patterns of ceramic decoration and basic vessel form may also suggest similarities with areas even more distant than west Mexico. James Ford’s (1969; see also Anawalt 1998) extensive comparison of Formative cultures in the New World provides some useful points of comparison between La Consentida and other early villages in the Americas. Decorated sherds from Valdivia, for example, bear a resemblance to some of the La Consentida ceramics (Ford 1969:fig. 14). Bottles from early Machalilla contexts in Ecuador and Tehuacán deposits in central Mexico appear similar to the La Consentida examples (Ford 1969:fig. 18i, chart 16). More recently, Anawalt (1998) summarized the evidence for contact between west Mexico and Ecuador during Early Formative through Postclassic (AD 900–1521) times, which includes patterns of attire and figurine iconography, in addition to ceramics. Although archaeological discussions of long-distance interaction and “diffusion” of technology have fallen from favor in recent decades, strong cases for such interactions can be made when multiple and diverse lines of evidence are considered together. Given the available data, it is not yet possible to make any strong claims about connections between La Consentida and distant areas such as Machalilla and Valdivia, though Kelly (1980) found such potential crossties intriguing.

Obsidian Importation

Following the 2009 fieldwork at La Consentida, forty obsidian flakes were selected for X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) sourcing analysis at the University of Missouri Archaeometry Laboratory (MURR) (Glascock 2011; Hepp 2011b; Williams 2012: 92–97). These artifacts were largely from fill, redeposited midden, and burial fill contexts. A few others were associated with early, dated hearths (LC09 A-F4 and LC09 B-F15). Results of this XRF study are consistent with an analysis of five pieces of obsidian collected during test excavations at the site in 1988 (Joyce et al. 1995). Figure 2.13 summarizes the sources of the forty-five samples analyzed by these two studies. These XRF data indicate La Consentida’s involvement in an extensive trade network stretching to central and Gulf coastal Mexico (figure 2.14).

Obsidian sourcing results from La Consentida provide an opportunity for comparison with other early Oaxacan sites. For example, Blomster and Glascock (2010:189) determined that somewhat later Early Formative communities in the Nochixtlán Valley imported their obsidian from several sources, including Paredón, Otumba, Guadalupe Victoria, El Chayal, and Ixtepeque. At La Consentida, the lack of obsidian imported from Central America indicates different interregional relationships from those held by Early Formative communities in the Mixteca Alta, the Valley of Oaxaca, the southern Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or the Soconusco (Blomster and Glascock 2010:189; Clark and Salcedo Romero 1989; Pires-Ferreira 1978, 2009:293; Zeitlin 1982). Zeitlin (1982:266–267) noted that obsidian used in the southern Isthmus of Tehuantepec during the Early Formative included material from Guadalupe Victoria and the Guatemalan source of El Chayal. Blomster and Glascock (2010:189) found that Cruz A and Cruz B phase communities in the Mixteca Alta imported up to 5 percent of their obsidian from El Chayal. In highland Oaxaca, Blomster and Glascock (2010:192) noted a transition away from the Early Formative use of “low-quality” Guadalupe Victoria obsidian and toward an emphasis on central Mexican sources such as Paredón in later Formative times. The greater emphasis at La Consentida on Guadalupe Victoria over Paredón material is therefore consistent with the site’s early date. Blomster and Glascock (2010:192) also noted discrepancies between regions of highland Oaxaca, where people in the Nochixtlán Valley used little west Mexican material (such as that from Ucaréo), while Valley of Oaxaca communities employed more obsidian from western sources in addition to that from Zaragoza and Otumba (cf. Charles L. F. Knight, chapter 8 in this volume). The lack of west Mexican obsidian at La Consentida is intriguing given the ceramic decoration styles discussed above, which suggest that the regions were somehow in contact.

