Another Look at Bufo marinus and the San Lorenzo Olmec
2005; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 46; Issue: S5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/497668
ISSN1537-5382
AutoresAnn Cyphers, Belem Zúñiga, Anna di Castro,
Tópico(s)Philippine History and Culture
ResumoPrevious article FreeReportsAnother Look at Bufo marinus and the San Lorenzo Olmec1AnnCyphers, BelemZiga, and AnnadiCastroAnnCyphers Search for more articles by this author , BelemZiga Search for more articles by this author , and AnnadiCastroInstituto de Investigaciones Antropolgicas, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Circuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, Mxico, D.F. 04510, Mexico ([email protected]) 25 v 05 Search for more articles by this author Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolgicas, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Circuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, Mxico, D.F. 04510, Mexico ([email protected]) 25 v 05PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreIn 1968 the first archaeological discovery of marine toad remains, Bufo marinus, at an Olmec capital (Wing 1980, Coe and Diehl 1980) set the stage for influential reconstructions of ancient ritual and ideology. The findings of the Rio Chiquito Project at San Lorenzo, Veracruz, prompted the conjecture that hallucinogenic toxins in the toads skin were extracted for use in Early Preclassic (1150900 BC) shamanistic rites (Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:390; Wing 1980: 378, 383) and indirectly supported toad identifications in Olmec iconography (Furst 1972a, b, 1981; Kennedy 1982; Reilly 1989). As a web search will show, the idea that Bufo toxins are involved in Early Preclassic shamanism on the Gulf Coast is still widely taught and accepted. However, recent research by the San Lorenzo Tenochtitln Archaeological Project (SLTAP) casts doubt on the archaeological context of the toad remains and, hence, on Early Preclassic exploitation of the toad by the San Lorenzo Olmec. Our reassessment here will also raise questions concerning the associated human bone that has been proposed as evidence for cannibalism and warfare at this site.The Olmec are often portrayed as Americas first civilization (Coe 1968). Located in the tropical Gulf Coast lowlands, their first capital, San Lorenzo, has Early Preclassic occupation dating from 1500 BC. Its florescence period has been established at 1150900 B.C through stratigraphic studies and radiocarbon dating (Coe and Diehl 1980). The site is composed of a large artificial plateau ringed by terraces and a wide occupied periphery encircling its base (Symonds, Cyphers, and Lunagmez 2002). This plateau, once thought to be a giant bird effigy (Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:28), is cut by numerous ravines fashioned by three millennia of erosion.One of these ravines was the sole locus of the Bufo marinus bones discovered by the Ro Chiquito Project in the late 1960s (Wing 1980). The high percentage of toad remains (9.5%) found by that project is not matched by the results of the SLTAP, which show a remarkable dearth of Bufo remains despite the larger volume of its excavations, conducted during seven consecutive field seasons (199096). We considered two possible sets of factors to account for the discrepancy between the findings of the two projects: (1) functional differences among the areas sampled and differential preservation across the site and (2) secondary deposition, potentially a key process because the earlier data set derives from an excavation located in the bottom of the deep ravine known as the Caada del Macaya that runs northsouth in the southwestern section of the plateau.In evaluating the two data sets, we find that the SLTAP has tested a greater number and variety of ritual, domestic, productive, and mortuary contexts than the Ro Chiquito Project (Cyphers n.d.). Artifact preservation varies from excellent to poor in any single area, depending on the characteristics of the buried deposit. Notably, in the 1,400 SLTAP faunal samples there is only one Bufo bone, found in a modern root disturbance on the side of a ravine (Ziga n.d.). On the basis of the above, we doubt that functional differences among the areas sampled and differential preservation across the site account for such a noteworthy disparity in the findings. The second option consists of a new evaluation of the depositional context of the faunal remains from the Caada del Macaya and includes a consideration of formation processes and the biological habits of this toad. We also provide new stratigraphic information on this context from the 2005 SLTAP field season.The point of departure for our analysis of the archaeological context is the late Francisco Beveridos brief report, unfortunately never prepared in final form, of his work at the bottom of the Caada del Macaya (1970:14451, pl. 1723). It is complemented by provisional information published by Michael D. Coe and Richard A. Diehl (1980, vol. 1:9093) and provenience records provided in Elizabeth Wings (1980)faunal analysis. It should be noted in the following discussion that, of the units excavated in 1968 and 1969, only two cuts, located on the east and west sides, respectively, of the ravines base, yielded Bufo remains.The Caada del Macaya is bounded on the east and north by the Southwest