8/2/2019 Styles y State Formations

1/6

Society for American Archaeology

Styles and State FormationsAuthor(s): Gordon R. WilleyReviewed work(s):Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 86-90Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable 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 ofcontent 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 support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLatin

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/972213?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/972213?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

8/2/2019 Styles y State Formations

2/6

The author'searlier thoughtsaboutMesoamerican and Peruvian horizon styles and regional stylistic diversity have been givennew meaning by the concepts of "corporate"and "exclusionary"states as these have been formulated by R. E. Blanton andcolleagues Their synthesis should open the wayfor further dialogue concerning the processes of state formation as these canbe observed in the archaeological recordLas cons derac ones o rig na es de a u or en cuan o a los es tilos de los horizon es c ultu ales en Mesoam 'rica e Peru', la diver-sidad de estilos regionales, han sido redimensionadas n su significadopor R E Blanton y sus colegas en cuanto a los concep-tos de estados "corporativos" "exclusionistas"Su sEntesis ebe abrirpaso hacia dialogos masprofundos obre losprocesos deforznacionde los estados, tal como pueden ser observados en el registroarqueolo'gico

Gordon R. Willey * Peabody Museum, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge,MA 02138LatinAmericanAntiquity,10(1), 1999, pp. 8S90CopyrightC)1999 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

A good many years ago, I publisheda paper,"TheEarlyGreatStyles andtheRise of thePrecolumbianCivilizations"Willey 1962).It dealtwith the Olmec andChavinhorizonstyles intheir espectiveMesoamerican ndPeruvian ettings.Whatengaged my attentionwas the occurrenceofearlypowerfulartstyles like these-each unique nits own iconographic hemes and stylistic render-ings linkingtogether he severalregionalculturesof their espective reas. t was myargumenthat hiskind of horizonalphenomenahadoccurredonly inthese two areas of the PrecolumbianNew World,areas thatlater were to develop andsustaincondi-tions of sociopolitical and culturalcomplexity towhichwecanproperly ttributehe termcivilization.With reference o this term, I realize thatthe word"civilization"s often used morebroadlyor loosely,but I had in mind its classic definition as this isderived from its root civitas-the city-with itsaccompaniments f urbanpopulation lusters,greatpublicbuildings,andmonumental rts.Such a com-plex of definitive features characterizes theMesoamericanand Peruvianareas, at least in theirClassic andfinal Precolumbian hases,butno otherculturearea n the ancientAmericas.Thiswas an empiricalobservation, recognitionof a patternn the dataof New Worldprehistory,hat

I thoughtnteresting ndsuggestive; owever, madeno attempt o explainthe pattern.To be sure,possi-ble explanationswere implied.For instance,did anintercommunicative belief system or ideology,implied by the widespreadart styles, have some-thing to do withpromotingcivilizationalcomplex-ity throughncreasedmultiregionalnteractions?Wasareawide unity of an ideological, economic, andpolitical kind a prerequisite for civilization? Itappeared to me to be something worth thinkingabout.But my colleagues of those daysappeared odisagree with, or not to be very interested n, myobservations. cannotrecallanypublished eaction,but, nconversation, ome associates ndicated omethatmy focus on Olmec and Chavinartappeared obe a reactionary ttempt o place the vitalmotorsofcultural hange n ideology rather han n themate-rial realm wherethey belonged. Othersadoptedanattitude hatwouldbe compatiblewith whatwe nowthinkof as "political orrectness" boutethnicmat-ters, along the lines of "Justbecause my Indiansdidn't ive in cities anddidn'tbuildgreathighpyra-mids doesn't mean they weren't as creative or asnice as thosewho lived in MesoamericaandPeru."For the most part,though,no one was particularlyinterested n my observation.Although I didn't grieve over this disinterestor

