Society for American Archaeology

Styles and State Formations Author(s): Gordon R. Willey Reviewed work(s): Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 86-90 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/972213 . Accessed: 03/04/2012 22:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

STYLESAND STATEFORMATIONS
GordonR. Willey

The author's earlier thoughtsabout Mesoamerican and Peruvianhorizon styles and regional stylistic diversity have been given new meaning by the concepts of "corporate"and "exclusionary"states as these have been formulated by R. E. Blanton and colleagues Their synthesis should open the wayfor further dialogue concerning the processes of state formation as these can be observed in the archaeological record Las consideraciones originales del autor en cuanto a los estilos de los horizontes culturales en Mesoame'ricay el Peru', la divery sidad de estilos regionales, han sido redimensionadasen su significadopor R E Blantony sus colegas en cuanto a los conceptos de estados "corporativos" "exclusionistas" Su sEntesis y debe abrirpaso hacia dialogos masprofundossobre los procesos de forznacionde los estados, tal como pueden ser observados en el registroarqueolo'gico

good many years ago, I publisheda paper, "TheEarlyGreatStyles andthe Rise of the Precolumbian Civilizations" (Willey1962). It dealtwith the Olmec andChavinhorizonstyles in theirrespective Mesoamerican Peruvian and settings. What engaged my attentionwas the occurrenceof earlypowerfulartstyles like these-each uniquein its own iconographicthemes and stylistic renderings linkingtogetherthe severalregionalcultures of theirrespective areas.It was my argument this that kind of horizonalphenomenahad occurredonly in these two areas of the PrecolumbianNew World, areasthat laterwere to develop and sustainconditions of sociopolitical and culturalcomplexity to whichwe canproperly attribute termcivilization. the With referenceto this term,I realize that the word "civilization" often used morebroadlyor loosely, is but I had in mind its classic definition as this is derived from its root civitas-the city-with its accompaniments urbanpopulation of clusters,great publicbuildings,andmonumental arts.Such a complex of definitive features characterizes the Mesoamericanand Peruvianareas,at least in their Classic andfinalPrecolumbian phases,butno other cultureareain the ancientAmericas. This was an empiricalobservation, recognition a of a pattern the dataof New Worldprehistory, in that

I thought interesting suggestive; and however, made I no attemptto explainthe pattern. be sure,possiTo ble explanations were implied.For instance,did an intercommunicative belief system or ideology, implied by the widespreadart styles, have something to do with promotingcivilizationalcomplexity through increased multiregional interactions? Was areawide unity of an ideological, economic, and political kind a prerequisite for civilization? It appearedto me to be something worth thinking about.But my colleaguesof those days appeared to disagree with, or not to be very interestedin, my observations. cannotrecallanypublishedreaction, I but,in conversation, some associatesindicated me to thatmy focus on Olmec andChavinartappeared to be a reactionary attempt place the vital motorsof to culturalchangein ideology ratherthanin the material realmwhere they belonged. Othersadoptedan attitude wouldbe compatible that with whatwe now thinkof as "politicalcorrectness" aboutethnicmatters, along the lines of "Justbecause my Indians didn'tlive in cities anddidn'tbuildgreathigh pyramids doesn't mean they weren't as creative or as nice as those who lived in Mesoamericaand Peru." For the most part,though,no one was particularly interestedin my observation. AlthoughI didn't grieve over this disinterestor

Gordon R. Willey * Peabody Museum, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge,MA 02138 LatinAmericanAntiquity,10(1), 1999, pp. 8S90 CopyrightC) 1999 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

86

COMMENT

87

neglect unduly,apparently could never let go of I the idea, for almost30 years laterI returned it in to a paper,"Horizonal Integration RegionalDiverand sity:An Alternating Processin the Rise of Civilizations" (Willey 1991). This time I expanded the original theme by arguing that Mesoamericaand Perunot only werecharacterized theirrespective by possessions of the early Olmec and Chavinmultiregionalhorizonstyles,butthattheseareaswerealso alikein displayinglaterhorizonstyles. Beyondthat, each was furthercharacterized alternating by periods of regionalstylistic diversitybetween the horizon style phenomena. To briefly summarize: In Mesoamerica,the Olmec horizon style of the earlier part of the Middle Formativeperiod was followed by the numerousregional styles of the Late Formative earlierEarlyClassicperiods;this era and of regional diversity was then succeeded by the Teotihuacan horizonof the laterEarly Classic and Middle Classic periods;in turn,this horizon gave way to the subsequentstylistic regionalismof the Late Classic and Early Postclassic periods; and finally,therewas theAztec horizonof theLatePostclassic period.In Peru,this alternation horizons of and stylistic regionalismbegan with the Chavinor Early Horizon; this was followed by the regional styles of the Early Intermediateperiod; these, in turn,were succeeded by the Huari-Tiahuanaco or Middle Horizon;this then gave way to the many regionalstyles of the Late Intermediate period;and finally,therewas the Inkahorizon. In this second paper,I went on to offer the idea thatthis alteInation unification diversitymay of and be a clue to processescrucialin the rise of statehood and civilization.Did sharedideologies of the horizonalepochsprepare groundfor the extensionof the statepower,in contrast the geographically to limited politicaldomainsof theepochsof regionaldiversity? In makingthis case for such an alternation horiof zons andregionalismas a causalfactorin the rise of civilization,I hadrecourseto whatmightbe considered supporting"negative" evidence from another partof the New World.This was the "Intermediate Area"-or thatterritory lyingbetweentheMesoamerican frontierand northernPeru. The Intermediate Area in sum, the coasts and highlandsof what is today lower Central America, Colombia, and Ecuador-lacks the phenomenaof horizon styles. Whilesharing the subsistence in practices, technologies, and manyotherculturaltraitsof Mesoamerica

