Olmec Social and political organization
Who is Olmec?
Who is Olmec?
Little is directly known about the societal or political structure of Olmec society. Although it is assumed by most researchers that the colossal heads and several other sculptures represent rulers, nothing has been found like the Maya stelae (see drawing) which name specific rulers and provide the dates of their rule.  Instead, archaeologists relied on the data that they had, such as large- and small-scale site surveys. These provided evidence of considerable centralization within the Olmec region, first at San Lorenzo and then at La Venta - no other Olmec sites come close to these in terms of area or in the quantity and quality of architecture and sculpture.  This evidence of geographic and demographic centralization leads archaeologists to propose that Olmec society itself was hierarchical, concentrated first at San Lorenzo and then at La Venta, with an elite that was able to use their control over materials such as water and monumental stone to exert command and legitimize their regime.  Nonetheless, Olmec society is thought to lack many of the institutions of later civilizations, such as a standing army or priestly caste. And there is no evidence that San Lorenzo or La Venta controlled, even during their heyday, all of the Olmec heartland. There is some doubt, for example, that La Venta controlled even Arroyo Sonso, only some 35 km (22 mi) away. Studies of the Tuxtla Mountain settlements, some 60 km (37 mi) away, indicate that this area was composed of more or less egalitarian communities outside the control of lowland centers. CANNOTANSWER
Little is directly known about the societal or political structure of Olmec society.
The causes and degree of Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures has been a subject of debate over many decades. Although the Olmecs are considered to be perhaps the earliest Mesoamerican civilization, there are questions concerning how and how much the Olmecs influenced cultures outside the Olmec heartland. This debate is succinctly, if simplistically, framed by the title of a 2005 The New York Times article: “Mother Culture, or Only a Sister?”.

Olmec heartland
Nearly all researchers agree on a number of specific issues concerning the Olmec and the Olmec Heartland:

The forebears of the Olmecs were indigenous to the Olmec heartland, and developed their civilization independent of other civilizations.
 The Olmec civilization arose in the Olmec heartland with the flowering of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán in the centuries before 1200 BCE.

Beyond the heartland

While some of the hallmarks of Olmec culture, such as colossal heads or other sculptures, earthen platforms, and monolithic "altars", are to be found only within the heartland, many Olmec-style artifacts, designs, figurines, monuments, and motifs can be found in the archaeological records of sites hundreds of kilometers/miles distant.  The most prominent of these sites are:

Tlatilco and Tlapacoya, major centers of the Tlatilco culture in the Valley of Mexico, where artifacts include hollow baby-face motif figurines and Olmec designs on ceramics.
Chalcatzingo, in the Valley of Morelos, which features Olmec-style reliefs on monuments and exposed rock.
Teopantecuanitlan, in Guerrero, which also features Olmec-style reliefs as well as city plans with distinctive Olmec features.
San José Mogote, in Oaxaca, which features Olmec-style pottery.  San Jose Mogote is, like the larger Olmec site of La Venta, oriented 8° west of north.

Other sites showing Olmec influence include Takalik Abaj and Monte Alto in Guatemala, Las Bocas in Puebla, and Zazacatla. In all these cases, the archaeological record shows Olmec-influenced objects existing alongside objects in the local tradition.  Often, for example at Las Bocas, Olmec inconography will even appear on objects created in the local tradition.

The Olmec influences in these sites all post-date San Lorenzo and the cultural pathways almost exclusively flow from the Olmec heartland to these distant sites, and not in the other direction (from, say, Chalcatzingo to San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan). This apparent one-way flow has led most researchers to declare Olmecs to be the "mother culture" of Mesoamerica.

To quote perhaps the most prominent of Mesoamerican archaeologists, Michael D. Coe, "There is now little doubt that all later civilizations in Mesoamerica, whether Mexican or Maya, ultimately rest on an Olmec base." To this, Coe's student archaeologist Richard Diehl adds "While not every archaeologist agrees with Coe, ... mounting evidence ... has convinced everyone but the most die-hard opponents".

Mother culture
The concept of the Olmecs as a mother culture was first formally raised by Alfonso Caso at a 1942 conference on the "Olmec problem" in Tuxtla Gutiérrez where he argued that the Olmec were the "cultura madre" of Mesoamerica.

The proponents of the "mother culture" do not argue that the Olmec were the only contributors, but that the Olmecs first developed many of the features adopted by later Mesoamerican civilizations.