86

STYLESAND STATEFORMATIONSGordonR. Willey

- - -

8/2/2019 Styles y State Formations

3/6

COMMENT 87

neglect unduly, apparently could never let go ofthe idea, for almost 30 years laterI returned o it ina paper,"Horizonal ntegration ndRegionalDiver-sity:An AlternatingProcess n the Rise of Civiliza-tions" (Willey 1991). This time I expanded theoriginal theme by arguing that Mesoamerica andPerunot only were characterized y theirrespectivepossessions of the early Olmec and Chavinmulti-regionalhorizon tyles,but hat hese areaswere alsoalike n displaying aterhorizonstyles. Beyond that,each was further haracterized y alternating eri-ods of regionalstylistic diversitybetween the hori-zon style phenomena. To briefly summarize: InMesoamerica, he Olmec horizon style of the ear-lier part of the Middle Formativeperiod was fol-lowed by the numerousregional styles of the LateFormative ndearlierEarlyClassicperiods; his eraof regional diversity was then succeeded by theTeotihuacanhorizon of the later Early Classic andMiddle Classic periods; n turn, this horizon gaveway to the subsequent tylistic regionalismof theLate Classic and Early Postclassic periods; andfinally, herewas theAztec horizonof the LatePost-classic period.In Peru, this alternation f horizonsand stylistic regionalismbegan with the ChavinorEarly Horizon; this was followed by the regionalstyles of the Early Intermediateperiod; these, inturn, were succeeded by the Huari-Tiahuanaco rMiddle Horizon; this then gave way to the manyregionalstyles of the Late Intermediate eriod;andfinally, therewas the Inkahorizon.In this second paper, went on to offer the ideathat his alteInation f unification nd diversitymaybe a clue to processescrucial n the rise of statehoodand civilization.Did shared deologies of the hori-zonal epochsprepare he ground or the extensionofstatepower, n contrast o the geographicallyimitedpoliticaldomainsof the epochsof regionaldiversity?In makingthis case for such an alternation f hori-zons andregionalism s a causal actor n the rise ofcivilization, had recourse o whatmightbe consid-ered supporting"negative" vidence from anotherpartof the New World.This was the "IntermediateArea"-or that erritoryyingbetween heMesoamer-ican frontierand northernPeru. The IntermediateArea in sum, the coasts and highlandsof what istoday lower Central America, Colombia, andEcuador-lacks the phenomenaof horizon styles.While sharing n the subsistencepractices, echnolo-gies, and many othercultural raitsof Mesoamerica

andPeru indeed, ts achievementsn plantcultiva-tion and he development f ceramicsantedate hoseof eitherMesoamerica ndPeru seeWilley 1996 forareviewof this ssue) its Precolumbianulturehis-tory is an unrelieved toryof small territorialtylis-tic entities.These entitieswould appear o representpettychiefdoms.Often heirrulers xercised he sortof power that is reflected n rich grave goods andcostly retainer-burials.lthough tonesculpture ndpublicbuilding s present n some localities, here sno evidence of the monumentality nd urbanizationthatcharacterizesMesoamerica nd Peru.Such was my argument.An alternation f peri-ods of intensive nterregional ommunicationwithperiodsof regionaldiversitywas a key factor n thegrowthof civilizational omplexity.Would hisplay-ing aroundwithstylesandstatehood ttract nyatten-tion this time? While I lay no claim to credit forplanting deas,I was pleased o see thatmy 1991 arti-cle strucka responsivenote in a paperby RichardE.Blanton,GaryM. Feinman,StephenA. Kowalewski,andPeterM. Peregrine,"ADual-ProcessualTheoryfor the Evolution of MesoamericanCivilization,"that appeared n CurrentAnthropology n 1996.WhereI had been doing little more thanmakinganobservationof a diachronicpattern n the archaeo-logical data,with only vague suggestionsof the cul-turalandsocialforcesthathadbeen atwork,Blantonet al. set about attempting o explain ust what hadhappened n Mesoamerica o leave such a pattern nthe record.It is their hesis thata simpleunilinealevolution-ary sequence of band-to-tribe-to-chiefdom-totatecannothandlewhat ranspiredn ancientMesoamer-ica. They offer, instead, what they designate as a"dual-processual"heoryof evolution,one in whichtwo kindsof politicaleconomy are competing.Oneof these they termthe "exclusionary,"he otherthe"corporate."Exclusionary statelets, or protostates,are cen-tered on individualor family-lineagerulers.In thissense, they are more like chiefdoms, from which,indeed, they developed.Individuals, n their searchfor wealth and power, determine he forms of theexclusionarystate, and ancestralritual legitimatescontrolof society by a limitednumberof high-rank-ing individuals.In contrast,corporatestates tran-scend the scale of family-lineagerhetoric. nstead,themesof remotegods orcosmicrenewalareempha-sized. This allows for an incorporation f disparate