andPeru indeed,its achievements plantcultivain tion andthe development ceramicsantedate of those of eitherMesoamerica Peru(seeWilley 1996 for and areviewof thisissue) its Precolumbian culture history is an unrelievedstoryof small territorial stylistic entities.These entitieswould appear represent to pettychiefdoms.Oftentheirrulersexercisedthe sort of power that is reflectedin rich grave goods and costlyretainer-burials. Althoughstonesculpture and publicbuildingis presentin some localities,thereis no evidenceof the monumentality urbanization and thatcharacterizes Mesoamerica Peru. and Such was my argument. alternation periAn of ods of intensiveinterregional communication with periodsof regionaldiversitywas a key factorin the growthof civilizational complexity. Wouldthisplaying around withstylesandstatehood attract attenany tion this time? While I lay no claim to credit for planting ideas,I waspleasedto see thatmy 1991article strucka responsivenote in a paperby Richard E. Blanton,GaryM. Feinman, Stephen Kowalewski, A. andPeterM. Peregrine, Dual-Processual "A Theory for the Evolution of MesoamericanCivilization," that appearedin CurrentAnthropologyin 1996. WhereI had been doing little more thanmakingan observationof a diachronicpatternin the archaeological data,with only vague suggestionsof the culturalandsocialforcesthathadbeen atwork,Blanton et al. set aboutattempting explainjust what had to happenedin Mesoamerica leave such a pattern to in the record. It is theirthesisthata simpleunilinealevolutionary sequence of band-to-tribe-to-chiefdom-to state cannothandlewhattranspired ancientMesoamerin ica. They offer, instead, what they designate as a "dual-processual" theoryof evolution,one in which two kindsof politicaleconomy arecompeting.One of these they termthe "exclusionary," otherthe the "corporate." Exclusionarystatelets, or protostates,are centeredon individualor family-lineagerulers.In this sense, they are more like chiefdoms, from which, indeed,they developed.Individuals, theirsearch in for wealth and power, determinethe forms of the exclusionarystate, and ancestralrituallegitimates controlof societyby a limitednumberof high-ranking individuals.In contrast,corporatestates transcend the scale of family-lineagerhetoric.Instead, themesof remotegodsorcosmicrenewalareemphasized. This allows for an incorporation disparate of

88

ANTIQUITY LATINAMERICAN

[Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999]

