of earthen mounds, interregional exchange, and artistic
development clustered loosely affi liated villages under an
umbrella of regional extent. Th e lack of a centralized admin-
istrative, bureaucratic, or militaristic complex prohibited the
sort of cohesive growth and expansion evidenced in empire
states elsewhere. Although these mound builders apparently
gathered periodically for funeral ceremonies and construc-
tion, most of the year the population was widely dispersed in
small, temporary villages. Given the light trace of archaeolog-
ical data and a complete absence of written history, evidence
of dynastic history and major political leaders is impossible
to infer. Compared with their Mesoamerican neighbors, a
North American example of an empire or dynasty is virtually
nonexistent in the ancient period.
THE OLMEC
Th e Olmec civilization represented the fi rst successful king-
dom in Mesoamerica, fl ourishing in the tropical lowlands of
Mexico’s Gulf Coast of modern-day Tabasco and Veracruz, a
water-logged region of meandering rivers, from around 1500
to 400 b.c.e. Although the causes of the evolution from rank
societies to kingdoms remains to be determined, it is clear
that the subsequent fl owering and spread of Olmec civiliza-
tion for the next half millennium was intimately tied to the
creation, display, and manipulation of monumental and por-
table art objects.
Th e Olmec had novel governmental practices based upon
social stratifi cation and kingship. Th eir earliest monumental
sculptures included stone thrones weighing several tons and
naturalistic, three-dimensional depictions of rulers, carved
as either colossal heads or full fi gures. Between the ninth and
fi ft h centuries b.c.e. stone carving shift ed from three-dimen-
sional forms to high- and low-relief narrative carvings, much
of which is thought to portray divine kings dressed in the cos-
tume of corn deities. Other small stone statuettes are thought
to depict kings in shamanic transformation. Th e distribution
of Olmec painted pottery and fi gurines outside the heartland
suggests not only the spread of the Olmec artistic canon but
possibly also accompanying practices of governance, the na-
ture of which is still debated. Attempts to designate the Olmec
tend to shift between classifi cation as a civilization, complex
chiefdom, kingdom, state, or empire.
Th e major Olmec sites—San Lorenzo, La Venta, and
Tres Zapotes—all contained large ceremonial structures. San
Lorenzo was the largest site and was thought to yield a pop-
ulation of between 10,500 and 17,000 persons. Olmec pub-
lic-works projects that were probably kingdom-sponsored
activities include the mining, transport, and subsequent fab-
rication of colossal stone monuments from as far as 60 or 70
miles away; the construction of massive terraces, plazas, elite
residences, platforms, and systems of elaborate stone drains;
signifi cant activities related to dragging the stones, includ-
ing cutting paths through the jungle or building roads and
bridges; the production of enough food for the thousands of
persons necessary to transport the stones from distant work-
shops; long-distance trade; and the production of goods for
export. It is also believed that San Lorenzo was the capital of
a kingdom that had secondary centers and tertiary villages,
hamlets, and special-function sites, probably administered
by princes. Individual rulers, however, have not been secured
from the data, nor is it known why each of the sites was even-
tually abandoned.THE ZAPOTEC
Farther south, in the Valley of Oaxaca, evidence suggests that
the Zapotec hilltop site at Monte Albán was the center of an
empire whose imperial aspirations began around 600 b.c.e.
One of the most compelling lines of evidence for its imperial
conquests comes from the site itself, in the form of one of its
buildings, referred to as Building J, which is shaped roughly
like an arrowhead. On this building are 50 carved stone slabs
depicting dead rulers of towns thought to be subjugated by
Monte Albán. It is thought that these towns defi ne the ter-
ritorial limits of Monte Albán’s empire. However, evidence
supporting Zapotec dominance over the full range of towns
has not yet been conclusively demonstrated.
An abundance of evidence is highly suggestive of Zapo-
tec conquest and imperial infl uence well beyond their im-
mediate heartland. Evidence includes the violent destruction
and abandonment of local villages; the presence of objects
of intimidation, including skull racks thought to be for the
display of defeated warriors; village relocation, thought to
refl ect Zapotec-imposed resettlement for more eff ective ag-
ricultural production; evidence of a frontier garrison where
the Monte Albán overlords were housed; the imposition of
Zapotec architecture; the elimination of ceremonial facilities
and trappings; and the disappearance of products previously
imported from Monte Albán and elsewhere, interpreted as
resulting from the termination of reciprocal exchange.
At least three models of interaction can be used to de-
scribe the political and economic interaction of the Zapotec
with their neighbors following the imperial scheme. Th e fi rst
model suggests that the Zapotec exacted tribute from con-
quered polities and allowed for local political autonomy. Th e
second suggests an economic and imperial model of exploi-
tation under imposed, centralized Zapotec governance. Th e
third model suggests reciprocal economic exchange in the
form of intensifi ed trade, falling short of conquest and colo-
nization, between independent polities. Further research is
necessary to clarify the exact nature of Zapotec relations to its
neighbors, though current information indicates the presence
of defi nite imperial qualities. Although it is unclear exactly
why Monte Albán fell, it seems to have done so gradually and
uneventfully, its authority petering out and fragmenting as
other towns in the valley became settled.TEOTIHUACÁN
No discussion of empire in the Americas is complete without
a look at Teotihuacán, 40 miles northeast of contemporary
Mexico City. Between 100 b.c.e. and 700 c.e. Teotihuacánempires and dynasties: The Americas 419