Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
Olmec stone sculpture: selection criteria for basalt
PATRICK
HUNT
Stanford University, Humanities Program, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Abstract: The fact that Olmec monumental sculpture exclusively uses basaltic stone requires
explanation. Although many possible stone selection criteria are potentially involved in
Olmec culture for the deliberate choice of stone, it is unlikely that all or even many were
considered when but one stone type (basalt) was chosen for such objects as colossal heads
and monumental sculpture. It is suggested here that the consistent correlation between
Olmec monumental sculpture and basalt is explicable, based on the deliberate criterion of
stone selection for metaphysical reasons and by physical characterization: this mostly dark,
vesicular stone was the most compelling reminder of underworld power expressed in
volcanism and volcanic mountains, and was thereby appropriated for power in rulership of
the Olmec culture.
Mesoamerican culture in the heartland of the
isthmus has been justifiably famous for stone
use, particularly sculpture, and the term 'mother
culture' has been used by Covarrubias and
others (Covarrubias 1957; Kubler 1962 (especially pp. 68-71ff), 1975, 1984; Coe 1981; Bernal
1969; de la Fuente 1973; Benson 1982, Chapter 2) to describe the Olmec culture from the
Early to Late Formative periods (1500-100 Bc),
although some feel that seminality of Olmec
cities is an exaggeration (Sabloff 1989, Chapter 2). More than 20 sculpted Olmec colossal
heads weighing as much as 20 t and with a height
of 3 m such as 'El Rey' at La Venta have been
noted by researchers from Stirling onward
(Stirling 1943), including the seriated studies of
Clewlow (1974) and Milbrath (1979) (not even
counting Olmecoid heads) and the research
of Coe and Diehl (Coe & Diehl 1980; Coe
1981) from the sites of San Lorenzo, La Venta,
Laguna de los Cerros and Tres Zapotes, as well
as minor sites outside the heartland area (Fig. 1).
Aspects such as the size of these colossal
heads, probable monumental use, commonality
of physical features and continuity of tradition
over a millennium have all been broadly discussed in the literature, but the fact that all or
nearly all of the identified heads (20+) and most
other large-scale Olmec sculptures or objects
greater than 50cm length (70+ monumental
objects) are carved from basalt and related
volcanic stone may be one of the most interesting
facts about these colossal sculptures, which has
not been noted outside a few studies (Williams
& Heizer 1976; Sabloff 1989, pp. 35, 41; Hunt
1991, Chapter 6, 1994, p. 266) (Fig. 2). The
basalt was used for colossal heads (and no other
type of stone other than volcanic material seems
to have been used for colossal heads) and was
also used for tenon sculpture, altars, stelae, zoomorphic figures, receptacles and vessels, slabs,
columns, sarcophagi and platforms. This brief
paper addresses some potential criteria of this
deliberate choice of basaltic stone and suggests
the attraction of the Olmec to this volcanic
material in particular.
Geological considerations
That ancient cultures may have had criteria of
stone selection presupposes some recognition
of various stone typologies by such physical
characteristics as colour and hardness (or, conversely, workability) among others. Although
this may not be a nascent geological awareness
approaching a scientific appraisal, none the less
the fact that the colossal heads are uniformly of
basalt is in itself a suggestion of deliberation,
and possible rationales should be examined.
Elsewhere, possible criteria of stone selection
have been suggested as availability, accessibility, workability, durability, natural shaping
or cleavage, aesthetic appeal and metaphysical
associations, or combinations of these possible
criteria (Gauri 1978; Hunt 1991, pp. 42-57,
1994, p. 266).
As Williams & Heizer (1976, p. 4) first noted
and Coe & Diehl (1980) discussed, the known
provenance of basaltic or related volcanic stone
for Olmec monuments can be traced to volcanic
sources in the Tuxtlas Mountains. The sources
From: McGUIRE, W. G., GRIFFITHS, D. R., HANCOCK, P. L. & STEWART, i. S. (eds) The Archaeology of
Geological Catastrophes. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 171, 345-353. 1-86239-062-2/00/
$15.00 © The Geological Society of London 2000.
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
346
P. H U N T
~'
[ -'.-:'-)?~:
~ ~ :j ~'.t[ "t',=,;':
: i ''[;. : '(,"o~ ]"":: "o
:~"."*:"~ii."
- ~~~
~
.