They argue that it was in San Lorenzo and the Olmec heartland that the hallmarks of the Olmec culture were first established, hallmarks that include the patio/plaza concept, monumental sculpture, Olmec iconography, archetypical Olmec figurines, and other portable art.

Sister culture
The "sister culture" proponents, on the other hand, state that Mesoamerican cultures evolved more or less simultaneously. Major proponents of this theory include Joyce Marcus and Kent V. Flannery, who argue that the Olmec were merely the first among equals, rather than the wellspring of cultural change.

"It is the adaptive autonomy and frequent competitive interaction of such chiefdoms that speed up evolution and eventually make useful technologies and sociopolitical strategies available to all regions.".

In a subsequent paper, they imply, for example, that Olmec iconography may have originated in the early Tlatilco culture.

This viewpoint is echoed by a minority of other researchers including art historian Caterina Magni who nonetheless agrees that the Olmecs bequeathed a rich heritage to later cultures.  However, Magni does not agree that what is presently labelled as Olmec culture was first and foremost the product of the heartland.  
"Contrary to [this] generally accepted idea, the brilliant [Olmec] culture did not originate in the Gulf coast of Veracruz and Tabasco. In truth, the varied and voluminous archaeological data shows a much more complex reality; [instead] Olmec religious and political centers emerged simultaneously throughout a vast part of Mesoamerica: from Mexico to Costa Rica."

Magni attributes these concepts to noted archaeologist Christine Niederberger.

Olmec-style pottery analysis

In an effort to address questions concerning the geographic origins of Olmec artifacts — with implications concerning the geographic origins of Olmec culture — in March 2005 a team of archaeologists used instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) to compare over 1,000 Mesoamerican Olmec-style ceramic artifacts with 275 samples of clay so as to "fingerprint" the origin of that pottery. They found that "the Olmec packaged and exported their beliefs throughout the region in the form of specialized ceramic designs and forms, which quickly became hallmarks of elite status in various regions of ancient Mexico".

In August 2005 the results of another study were published. This study used petrography to analyze 20 pottery shards, and found that five of the samples from San Lorenzo were "unambiguously" from Oaxaca. Based on this evidence, the authors concluded that the "exchanges of vessels between highland and lowland chiefly centers were reciprocal, or two way" which "contradicts recent claims that the Gulf Coast was the sole source of pottery" in Mesoamerica.

The results of the INAA study were later defended in March 2006 in two articles in Latin American Antiquity, in particular contrasting the sample size of the INAA study (roughly 1000) with the sample size of the petrography analysis (20).

An emerging middle ground
In the early 21st century it seems that a middle ground between the mother and sister culture positions may be emerging. Pool (2007) thus concludes that while San Lorenzo emerged early as the largest the most developed polity of Mesoamerica and the earliest evidence of several of the defining traits of Mesoamerican culture is found there, the Olmecs emerge looking less like a mother culture than as a promiscuous father culture spawning offspring generously with many different mothercultures all over mesoamerica. This formulation emphasises the viewpoint that influence from the Olmec heartland merged with many local traditions creating local expressions with both Olmec and non-Olmec roots. it follows from this approach that the type and degree of Olmec influence varies greatly from location to location within Mesoamerica.

Flow of influence
If Olmec influences flowed out of the heartland in what is generally seen as a less than bilateral transfer, then how did this happen? How were the hallmarks of Olmec culture transmitted to sites hundreds of kilometers/miles distant from the heartland? Many theories have been advanced including:

 Olmec military domination,
 Olmec colonization of other regions,
 Olmec artisans travelling to other centers,
 Missionary activity,
 Conscious imitation of Olmec artistical styles by developing towns,
 Long-range trade by Olmec merchants.

There is little or no evidence to support Olmec military domination. Very little Olmec or other Early Formative era art shows war or sacrifice. No stelae have been found extolling rulers' victories, unlike the later Maya or the contemporaneous Egyptian or Hittite cultures.

Olmec colonization, that is the founding of new settlements by Olmec emigrants outside of the Olmec heartland, is unlikely. The archaeological records of Olmec-influenced sites show that each had pre-Olmec occupations as well as a significant number of indigenous artifacts created in a local tradition. The Tlatilco site as well as Xochipala figurines are two examples famous for a large number of figurines, which are unlike any found at La Venta or San Lorenzo.