with theirbig majorcenters, ethnic groupsinto the body politic and legitimates towardcorporateness, theiropen plazas, and theircosmic imagery.In the of appropriation the resourcesof these groups. with this dichotomous Classic, however,the trendwas in the otherdirecAddressingMesoamerica modelin mind,Blantonandcolleaguesconcedethat tion, with these earlierpolities being replacedby a Thesewere statesor statelets. the Olmec artstyle may signala sortof proto-incor- networkof interacting processthatwas takingplacein westernand very fragmentedpolitically, often hostile to each poration of duringthe EarlyandMiddle other,and with a proliferation individualfamily Mesoamerica southern Formativeperiods.They qualify this, however,by dynasties who are commemoratedin temple and Then,with the Postpointing out that in some regions an exclusionary tombartandroyalinscriptions. to monu- classic,as atChichenItza,rulersarediff1cult idenstate strategyis reflectedin Olmec portrait art; ments of rulers and other indications of lineage tify in commemorative insteadthe mainfocus is buildingsandthe rhetoric.In their opinion, it is not until the rise of on thegreatplazasandcolonnaded state panoplyof corporateness. that Teotihuacan a truecorporate Classic-period makesome veryinterBlantonandhis coauthors and political economy was established on the Mesoamericanscene, one whose power persisted esting observationsabout consumergoods, manuof fromcircaA.D. 300 to 750. A number thingsindi- facturing,and the developmentof technologies.In For cate the corporatestatestrategy. one, therewas my 1991 paper,I had observedthat technological associatedwith seemedto be particularly a very clear de-emphasis of individual entrepre- innovation diversity" of Thereareno portraits named whatI designatedas periodsof "regional neurialachievement. but unifications"; they state rulers; instead,Teotihuacan cults,basedon cos- as opposedto the "horizonal mological principlesand glorifiedby monumental go furtherthanthis by essaying an explanationfor public works, assumed prime religious-propagan- this condition.They note that in the exclusionary of the For disticimportance. another, nature thehori- politicaleconomiesthereis a tightcontrolof theproof as out zon styleradiating fromTeotihuacan, observed ductionand distribution prestigegoods. In their is in suchthingsas the well-known"tassel-headdress" words:"Thiscompetitivesocial atmosphere a nat(Blanton thanthe ear- uralcruciblefor technologicalinnovation" feature,was much more standardized of lierdistributions Olmechorizonart.It was clearly et al. 1996:12). Also, at that time production processes were usually those not availableto ordisomethingdispatchedfrom a specific center. politBlanton et al. then go on to discuss the icono- naryhouseholds.In contrast,in the corporate Mesoamerica. ical economy,theretendsto be a shift to goods that graphichistoryof post-Teotihaucan politicalsys- are widely householdproduced. They see a swing backto exclusionary by tems in Epiclassicand EarlyPostclassictimes, folI can addto theirargument notingthattheparlowed by strongexpressionsof the corporatestate allels to what happenedin Peru are striking.Techthere,especiallyin metallurgy, mode in the Late Postclassic with the Aztec and nologicalinnovation empires.They make the observationthat was notablein periods of regionaldiversity,much Tarascan did these corporateempires,like Teotihuacan, not less so in those of HorizonalUnification.In the latportrayrulersin theirartbut, instead,gave empha- ter theretendedto be widespreaddisseminationof sis to the deities of rain, the sun, Quetzalcoatl,or innovations madeundertheregional-or readexcluThis does not meanthattherewere sionary politicaleconomies.Thus,thewidespread Huitzilopochtli. On rulersof importance. the contrary, propagation tin-bronze, earliersouthhighland no individual an of ethnohistoricaccounts of these late periods attest invention,was achievedlaterunderthe Inkaiccorthattherewere such individualsbut thatthe face of poratestate. peoples to the statethatwas presented incorporated As is the mannerof thejournal,CurrentAnthrowas one with a wider,multiethnicappeal. pology, the Blanton, Feinman, Kowalewski, and Blantonand colleagues are at pains to make the Peregrinepaperwas subjectedto critiquesby varithe- ous colleagues, and all of these variouscomments pointthatit is thedualityof theirdual-processual ory that is important.Corporatefeatures in state areworthperusing.I will not single anyof themout, developmentalternatewith exclusionaryfeatures. buta generallyshared criticalthemeis thattheexcluby As an example,this is well illustrated the Low- sionary-corporate dichotomy may be overstressed landMaya.In the LatePreclassic,therewas a trend and that the two strategies had coexisted in

COMMENT

89

for Mesoamerica most of the time of which we have Blanton a record.In theirconcludingobservations, et al. admitthis to a degree,andI, too, would agree thatthereis evidencefor some coexistence;butI am stronglyon the side of Blanton and colleagues in dialectic going believing thatthereis an important on herebetweenthesetwo processesandwouldfurther maintainthat such a dialectic is crucialin the evolutionof civilizations. There is, on the one hand, in the exclusionary process,the desireforpowerandprestigeon thepart of leaders or rulers who, in whateverways, have gained ascendancyover their fellow members of society.We have seen how this can be expressedin many ways: throughthe possession and controlof monuments; commemorative luxurygoods;through elaboratetombs and retainerburial;the manipulation of religionandreligiousritual;and,throughall descent this, thereis an emphasison the hereditary of power.On the otherhand,the corporateprocess coursein the searchfor anddeploytracesa different ment of power.Its basic motive is the geographical and the multiethnicextensionof political and economicpower.Withthisprocess,thereis less emphasis on the individualrulerandhis immediatekin, or at least thereis less emphasisin the way such a ruler The andhis lineagearepropagandized. symbolsand with costhe artof the statenow seek an aff1liation mic beliefs andforces,perhapslookingbackin time of generalheritages belief thathad to old widespread tribalsanctionbut not imperialpowerbehindit. Many interesting questions arise from these state Why,for instance,was corporate observations. formationmore successful in Peru-Boliviathan in Mesoamerica?Contrastthe geographically enorof mous distributions the Inkahorizonand empire, horiHuari-Tiahuanaco as well as thoseof theearlier zon style and possible empire,with the MesoamerWhat attempts. corporate icanAztec or Teotihuacan are the reasonsbehindthis difference?Why do the stateletsof otherpartsof theAmericas,suchas those Area, seem to stall at the excluof the Intermediate sionarylevel?Wouldsocietiesherehave gone on to attemptshad they been given more time? corporate at and Onethinksof theChibcha theirattempts larger althoughnot very polities as perhapsa beginning, well-developed,effortin this direction. Anotherquestionthat I find most fascinatingis the intrinsicnatureof the earliesthorizon stylesthe Olmec and the Chavin-in Mesoamericaand