C
OL..AV£r,~rA
•
4"
Fig. 1. Olmec heartland with major sites and l~uxtlas range in the isthmus of Mexico.
are mostly known, notably Cerro Cintepec volcano for certain San Lorenzo and La Venta
monuments, roughly 90 km and 160 km distant
from the Tuxtlas range, respectively, and Cerro
E1 Vigia volcano for Tres Zapotes monuments,
roughly 30 km distant. Although these are hardly
unusual distances from which to procure stone,
and particularly proximal for Tres Zapotes
because this mountain can be easily viewed
from that site, the compelling singularity of
v o l c a n i c stone type calls for discussion in part
because San Lorenzo and La Venta are not
situated near volcanic stone regions but rather
are in sedimentary regions.
Although not all of the basaltic material used
by the Olmec is uniform in petrology and mineral
composition (ranging from pyroxene basalt,
basaltic andesite, andesitic basalt, to pyroxeneolivine basaltic andesite and other related basalts
and andesites (Williams & Heizer 1976; Hunt
1991, pp. 80-88)) or in colour (ranging from
black, dark grey, dark green and dark brown to
mixed hues of the others and sometimes weathered to light hues), it is mostly a dark stone with
a vesicular texture, as is common to volcanic
lava world wide, and could be thus recognizable
by this combination of common physical features in dark vesicularity.
Possible criteria of stone selection
Fig. 2. Olmec colossal head basalt sculpture.
Possible relevant factors influencing deliberate
basalt choice for the Olmec could include a
long-term local stoneworking tradition, availability and accessibility of this material, durability of basalt over time in a tropical
environment when other local stone is unsuitable (mostly friable sandstone in both San
Lorenzo and La Venta) or no other stone is
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
OLMEC STONE SCULPTURE
available, colour or other aesthetic considerations, the natural rounded shaping and large size
of volcanic ejecta or weathered shapes as
amenable to further stonedressing, workability
of basalt, metaphysical associations or considerations, or possible combinations of these and/
or other unknown reasons.
The question must be asked whether it is truly
a deliberate choice of basalt. Given the local
jungle substratum of alluvial sandstone-derived
geological matrix at San Lorenzo and La Venta
and the alluvial plain of Tres Zapotes (as all
three major sites are in riverine alluvial basins)
and the fact that other, far more local sandstones or carbonates could have been more
easily obtained and worked, the logical answer
is most likely that deliberation was instrumental
in basalt use. Whether basalt and volcanic
stone in general was actually a knowledgeable
choice is even more fascinating (as well as more
challenging) and will be a primary focus of
this discussion of the Olmec monumental stone
sculptures.
347
A known stone source may also be considered
important somewhat irrespective of its distance.
If its working does not require adapting to new
physical characteristics or learning new techniques of stonedressing, such a familiar stone
source is likely to be utilized in some cultural
continuity across many generations. Tradition
therefore can be a factor in stone selection.
On the other hand, what may begin as one
criterion may eventually become a tradition in
which it is not vital to maintain or even
remember the original criterion of selection.
This could be particularly true in cultures where
tradition is more respected than practicality.
This might also be true in a culture with a long
history, and would be expected in a non-literate
or theocratic culture. Whether or not these
possibilities exist for Olmec culture cannot be
proven at present, and further progress is difficult without a literary record or documented
myth history.
Accessibility and availability
Familiarity with a particular stone may predetermine subsequent stone selection and continue a tradition already in place. What may not
be easily discovered is why a tradition starts in
the first place, although in the case of the
original Ohnec heartland around Lake Catemaco, itself a volcanic caldera and surrounded
by newer volcanoes (Fig. 3), such early proximity to basalt may reinforce stone choices later
when migration may remove a culture from such
stone sources.
The proximity of Tres Zapotes to Cerro El Vigia
at 30 km (Fig. 4) could be natural evidence for
the criterion of accessibility and availability
(although they are not necessarily identical:
available stone may be found locally in great
volume but may be in an inaccessible context as
a result of altitude, depth or some other feature).
Conversely, recognition of volcanic stone as
potential stoneworking material and making
its association with mountains but finding its
local dearth on the alluvial plain may force the
search for it to greater distances, which is still an
inverse of availability as a criterion. The greater
Fig. 3. Lake Catemaco caldera with historical cinder
cones (18th-century eruptions).
