Mezcala Stone Sculpture: The Human Figure

Citation preview

useum or primitive

Mezcala Stone Sculpture The Human Figure by Carlo T. E. Gay The Museum of Primitive Art: Studies Number Five

Distributed by the New York Graphic Society, Greenwich, Connecticut

1967

Copyright © 1967 by the Museum of Primitive Art 15 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019 Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 66-28587 Design: Hiram Ash, Inc. Printing: Drum Lithographers Inc., New York

INTRODUCTION While a number of archaeological sites have been localized in the Mexican state of Guerrero, and an impressive corpus of ancient artifacts has been found by natives during the last twenty years, no systematic exploration of the area has yet been accomplished. Its mountainous configuration and undeveloped roads isolate part of the state. Many remote regions have never been probed by the archaeologist. A tendency to underestimate Guerrero as a field for archaeological investigation is caused, perhaps, by apparent paucity of ancient architectural remains. This situation is unfortunate as a seemingly important role was played in ancient times by a number of local cultures. Some regions are not beyond the reach of the explorer. The territory between the District of Iguala and the District of Zumpango del Rio can be traveled by a network of trails and dirt roads branching off the Mexico-Acapulco highway. This territory, a section of the middle Balsas River drainage (middle in relation to the entire hydrographic system of the river), is rich in ancient remains. Four distinct styles of small scale stone sculpture come from the area. Two. currently named Mezcala and Chontai, with individual characteristics that make them easily distinguishable, are decidedly local. Mezcala sculpture comes from a region south of the Balsas River, Chontai from a region north of the river. The northern region is also the source of a large number of small stone sculptures in Olmec and Teotihuacan style. These finds are so extensive that they cannot be explained as being peripheral developments of the two cultures, and suggest, instead, an internal development on a formative level. A definitive answer to the problem will depend upon future scientific exploration of the region. At present it can be stated that there were four important lithic (stone working) traditions within the area, that none of these traditions was totally independent of the others, and that all had a similar pattern of development. A comment on the four traditions and their cultural interaction is relevant here. Mezcala Tradition The name Mezcala was introduced by Miguel Covarrubias to designate a type of ancient stone sculpture originating in the area described previously. Later it became evident that a great deal of material found north of the Balsas River belonged to a different style, which was termed Chontai to differentiate it from Mezcala. Mezcala—a misnomer derived from a substitute name for the Balsas River—is a region roughly 10 miles square, extending mostly to the south of the Balsas River and west of the Canon del Zopilote. It is rugged country with brush covered mountains and narrow valleys sloping north from the divide of the Sierra Madre del Sur. Mezcala sculpture comes from burials in the vicinity of the following locations: Mezcala. Mazapa. Carrizalillo. Xochipala. Amatitlan. and Tenantla. Other locations are occasionally mentioned by natives, but information is too scant to warrant their inclusion. (No ancient remains save burials are yet known. Under such circumstances the term "location" is substituted for "site" with the understanding that a location may comprise more than one site.) Mezcala style is characterized by a manifest simplicity of design and detail. The subject is skillfully rendered with straight cuts and planes, and form tends to be geometric. As a rule Mezcala sculpture is more abstract than other ancient stone works from Guerrero. Facial features and the separation of the limbs are achieved by cutting and abrading, whereas a pecking method is characteristic of Chontai sculpture.

