Archaeology Revealed Archaeology for students, beginners…for everyone Skip to content Home Archaeology 101 Topics Resources Breaking News About Contact Search for: Home > Archaeological Sites > The Power of Ideology: Understanding Olmec Iconography through Archaeology (Part 1) The Power of Ideology: Understanding Olmec Iconography through Archaeology (Part 1) By Karen McCamy October 1, 2010 NOTE: A complete Works Cited list can be found at the end of Part 3 of this article series. Introduction “Everything which has come down to us from heathendom is wrapped in a thick fog; it belongs to a space of time which we cannot measure. We know that it is older than Christendom, but whether by a couple of years or a couple of centuries, or even by more than a millennium, we can do no more than guess.” (Rasmus Nyerup, in Renfrew 2004:21). The Danish scholar Nyerup (1759-1829) might have been describing the earliest decades of archaeology in Mesoamerica. Or, he might have been describing the Olmec civilization, which has been variously described as enigmatic, dazzling, mysterious, awe-inspiring (Diehl 2004; Gyles 1980; Soustelle 1984). Although it is now widely accepted that the Olmec were the earliest civilization in Mesoamerica (Diehl 2004), controversy and clouded beginnings still surround the origins of the Olmec people. Even the name Olmec is wrapped in a cloak of ambiguity, as it has been used to refer to both the Olmec people and the art style they created — a unique collection of symbols and glyphs that appears to be the foundation of art and iconography for the entire region we refer to as Mesoamerica (Diehl 2004; Joyce 2005; Lesure 2005; Reilly 1996; Wenke 1999). “Mother Culture” / “Sister Culture” Debate One of these controversies concerns the ongoing dispute about whether the Olmecs represent a true “mother culture” – the culture from which all other Mesoamerican cultures sprang up – or, in opposition, a “sister culture” whose proponents contend the Olmecs and other contemporaneous peoples freely shared ideas through extensive early exchange networks (Joyce 2005; Wenke 1999). The dispute has a rather heated history and while many researchers now largely discount the earlier notion of a true cultura madre (Reilly 1996), there are still scholars who are strong advocates of such a model (for this perspective see Diehl 2004 and Lesure 2005). At the core of the mother culture concept is extensive archaeological evidence throughout Mesoamerica of shared artistic styles (represented in both monumental architecture and portable, personal objects); shared iconography; and shared glyphs (which are agreed to be at least the foundations of pre- or proto-writing) (Diehl 2005; Lesure 2004; Soustelle 1984; Wenke 1999). Additionally, Soustelle (1984:163) feels it likely that the origins of the unique Mesoamerican 260-day and 365-day calendric systems date to the Olmec period, a view also echoed by Joyce (2004). While Soustelle admits evidence of writing (in the form of glyphs or numbers) is archaeologically rare, such evidence – in the form of the early “dot-bar” counting system, contemporaneous with the Mesoamerican calendric systems – do appear in the archaeological record in Olmec sites (see the section on Archaeological Data). More Significant Questions Much of this mother culture/sister culture debate can never be settled because of: the paucity of archaeological data, the antiquity of what data does exist, and differences in archaeological interpretation of this data. While academic and philosophic discussions concerning this debate can be stimulating, more important questions can and should be addressed. In my view a more important line of questioning – and what I believe is at the heart of the mother/sister culture debate – concerns: To what degree and in what ways did Olmec art and iconography influence all Mesoamerican cultures that were to follow the Olmecs in time? And, perhaps more importantly, why are apparently Olmec iconographic and artistic traditions so pervasive throughout virtually all of the Mesoamerican cultures to follow? It is my belief that Olmec iconographic representations are indicators of deeply rooted ideologies, fundamental to many of the most significant aspects of all Mesoamerican cultures. I propose these underlying ideologies set the stage for many later societal developments and structures, and I examine how far we can trace these connections through time in a still-recognizable fashion. Olmec-style elements do not disappear suddenly with the emergence of later cultures, which is exactly what would be expected if they were, as I propose, deeply rooted in ideological beliefs about the cosmos. Rather, gradual change would be expected as complex economic and political structures – especially power structures – might begin to slowly replace early ideological structures in the ruling classes. This article explores Olmec art and iconography, the extent of its impact on later Mesoamerican cultures as evidenced by the archaeological record, and offers potential explanations for this impact by exploring ideological linkages as the common thread between the Olmecs and later Mesoamerican cultural traditions. Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Recommend on Facebook Buzz this on Google Share via Reddit Share with Stumblers Share on technorati Tumblr it Tweet about it Buzz this on Yahoo! Email it Print PDF Read more on pages: 1 2 3 Leave a Comment This entry was posted in Archaeological Sites, Ideology, Art, Symbolism and tagged Iconography, Olmec, Prehistoric Art. Bookmark the permalink. Liked this, did you? Be sure to dig into these titles: The Power of Ideology: Understanding Olmec Iconography through Archaeology (Part 3) The Power of Ideology: Understanding Olmec Iconography through Archaeology (Part 2) Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Name * Email * Website Comment You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
Top of Page Admin | Privacy Policy | Site Map Copyright © 2010 ArchaeologyRevealed.com, All Rights Reserved Website Design by Ten Digit Publishing