Fig. 4. Cerro E1 Vigia from near Tres Zapotes
(c. 20 km).
Stoneworking tradition
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
348
P. HUNT
distance, however, of San Lorenzo and La Venta
to Cerro Cintepec (90 and 160 kin, respectively)
strongly suggests that availability and accessibility are not the primary criteria for stone
selection in Olmec contexts. Furthermore, Williams and Heizer have also found Cerro El
Vigia material in San Lorenzo (especially Monument 9), which is considerably further away, at a
190km distance, than even Cerro Cintepec as
a source.
Transport by water along the coast adjacent to
the Tuxtlas range, up through the Coatzalcoacos
and Papaloapan river watersheds along these
waterways and possible canals has already been
discussed (Williams & Heizer 1976; Coe & Diehl
1980; Miller 1986, p. 21; Sablof 1989, p. 41).
Water transport can mitigate some of the difficulties inherent in the distance of land transport,
thereby making inaccessibility a moot point as a
possible criterion.
Durability
In a tropical environment with high annual rainfall and subsequent high leaching and dissolution
of sedimentary stone and carbonates in particular, the durability of one stone over others could
be a vital characteristic for stone selection. The
coefficients of thermal expansion and contraction
of the more soluble limestone and sandstone are
nearly double those of basalt and the dissolution potential increases with temperature
(Blair 1955; Clark & Candle 1961).
As Winkler has stated, 'carbonate solution in
a tropical humid climate records much higher
solution rates than in moderate humid areas'
(Winkler 1975, p. 141). This is the tropical environment that the Veracruz and Tabasco states
of Mexico in the Olmec heartland possess, where
observation over a few hundred years in antiquity could have discouraged sculpture of local
carbonates and sandstones. Studies also show
that stone with igneous material such as basalt
has a greater resistance to solubility than
carbonates or most sandstones (Winkler 1975,
pp. 46-47).
Durability could also be expressed by its corollary hardness, and basalt is definitely harder as a
rule than carbonate and nearly all sandstone
(except metamorphosed sandstone, i.e. quartzite, which is not usually classified as sandstone),
which can be calculated from relative Mobs
hardness, compressive strength, Shore scleroscope and Schmidt impact hardness (Winkler
1975, pp. 34-37). Although basalt and related
volcanic stone may be harder to work than most
sedimentary stone such as limestone and sandstone, it is also thus likelier to survive long term
than these other local materials.
Colour and aesthetic considerations
Recognition of basaltic stone by colour range
has been already briefly mentioned, and its
general dark hues and vesicularity are nearly
constant physical characteristics. Colour can be
a distinctive aesthetic factor for stone selection,
and other choices of stone for colour are well
known in Mesoamerican cultures, with generic
greenstones being the obvious example (Bishop
et al. 1984; Hunt 1993) even when the stone
type may be diverse. Greenstones ranging from
light to dark green hues were valued highly,
whether albitite, nephrite, jadeite, aventurine
quartz, aragonite, serpentine, metasomatized
basalt, basaltic andesite, green jasper quartzite
or other materials. Olmec greenstone examples
are seen in celts, were-jaguar masks or effigies
such as the Kunz axe, the Offering 4 figures of
La Venta and other objects, and the valuation
of greenstone as a precious stone continues
through nearly all other known Mesoamerican
cultures (Kunz 1890; Washington 1922; Foshag
1957; Miller 1986; Harlow 1987; Sabloff 1989).
Thus if greenstone can be a stone selection
based on colour, it is not unlikely for basalt,
typically dark grey to black and with noted
vesicularity, to be a recognizable stone material
for the sculptural medium. The only other
known use of basalt (other than indicated
previously) in Olmec culture are the hexagonal
basalt prisms that are sometimes utilized alongside or instead of serpentine stelae, with serpentine also used mostly for small-scale celts
alongside jadeite sculptures in the figures of
Offering 4 or the large serpentine mosaic mask,
both at La Venta. The primary exception to
basalt for large sculpture is the Las Limas
greenstone figure (although its exact stone type
is unknown, as it may also be of basaltic
material), which is again of a consistently used
green-coloured material (Miller 1986, p. 30 and
fig. 12). Thus stone recognition and physical
characteristics can be easily deduced for the
Olmec, which raises the question of why basalt
might have been selected specifically for criteria
other than accessibility, availability and durability. It is possible that some volcanic stone
may have chosen for its green colour among
other considerations, such as the distinctive
weathered green Tres Zapotes basaltic andesite.