Other Iconographic and Material Evidence for Interaction

Although the best data for La Consentida’s networks of interregional interaction comes from ceramic comparisons and obsidian sourcing, it is worthwhile to mention additional evidence for connections with other areas. Greenstone beads were prestige items traded throughout Mesoamerica during the Formative period (Carballo 2009:492; Joyce 1991:141, 2013:24; Tremain 2014). It is not yet clear whether several greenstone beads from La Consentida are made from jadeite, serpentine, or some combination of materials, but they show considerable variability in color and texture. Other greenish stone items recovered at the site, such as a small axe or adze, may be made from fine-grained basalt. Although greenstone distributions recorded thus far at La Consentida (Hepp 2015:table 7.1) do not easily lend themselves to discussions of hierarchical social inequality, the presence of the apparently diverse material types from which these artifacts are made suggests down-the-line interaction with distant regions such as central Mexico, the Gulf Coast, and Guatemala (Gendron et al. 2002; Pool 2013; Reilly 1995). Other worked stone such as small, one-handed manos from La Consentida are similar to those at Zohapilco (Niederberger 1976:láms. XXVIII.2, XXIX.1) and Tierras Largas phase sites in the Valley of Oaxaca (Winter and Sánchez Santiago 2014b:10–11). I do not suggest that manos were imported to La Consentida, but rather that they demonstrate stylistic and perhaps functional similarities with those found elsewhere.

Figurines and musical instruments may also indicate La Consentida’s relationships with distant regions. One figurine (figure 2.15a) is reminiscent of Cruz A examples from the Mixteca Alta (Jeffrey Blomster, personal communication 2015). At Zohapilco, Christine Niederberger (1976:lám. II.16–18) found ceramic aviform artifacts from various Formative period phases that are similar to musical instruments from La Consentida (e.g., figure 2.15b). Such bird instruments are also similar to Tierras Largas examples from highland Oaxaca, by virtue of their top-oriented apertures (Hepp et al. 2014; Rámirez Urrea 1993:143). One of the earliest anthropomorphic figurines at Zohapilco (Niederberger 1976:lám. XCV, foto 16) perhaps shares stylistic similarities with La Consentida’s simplest anthropomorphs (figures 2.15c and d). Another figurine from La Consentida appears to represent a monkey (figure 2.15e). The shape of this artifact’s head is consistent with those of capuchins and spider monkeys (Marroig and Cheverud 2005:fig. 2). One recent study (Ortiz-Martínez and Rico-Gray 2007) suggested that spider monkeys today sometimes live as far north as the southern Isthmus of Tehuantepec. People of the western Oaxaca coast may have seen monkeys in nearby areas, been aware of monkeys elsewhere, or imported monkeys or monkey skins from outside the region. Based on the paste of the figurines and instruments discussed here, there is no reason to suspect that any were imported.

Conclusions

A significant interpretation that arises from La Consentida’s early dates relates to current explanations for how ceramics originated in Mesoamerica. Clark (e.g., Clark and Blake 1994) has argued that some of Mesoamerica’s earliest ceramics arrived as a fully realized technological and stylistic tradition from Central America. On the basis of carbon dates recovered in context with Tlacuache sherds, ceramics from La Consentida represent well-dated examples of a pottery tradition contemporary with the Barra phase but formally dissimilar to it. I suggest that early ceramics of western Mesoamerica—including Tlacuache, Tierras Largas, Espiridión, Purrón, and west Mexican phases such as Capacha and Opeño—exemplify what other archaeologists have termed the Red-on-Buff horizon (see Clark 1991; Winter 1992:27–28; Winter and Sánchez Santiago 2014a). This interpretation explains why La Consentida’s Tlacuache ceramics share little in common with the tecomate-emphasizing Barra phase (Clark and Blake 1994). Such marked differences between western Mesoamerican Red-on-Buff ceramics and the earliest Soconusco pottery may represent ancient cultural and linguistic divides between speakers of Otomanguean and Mije-Sokean languages, as well as independent origins of ceramic technology itself (see Clark 1991; Josserand et al. 1984; Winter and Sánchez Santiago 2014a). Based on available evidence, including AMS radiocarbon dates from secure contexts (table 2.1), Tlacuache ceramics represent one of the earliest-known example of the Red-on-Buff horizon in Mesoamerica. Given the vessel form variety present at the site, however, earlier examples must exist, perhaps in underexplored regions of coastal Oaxaca and Guerrero.