Peru. How far along had the culturesand societies politicalecona of thistimemovedtoward corporate in thereis greatdiff1culty visualizomy? Certainly, ing the severalOlmec societies in the context of a state;andin Peruthe corporate singleMesoamerican same holds true for the Chavin societies. In both cases, the styles are rich in symbolismand iconography that suggests religious beliefs and, judging very distributions, widespread fromtheirgeographic would providesome religiousbeliefs. Such beliefs political of substanceby which a large territorial together;but in neither could be held agrupement Olmec nor Chavindo otherlines of archaeological polity. corporate an evidencefully support integrated Chavinremindone of In manyways, Olmec and the stylisticspreadsseen on simplerculturallevels, of such as the dissemination the Hopewellianbirddesign imagery throughoutlarge parts of eastern NorthAmerica in Middle Woodlandtimes, or the "SouthernCult" art that appearsto have diffused United States on throughmuch of the southeastern time laterPrecolumbian level.Suchsyma somewhat bols must reflect at least some common underby shared manypeoples,quiteoftengroups standings speaking different languages and separatedfrom each otherby differentcultures.I would thinkthat it is symbolismsuch as this thatholds the potential politicalendswhenthe time to be used for corporate is ripe.Givenmoretime a politicallypotentunification-in effect, an empire-might have arisen in easternNorthAmerica.In turn,it might then have of dissolvedunderthe assertion regionalauthorities. Thus, corporatepolities drawupon ancient shared traditions,and they rise and fall throughthe struggles betweenwhat areotherwisetheirexclusionary components. The basic causalitybehind such events remains a question.To whatdegreearenatural-environmencausal?Wasthe failureof the cultal circumstances Areato move turesandsocietiesof the Intermediate or unification corhorizonal moreeffectivelytoward Did ambience? poratepolitiesrootedin theirnatural highlandandcoastalenvironment thePeru-Bolivian in ease the way for imperialunifications a moreprosetnatural thantheMesoamerican nouncedmanner Maybe butif so thereis still ting(see Murra1980)? a lot thatwe do notknow aboutit. Naturalandmateobviouslymustbe consideredas rial circumstances we searchfor cause;norcan we ignoreideas or ideologies in this search,althoughto traceandexplain

lveaways Indi,gtnews

Testamcnts

ef

9o

LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 10, No. 1,1999]

Murra, V. J. 1980 TheEconomicOrganization theInkaState.JAIPress, of Greenwich,Connecticut. Willey,G. R. 1962 The EarlyGreatStyles andtheRise of thePrecolumbian Civilizations.AmericanAnthropologist 64:2-14. 1991 HorizonalIntegration RegionalDiversity: and AnAlternatingProcessin the Rise of Civilizations. American AntiqReferences Cited uity56:197-215. 1996 LowerCentralAmericanArchaeology: Comments Some Arnold J. E. (editor) as of 1991. Paths to CentralAmericanPrehistory,edited In 1997 EmergentComplexity:The Evolution of Intermediate by F.W.Lange,pp. 297-303. UniversityPressof Colorado, Societies. InternationalMonographs in Prehistory.Ann Boulder. Arbor,Michigan. Blanton,R. E., G. M. Feinman,S. A. Kowalewski,andP.N. Pere-

them presents the archaeologistwith even greater challenges.But it is reassuring know thatthereis to a stronginterestin pursuingsuchmatters the part on of a growing number of archaeologists (see, for example,J.E.Amold 1997).

grine

ReceivedFebruazy20 1998; acceptedMarch31, 1998; revised 1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of MesoamericanCivilization. CurrentAnthropology37:1-14. April 14, 1998.

,ead
X g

C'ogon Mtsormerira ial 7. and tbeAndes

Pottery and People

A Diciionary of The Maya Language As Spoken in Hocaba, Yuc;lt;in

Edlted bv

James1M. Shbo
and

Victoria Briclter Eleuterio PO70tYah Ofelia Dzul de

Can.U. Feinman

EDITED BY SUSAN KEI I.OGS AND MATTHEW RESTAI I.

FOUNDA:llONS MCHAEOLOGICAL OF INQUIRY

Dead Giveaways
Indigenous Testaments of Colonial Mesoamerica and the Andes Editedby Susan Kelloggand Matthew Restall 302 pp., 6 x 9, I map ISBN0-87480-579-1Cloth $40.00

Pottery and People

A Dictionary of the Maya Language

1-

S--