Greenstone will be discussed again for metaphysical and spiritual associations.
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
OLMEC STONE SCULPTURE
Natural shaping and cleavage
Another possible criterion of stone selection
could be the natural rounded shaping and large
size of the volcanic ejecta (although 'bombs'
begin at 64 mm, in some cases the weight exceeds
hundreds of kilograms) (Bell & Wright 1985,
p. 20; Le Maitre 1989, p. 53). Roundness could
be conducive to choice as colossal head sculpture material (Fig. 5), especially when millennia
of weathering by water action in stream beds has
rounded these large boulders to cobble shapes,
as can be observed in many riverine watercourses throughout the Cordilleras Volcanicas
of Central Mexico (Hunt 1994). If stoneworking
masons started with already rounded shapes,
nature has done most of the work by weathering
and erosion. Economy in stoneworking would
be an asset with a natural rounded shape for
colossal head material.
Weathered shapes can be amenable to further stonedressing in that the cleavage of volcanic material is typically conchoidal. This can
also ultimately favour development of rounded
shapes, particularly when water erosion softens
stone edges by tumbling large stones into cobbles
in repeated flood seasons. This would again imply
long-term observation by the Olmec and recognition of basaltic material even when not directly
associated with contemporary volcanism.
Depth of volcanic flows is also a potential
factor in that extrusive volcanic deposition can
Fig. 5. Cerro E1 Vigia stream bed with large rounded
basalt boulders (boulder size 1m).
349
be massive, with thick, viscous flows of lowsilica basalt, which create the large mass of stone
suitable for sculpture. This is true of igneous
stone in general from magmatic melt sources,
whereas sedimentary and even metamorphic
stone can be deposited in much thinner bedding
planes (although equally massive as well in other
global contexts), which might limit the potential
size and volume of stone for sculpture. Because
lava is not usually deposited in bedding planes,
its natural conchoidal fractures and cleavages
can create massive potential blocks of stone.
Workability
On the other hand, silicate rock and igneous
material are usually much harder to work for
sculpture than are most carbonates (especially
limestone and marble) and sedimentary sandstone. Workability here is defined as the ease or
lack of resistance of a stone to modification, as
reflected in relative hardness and predictability
of fracture. The relative Mohs hardness of basalt
at 5-6.5 was extrapolated by Winkler from the
combination of silica and feldspar, whereas he
placed the relative Mohs hardness of limestone
as typically around three, and that of sandstone
at 2-7 (the upper range being quartzite) depending on its adhesion, with anything above
hardness six likely to be metamorphosed and
therefore not true sandstone (Winkler 1975,
p. 14, 31). Generally basalts are harder than and
therefore less workable than limestones and
other carbonates and most sandstone, which
makes basalts and related volcanic rocks not a
typical sculptural medium compared with these
other stones (Hunt 1991, pp. 36, 41), as is borne
out by the lower global quantity of volcanic
stone in sculptural contexts relative to other
more workable stone when both are available.
Workability of basalt for sculpture is not therefore typically the highest criterion of stone
selection (Winkler 1975, p. 30).
Although all of the factors noted as potential
criteria for stone selection for sculpture and
monumental objects in Olmec culture (stoneworking tradition, accessibility, availability,
aesthetic considerations, durability, natural
shaping, and cleavage and workability), assuming there was not a lack of interest in intellectualizing the process, may have influenced
Olmec choices, even in possible combinations,
none appear entirely satisfactory given two
deducible facts: the nearly unanimous choice of
basalt for large-scale sculpture and monumental
objects; the distance between find contexts in
Olmec sites and geological sources for basalt
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
350
P. HUNT
when other materials are more local, available
and workable. The highest priority selection
criterion assumed here is covered in the following section.
Metaphysical associations
Metaphysical association is perhaps the most
interesting possible criterion for stone selection
of basalt in Olmec culture. It is also highly problematic in that it is an argument from silence,
although any discussion of possible stone selection criteria may also be likewise impossible to
prove in the case of the Olmec, as literary
finds, which could document such criteria, are
almost nonexistent. Preciousness and metaphysical associations or high valuation of one stone
colour in the case of greenstone has already been
asserted for Mesoamerican cultures beginning
with Olmec use and continuing through Aztec
culture (Rands 1965; Miller 1986, pp. 18, 29-30;
Berrin & Pasztory 1993). The nature of basalt as
volcanic stone may be the most important
feature for Olmec culture. Several observations
may support this hypothesis.