Ridge, a long peninsula of land located in the southwest portion of the San Lorenzo plateau (51 m above sea level2). The topographic map of this ravine (Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:map 1) shows a narrow, sloping tongue of land that bisects its interior and at the same time is connected to the Southwest Ridge. This topographic feature is depicted in the figure cross section along with the position of Beveridos Cut 1, conducted as part of the 1968 excavations, which crossed the feature near the ravines base. The cut, measuring approximately 3 3 m (1970:145), was located next to the streambed on the lower east slope of the feature and was stepped to provide a good working surface (Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:91). The artificial stairstep intervals (fig. 1) were assigned the letters A to E, with E being the far western and lowest step on the ravines east side and A the easternmost and highest (Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:fig. 54). Also, in the same season, Cut 2, measuring 3.3 1.3 m (Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:93), was placed on the west slope, but it had no steps; Coe and Diehl assert the existence of a stratigraphic correspondence between Cuts 1 and 2 (1980, vol. 1:91, 93). In 1969 another unit, measuring 3 4 m, was excavated 56 m above Cut 1 but produced no Bufo remains. Despite its 3m depth, it did not show any stratigraphic correlation with Cut 1 (Beverido 1970:186, pl. 18).Beverido seems to have believed that the deposits he excavated were undisturbed; however, his noticeable disappointment at the lack of any stratigraphic correspondence between Cut 1 and the 1969 unit (1970:186) apparently did not register as a possible indication that the Caada strata might not be primary in nature. When Cut 1 (Beverido 1970: pl. 22, 23) is positioned on the ravines topographic cross section (see figure 1), it appears that the excavation was likely conducted in a section of the ravine bank that slipped downward, that is, the aforementioned tongue of land. Aggravated by deforestation at the site, the slipping or tumbling of large chunks of earth, called slump blocks, into ravines is unfortunately a common event and is one that has been documented in SLTAP excavations on such slopes.Fig. 1. Cross section of the Caada del Macaya (right) (adapted from Beverido 1970:pl. 18 and Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1: map 1), showing the placement of Cut 1 and auger tests #42 and #43, and (left) stratigraphic cross section of Cut 1 (redrawn from Beverido 1970:pl. 23).View Large ImageDownload PowerPointBeverido also states that the darkness prevailing in the 20+mdeep gulch due to the high, dense vegetation made only flash photography possible (1970:144). He reports that the water from the nearby spring was diverted around the excavations to prevent wall damage. From his vivid description of the Caada it appears that the setting matches the ideal habitat of Bufo marinus, a nocturnal creature that partially or completely buries itself by day in soft, humid soils and at night seeks food within a 160m2 area of its burrow and prefers wellwatered areas for laying its eggs (Zug and Zug 1979). In the region today, these toads inhabit humid areas around manmade wells and springs and in shady streamcut ravines and are most often observed at dusk. Desiccation is the main cause of mortality because of their inability to regulate the loss of body water, and consequently in the dry season they must remain near a water source. The toads natural predators include turtles, snakes, and rats.In light of the above, we examined the occurrence of Bufo bones in Beveridos units. The data from Wings analysis of Cut 1, located on the east slope, make it clear that all of the toad remains in this excavation unit come from step E, the section closest to the surface and near the ravines base. There are only two toad bones from Cut 2 (in stratum h), in contrast to the 80 bones in Cut 1.Coe and Diehls main argument for the primary deposition of these remains is based on the stratigraphic correspondence between Cuts 1 and 2 (1980, vol. 1:91, 93, fig. 55), which unfortunately is not documented by published photographs and cross sections for the western cut. If their interpretation is correct, then a similar concentration of toad bones could be expected in the corresponding strata in Cut 2, but this is not the case. This inconsistent distribution suggests an alternative propositionthat the toad remains were later inclusions in the proposed slump block. If this were the case, mixing of archaeological materials, such as pottery, would be expected to be perceived during laboratory analyses, but complete ceramic data have not been presented for the Caada del Macaya work.3Our reexamination of the Caada del Macaya topography and excavations reveals a difficult excavation located in a complex depositional zone affected by dramatic formation processes. From the above analysis we believe that these excavations were located in an area of secondary deposition composed of slump and slopewash. This, along with the striking distribution of faunal remains close to the surface, suggests the possibility that Bufo marinus bone fragments may not date to Early Preclassic times.Our argument is supported by certain paradoxes in the original data set that Wings adept analysis (1980:378, 