Xochipala Explained

Xochipala is a minor archaeological site in the Mexican state of Guerrero, whose name has become attached, somewhat erroneously, to a style of Formative Period figurines and pottery from 1500 to 200 BCE.[1] The archaeological site is much later and belongs to the Classic and Postclassic eras, approximately 200–1400 CE.[2]

Archaeological site

The Organera Xochipala archaeological zone takes its name from the nearby village of Xoxhipala and the local organ pipe cactus. The archaeological site belongs to the Classic and, most importantly, the Postclassic eras, from 200 to 1400 CE.[3] In the mid-20th century this site, representative of the Mezcala culture, was extensively looted of an estimated 20,000 pieces.[4] Most of the sculptural artifacts have been studied as looted pieces appearing in art collections.

The area is known for its Xochipala-style figurines and stone bowls, which have been dated to the Formative (or Preclassic) Period 1500 to 200 BCE.

The site is particularly notable for the discovery of a corbelled arch, an innovation generally attributed the Maya. Whether the corbelled arch was independently developed in Guerrero or was imported from the Maya regions is still unsettled.

The mound complex of Las Mesas is located about six kilometers to the south/southwest of the modern town of Xochipala. Some important monoliths were found there.[5]

Formative Period figurines

The Xochipala style is represented by some of the earliest and most naturalistic Mesoamerican figurines,[6] as well as a number of bowls intricately carved from very hard stone.[7]

The first rediscovered Xochipala-style figurine was purchased in Guerrero in 1897 by William Niven and sold to the Peabody Museum in 1903. No Xochipala figurine has yet been found in archaeological context, only through collectors and art dealers.[8] The earliest date assigned to any figurine is 1500 BCE[9] but without provenance, so dating is based on stylistic and compositional characteristics.

To achieve a more realistic look, many of the figurines were first modeled without clothing, which was then draped applique-like about the body.[10] It has been suggested that the nude figurines may have been dressed in perishable clothing.[11]

Critical assessment

There is near universal praise for these early figurines:

Olmec

In his seminal 1972 book, Carlo Gay attributed the sophisticated artistry of the Xochipala figurines to a precocious culture that was the predecessor of the Gulf coast Olmecs.[16] According to Gay, the naturalistic "Early Xochipala" figurines led over centuries to the stylised "Late Xochipala" style which in turn led to what archaeologist Gillett Griffin has called "abstracted, ... ideal," and "contrived" Olmec art.[17]

Despite what Griffin describes as a "pure Olmec stratum", others have found few similarities between Xochipala figurines and Olmec art. David Grove, for example, finds that minor quantities of some Olmec attributes appear in Gay's "Middle Xochipala" sequence and in the stone bowls, but these attributes are otherwise missing from Xochipala art.[18] Michael Coe, however, sees "nothing [in the Xochipala figurines or stone bowls] which would lead into the Olmec pattern".[19] Gay's proposal is "now widely regarded as untenable".[20]

By way of an alternate explanation of Xochipala precociousness, David Grove suggests that the earliest figurines were influenced by the "already developed and sophisticated ceramic traditions of northern South America", an idea that is not widely accepted in the archaeological community.

References

External links

Further reading

These two books provide detail of the archaeological site:

Notes and References

  1. Griffin (1985). p. 213.
  2. Rosa María Reyna-Robles (2003) supplies the dates.
  3. Rosa María Reyna-Robles (2003) supplies the dates. Pool, p. 306, says: "Archaeological excavation has failed to find an Early [Olmec] Horizon at [Organera] Xochipala."
  4. Rosa María Reyna-Robles (website).
  5. Arnaud F. Lambert, Megaliths and the Early Mezcala Urban Tradition of Mexico. (PDF) Almogaren 44-45 / 2013-2014
  6. Griffin, p. 309. Parsons, p. 176, who describes the "extreme naturalism characteristic of the earliest known figurine tradition in Mesoamerica". See also Grove quote in Critical assessment section.
  7. Griffin (1985), p. 216. Parsons et al. (p. 176) say "The Xohipala culture also produced finely sculpted utilitarian stonework".
  8. Griffin, p. 303.
  9. Miller (p. 32) gives the 1500 BCE date.
  10. Griffin, p. 306.
  11. Miller, p. 32.
  12. Honour, p. 109.
  13. Grove, p. 1138.
  14. Griffin (1985), p. 213.
  15. Griffin (1972), p. 309.
  16. See Gay's Xochipala: The Beginnings of Olmec Art.
  17. Griffin, pp. 306 & 309.
  18. Grove.
  19. Coe, p. 81.
  20. Pool, p. 57. Trigger refers to the hypothesis as "outdated", p. 154.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Xochipala".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.