Paso de la Amada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paso de la Amada is located in Chiapas, Mexico on the Gulf of Tehuantepec. It is in an area known as the Soconusco region of Mesoamerica. This site was occupied from about 1800 BC to 1000 BC, covering up to 50 hectares of land.
Contents |
[edit] Discovery and excavation
This site was discovered in 1974 by Jorge Fausto Ceja and was later excavated further by Tenorio who discovered the first evidence that the mounds present in Paso de la Amada were actually residences. John Clark and Michael Blake conducted later research based on the hypothesis that the mounds might give some insight into Early Formative social structure and strata.
Excavation of a nearby site, San Carlos, also helped in the explanation of many findings from Paso de la Amada. There is thought to have been a close relationship between the peoples of these two similar sites.
[edit] Early Formative Period
The Formative Period lasted from about 2000 BC to AD 300, the early formative categorized from about 2000 BC to 1000 BC. This period was the beginning of many important achievements for the people of Mesoamerica. Along with evidence for the beginnings of village life and the first forms of pottery, are also examples of the start of social stratification.
[edit] Political structures
As agriculture came into full swing, hunter/gatherer/forager settlements grew into permanent villages. As individuals entered into village life, the autonomy of seasonal occupation and individual hunting/gathering/foraging dissipated. Groups of individuals became more complex and evolved into villages. As people come together there is almost always a struggle for power and control. Order must be kept; therefore some form of governance must be in place. The people of the early formative period soon discovered this. The office of authority within a settlement or society is typically presented through written text or artistic representations. The remains of the early formative period however, do not give us extensive evidence from such sources.
[edit] Monumental architecture
During the occupation of Paso de la Amada, ceramics began to appear in much larger quantities and in greater detail. Through the evolution of ceramics there also came an advance in architecture. The pyramids and temples of ancient Mesoamerican societies are not the only forms of monumental architecture that can be found in this region. Smaller communities have examples of monumental architecture as well. Raised residences and ceremonial centers are present in several ancient settlements in Mesoamerica. Elaborate architecture could have been used to display wealth and power by the ruling class. When monumental architecture is found at a site it is common to assume that a ruling body must have been in power. The architecture at Paso de la Amada provides evidence of a ruling class and a laboring class. Through the examination of monumental architecture, such as that found at Paso de la Amada, we are able to hypothesize about the structure of this early settlement, social stratification, and the evolution of its ruling and laboring bodies.
[edit] Mound 6
Mound 6, a larger mound surrounded by smaller mounds, was a very significant discovery. This mound showed the first evidence of the evolution of social structure. As excavation continued, six distinct levels of structure were found. Mound 6 began as a large structure on solid ground; this is referred to as structure 6. This structure was most likely used as a common area or men’s house. Still at ground level, structure five was more complex, with more interior posts and sitting room. As it evolved into structure four a platform developed. Although not significantly large, it held Structure four higher than all other buildings at Paso de la Amada. Structure four consisted of many interior posts, hearths, sitting space, and clay flooring. As time continued, structure three was built at a higher level while the actual residence became smaller. Later, structure two became a community project that would have taken many people over many days to complete. Evans estimates that structure two would have taken relatively 25 days for 20 individuals to build.
[edit] Significance
At the beginning of the Formative Period, Mesoamericans began a shift from simple agricultural settlements to more complex social societies. Mound 6 provides a form of evidence for this shift. Initially enclosed spaces were created as common places or meeting areas for many individuals. The idea of a “men’s house” or a place where village males could meet and converse was common. Mound 6 began as a public social meeting house, however as time went on it became smaller, allowing for fewer people to congregate inside its walls. The platform also grew, proving that a large group of people must have been recruited to build it. If a large group came together to build a platform and a structure for a smaller group of people, there must have been a group of leaders or an individual ruler conducting the construction. The reason Mound 6 is such a significant and relevant discovery is for the fact that we do not possess many ways to find out about the political structure of these early societies. Mound 6 provides evidence that a labor force was at hand and that someone had to have ordered for the construction of this structure. The size of the building on top of the mound also shows how power became more concentrated and centralized over time. The governing body became smaller; structures three and two present this notion. The mound could have been built as a display of power and prestige, for practical purposes, or both. However, in the search for the existence of political power of governing persons, Mound 6 at Paso de la Amada provides evidence and allows for discussion and speculation.
[edit] References
- Evans, Susan Toby. Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology and Cultural History. New York, New York: Thames and Hudson Inc. 2004.
- Lesure, Richard G. “Platform Architecture and Activity Patters in an Early Mesoamerican Village in Chiapas, Mexico”. Journal of Field Archaeology. Vol. 26, No. 4 (Winter, 1999).
- Love, Michael. "Ideology, Material Culture, and Daily Practice in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica: A Pacific Coast Perspective”. Social Pattern in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1999.
- Spencer, Charles S. and Elsa M. Redmond. “Primary State Formation in Mesoamerica”. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 33. October 2004.