Although portable art, such as pottery, celts, or other items could have been transported the long distances between towns, the monumental art at Chalcatzingo or Teopantecuanitlan would need to be created locally. Therefore, it is very likely that sculptors and artists familiar with or experienced in heartland architecture were commissioned to create similar ceremonial sites far from the heartland. But while this can explain how monumental Olmec-style art was created at Chalcatzingo, it does not explain why.

Long-distance trade
Similarly long-distance trade can explain the Olmec-style artifacts found in Teopantecuanitlan, as well the jade and obsidian artifacts found in the Olmec heartland, which is far from any jade or obsidian source. But trade by itself fails to explain the widespread adoption of Olmec-influenced artifacts and styles throughout Mesoamerica or Olmec iconography found on locally produced wares — while trade can explain the movement of objects, it does not explain the movement of ideas or styles. Therefore, according to archaeologist Jeffrey Blomster, "we have to move beyond a purely economic model . . . The fact that trade involves ceramic vessels which display iconography, representing an underlying ideology and religion synthesized by the Gulf Coast Olmec, suggests that something much deeper is at stake than simply maintaining exchange relationships."

Iconography in service to ideology
To explain the adoption of Olmec iconography and concepts throughout Mesoamerica, archaeologist F. Kent Reilly proposes a "Middle Form rulers. That is, the styles and the iconography, as well as the artifacts, were used by the rising elites in the Formative chiefdoms to authenticate or to increase their power and prestige.

This is echoed, among others, by archaeologist Giselle Canto Aguilera. Working at the Zazacatla site in Morelos, she found that the inhabitants of Zazacatla adopted Olmec styles when they changed from a simple, egalitarian society to a more complex, hierarchical one: "When their society became stratified, the new rulers needed emblems ... to justify their rule over people who used to be their equals."

Summary
Olmec-influenced objects are found throughout Mesoamerica. The consensus among most, but by no means all, archaeologists and researchers is that Olmecs weren't purely a mother nor a sister to other Mesoamerican cultures, but the hallmarks of the Olmec iconography were developed within the Olmec heartland and that this iconography became, in the words of Michael Coe, an "all-pervading art style" throughout Mesoamerica (though Coe himself admits on the same page that there is "nothing [in the Xochipala figurines ] which would lead into the Olmec pattern"), promoting a "powerful, unitary religion" and an “official ideology”, an ideology that was adopted by distant indigenous chieftains and other elites eager to validate and bolster their claims to privilege.

Notes

References
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  (2000), "Teopantecuanitlan", in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures, Carraso, David, ed., Oxford University Press.
  (2006) "Smokescreens in the Provenance Investigation Of Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics" in Latin American Antiquity, Volume 17 Number 1 March 2006.
  (1987), Paléopaysages et archéologie pré-urbaine du bassin de México. Tomes I & II published by Centro Francés de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, Mexico, D.F. (Resume)
  (1996) "Olmec Horizon Guerrero", in Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, eds. E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente, Washington D.C., .
 
 
 , “Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World”  in Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica: a Reader, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, p. 369-395.
  (2005) "Olmec People, Olmec Art", in Archaeology (online), the Archaeological Institute of America, accessed February 2007.
  (2007) “Olmec-influenced city found in Mexico”, Associated Press, accessed February 8, 2007.
 , "Petrographic evidence shows that pottery exchange between the Olmec and their neighbors was two-way", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, August 9, 2005, v. 102, n. 32, pp. 11213-11218 .
 ; "Mother Culture, or Only a Sister?", The New York Times, March 15, 2005.

External links
"The Mother-Sister Controversy in Mesoamerica" - a useful survey article that finds "both factions believe pretty much the same thing — that the Olmec were first in some things in Mesoamerica and had some two-way trade with the other burgeoning societies".
 Olmec Origins in The Southern Pacific Lowlands

Olmec
History of Mesoamerica
Mesoamerican society
Olmec art
Influence (social and political) The religion of the Olmec people significantly influenced the social development and mythological world view of Mesoamerica.   Scholars have seen echoes of Olmec supernatural in the subsequent religions and mythologies of nearly all later pre-Columbian era cultures.

The first Mesoamerican civilization, the Olmecs, developed on present-day Mexico southern Gulf Coast in the centuries before 1200 BCE.  The culture lasted until roughly 400 BCE, at which time their center of La Venta lay abandoned.  The Olmec culture is often considered a "mother culture" to later Mesoamerican cultures.