8/2/2019 Styles y State Formations

4/6

LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY8 [Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999]

towardcorporateness,with theirbig majorcenters,their openplazas, andtheircosmic imagery. n theClassic,however, he trendwas in the other direc-tion, with these earlierpolities beingreplacedby anetworkof interactingtatesor statelets.Thesewerevery fragmentedpolitically,often hostile to eachother,and with a proliferation f individual amilydynasties who are commemorated n temple andtombartandroyal nscriptions.Then,with thePost-classic, as at Chichen tza,rulersarediff1culto iden-tify incommemorative rt; nstead he mainfocus ison thegreatplazasandcolonnadedbuildingsand hepanoplyof corporateness.Blantonandhis coauthorsmakesome very nter-esting observationsabout consumergoods, manu-facturing,and the developmentof technologies.Inmy 1991 paper,I had observedthat technologicalinnovation eemed obe particularlyssociatedwithwhatI designatedas periodsof "regionaldiversity"as opposedto the "horizonal nifications"; uttheygo further han this by essayingan explanation orthis condition.They note that in the exclusionarypoliticaleconomies here s a tightcontrolof thepro-ductionand distribution f prestigegoods. In theirwords:"This ompetitive ocial atmospheres a nat-uralcrucible or technologicalnnovation"Blantonet al. 1996:12). Also, at that time productionprocesseswere usuallythose not available o ordi-naryhouseholds. ncontrast, n thecorporate olit-ical economy,there ends to be a shift to goods thatare widelyhouseholdproduced.I canadd o theirargument ynoting hat hepar-allels to what happened n Peruare striking.Tech-nological nnovationhere,especially n metallurgy,was notable n periodsof regionaldiversity,muchless so in those of HorizonalUnification. n thelat-ter theretendedto be widespreaddisseminationofinnovationsmadeunder heregional-or readexclu-sionary politicaleconomies.Thus, he widespreadpropagation f tin-bronze, n earlier outhhighlandinvention,was achieved aterunder he Inkaiccor-poratestate.As is the mannerof thejournal,CurrentAnthro-pology,the Blanton, Feinman, Kowalewski, andPeregrinepaperwas subjected o critiquesby vari-ous colleagues,andall of these variouscommentsareworthperusing. will not singleanyof themout,buta generally hared ritical heme s that he exclu-sionary-corporateichotomymay be overstressedand that the two strategies had coexisted in

ethnic groups nto the body politic and legitimatesappropriationf the resourcesof thesegroups.AddressingMesoamericawith thisdichotomousmodel nmind,Blantonandcolleaguesconcedethatthe Olmecartstyle maysignal a sortof proto-incor-poration rocess hatwas takingplace n westernandsouthernMesoamericaduring heEarlyandMiddleFormativeperiods. They qualify this, however,bypointingout that in some regionsan exclusionarystate strategy s reflected n Olmec portraitmonu-ments of rulers and other indications of lineagerhetoric. n their opinion,it is not until the rise ofClassic-period eotihuacanhata truecorporate tateand political economy was established on theMesoamericanscene, one whose power persistedfromcircaA.D. 300 to750. A number f things ndi-cate thecorporate tatestrategy.Forone, therewasa very clear de-emphasis of individualentrepre-neurialachievement.Thereareno portraits f namedrulers; nstead,Teotihuacantatecults,basedon cos-mologicalprinciplesand glorifiedby monumentalpublic works, assumedprime religious-propagan-distic mportance. oranother, henature f the hori-zon styleradiating utfromTeotihuacan,s observedin such thingsas thewell-known"tassel-headdress"feature,was much morestandardizedhan the ear-lier distributionsf Olmechorizonart. t was clearlysomethingdispatched rom a specificcenter.Blantonet al. then go on to discuss the icono-graphichistory of post-TeotihaucanMesoamerica.They see a swing backto exclusionarypoliticalsys-tems in Epiclassic andEarlyPostclassictimes,fol-lowed by strong expressionsof the corporate tatemode in the Late Postclassic with the Aztec andTarascan mpires.They make the observation hatthese corporate mpires, ike Teotihuacan,did notportray ulers n theirartbut, instead,gave empha-sis to the deities of rain,the sun, Quetzalcoatl,orHuitzilopochtli.Thisdoes not meanthat herewereno individual ulersof importance.On the contrary,ethnohistoricaccountsof these late periods attestthattherewere such individualsbut thatthe face ofthe statethatwas presented o incorporated eopleswas one with a wider,multiethnicappeal.Blantonand colleagues are at painsto makethepoint hat t is the dualityof theirdual-processualhe-ory that is important.Corporate eatures in statedevelopmentalternatewith exclusionary eatures.As an example,this is well illustratedby the Low-land Maya.In the LatePreclassic, herewas a trend