A connection with the Chontai tradition is evident in certain hybrid types. It is also possible that the Mezcala tradition may have been influential in developing the Teotihuacan style. Chontai Tradition "Chontai" may be derived from the Chontales, said to have been post-Conquest inhabitants of the territory between Iguala and the Balsas River, directly north of the Mezcala region. When the term was first applied to the local type of ancient sculpture is not known. Chontai is another misnomer, yet it is an adequate designation—at least temporarily—for both style and region. Conflicting information about provenance of some material makes it impossible to approximate the size of the region. Suffice it to say that it extends for many miles east and west of the Mexico-Acapulco highway. With its broad valleys sloping toward the Balsas River it is much less rugged than Mezcala country. A large portion of Chontai sculpture comes from burials around Maxela. a mountain village a few miles west of the highway. Finds have also been reported from the vicinity of Tonalapa del Sur, Las Tunas, Xalitla. and more frequently from Tepecoacuilco. Tepecoacuilco. located on a river of the same name five miles southeast of Iguala. presents a very complex archaeological picture and appears to be one of the most promising locations in the entire region. Chontai sculpture predominantly consists of stone heads, masks, and to a lesser degree, of standing and seated figures. There is such a varied assortment of types that at times it is difficult to evaluate stylistic relationships and chronological implications. A marked emphasis on curvilinear form establishes the difference between Chontai and Mezcala style: Chontai style is more naturalistic than the Mezcala. Similarity of development seems to mark the two traditions. Each begins with elementary figures derived from stone axes, followed by larger and more elaborate standing figures, then by seated figures, heads, face panels, and finally masks. Animal effigies are rare in Chontai style and miniature temples are absent. Style relationships between the two traditions are far less pronounced, and possibly are limited to a few instances which will be discussed later. In Chontai as in Mezcala sculpture, stone is often diagnostic of periods and locations. Olmec Tradition Small stone sculpture in Olmec style has been found in Guerrero for many years, from San Jeronimo on the Pacific coast to Tlapa, Olinala and Zumpango del Rio in the interior. Recently the Tepecoacuilco river drainage has proved to be the region most productive of Olmec remains. During the last six years finds here have surpassed in quality, as well as quantity, all the Olmec material previously discovered in the state. Figures in various positions, masquettes. masks, humming birds, pectorals, spoon-shaped objects, fangs, and beads in jade and serpentine have been found, as well as hematite mirrors, and a unique onyx bowl with an elaborate incised design. They are reported to come from burials around Tepecoacuilco, Ahuelican, Mayanalan. Ahuehuepan. and Tlaxmalac. with a greater concentration in the first two locations. Another location recently mentioned is San Miguel, but information concerning it is still inconclusive. Stylistic relationships between Olmec and Mezcala are almost non-existent. The only parallels that can be drawn are a similarity of subject matter and a certain monumentality of sculpture. Lack of detail, the presence of heavily built forms, and lapidary techniques are also shared by both traditions. The current opinion that Mezcala

sculpture was influenced by Olmec style seems to be without foundation. To my knowledge, only half a dozen sculptures combine Olmec and Mezcala traits [36. 3 7 ] . and they all belong to a late development of Mezcala style. Possibly both traditions developed for a certain time along parallel lines without influencing each other appreciably. Teotihuacan Tradition The existence of an important Teotihuacan stratum in Guerrero has long been known. It has become apparent that certain stone masks and figurines, typical of the Teotihuacan culture, were made locally and not at Teotihuacan itself. A few pieces found in controlled excavations at Teotihuacan. and the few masks reportedly unearthed in the Valley of Mexico were probably trade pieces. In most instances the stones themselves are indigenous to Guerrero and there is yet no indication of an early lithic tradition in the Teotihuacan culture of the Valley of Mexico. Strong signs do point to such a tradition in the northeastern section of Guerrero, particularly in the Chontai region. Finds indicate that the focus of this tradition may be somewhere in the Tepecoacuilco valley. Stone masks, face panels, and standing figures, in classic Teotihuacan style appear, as well as others decidedly formative in character and execution. These are frequently carved from green serpentine of fibrous and mottled varieties and show combined Olmec and Chontai traits. The Mezcala tradition also appears to have been influential in shaping Teotihuacan style.