There is no surviving direct account of the Olmec's religious beliefs, unlike the Mayan Popol Vuh, or the Aztecs with their many codices and conquistador accounts.  Archaeologists, therefore, have had to rely on other techniques to reconstruct Olmec beliefs, most prominently:
Typological analysis of Olmec iconography and art.
Comparison to later, better documented pre-Columbian cultures.
Comparison to modern-day cultures of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

The latter two techniques assume that there is a continuity extending from Olmec times through later Mesoamerican cultures to the present day.  This assumption is called the Continuity Hypothesis.  Using these techniques, researchers have discerned several separate deities or supernaturals embodying the characteristics of various animals.

Rulers, priests, and shamans
Olmec religious activities were performed by a combination of rulers, full-time priests, and shamans.  The rulers seem to have been the most important religious figures, with their links to the Olmec deities or supernaturals providing legitimacy for their rule.  There is also considerable evidence for shamans in the Olmec archaeological record, particularly in the so-called "transformation figures".

Olmec supernaturals
Specifics concerning Olmec religion are a matter of some conjecture.  Early researchers found religious beliefs to be centered upon a jaguar god.  This view was challenged in the 1970s by Peter David Joralemon, whose Ph. D. paper and subsequent article posited what are now considered to be 8 different supernaturals.   Over time Joralemon's viewpoint has become the predominant exposition of the Olmec pantheon.  The study of Olmec religion, however, is still in its infancy and any list of Olmec supernaturals or deities can be neither definitive nor comprehensive.

The names and identities of these supernaturals are only provisional and the details concerning many of them remain poorly known.  The confusion stems in part because the supernaturals are defined as a cluster of iconographic motifs.  Any given motif may appear in multiple supernaturals.  For example, "flame eyebrows" are seen at times within representations of both the Olmec Dragon and the Bird Monster, and the cleft head is seen on all five supernaturals that appear on Las Limas Monument 1.  To add to the confusion, Joralemon suggested that many of these gods had multiple aspects – for example, Joralemon had identified a God I-A through a God I-F.

Despite the use of the term "god", none of these deities and supernaturals show any sexual characteristics which would indicate gender.

Olmec Dragon (God I)
Also known as the Earth Monster, the Olmec Dragon has flame eyebrows, a bulbous nose, and bifurcated tongue.  When viewed from the front, the Olmec Dragon has trough-shaped eyes; when viewed in profile, the eyes are L-shaped.  Fangs are prominent, often rendered as an upside-down U-shaped bracket.  With the Bird Monster, the Olmec Dragon is one of the most commonly depicted supernaturals.

Miller & Taube differentiate a Personified Earth Cave, equating it with Joralmon's God I-B.

Maize deity (God II) 
Another probable supernatural is identified by the plants sprouting from its cleft head.  A carved celt from Veracruz shows a representation of God II, or the Maize God, growing corn from his cleft, and also shows this god with the snarling face associated with the jaguar.  This deity is rarely shown with a full body.

Rain Spirit and Were-jaguar (God III)

There is considerable disagreement between researchers whether the Rain Spirit and were-jaguar are one distinct or two separate supernaturals.  Christopher Pool, Anatole Pohorilenko, and Miller & Taube each equate the were-jaguar with the Rain Deity, while Joralemon finds them to be two separate supernaturals.  Joralemon states that the Olmec rain spirit "is based on were-jaguar features", but is not the were-jaguar per se. More recent scholarship by Carolyn Tate questions the existence of  "were-jaguar" (a fantastical concept coined soon after the release of the WereWolf in London) imagery and instead argues for the centrality of embryo-corn kernel iconography within Olmec iconography.

In a later paper, Taube proposed that the Rain Spirit was instead the seed phase version of the Maize God.

Banded-eye God (God IV)

This enigmatic deity is named for the narrow band that runs along the side of its face through its almond-shaped eye with its round iris.  Like many other supernaturals, the Banded-eye God has a cleft head and a downturned mouth.  Unlike others, the Banded-eye God is only known from its profile - these renditions are generally concentrated on bowls from the Valley of Mexico (as shown on left), although the Banded-eye God is one of the five supernaturals shown on Las Limas Monument 1 from the Olmec heartland.

Rather than a distinct supernatural in its own right, however, Taube finds God IV to be yet another aspect of the Maize God.

Feathered Serpent (God V)

The feathered (or plumed) serpent depicted throughout Mesoamerica first appears in Olmec times, although there is some disagreement concerning its importance to the Olmec.  The Feathered Serpent appears on La Venta Stele 19 (above) and within a Juxtlahuaca cave painting (see this Commons photo), locations hundreds of miles apart.