8/2/2019 Styles y State Formations

5/6

COMMENT 89

Mesoamericaormostof the timeof whichwe havea record.Intheirconcludingobservations,Blantonet al. admit histo a degree,andI, too, wouldagreethat here s evidence or somecoexistence;butI amstronglyon the side of Blantonand colleagues inbelievingthatthereis an importantdialecticgoingonherebetweenthesetwoprocessesandwouldfur-thermaintain hatsucha dialecticis crucial n theevolutionof civilizations.Thereis, on the one hand,in the exclusionaryprocess, hedesire orpowerandprestigeonthepartof leadersor rulerswho, in whateverways, havegained ascendancyover their fellow membersofsociety.Wehaveseenhow thiscanbe expressed nmanyways:through he possessionandcontrolofluxurygoods; hrough ommemorativemonuments;elaborate ombsandretainerburial; he manipula-tionof religionandreligiousritual;and,throughallthis, there s anemphasison thehereditary escentof power.Onthe otherhand,thecorporateprocesstracesadifferent ourse nthesearch or anddeploy-mentof power.Itsbasicmotiveis the geographicalandthe multiethnic xtensionof politicaland eco-nomicpower.With hisprocess, here s less empha-sis on theindividual ulerandhis immediatekin,orat leastthere s less emphasis n theway sucharulerandhis lineagearepropagandized. hesymbolsandtheartof the statenow seekan aff1liationwithcos-micbeliefsand orces,perhapsookingback ntimeto old widespread eneralheritages fbeliefthathadtribalsanctionbutnot imperialpowerbehind t.Many interesting questions arise from theseobservations.Why, orinstance,was corporate tateformationmore successfulin Peru-Bolivia haninMesoamerica?Contrast he geographicallyenor-mousdistributions f the Inkahorizonandempire,aswell as thoseof theearlierHuari-Tiahuanacoori-zon styleandpossibleempire,withtheMesoamer-icanAztecor Teotihuacanorporate ttempts.Whatarethereasonsbehindthisdifference?Whydo thestateletsof otherpartsof theAmericas, uchasthoseof theIntermediate rea,seem to stallat theexclu-sionary evel?Wouldsocietiesherehavegoneon tocorporate ttemptshadtheybeengivenmoretime?Onethinksof theChibcha nd heirattempts t argerpolities as perhapsa beginning,althoughnot verywell-developed,effort n thisdirection.AnotherquestionthatI findmost fascinating sthe intrinsicnatureof the earliesthorizonstyles-the Olmec and the Chavin-in Mesoamericaand

Peru.How faralonghadthe culturesandsocietiesof thistimemoved oward corporate oliticalecon-omy?Certainly,here s greatdiff1cultyn visualiz-ing the severalOlmec societiesin the contextof asingleMesoamericanorporatetate;and nPeru hesame holds truefor the Chavinsocieties. In bothcases, the stylesarerichin symbolismandiconog-raphythat suggests religiousbeliefs and,judgingfrom heirgeographic istributions,erywidespreadreligiousbeliefs. Suchbeliefs wouldprovidesomeof substanceby which a large territorialpoliticalagrupement ould be held together;but in neitherOlmecnorChavindo other ines of archaeologicalevidence ully support n ntegratedorporate olity.