First, Olmec mounds at the primary sites have
been identified as possibly replicating volcanoes
or cone volcanic peaks in several studies (Heizer
1968; Miller 1986, p. 24; Bernal-Garcia 1994,
pp. 113-124), as Miller stated for La Venta:
'This impressive mound may have been intended
to echo the shape of a Central American volcano' (Figs 6 and 7). Bernai-Garcia has also
inferred that mountains are sacred and that they
are supernatural precursors of all later Mesoamerican pyramids and synonymous with them.
Bernal-Garcia also suggested mountains as being
possible sources of divine and human speech
(Bernal-Garcia 1994, pp. 113 114), which last
idea may curiously evoke the thunderous sound
of a volcanic eruption as a contemporary experience for the Olmec.
Fig. 6. La Venta mound, model (after Sabloff 1989).
Fig. 7. La Venta mound (c. 22 m height).
Second, it is also a feature of the primary
Olmec sites of San Lorenzo, La Venta and Tres
Zapotes that certain high volcanoes of the
Tuxtlas range are or were visible from each
site. This is certainly true of Tres Zapotes, with
Cerro E1 Vigia only 30 km distant, and was likely
to be true of San Lorenzo and La Venta before
the advent of petrochemical pollution from the
Coatzalcoacos refineries. Coe alluded to this
visibility in his fieldwork at San Lorenzo (Coe &
Diehl 1980) and Bernal-Garcia also suggested
that having 'a mountain nearby was of utmost
importance for the well-being of the whole
settlement, particularly for the rulers' (BernalGarcia 1994, p. 115).
Third, other seminal Mesoamerican comparanda have been reinforced by Bernal-Garcia, in
showing the Maya cosmology of the Popol Vuh
where 'Zipacna the mountain dragon turns to
stone' (Bernal-Garcia 1994, p. 117; quoting Tedlock, 1985, pp. 98, 182) and in quoting Nuttall's
Peabody Museum 1926 papers from colonial
reports that the Teotihuacan hill of Cerro Gordo
was originally named Tenan or 'mother of stone'
(Nuttall 1926), which is doubly interesting in that
Cerro Gordo is a volcanic peak and that lava
as volcanic stone would literally be generated
there. That this could be inferred from historic
association with volcanic mountains seems very
likely in an active volcano-rich region.
Fourth, Bernal-Garcia stated that 'Stone,
being the mountain's main substance, made
these [rulers'] thrones "small mountains"', and
also that 'as the ruler emerged from the entrails
of the mountain, he carried the principal emblem
of rulership, namely the divine ancestor, the baby
jaguar' (Bernal-Garcia 1994, p. 117). Again, the
'mountains' probably meant those in the Olmec
heartland and the only 'mountains' from which
they sculpted stone were the Tuxtlas range,
all volcanic in source. This fact is not insignificant and reinforces that basalt as recognizable
'mountain' stone is the stone deliberately chosen
to represent special monuments in a consistent
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
OLMEC STONE SCULPTURE
material through the entire Olmec history. The
observations of Bernal-Garcia and others in
these first four lines of evidence directly relate
to the final line of evidence suggested below.
Fifth, and perhaps most important, as awed
witnesses of historical volcanic activity, which
can be easily documented between 1800 and
100Bc in the Tuxtlas range from the Early
through Late Formative periods (Gill 1981;
Sheets 1983; Hasenaka & Carmichael 1987;
Luhr & Prestegaard 1989), the Olmec would
have been able to mark the enormous natural
power of volcanism. Immediately local to the
Olmec heartland, some of the new cinder cones
around Lake Catemaco are as historically recent
as the 18th century. Other ancient Mesoamerican cultures were also eyewitnesses to volcanism
and its destructive power, including Cuiculco,
the earlier rival state of Teotihuacan in the
Valley of Mexico, which was wiped out by
volcanic activity in the Late Formative period
around 150AD, and other cultures in Central
America (Sheets 1983; Sabloff 1989, p. 61).
