|
|
Who was Gordon Ekholm? Discovering the Huasteca The Ekholm Collection at the AMNH Ethnohistory and Other Data on the Huastecs Ekholm's Methods: Archaeology at a Time of Change Bibliography |
Authors:
Adriana Jimenez Greco, American Museum of Natural History
Christina M. Elson, American Museum of Natural History
In the 1940s, Dr. Gordon F. Ekholm, curator of Mesoamerican archaeology at the AMNH (1937-1974), was one of the first archaeologists to excavate in the Huastec area on the east coast of Mexico. Today, his numerous findings are housed at the American Museum of Natural History. Ekholm's fieldwork acquired data on the existence of widespread cultural links amongst Prehispanic peoples.
|
Ekholm and his excavation team |
|---|
Discovering the Huasteca: Excavations at the Panuco and Tuxpan Regions
|
Circular pyramid at Las Flores |
Lower levels of excavation |
|---|
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Excavation at Tabuco, Tuxpan region and Las Flores, Tampico-Panuco region | |
The Ekholm Collection at the AMNH
The Ekholm Collection at the AMNH is vast and includes thousands of artifacts from the Huasteca: vessels, blades, figurines, tools, jewelry, and objects made of carved bone. Only a small fraction of Ekholm's research on this collection was published; the rest, documented in his personal notes, photographs and sketches, remained publicly inaccessible (see Appendix 2).
In 1944, Ekholm published a monograph titled "Excavations at Tampico and Panuco in the Huasteca, Mexico". The monograph contains the some of the data from his investigation. In 1953, "Notes on the Archaeology of the Tuxpan Valley and Neighboring Areas" was published in Revista mexicana de estudios antropologicos (Mexican Journal on Anthropological Studies). The content if this article is more descriptive than the AMNH publication and many of the specific sites that Ekholm excavated were not discussed in detail.
It is evident that Ekholm based many of his interpretations of the Huasteca on a selection of representative sites; however, it is crucial to identify all the sites he worked at and the data he found at each one. My aim was to divulge the valuable contents of this wide array of unpublished research. After creating a database of his uncatalogued material, I reviewed the archaeologist's excavation notes to learn what he had said about these objects.
Next I will present a general overview of some of the artifacts that compose the Ekholm collection at the AMNH (see Appendix 1 for more illustrations).
• Pottery. More than addressing architectural and urban issues, Ekholm was interested in analyzing the pottery of the Huasteca in order to establish a time sequence of its development, so he could compare Huastec ceramics with the ceramics of other regions. This was done by analyzing decoration and rim types. Ceramics from the Panuco and Tuxpan sites were classified into Periods I - VI, which spans the most archaic era to the Spanish conquest.
According this classification, Chila White ceramics from the Pre-Classic Period I and II (?-AD 300) were some of the oldest Huastec pottery types. They are contemporary to Monte Alban I and II. But these types were only found in the Panuco region;Ekholm interpreted their absence in Tuxpan as sign that they were buried so deeply beneath the ground that it was impossible to reach them. A flourishing of the Classic Period in the Huasteca is evidenced by the presence of Period III (AD 300- 650) pottery, characterized by its fine-grain finish. Decoration and form are mostly local in style, although the presence of Teotihuacan type pottery seems to indicate some contact with the Valley of Mexico. The pottery from the Epiclassic, Periods IV and V (AD 750 - 1200) also shows numerous resemblances to types from Tajin and Teotihuacan, such as the negative painting or "lost-color" technique. Designs of this kind were found inside the Pyramid of the Sun and in the Valley of Toluca. Ekholm suggested that Period V pottery, in particular Las Flores Red-on-Buff, had affiliations with many cultures. He found similarities between Huastec pottery and that of places such as the Isla de Sacrificios, Cerro Montoso, Altar de los Craneos of Cholula, Chichen Itza, Mazapan, and sites in the basin of Mexico. Period VI (1200-1500s) is contemporaneous with the Aztec II or Aztec III horizon in the Valley of Mexico, and continued up to the time of the Conquest (in fact, some modern pottery types still resemble these). Tenochtitlan ceramics and figurines were found in the top layers of the Tabuco excavation, showing trade between the two areas in the late Postclassic period. But one local pottery type, Huasteca Black-on-White, dominates by far Period VI ceramic assemblages. Ekholm exalts this type as as "…one of the most distinctive wares in all of that great area" because it bears no resemblance to any other pottery of Middle America.
|
Stella |
Figurines |
Fertility Goddess |
|---|
|
Copper bell |
|---|
Ethnohistory and Other Data on the Huastecs
The actual origin of the Huastec people is unknown. Both Fray Bernardino de Sahagun and Fray Juan de Torquemada relate that the first settlers arrived by sea and settled at Tamoanchan, a place yet to be located.