Inmanyways,OlmecandChavinremindone ofthe stylisticspreads een on simplerculturalevels,suchas thedissemination f the Hopewellianbird-design imagerythroughout arge partsof easternNorthAmericain MiddleWoodland imes, or the"SouthernCult"art thatappears o have diffusedthroughmuchof the southeasternUnitedStatesona somewhataterPrecolumbianime evel.Suchsym-bols must reflect at least some common under-standingshared ymanypeoples,quiteoftengroupsspeakingdifferentlanguages and separated romeachotherby differentcultures.I wouldthinkthatit is symbolismsuchas this thatholdsthepotentialtobeusedforcorporate oliticalendswhenthe timeis ripe.Givenmoretimeapoliticallypotentunifica-tion-in effect, an empire-might have arisenineasternNorthAmerica.In turn, t mightthenhavedissolvedunder heassertion f regionalauthorities.Thus,corporatepolities drawupon ancientsharedtraditions,andthey rise andfall through he strug-gles betweenwhatareotherwise heirexclusionarycomponents.The basic causalitybehindsucheventsremainsa question.Towhatdegreearenatural-environmen-tal circumstancesausal?Was hefailureof thecul-turesandsocietiesof theIntermediate reato movemoreeffectively owardhorizonalunification rcor-poratepolitiesrooted n theirnatural mbience?DidthePeru-Bolivian ighlandandcoastalenvironmenteasethewayfor imperialunificationsn a morepro-nouncedmannerhan heMesoamerican aturalet-ting(seeMurra1980)?Maybe but f sothere s stilla lotthatwe do notknowabout t.Natural ndmate-rialcircumstances bviouslymustbe consideredaswe search orcause;norcanwe ignore deasoride-ologies in thissearch,although o traceandexplain

8/2/2019 Styles y State Formations

6/6

ReceivedFebruazy 0 1998;acceptedMarch31, 1998; revisedApril14, 1998.

9o LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 1,1999]Murra, . V.1980 TheEconomicOrganization f theInkaState.JAIPress,Greenwich,Connecticut.Willey, G. R.1962 TheEarlyGreatStylesand he Riseof thePrecolumbian

Civilizations.AmericanAnthropologist 4:2-14.1991 Horizonal ntegration ndRegionalDiversity:AnAlter-natingProcess nthe Rise of Civilizations.AmericanAntiq-uity56:197-215.1996 LowerCentralAmericanArchaeology:omeCommentsas of 1991. n Pathsto CentralAmericanPrehistory, ditedby F.W.Lange,pp.297-303. UniversityPress of Colorado,Boulder.

them presents the archaeologistwith even greaterchallenges.But it is reassuring o know thatthere sa strong nterest npursuing uch matters nthe partof a growing number of archaeologists (see, forexample,J.E.Amold 1997).

References CitedArnold J. E. (editor)1997 EmergentComplexity:TheEvolution of IntermediateSocieties. InternationalMonographsin Prehistory.AnnArbor,Michigan.Blanton,R. E., G. M. Feinman,S. A. Kowalewski, ndP.N. Pere-

grine1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution ofMesoamericanCivilization.urrentAnthropology37:1-14.

,eadX C'ogonal Mtsormerira

g 7.J and tbeAndes

PotteryandPeople A Diciionary ofThe Maya LanguageAs Spoken in Hocaba, Yuc;lt;inVictoria Briclter

Eleuterio PO70tYahOfelia Dzul de Po70t

A DYNAMI(:IN] SKA(.i 1()N

-1- S--Edlted bvJames1M. hbo

andCan.U. Feinman

EDITED BY SUSAN KEI I.OGSAND MATTHEW RESTAI I. FOUNDA:llONS F MCHAEOLOGICALNQUIRY

Dead GiveawaysIndigenous TestamentsofColonial Mesoamericaand the AndesEdited by SusanKelloggandMatthewRestall302 pp., 6 x 9, I mapISBN0-87480-579-1Cloth $40.00

Pottery and PeopleA DynamicInteractionEditedby James M. SkiboandGary M.Feinman240 pp., 7 x 10,94 illustrationsISB00-87480-576-7 Cloth $55.00ISBN0-87480-577-5 Paper $25.00

A Dictionary of theMaya LanguageAs Spoken in Hocaba, Y"catanVictoriaBricker,Eleuterio Po'ot YahandOfelia Dzul de Po'ot416 pp., 7 x 10 I map,2 halftonesISBN0-87480-569-4 Paper $65.00