383) could not ignore: (a) given the presence of dangerous toxins from Bufos parotid glands, which act as cardiotoxins, convulsants, vasoconstrictors, and hallucinogens, there is a surprising association of food and poisonous toads; (b) the frequency of disarticulated toad bones, 9.5% of the total faunal remains, is unusually high compared with the rest of the site; and (c) there is an absence of the bone damage and modification commonly associated with human activity.Overall, these expert observations tend to negate any ancient human intervention with regard to these remains, although the lack of articulated remains is a point emphasized by Coe and Diehl (1980, vol. 1:390) in support of the exploitation of toads by humans. In this respect, consideration of the Caadas characteristics is important for an understanding of the possible causes of this disarticulation. First, it has soft sediments which are continually affected by rain, slopewash, and bioturbation, and second, it shelters the toads natural predators, which, in order to enjoy its preferred, less noxious body portions, assist in disarticulating its corpse.Our reassessment of the previous work in the Caada is not limited to a simple armchair evaluation. In the 2005 SLTAP field season we tested the proposition that the work had been conducted in a slump block. Bucket augers were used to register the stratigraphy on the tongue of land. One auger test, #43, was located at 32 m above sea level and 30 cm east of the highest corner of Beveridos Cut 1, and the other, #42, was positioned at 42 m above sea level. Importantly, the stratigraphic continuity observed in more than 40 auger tests, placed at 20 m intervals, performed on the top of the Southwest Ridge provides a reliable baseline for examining the possibility of redeposition in the adjacent Caada. Of these, test #40 is closest to #42 and #43.These tests provide key evidence that the Caada deposits do not constitute primary deposition. First, they indicate that the strata in the proposed slump block in the Caada do not match those of the contiguous Southwest Ridge (see Table 1). Despite their proximity, auger test #43 and Beveridos Cut 1 show no correspondence in the cultural strata. Noticeably absent from #43 are the red floors (strata d and g). Test #43 produced some strata similar to those of the ridgetop tests, particularly #40, but each stratum below the humus zone shows some mixing with others. The mixed nature of deposits in Beveridos Cut 1 is also visible in the photograph published by Coe and Diehl (1980, vol.1:fig. 55). Second, none of the cultural strata observed in tests on the top of the ridge (51 m above sea level) reach 19 m below the surface, the altitude of the highest corner of Cut 1 (equivalent to 32 m above sea level). The maximum depth of the ridgetop cultural strata is 17.45 m below the surface (33.55 m above sea level), and in auger test #40 archaeological material is present to 12.15 m below the surface (38.85 m above sea level). Third, the soil types and depths of strata bearing cultural material that were registered in test #42 do not correspond to those observed in the tests on the top of the ridge. In addition, they present a high degree of mixing, likely caused by slump action and erosion, as well as loam and gravel slip faces.Table 1 Depths of the Types of Soil in Auger tests #40, 42, and 43 and in Beveridos Cut 1.Auger Test #40 (E0311866, N1960901)Auger Test #42 (E0311853, N1960866)Auger Test #43 (E0311845, N1960840)Beveridos Cut 1Soil TypeDepth (m.a.s.l)Soil TypeDepth (m.a.s.l)Soil TypeDepth (m.a.s.l)Soil TypeDepth (m.a.s.l)humus51.0050.82humus42.0041.70humus32.0031.94a, humus32.0031.42yellowbrown loam50.8250.10yellowbrown loam41.7041.55yellow clay31.9430.35b, not described31.5431.08yellow clay50.1048.40bentonite41.5541.50brown clay30.3529.78c, not described31.2530.62dark gray clay48.4046.41yellowbrown loam41.5041.47grayish brown loam29.7829.63d, red floor30.9830.57yellow clay46.4146.31yellow clay41.4741.41yellow clay29.6328.35e, not described30.9629.94dark gray clay46.3145.78yellowbrown loam41.4141.07mudstone (sterile)28.3528.15f, organic material& light brown sand29.9429.53pinkish sand45.7845.59yellow clay41.0739.37 g, red burned floor29.5829.34bentonite floor45.5945.46sand and gravel39.3739.30 h, organic material/dark brown loam29.4828.81dark gray clay45.4644.95yellow clay39.3039.17 i, lutite (sterile)28.8528.42pinkish sand44.9544.80black clay39.1739.13 yellow clay44.8044.50dark brown silty loam39.1339.10 dark gray clay44.5043.64light brown silty loam39.1039.07 green clay43.6443.00yellow clay39.0736.93 blue clay43.0042.65green clay36.9336.57 green clay42.6541.45dark gray clay36.5736.34 black clay41.4541.14blue clay36.3436.15 green clay41.1441.08dark gray clay36.1533.95 black clay41.0840.91blue clay33.9533.36 blue clay40.9140.80mudstone (sterile)33.3633.10 black clay40.8040.71 gray clay40.7140.10 green clay40.1039.82 dark gray clay39.8239.61 green clay39.6138.85 blue clay(sterile)38.8538.78 gray sand(sterile)38.7838.77 green clay(sterile)38.7738.00 blue clay(sterile)38.0037.93 green clay(sterile)37.9337.20 mudstone (sterile)37.2037.05 View Table ImageIn sum, on the basis of the auger tests and stratigraphic correlation with the whole Southwest Ridge we have little doubt that the tongue of land in the Caada is a slump block and that the strata excavated by Beverido are not primary in nature. The stratigraphic correspondence between Cuts 1 and 2 emphasized by Coe and Diehl (1980, vol. 1:91. 