MEZCALA STONE SCULPTURE Mezcala stone sculpture is characterized by certain recurrent themes of long tradition, probably motivated by deeply rooted cult concepts. The repetition of a limited number of subjects is balanced by an extensive variety of types. Each type reflects a different stage of development or the distinctive interpretation of an individual carver. Although information on provenance is seldom reliable, it can be assumed that material originates from a given number of locations. This is substantiated by the variety of stones used by the ancient lapidaries. Based on visual examination only, they are: (1) dark green diorite. (2) grey and white calcite, (3) light green andesite, (4) dark green to grey metadiorite. (5) banded or mottled white and green siliceous stones (not yet individually identified). (6) dark green serpentine. (7) light colored serpentine. Other stones, such as grey calcium sulphate and a variety of siliceous stones with a porphyritic texture, were occasionally used but they are not of similar consequence. There is good reason to believe that each group of figures of the same stone will include types basic to a theoretical sequence, and figures carved from different stones, but on the same developmental level, will display subtle variations in style. Each group of figures, therefore, carved from the same stone, can be taken to be representative of the sequence of a given location, and each location can be assumed to have contributed components to the complex regional tradition. Mezcala stone sculpture can be grouped as follows: human effigies (with which this paper is chiefly concerned), masks, miniature temples, and animal effigies. Artifacts of a ceremonial or utilitarian nature also occur: ritual objects, ornaments, and implements of various kinds. Human Figures On the basis of style it seems that the Mezcala sculptural tradition began with the representation of the human figure. A possible prototype can be identified in a very elementary figurative form carved from a functional axe [ 1 ] . This embryonic figure, or one more advanced, was copied in neighboring settlements and in time became the most popular theme of the tradition. Some locations favored certain types over others, and variation of details was frequent. Human figures are ordinarily represented standing with the arms at the sides of the body, or with forearms resting over the stomach or chest. Legs are usually straight and separated by a vertical cut worked from both sides of the figure. In a few instances the legs are slightly bent, while some end in stump-like feet. Toes are rarely depicted, but fingers are a common trait during the latest phase. Buttocks are sometimes indicated by a protruding horseshoe-shaped element [ 3 ] , but this is an atypical feature perhaps ascribable to outside influence, possibly from the Chontai region. The same is true of eyes, rendered with a red pigment outline, pecked, or made of sections of shell. The size of standing figures varies widely with location and phase. In most cases they measure from 1" to 12"; heights of 13" to 20" are uncommon, and beyond that exceptional. A few Mezcala figures have ear plugs [ 1 4 ] . and cheek flaps, and at least one example appears to be wearing a mask [ 1 3 ] . Figures with nose ornaments have not yet been recorded. Infrequently figures are shown holding bowls, and at least two lie on couches. Sexual characteristics are seldom indicated. With few exceptions they are limited to the breasts of female figures, which may or may not also show signs of pregnancy. The forearms are usually placed over the lower part of the abdomen in a seemingly protective gesture, which may characterize and differentiate female from male types.

Other sex attributes are almost non-existent: I have recorded less than ten exceptions to this rule, and these are late and hybrid types. Seated figures are fairly rare but do appear from an early stage. Legs are usually flexed against the body: arms either hug the chest or extend forward with the hands grasping the knees. A few figures have extended legs, and one example is in a cross-legged position not unlike some Olmec sculpture. Shoulder blades are occasionally outlined in a fashion reminiscent of some Olmec figures [ 1 8 ] . Occasionally the head of a figure is thrust backward and a small hump at the back of the neck creates a simian appearance [ 1 6 ] . This effect may be purely accidental as the monkeys frequently present in Mezcala sculpture are represented quite differently. A small number of hunchbacks, usually standing, are known but are atypical [ 7 ] . They appear to originate in one or. at the most, two locations. Stylistically they belong to the middle of the tradition. Two kneeling figures stand out among unusual Mezcala sculptures. One. about 2" high, belongs to a group of diminutive sculptures remarkable for their experimental nature: they are part of the fifth stone group, and probably come from the same location. The second figure is of an advanced type made near the end of the Mezcala tradition. It is carved from dark green serpentine and is 3 3 A" high [ 3 4 ] . The head is thrust back and the folded arms are raised to shoulder level. This posture is reminiscent of similar representations in Olmec sculpture, and of a wooden Maya figure in the collection of The Museum of Primitive Art. Double figures, fused back to back like Siamese twins, are also exceptional [ 3 5 ] ; they relate to various periods of the tradition, and to at least three locations. The figures usually stand, or one stands and the other sits. There are a few unorthodox representations of combined figures—one with a smaller figure, apparently a child, on its back, and another seated figure with a child crawling on its back. At least three figures, of different provenance, have a small head on the lower part of the abdomen. In the larger of the three the position and the projection of the small head could be interpreted as an anthropomorphic phallus instead of a sign of childbirth [ 1 1 ] . For the present any classification of Mezcala stone sculpture is necessarily based purely on a stylistic analysis of the available material. Comparison of related types considered in sequence provides a fairly homogeneous picture of sculptural development from an elementary form to a fully advanced one. Variations can be traced through the observation of added details and innovations in lapidary techniques. The chronological sequence given here is based on the standing human figure, which is most suitable because of its quantity and its uniform distribution throughout the tradition. Nevertheless the sequence is by no means complete. To avoid confusion a number of intermediary types have not now been considered, and atypical and most hybrid types have also been omitted. Each type is identified with the letter M. for Mezcala. followed by an even number. Odd numbers have not been used, to allow for the addition of further important types. Types are illustrated with drawings of actual figures chosen from the most significant of their respective groups. No attempt has been made to create ideal prototypes by combining the sculptural elements of various pieces. Based on style alone the tradition can be subdivided into at least four phases: the first characterized by elementary figures of formative character; the second by more advanced figures and the introduction of votive temples; the third by animal effigies and certain ritual objects; the fourth by the most advanced types including hybrid pieces with some outside influence. A thorough definition of phases is not yet possible. Further study is needed before more complete attribution of types to phases can be successfully attempted. The transposition of some members of the sequence may become necessary in the light of future investigation.