The hot molten lava in contact with organic
material would enflame anything combustible in
its path. More important perhaps, the lava
flowing from the underworld, a locus of Olmec
power (Reilly 1994), could undergo a 'divine'
transformation from molten and mobile translucent flow to cold dark stone within a few days.
Lava 'from the entrails of the mountains' and
Fig. 8. Active volcanism (Vesuvius, Italy).
351
Fig. 9. Cooling lava (Kilauea, Hawaii).
the 'mountain dragon turning to stone' (BernalGarcia 1994, p. 117) can be a frighteningly powerful force in nature. If the Olmec abandoned
this original heartland of the Tuxtlas near Lake
Catemaco because of volcanic activity (the
speech and authority of the mountains being
too powerful for them to live safely in adjacent
valleys), they could still want the reminder and
association with these basaltic volcanoes. It is
likely that the metaphysical appropriation of this
power of the mountain would be the aim and
prerogative of the Olmec ruler (Figs 8 and 9).
Thus sculpting monuments and objects from this
basalt would be a most emphatic method of
maintaining power from the mountains, whose
reminders would also be present in the site
mounds of Olmec communities at San Lorenzo,
La Venta and Tres Zapotes. The volcanic stone
tradition is even continued in Olmecoid sites in
the volcanic highland regions of Guatemala,
particularly around Lake Atitlan as another
seminal Mesoamerican area (Miller 1986, p. 38)
where Late Formative colossal heads, smaller
but still carved from volcanic stone, have been
found near El Baul and Kaminaljuyu. Not only
is this in a volcanic region as well, as mentioned,
but even the visibility of volcanic cones here may
have in some way influenced site choice or at
least ensured that the stone would be recognizable as volcanic to the stoneworkers or those
for whom they carved the heads. Thus, stone
selection could have been a process of physical
characterization and metaphysical requisites met
together in volcanic stone.
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
352
P. H U N T
Conclusion
A l t h o u g h m a n y possible stone selection criteria
are potentially involved in O l m e c culture for the
deliberate choice o f basaltic stone, it is unlikely
that all or even m a n y were o p e r a t i v e w h e n
b u t o n e p r i m a r y stone material was c h o s e n
for m o n u m e n t a l sculpture. I n conclusion, it is
suggested here t h a t the consistent c o n n e c t i o n
b e t w e e n O l m e c m o n u m e n t a l sculpture a n d
basalt is explicable. It c o u l d be based o n the
deliberate criterion o f stone selection for m e t a physical reasons a n d by physical characterization: this m o s t l y dark, vesicular stone was the
most compelling reminder of underworld power
expressed in v o l c a n i s m a n d volcanic m o u n t a i n s ,
a n d was t h e r e b y a p p r o p r i a t e d for p o w e r in
rulership a n d , p e r h a p s by a p o t r o p a i c appeasem e n t , in ensuring c o n t i n u i t y o f O l m e c culture.
Reference
BELL, P. & WRIGHT, D. 1985. Rocks and Minerals.
Macmillan Field Guides. Collier, New York, p. 20.
BENSON, E. (ed.) 1982. The Olmec and their Neighbors.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.
BERNAL, I. 1969. The OImec Worht. University of
California, Berkeley.
BERNAL-GARCIA, M. E. 1994. Tzatza: the sacred
mountain and the Olmec ruler. Seventh Palenque
Round Table. Precolumbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, 113-124.
BERRIN, K. & PASZTORY, E. 1993. Teotihuacan: Art
from the City of the Gods. Thames and Hudson,
New York.
BISHOP, R. L., SAYRE, E. V. ~; VAN ZELST, L. 1984.
Characterization of Mesoamerican jade. In: VAN
ZELST, L. (ed.) Applications of Science in Examination of Works of Art. Museum of Fine Art,
Boston, MA.
BLAIR, B. E. 1955. Physical Properties' of Mine Rock,
Part IV. US Bureau of Mines, Investigation
Report 5244.
CLARK, G. B. & CANDLE, R. D. 1961. Geologic
structure stability and deep protection construction.
Air Force Special Weapons Center, Project 1080,
Technical Documentary Report AFS WC-61-93.
CLEWLOW, C. W. 1974. A Stylistic and Chronological
Study of Olmec Monumental Sculpture. University
of California Research Facility, Berkeley, 19.