In contrast, linguistic evidence indicates that the Huastec initially descended from Maya speakers that traveled up to the region at some unknown time in the past (Huastec is a Mayan language that is still extensively spoken, although its aboriginal culture pattern has largely disappeared). Around 100 BC they were isolated from other Maya speakers and surrounded by the Nahua to the west and the Totonac to the south.
|
Huasteca landscape |
|---|
|
Oval structure |
Ekholm's Methods: Archaeology at a Time of Change
...before one can measure or count, compare or contrast, one has to form categories (types of pots, contexts, cultures and so on). These categories are formed through the process of perception […] what one measures depends on perception and categorization and there can be no independent instruments of measurement since methodology is itself theory dependent.To the eyes of the XXIst Century, the results achieved by Ekholm's excavations may seem tedious in their detailed descriptions. But his methodology was actually somewhat innovative for his time: In the 1950s, the Structuralists called for an approach which looked at structure and at the meaning of signs, stating: "we are no longer bound to the quantification of presences, but we are also drawn to the interpretation of absences." Although Ekholm's is primarily a quantitative analysis, it is also qualitative in many aspects. He dared to propose when his data was insufficient or missing and tried to use other lines of evidence such as historical documents or comparative data to support his findings. He was ambitious in his desire to find cultural connections extending over a large area (from Veracruz up to the southeastern United States and down to the Mayan regions and west towards Central Mexico), but warned against making generalizations when the data supporting them was lacking. In regards to his Panuco findings, he writes:
- Ian Hodder, on Binford and Sabloff's Middle-Range Theory, 1982.
I do insist that my conclusions must be proved or confirmed by other larger excavations to such a degree that one can be fairly certain that most of the possibilities of inaccuracy are eliminated. Therefore, my interpretations are not intended to be unduly dogmatic. The chronological framework which is attempted here is presented tentatively, as one which must be confirmed before it can be fully accepted.In this sense, his propositions were sure to leave room for refinements and thus paved the way for further investigation on the topic. During the years when Ekholm was excavating in the Huasteca, a heated debate arose which questioned the way objects should be studied and classified. In 1948, the anthropologist Walter W. Taylor criticized the traditional typological procedures in the social sciences claiming that "types must be related to the cultural context in which they operated, that is they must refer to actual categorizations of the culture being studied." He distinguished between empirical and cultural classifications, and criticized archaeologists who treated objects merely as material evidence and created object typologies that did not have cultural significance. Of course archaeologists still debate whether or not it is possible to assign particular cultural meanings to objects.
| Berdan et. al. | |
| 1996 | Aztec Imperial Strategies, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. |
| Bernal, Ignacio and Eusebio Davalos Hurtado (dirs). | |
| 1953 | Huastecos, totonacos y sus vecinos, Mexico: Sociedad mexicana de Antropologia, Vol. XIII, 2 & 3. |
| Ekholm, Gordon F. | |
| 1946 | "Excavations at Tampico and Panuco in the Huasteca, Mexico", in Anthropological Papers, 38, 1941-44, New York: American Museum of Natural History. |
| 1953 | "Notas arqueologicas sobre el Valle de Tuxapan y areas circunvecinas", in Huastecos, Totonacos y sus vecinos, Mexico: Sociedad mexicana de antropologia. |
| Escalante Gonzalbo, Pablo | |
| 2000 | El arte prehispanico, Mexico: Tercer milenio. |
| Flint, Peter B. | |
| 1987 | "Dr. Gordon Ekholm, 78, a Curator At the Museum of Natural History", in New York Times, New York: 12/19/87, p. 34. |
| Hodder, Ian | |
| 1991 | Reading the Past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. |
| Kampen, Michael Edwin | |
| 1972 | The Sculptures of El Tajin, Veracruz, Mexico, Gainsville: University of Florida. |
| Lucas, Gavin | |
| 2001 | Critical Approaches to Fieldwork. Contemporary and historical archaeological practice, Great Britain: St. Edmundsbury. |
| Meade, Joaquin | |
| 1942 | La Huasteca, Mexico: Cossio. |
| Medellin Zenil, Alfonso | |
| 1960 | Ceramicas del Totoncapan. Exploraciones arqueologicas en el centro de Veracruz, Xalapa: Universidad Veracruzana. |
| Ochoa, Lorenzo | |
| 1979 | Historia prehispanica de la Huaxteca, Mexico: UNAM. |
| Seler, Eduard | |
| 1991 | Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology, Boston: Labyrinthos. |
| Westheim, Paul | |
| 1991 | Ideas fundamentales del arte prehispanico en Mexico, Mexico: Alianza. |