Fish or Shark Monster (God VI)
Most often recognized by its shark tooth, the head of the monster also features a crescent-shaped eye, and a small lower jaw. When depicted in its full-body form, such as on San Lorenzo Monument 58 or on the Young Lord figurine, the anthropomorphic Fish Monster also displays crossed bands, a dorsal fin, a split tail.  This supernatural's profile is shown on the left leg of Las Limas Monument 1 (see  Commons drawing).

Continuity Hypothesis

Marshall Howard Saville first suggested in 1929 that the Olmec deities were forerunners of later Mesoamerican gods, linking were-jaguar votive axes with the Aztec god Tezcatlipoca.  This proposal was amplified by Miguel Covarrubias in his 1957 work Indian Art of Mexico and Central America where he famously drew a family tree showing 19 later Mesoamerican rain deities as descendants of a "jaguar masked" deity portrayed on a votive axe.  The Continuity Hypothesis has since been generally accepted by scholars, although the extent of Olmec influence on later cultures is still debated.

Notes

References 
 
  (2005) "The Shark-Monster in Olmec Iconography", in Mesoamerican Voices, 2005, v. 2.
  (1990) The Mythology of Mexico and Central America, William Morrow, .
   (1972) "Olmec Jaguars and Olmec Kings" in E.P. Benson (ed), The Cult of the Feline. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 1–12.
   (1989) "The Olmec heartland: evolution of ideology" in Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove, (ed), Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. Cambridge University Press, , pp. 68–82.
 , pp. 64, 75-76.
  (1957) Indian Art of Mexico and Central America, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
 
 (1996) "In Search of the Olmec Cosmos: Reconstructing the World View of Mexico's First Civilization". In E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente (eds.), Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art: 51-60. .
 (1976) Olmec Religion:  A Key to Middle America and Beyond.  University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.  .

 (1996) "Portable Carvings in the Olmec Style", in E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente (eds.), Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art: 119-131. .

Further reading
 Joralemon, Peter David (1971) A study of Olmec iconography, Dumbarton Oaks.
 Joralemon, Peter David (1976) Olmec Dragon: a study in pre-Columbian iconography, UCLA Latin American Studies Series, v 31, pp. 27–71.

Native American religion

Pre-Columbian mythology and religion The Wrestler is a basalt statuette dating back to between 1500 BCE and 400 BCE, which some believe to be one of the most important sculptures of the Olmec culture. The near life-size figure has been praised not only for its realism and sense of energy, but also for its aesthetic qualities.  Since 1964, the sculpture has been part of the collection of the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City.

This -high Mesoamerican statuette was discovered in 1933 by a farmer in Arroyo Sonso, in the Mexican state of Veracruz near the Rio Uxpanapa and not far from its confluence with the Coatzacoalcos River, an area now known as Antonio Plaza.

It is considered unlikely that this sculpture, also known formally as Antonio Plaza Monument 1 as well as El Luchador Olmeca (Spanish, "the Olmec wrestler") actually represents a wrestler.

Description
The statuette shows a seated male figure.  The legs are delicate and rather diminutive, with the right leg bent in front of the body and the left folded backward, almost underneath the body.  The arms are upraised and, similar to the legs, bent and asymmetrical.  Both hands are clenched.  In a position unusual for Olmec art, the shoulders are not situated directly above the hips, but twisted slightly to the right, giving the sculpture a sense of movement that is accentuated by the well-defined muscles and the dynamic positioning of the arms.

The head is bald, but it lacks the highly stylized cranial deformation found in many Olmec figurines or the wooden busts of El Manati.  The figure wears a mustache and goatee, relatively rare features in Olmec sculpture which appear on only a few reliefs such as La Venta Monument 3.

The figure wears only a lightly outlined loincloth, leading to the supposition that the statuette originally was dressed in ritualistic clothing that has perished with the passage of time.

This sculpture is fully three-dimensional and presumed to be intended for viewing from all sides: the rear view shows carefully sculpted shoulder blades and a slight naturalistic bulge that is visible above the belt at the hips.  Mary Ellen Miller finds that "the long diagonal of line of the figure's back and shoulders is as beautiful and commanding as the frontal view".  The figure clearly is more free-flowing than other three-dimensional Olmec sculptures (than, for example, San Martin Pajapan Monument 1), which frequently are boxy and seemingly "confined" by the medium from which they are carved.