The following seriation is based on the assumption that each localized sequence was characterized by the same pattern of development, a concept sustained by evident uniformity of types at each level of the Mezcala tradition. It is a preliminary sequence of the most significant types and their segregation, as already noted, is not always clearly definable. Atypical figures and the appearance of certain traits, assumed to be diagnostic of a given level, on earlier or later levels, indicate that some types and/or specific sculptural details were carried from one level to another for extended periods of time. A summary of both typical and atypical sculptural details of each type is given in the tentative table on page 21.

I' ••:

:

«

cv::;£' v - w ^ ^ ^ p < '••• v;,;.;^

. -

-

• .

S?

•

• ;•••.•

•

-

''.:'•:'.-

MS?

••.

?•:'?*••v*fr •-'."'• .'.••.•;••-•;. -fr-V)?-!^

Vi ••••;.V.-:-i,.;' , J;{ V 1 V--T :-:';:;>:C-Svv.-., •

••*>."••'••-'•.

-&C^£-Cs5vW!£ ^;^,;S,-"'-'5?'.'V':-:-

Type M-12.

(Height of example 774".)

Eyebrows are the only appreciable change in the M-12 type. At times the brows are bisected by a horizontal slit, making them appear to be eyes instead of brows: but some figures have drilled eyes below the double brows.

M-12 figures are usually carved from grey calcite. andesite. and metadiorite. The last are pronouncedly geometric in shape and are among the "best" Mezcala sculptures. A female figure of this group is illustrated. Sizes range from 3" to 10".

One exceptional M-12 figure of grey calcite has bent legs and stump feet [ 1 5 ] . Both features are rare in Mezcala sculpture, particularly at this stage.

13

....WAV""'"':

". .

sfeic*-

m

-J

... IP if. ".••£-;,• . i

**5

:. • • ' ^ m ' r C ^ ' :

?C§; ' tfKW" " :

:

«. •

•:&:-:

'.-C''.C

^^f^^^m^--: '.'1

' -V vc

I

ail fcffl*

Type M-14.

(Height of example 972".)

The separation of the arms from the body, a rare occurrence in Mezcala figurative sculpture, distinguishes the M-14 type. The forearms continue to be represented in relief over the stomach, and the top of the head is still unfinished.

There are very few M-14 figures but their relationship to miniature temples is significant. There is a parallel between the separation of arms from body in the figures and the openings between columns of the temples. These openings are cut from both front and back, and have beveled sides. Other sculptural elements common to both help to establish the correspondence between figures and temples. M-14's are carved from grey calcite, andesite, and banded green stone, the same stones used for miniature temples. Some temples are carved from metadiorite of which no M-14 figure is yet known. Sizes vary from 3" to 20".