Evidence for the exchange of pottery styles, obsidian, greenstone, and iconography suggests a complex network of interregional relationships in which La Consentida was involved. In some cases, these exchange relationships appear to contradict one another. XRF sourcing has determined that La Consentida’s obsidian was imported from central Mexican and Gulf Coast sources. The lack of west Mexican and Central American obsidian sets La Consentida apart from some of its Early Formative period contemporaries and sites occupied shortly thereafter (Blomster and Glascock 2010; Clark and Salcedo Romero 1989; Zeitlin 1982). This pattern seems at odds with ceramic decoration styles that suggest ties to west Mexico, as well as with the presence of greenstone possibly imported from Central America. What these various lines of evidence do clearly demonstrate is that La Consentida was well integrated into broad interaction networks. It is not yet clear what goods La Consentida exported in exchange for imported materials, though research in the areas surrounding the site is beginning to provide promising results. For example, Lock and colleagues (2014; see also Goman et al. 2005) noted that carbon dates in the salt flats adjacent to La Consentida suggest possible Early Formative salt procurement. Salt may have been a valuable trade good for exchange with people providing imported obsidian and greenstone, though the occupational history of La Consentida is not consistent with the “special use” salt procurement practices identified at some early coastal sites, such as El Varal (Lesure 2009).

Kelly (1980:37; see also Anawalt 1998) believed that the Capacha phase corroborated the hypothesis of Ford (1969:166), who argued that the early ceramics of Pacific coastal Mexico should have more in common with early South American pottery from “Puerto Hormiga, Machalilla, or Valdivia” than with the early traditions of central Mexico, such as that of the Tehuacán Valley. Kelly (1980:37) wrote that the sunburst motif appeared to be unique to Capacha, but as I have discussed, she also predicted other “landfalls” of this decorative style along the Pacific coast. I believe that the presence of the sunburst motif at La Consentida strongly suggests that Kelly’s predictions about a Pacific coastal interaction network need to be revisited. It appears that two contemporaneous ceramic traditions coexisted in Early Formative Mesoamerica. This interpretation suggests that the Soconusco’s Barra and Locona phase pottery, perhaps introduced through Central America, met with a contemporaneous Red-on-Buff horizon that included the Tlacuache, Tierras Largas, and other western ceramic traditions and emphasized the use of jars, bowls, and bottles over that of tecomates (Clark 1991; Winter 1992:27–28; Winter and Sánchez Santiago 2014a). Intriguingly, Tlacuache wares seem to combine the decorative motifs of a coastal tradition with the utilitarian wares of highland Mesoamerica. This seems not to fit with Kelly’s predictions, and merits further investigation into the influences on vessel form and decorative style at the site.

It is worthwhile, I think, to make a final point about identifying ancient networks of interaction and establishing chronologies on the basis of artifact comparisons. There are numerous similarities in ceramic styles between La Consentida’s Tlacuache phase and those of other regions such as the Valley of Oaxaca, central Mexico, and west Mexico. None of these other phases, however, contains all of the vessel forms and decorative motifs identified in the Tlacuache assemblage. This finding serves as a warning against facile associations between Tlacuache and other traditions such as Tierras Largas. Numerous Early Formative ceramic traditions, which seem to exemplify the Red-on-Buff horizon, include similar styles of jars, bottles, semispherical kidney-shaped bowls, and interior-incised bowls (Clark 1991; Winter 1992:27–28). Rather than indicating direct ties between the Tlacuache and Tierras Largas ceramic traditions, for example, these stylistic similarities indicate broad patterns of interaction and exchange across large geographic areas (see proposed ceramic interaction map in Clark 1991:fig. 8). Perhaps most significant, ceramics from La Consentida appear consistent with the presence of two initial Early Formative period traditions (Barra/Locona and Red-on-Buff), the former coming north from Central America via the Soconusco, and the latter developing in or arriving to western Mesoamerica and exemplified by the Tlacuache assemblage as one of its earliest known variants to date (Clark 1991; Winter 1992:27–28). These two early ceramic horizons may serve as material evidence for macroregional patterns of southeastern and northwestern Mesoamerican cultural diversity, perhaps including divisions between the Otomanguean and Mije-Sokean language families (Josserand et al. 1984; Lowe 1977; Winter and Sánchez Santiago 2014a). Such panregional cultural patterns have long been the subject of research and speculation by archaeologists, linguists, and sociocultural anthropologists, but they remain poorly understood in terms of their ancient histories. Evidence for interaction from La Consentida and other early village sites may help to improve that situation.

Acknowledgments. The research presented here was made possible by funding from the National Science Foundation (Grant #: BCS-1213955), a Fulbright–García Robles scholarship (Grantee ID: 34115725), the Colorado Archaeological Society, and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Thanks are due to the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, for permitting this work, and to the people of coastal Oaxaca for their collaboration. I am also grateful to the editors of this volume for inviting me to participate and to the anonymous reviewers who provided helpful feedback.

Notes

References