93) in support of primary deposition resulted from the stream cutting through the slump block.The excavations that produced the Bufo marinus remains are relevant to another concern in Olmec archaeology, that of Early Preclassic cannibalism at San Lorenzo. The human bones reported as evidence of cannibalism because of cut marks, heat exposure, intentional fractures, and evidence of blows (Wing 1980:386; Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:390) have the same archaeological context as the toad remains.4 One of the examining physical anthropologists, Sergio Lpez, classified cranial fragments with eroded edges as redeposited materials (apud Beverido 1970:149), an observation which supports our contextual evaluation. If the worn human bones are redeposited materials, then doubt is cast on their San Lorenzophase date. As a corollary to the above, it is worthy of note that, to date, there is no other clear evidence for cannibalism at San Lorenzo.Cannibalism and warfare, which were considered together by Coe and Diehl (1980, vol.1:392), are potentially separate issues in that human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism may not always have been related to warfare, an activity regularly promoted as the hallmark of social complexity. Although the inference that the Caadas human remains indicate warfare during the sites florescence (Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:392) currently appears unjustifiable, we do not reject all evidence for warfare at San Lorenzo. Some sculptures may depict weapons (as in San Lorenzo monuments 78, 83, and 91 [see Cyphers 2004:145, 149, 159]) and related events (as in Tenochtitln Monument 1 [see Coe and Diehl 1980, vol. 1:392]).To summarize the discussion presented above, we believe that the chronological assignment of the Caada del Macaya bone remains to the San Lorenzo phase is questionable. Insofar as toad remains come only from ravines, their stratigraphic position in the Caada del Macaya seems to indicate the secondary deposition of the bones of modern toads living and dying in their preferred habitat. Given the absence of toad bones in primary deposits in the SLTAP sample and their predominant distribution in the exterior portion of Cut 1, it seems highly unlikely that Bufo marinus was exploited for its toxins by the San Lorenzo Olmec.The present reanalysis of an archaeological context and its associated materials should not be taken as the basis for a total rejection of Preclassic toad iconography. Its convincing identification in Middle Preclassic art is complemented by persuasive interpretations based on ethnographic analogy and comparisons with increasingly prominent later representations (see Coe 1989:72; Furst 1968, 1981; Kennedy 1982; Reilly 1989), such as those at Izapa. At the same time, we believe that toads, although depicted in Early Preclassic figurines from the Pacific Coast (Lesure 2000), are not unequivocally identifiable in Gulf Coast stone monuments (or figurines, for that matter) from the same period.While these findings certainly suggest a revision of the traditionally accepted Early Preclassic use of hallucinogenic toad toxins to induce shamanic trances, they do not negate the existence of early shamans or religious specialists at San Lorenzo. Compelling indicators of ecstatic, cultic experience include fantastic humananimal figures made of stone that depict a transformation process (Reilly 1996); nevertheless, evidence supporting the identification of the kinds of hallucinogens that might have been employed to induce this transformation process is lacking. Even though some transformation figures may be contextually linked to maximum rulership at San Lorenzo, it remains to be demonstrated whether the rulers preeminence and authority were indeed founded on exclusive ritual access to the supernatural sphere via altered states of consciousness provoked by the ingestion of hallucinogens (see Clark 1997 for a similar view based on different data).For the moment, we hope that our revisionist perspective on archaeological data will open the way for further critical inquiries about the Olmec in which taphonomic and formation processes pertinent to the interpretation of archaeological contexts assume a fundamental role.2Topographic information has been updated since the elaboration of the San Lorenzo map by the Ro Chiquito Project.3An unusual vessel fragment with fine crosshatch incising from the Caada del Macaya is dated to the San Lorenzo phase by Coe and Diehl (1980, vol. 1:184, fig. 156); however, we suspect that it could be later in date.4Pertinent proveniences for the human bone are Cut 2, stratum h, and Cut 1, step E, strata h, sur, and d. Toad bones were documented for all of these strata as well as stratum f. A number of difficulties arose from attempting to understand these field proveniences. For example, the stratumsur designation for step E shows no clear relation to the cross section. Its meaning is unknown. Another unclear point regards stratum d, which does not appear in the east wall of step E in the cross section of Cut 1; however, this may not preclude its presence in another portion of the cut.References CitedBeverido Pereau, Francisco. 