14

Type M-16.

(Height of example 574".)

The M-16 type may not belong at this point in the sequence. Perhaps it should not be considered at all, but it is of enough significance to justify its discussion here. The construction of the facial features, based on two planes only, is reminiscent of earlier types but the unusual definition of the ears, the forehead groove, the drilled eyes, and the flat back indicate that these figures are a later development. At times the slit mouth is outlined by thin protruding lips. The arms are usually straight along the side of the body and occasionally folded over the chest. The top of the head is always finished. Small masks

in the same style, more or less oval in shape, are hollowed in back in a fashion foreign to the Mezcala tradition. A similar type of figure occasionally appears in the Chontai region and can be traced as far north as Maxela. M-16 figures and masks from the Mezcala region are usually carved from a light colored serpentine, a few figures from dark green serpentine and small heads from green stones. Dimensions range from 3" to 6". M-16 figures appear to be an isolated phenomenon possibly extending to, or deriving from, the Chontai region.

15

vf'-C

!' ./: 7.; ••:•:'•

r-.T\tO

"mz*^ .**:.•. i" * X 3 K

.-' *

^•7!c

•..:•

i •

i

7 7:,7::.c.7^^''*::.-7-ci# .•^7- --• -•'.. "c'5>c*s •S»!t£.j4V..'i;Vt.-..*3*J?v.-.

•ilif

Type M-20.

(Height of example 1374".)

The M-20 type is relatively rare and may represent an influence from the Chontai region. The large shallow grooves separating the arms from the body are more common in Chontai figures. Even more typical of Chontai is the shape of the nose. An elongated more or less naturalistic nose is foreign to Mezcala but the general construction of the face, based on flat planes, is consistent with the Mezcala style. The nose of the M-20 figures is either in relief or more precisely outlined by grooves running

from the inside corner of the eyes to the end of the nose, as in the illustrated example. In spite of its nose, a very late Mezcala development, the M-20 is introduced at this point in the sequence because it lacks other elements such as fingers and. frequently, the orbital cavities. This type, and those following, invariably have the top of the head finished. Usually carved from andesite, the figures are fairly large; at least one example exceeds 20".

17

.•>••-

.•• -

••:•

•'.••N«vivr.-

iZ^&^!"3*£

•-flF Type M-22.

(Height of example 5 3 //'.)

An accent on human expression seems to mark the M-22 type. Facial features reveal a new character based on bold definition of nose and orbits. The cheekbones are in sharp relief and the heavy jaw is accentuated. Another naturalistic touch is the definition of fingers which vary from three to five in number. Hands are usually placed over the stomach. Arm separation from the body is suggested by sharp cuts. The fronts and backs of the figures are slightly rounded. A variety of small heads and a few excellent masks correspond to this type.

Most M-22 figures are carved from serpentine, and occasionally from calcium sulphate, diorite, andesite, and mottled stones. Figures are from 3" to 8" in height.

18

'=sgss

Cfev

Type M-24.

(Height of example 572".)

M-24 figures are closely related to the M-22. They could be grouped under one heading were it not for minor details: the indication of eyes and mouth by shallow depressions, the occasional recess of the head at shoulder level, and the flat backs of the figures. The triangular construction of the face, characteristic of both M-22 and M-24 types, is particularly evident in the M-24. This construction is similar to that of stone figures and masks of Teotihuacan style. The resemblance may not be accidental. It is possible that toward the end Mezcala style may have been influential in shaping Teotihuacan style.

C-cC^ftl6^

M-24 figures are generally carved from serpentine. Small heads and masquettes are also carved from green siliceous stones. Sizes vary from 3" to 8".

19

$••-•••• :-'Wm asE"-^'

Jg£

''•

Sip

. . . . . . .../;.:.J^.

• - "S'-l

c.^#^77i^

life .. - yjffl '•"*-^-^ 3 & i -

itl

•>- _Tr^i,-, < • / • • . • '

Type M-26.

(Height of example 8V4".)