COL, M. 1981. San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. In:
BRICKER, V, & SABLOFF, J. (eds) Supplement to
the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1.
University of Texas, Austin.
--•
DIEHL, R. 1980. In the Landofthe Olmec, Vols
1 and 2. University of Texas, Austin.
COVARRUBIAS, M. 1957. Indian Art of Mexico and
Central America. Knopf, New York.
DE LA FUENTE, B. 1973. Escultura monumental
Olmeca. Instituto de Investigationes Esteticas,
Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City.
FOSHAG, W. F. 1957. Mineralogical Studies on Guatemalan Jade. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Washington, DC, 25.
GAURI, K. L. 1978. The preservation of stone.
Scientific American, 238(6), 126-t37.
GJLL, J. B. 1981. Orogenic Andesites. Springer, Berlin.
HARLOW, G. E. 1987. Jadeites, albitites and related
rocks from the Motagua Fault Zone, Guatemala.
Abstracts of the Geological Society oJ" America
Annual Meeting.
HASENAKA, T. 8z CARMICHAEL, I. S. E. 1987. The
cinder cones of Michoacan-Guanajuato, Central
Mexico: petrology and chemistry. Journal of
Petrology, 28(2), 241-269.
HEIZER, R. 1968. New observations on La Venta. In:
BENSON, E. (ed.) Dumbarton Oaks Conference on
the Olmec. Washington, DC, 9-40.
HUNT, P. N. 1991. Provenance, weathering and technology of selected archaeological basalts and
andesites. PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University College, London.
- - 1 9 9 3 . Teotihuacan Exhibition Greenstones. A report
for the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.
- - 1 9 9 4 . Maya and Olmec stone weathering contrasts:
limestone and basalt contexts. Seventh Palenque
Round Table. Precolumbian Art Research Society,
San Francisco, CA, 261 267.
KUBLER, G. 1962. Art and Architecture of Ancient
America, 2nd and 3rd edns. Pelican, Harmondsworth, 68-71ff.
KUNZ, G. F. 1890. Gems and Precious Stones of North
America. Scientific Publishing, New York.
LE MAITRE, R. W. (ed.) 1989. A Classification of
Igneous Rocks and Glossary of Terms. Blackwell
Scientific, Oxford.
LUHR, J. F. & PRESTEGAARD, K. L. 1989. Caldera
formation of Volcan Colima, Mexico, by a large
Holocene volcanic debris avalanche. Journal of
Voh'anology and Geothermal Research, 36(1).
M~LBRATH, S. 1979. A Study of Olmec Sculptural
Chronology. Dumbarton Oaks Studies in Precolumbian Art and Archaeology, 23.
MILLER., M. E. 1986. The Art of Mesoamerica: from
Olmec to Aztec. Thames and Hudson, London.
NUTTALL, Z. 1926. Official Reports of the Towns of
Tequizistlan. Tepechpan, Acolman and San Juan
Teotihuacan sent by Francisco de Castaneda to His
Majesty Philip II, and the Council of the lndies, in
1580. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 11(2).
RANDS, R. L. 1965. Jades from the Maya lowlands.
Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 3.
University of Texas, Austin.
REILLY, F. K. 1994. Enclosed ritual spaces and the
watery underworld in Formative Period architecture: new observations on the function of La
Venta Complex A. Seventh Palenque Round Table.
Precolumbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, 125-137.
SABLOFF, J. 1989. Cities of Ancient Mexico. Thames
and Hudson, New York.
SHEETS, P. D. 1983. Archaeology and Volcanism in
Central America." the Zapotitan Valley of El
Salvador. University of Texas, Austin.
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 19, 2016
OLMEC STONE SCULPTURE
STIRLING, M. 1943. Stone Monuments of Southern
Mexico. Smithsonian Insitution,Washington, DC,
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin, 138.
TEDLOCK, D. (transl.) 1985. Popol Vuh. Simon and
Schuster, New York.
WASHINGTON, H. S. 1922. The jades of Middle
America. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science, 8, 319 326.
353
WILLIAMS, H. & HEIZER, R. 1976. Sources of rock
used in Olmec monuments. Sources of Stone used
in Prehistoric Mesoamerican Sites. Contributions
of the University of California Archaeological
Research Facility, 1, 1965.
WINKLER, E. M. 1975. Stone: Properties, Durability in
Man's Environment. Springer, Berlin.