1970. San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan y la civilizacin olmeca. Masters thesis, Facultad de Antropologa, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Mexco.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarClark, John E. 1997. The arts of government in Early Mesoamerica. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:21134.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarCoe, Michael D. 1968. Americas first civilization: Discovering the Olmec. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co. in association with the Smithsonian Library.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar. 1989. The Olmec heartland: Evolution of ideology, in Regional perspectives on the Olmec. Edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 6882. New York: Cambridge University Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarCoe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl. 1980. In the land of the Olmec. 2 vols. Austin: University of Texas Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarCyphers, Ann. 2004. Escultura olmeca de San Lorenzo Tenochtitln. Mxico, D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolgicas and Coordinacin de Humanidades, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar. Editor. n.d. Las excavaciones en San Lorenzo Tenochtitln. MS.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarFurst, Peter. 1968. The Olmec werejaguar motif in the light of ethnographic reality, in Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Edited by E. Benson, pp. 14374. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar. 1972a. Ritual use of hallucinogens in Mesoamerica: New evidence for snuffing from the Preclassic and Early Classic, in Religin en Mesoamrica, XII Mesa Redonda, pp. 6168. Mxico, D.F.: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar. 1972b. Symbolism and psychopharmacology: The toad as earth mother in Indian America, in Religin en Mesoamrica, XII Mesa Redonda, pp. 3746. Mxico, D.F.: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar. 1981. Jaguar baby or toad mother: A new look at an old problem in Olmec iconography, in The Olmec and their neighbors. Edited by E. Benson, pp. 14962. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarKennedy, Alison Bailey. 1982. Ecce Bufo: The toad in nature and in Olmec iconography. current anthropology 23:27390.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarLesure, Richard G. 2000. Animal imagery, cultural unities, and ideologies of inequality in Early Formative Mesoamerica, in Olmec art and archaeology in Mesoamerica. Edited by J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye, pp. 193215. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarReilly, F. Kent, III. 1989. The shaman in transformation pose: A study of the theme of rulership in Olmec art. Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 48 (2):421.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar. 1996. Art, ritual, and rulership in the Olmec world, in The Olmec world: Ritual and rulership, pp. 2746. New York: The Art Museum, Princeton University, in association with Harry N. Abrams, Inc.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarSymonds, Stacey, Ann Cyphers, and Roberto Lunagmez. 2002. Asentamento prehispnico en San Lorenzo Tenochtitln. Mxico, D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolgicas, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarWing, Elizabeth (revised by Michael D. Coe). 1980. Faunal remains from San Lorenzo, in In the land of the Olmec. Edited by M. D. Coe and R. A. Diehl, pp. 37586. Austin: University of Texas Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarZug, George R., and Patricia B. Zug. 1979. The marine toad, Bufo marinus: A natural history rsum of native populations Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 284.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarZiga, Belem. n.d. Informe del anlisis de los restos faunsticos del Proyecto Arqueolgico San Lorenzo Tenochtitln. MS.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Previous article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 46, Number S5December 2005 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/497668 Views: 865Total views on this site Citations: 4Citations are reported from Crossref 2005 by The WennerGren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reservedPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Thomas R. Whyte, J. Matthew Compton Explaining Toad Bones in Southern Appalachian Archaeological Deposits, American Antiquity 85, no.22 (Feb 2020): 305–330.https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2019.104Thomas R. Whyte, J. Matthew Compton Explaining Toad Bones in Southern Appalachian Archaeological Deposits, American Antiquity 36 (Feb 2020): 1–26.https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.104Carolina Ramírez-Núñez, Ann Cyphers, Jean-François Parrot, Bernhard Höfle MULTIDIRECTIONAL INTERPOLATION OF LIDAR DATA FROM SOUTHERN VERACRUZ, MEXICO: IMPLICATIONS FOR EARLY OLMEC SUBSISTENCE, Ancient Mesoamerica 30, no.33 (Feb 2019): 385–398.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536118000263René Kyselý Frogs as a part of the Eneolithic diet. Archaeozoological records from the Czech Republic (Kutná Hora-Denemark site, Řivnáč Culture), Journal of Archaeological Science 35, no.11 (Jan 2008): 143–157.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.016
Referência(s)