This type marks a radical departure from conventional Mezcala rendering of the human figure: a naturalism heretofore foreign to the tradition produces human figures with rounded form and added detail. M-26 figures may well incorporate elements of Chontai style—in the peculiar shape of the eyes, mouth, and the bend of the knees. The mouth, eyes, or both, may be omitted.

A few figures seem to be made from river boulders. Holes can appear on or below the lower portion of the ear-flanges of these figures. The position of the holes and their execution with a hollow drill are unusual. The practice probably came from the Chontai region. The Olmecs seem to have been the first to use hollow drills in that part of Guerrero. M-26 figures are usually carved from green diorite, or other green stones for the diminutive versions. Sizes range from 3" to 10"

20

Mezcala Types and Relevant Sculptural Details

Sculptural details

Types M-2

M-4

M-6

M-8

M-10

M-12

M-14

M-16

M-18

X

X

X

X?

Xa

X

X

X?

X?

X

X

Xr

Xr

M-20

M-22

Xr

Xr

M-24

M-26

Rough top Ear-flanges

X

Eyebrows

Xa

Drilled eyes

Xr

X

Pecked eyes

X

Slit eyes X

X

X

X

Nose definition Chin plane

X

X

Xa

Xa

X

X

X

Xa

X

X

X

Arms in relief Straight arms Xr

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Fingers X

X

X

X

X

Stump feet

Xa

Toes

Xa

Breasts

Xr

Xr

Xa

Ear-plugs Xa

Head ornaments

X = typical Xa = atypical

X

X

Xa

Xa

X

Xa

X?

X

Xr X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

Xa

Xa

Xa

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Xa

Xr

X

X X

X

X

X Xa

X

X

Xa

Bent legs

Buttocks

Xr

Xa

X

Open arms

Straight legs

Xr

Xr

Cut arms

Folded arms

Xr Xa

Nose semblance

Mouth

X

X

Xa

Xa

Xr

Xr

X

Xa

Xa

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

X

X

X

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xa

Xa

Xr

Xr

Xr

Xa

Xr

X

X

Xr

X

Xr = typical, but rare X? = detail uncertain 21

Human Heads The representation of human heads played an important role in Mezcala iconography. Although outnumbered by figures, they are a significant part of the tradition. Whether the heads were intended as a substitute for figures, or whether they had separate meaning, is unclear; they correspond in size and style to the heads of figures and also appear in burials. A few are carved more or less in the round. Others are flattened, sometimes to the shape of a face panel. They do not appear to have been made at a very early date: the simplest forms relate to type M-6. Subsequent heads and figures follow parallel development. There are two main categories of heads which seem to originate in the northern section of the Mezcala region. Heads of the first category are mostly carved from dark green serpentine and occasionally from porphyritic stones. They have no neck, the back of the head is usually convex, and frequently a biconical hole is drilled at center top. Most relate to types M-22 and M-24. Sizes range from 2" to 6". The second group consists of diminutive heads from 72" to 3" in height carved from banded or mottled stones. In many instances the back of the head is flat and a hole is drilled at the top. So few heads are carved from diorite, metadiorite. and andesite. that it may be assumed that heads in general were typical of only a limited number of locations. Masks There are so few masks per se, with cut out eyes and mouth, that the word is used to designate any two-dimensional representation of a face, usually hollow in the back. Suspension holes, drilled on either side of the temple area, perhaps served to fasten the mask to a mummy bundle. There are considerably fewer masks than heads. They appear to have been made only during the latest period of the tradition: most of the existing examples are types M-22 and M-24. Seldom larger than 6", they are usually carved from dark green serpentine or grey calcium sulphate. They are only slightly concave in back. Less common masks, carved from light colored serpentine, are oval in shape and deeply hollowed in the back not unlike some small Olmec masks and masquettes. This group is related to type M-16 and was perhaps influenced by Chontai region sculpture. An exceptional mask carved from hard green stone is also oval in shape and deeply hollowed in the back [ 5 4 ] . The eyes and mouth are cut from front and back in a manner reminiscent of Chontai works. A similarity with Tlatilco clay masks is seen in the diminutive nose, rounded ear flanges, the shape of the eyes and mouth, and the over-all outline. Whatever the implication, there can be no doubt about the aberrant character of this mask. Basically it is an M-24 type combined with sculptural elements foreign to the Mezcala tradition. Animal Effigies There is an astonishing variety of small sculptures portraying monkeys, snakes, birds, frogs, iguanas, dogs, and other indigenous fauna. It is improbable that these works were made for amusement, or as toys. More likely they were representations of totemic beings related to family groups and served in burials for protection in the afterlife: or they may have been part of an animistic cult useful in averting evil or in bringing good. Animal effigies are made with the same care as other subjects, sometimes with an added touch of movement. It is apparent that they