Subject and dating

Despite its name, it is unlikely that the figure represents a wrestler and it is thought that the mustache and goatee connect the subject to the "political-religious hierarchy". Based on similarities with Jacques le Moyne's painting of a 16th-century Timucua ritual, art historian Roy Craven suggests that the figure is that of a shaman, although this proposal has received little notice.  Based on the individuality of the piece as well as the detail inherent in the face, it is thought that the sculpture is a portrait.

Being a work of stone without archaeological context, it has been difficult to date the sculpture.  While some researchers consider it an early work, dated as early as 1200 BCE, others consign it to a period closer to 400 BCE, near the end of the Olmec culture. This dating is based largely on its dissimilarities to earlier formalistic Olmec sculptures.  Michael Coe simply assigns it to the period between 1500 BCE and 400 BCE.

Authenticity debate
The sculpture falls outside the norms for much of the known Olmec art:

The sculpture has no overt iconography, in contrast for example to Las Limas Monument 1.
Whereas seated Olmec figures almost invariably have a broad base, this figure's base is narrow in proportion to its torso.
The rotation of the upper body is unique in surviving Olmec sculptures, as is its "sensitive detail" such as the foot, complete with arch and rounded toes.
In their petrographic analysis of Olmec artifacts, Williams and Heizer found that the basalt "is distinctive and . . . no other monument seen by us in Veracruz or Tabasco is made of the same material."  They speculate that "it may be an imported piece . . . and its non-local origin is also suggested by the remarkable realism which is displayed".

The art historian Nancy Kelker of Middle Tennessee State University argues that a vague provenance, atypical stone, unusual carving of the back, nonstandard posture, recent publication of scholarly material on Olmec jades, and an urgent interest among Mexicans to find a myth for their origin in antiquity all suggest that it is a modern sculpture.  In response to these arguments, the archaeologist Michael Coe and the art historian Mary Miller, both of Yale University, defended the sculpture as authentic, arguing that its similarity to Monument 34 from the Olmec site San Lorenzo, and the fact that we know little about Olmec art make it probable that this is an Olmec masterpiece from antiquity.  At a separate time Coe stated that if Heizer felt the sculpture was a fake based on the petrographic analysis, then "something must be wrong with the petrographic analysis!".  Susan Milbrath also argues against the possibility of a forgery.  Milbrath maintains that its 1933 discovery, well before archaeologists defined Olmec culture or excavated Olmec sites, precludes falsification.  She suggests that the Wrestler represents "a little known aspect of Olmec monumental art".

Appraisals
Superlatives abound in descriptions of this sculpture by archaeologists and art historians alike.  Richard Diehl says it is the "most spectacular" Olmec three-dimensional sculpture while Hugh Honour finds it "the finest of all Olmec sculptures".  For Ignacio Bernal it is "one of the greatest of Olmec works of art", a thought later echoed by Michael Coe who says it is "one of the supreme examples of Olmec art" with a "feeling for individual character and for human physique [which] could only come from long study of anatomy".

Comparing it to other pre-Columbian art, archaeologist Mary Ellen Miller describes the Wrestler as "among the most powerful three-dimensional portraits of the ancient New World".

Art historian George Kubler discerns few rivals anywhere, stating that "the spiraling motion of the body, the multiplicity of profile, the coherent muscles, and the expressive restraint of the work set it apart as among the great works of sculpture of all ages".   In 1996, the government of the United Mexican States issued a one-ounce silver coin bearing the image of the sculpture on its obverse, one of six in the Olmec cultural set.

Notes

References

 
  (1996) "[Catalogue #]11. Antonio Plaza Monument 1 — Seated Figure with Mustache and Beard", in Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, E. P. Benson and B. de la Fuente (eds.), National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., , p. 172.
  (1989) "The Olmec Heartland: Evolution of Ideology" in Robert J. Sharer and David Grove (eds), Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, Cambridge University Press, .
  (1995) "An Iconographic Note: "List of dead wrestler"?", Mexicon, v. XVII, n. 2.
  
  (2005) A World History of Art, seventh edition, Laurence King Publishing, . 
  (1984) The Art and Architecture of Ancient America: The Mexican, Maya and Andean Peoples, Pelican History of Art, Yale University Press, .

External links
 The rear view of the sculpture

Indigenous sculpture of the Americas
Olmec art
Sculptures
1933 archaeological discoveries
Sculptures of sports
Wrestling culture