originate in a limited number of locations; with few exceptions they belong to the fifth and sixth stone groups. Monkey effigies predominate, followed in order by birds, snakes, frogs, and other animals. Monkeys and birds are sometimes associated with human figures, heads, and masks in the guise of ornaments. Monkeys are usually seated with tail erect. The size and shape of the tail has prompted speculation that squirrels are represented rather than monkeys. The degree of stylization however makes it difficult to differentiate. A few long-billed birds can be identified as hummingbirds, not unlike some Olmec examples. Animal effigies are small; they seldom exceed 5" in length. There is no parallel in the Chontai region, except those of the Olmec tradition. Miniature Temples Miniature temples constitute one of the most distinctive forms of Mezcala sculpture. No architectural remains have yet been reported in the region but functional buildings, possibly made of perishable material, must have existed. Evidence to that effect has been found elsewhere in Mesoamerica. Pyramid E-VII sub at Uaxactun and the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan for example. No trace of stone structure has been found on Pyramid C-1 at La Venta. Temple models from the Mezcala region are rernarkable works of architecture in miniature. Most are so expertly designed that they seem to transcend any endeavor conceivably associated with a primitive society. One astonishing trait, common to many miniature temples, is the slight inward slant of the outermost columns in the well known manner of classic Greek architecture. Most of the miniature temples belong to the second, third, fourth and fifth stone groups. Like animal effigies they appear to have been made for only a limited period of time and can conservatively be assigned to the middle of the tradition. Many temples are two-dimensional, representing the facade of a structure rather than the whole. Thickness varies from 74" to 1". They are composed of three parts: a base, more or less rocker-shaped at the bottom, with a central staircase of a variable number of equidistant steps: a row of two to six columns: and a cornice surmounted by a flat or gently rounded roof. The staircase is either in relief or cut into the base. No perspective effect is attempted. With unique exceptions columns are bare. A figure may be placed either between the center columns, or on top of the temple in a lying, sitting or standing position. A few examples have two or more figures. The significance of these temples with figures is obscure. Most two-dimensional temples are carved from grey calcite but a white variety is occasionally used. Andesite or metadiorite are also employed. Diminutive temples are of banded or mottled stone. Sizes range from 2" to 6" . There is a small group of three-dimensional temples with columns placed at the four corners of a square or rectangular base. A few have walls on the sides which substitute for columns. Rare small temples are solid with a door indicated by a vertical cut. In these types the roof slants, resembling a gabled or peaked thatched roof. Three-dimensional temples are carved from metadiorite or banded and mottled stones. Sizes range from 2" to 9". Ritual Objects Certain stone objects, mostly in the shape of pendants, are grouped here to differentiate them from those of more obvious ornamental connotation. Their meaning is obscure, but it can be assumed that some were ritualistic in purpose, while others served as amulets.

22

The most common object is a pendant in the shape of a contracted tau [ 6 0 ] . It is a rectangular plaque with rounded corners and a small projection on the bottom side. The front of the pendant is usually concave: the back is always convex. The projecting element is sometimes hollowed. One or two suspension holes are either on the upper side of the pendant or at both ends. Another apparently related type is a plaque narrowed down to the size and shape of a finger, hollowed on one side, with the secondary element placed off center. This in turn is related to certain Olmec spoon-shaped objects. Still another concave pendant, similar to Olmec concave pectorals, is a square or rectangle with rounded corners and a suspension hole. Limited numbers of pieces such as hands, feet, phalli, spoons, and daggers or scepters exist. Most are small, rarely over A", and invariably carved from stones belonging to the fifth or sixth groups. They appear to be contemporary with the animal effigies on the upper levels of the tradition. Ornaments Compared with other Mezcala artifacts, ornaments are relatively poor in quality. Beads carved from mottled white-green stones are very common. They are either round, cylindrical, or ellipsoid in shape. The latter are usually more carefully worked and better polished. Other ornaments include flat pendants and ear plugs carved from green stones. Small figures, animal effigies, and other objects may possibly have been used as ornaments. Examples include a necklace composed of 44 graded figurines and 45 beads. The figures, carved from white calcite. are perforated through the neck. Another but incomplete necklace appears to have been made with small hummingbirds in a green stone. Utilitarian Objects Besides celts, chisels, and tools in general, useful objects from the Mezcala region include mortars, manos. pestles, vessels of various sizes and shapes, and two. three, and four footed grinders. Unfortunately the record of this material is incomplete because these objects have little or no commercial value, and are either re-used by the natives or discarded altogether. In addition to functional pieces there are miniature articles in the shape of skin-bags, vessels [58] and grinders. They are carved from stones belonging to groups five and six. DISCUSSION It can be assumed that the production of Mezcala stone sculpture was stimulated by cult concepts. This is indicated by the extent of the tradition, by an apparent limitation of subject matter, and by the association of sculpture with burials. The long duration of the tradition is suggested by the unusually large production of works, coupled with slow development of style. The subject matter seems to have stemmed from a precise motivation, otherwise the constant repetition of a few themes is hard to explain. The association of the sculpture with burials is consistently reported, sometimes in groups of two or more pieces. This corresponds to a practice wide spread among ancient peoples of the New World. Fifteen to twenty per cent of the Mezcala figures are carved from functional axes. They constitute a particularly significant aspect of the tradition as many appear to be stylistically early. Other figures resemble the axe; only a few are completely freed from the confines of the original form. Early Chontai work follows a similar line of development. As a utilitarian object the stone axe was extremely important for the survival of primitive people. Perhaps the reliance upon, and the

reverence for. the axe prompted Mezcala man to consider it as imbued with magic power. Yet it may be incorrect to assume that there was a stone axe cult per se; more probably the axe came to be associated with broader cult concepts as a symbol of supernatural power. Mezcala man must have speculated that life depended upon the capricious behavior of the forces of nature, forces he may have identified with the most impressive heavenly bodies. He then may have concluded that in order to ensure their assistance it was necessary to propitiate these forces. Rain making, harvest and hunting rituals were probably performed as well as preventive rituals against calamity and death. As a result of these propitiatory interventions, the stone figure came to represent the embodiment of the supernatural forces in an axe form. Many figures may also have been associated with fertility concepts. If this is so there should be a large number of female representations. Mezcala figures usually have no qualifying sexual attributes. Less than 5 per cent of the figures have breasts and they can be identified as female, but other symbols may also distinguish the female type. A formal position of the arms and hands—when depicted—may be significant. Arms and hands are usually represented in three basic positions: straight along the sides of the body, over the stomach, and across the chest. All the figures with breasts have hands placed finger tip to finger tip over the stomach in a seemingly protective attitude. Conceivably other breastless figures with the same trait may represent females. A parallel to this can be found in Chontai sculpture and in certain anthropomorphic axes in Olmec style. In the latter, which may also represent female figures, there are additional, pertinent details. such as "flame eyebrows," a cleft or V-shaped sign on the forehead, and an absence of fangs. The V sign occurs occasionally in Chontai sculpture. I have recorded only two Mezcala figures with cleft heads, both appearing to be late types. Animal effigies, birds [39. 4 5 ] , snakes [ 8 ] , and monkeys were used to ornament figures, heads, and masks. Usually placed at the center or on either side of the head, they may have had a totemic significance. There are a few examples of heads with lateral, rounded elements which can be interpreted as ears or wings [ 4 6 ] , Conceptually they resemble Olmec pieces of the kind identified as "bat g o d " effigies or "descending g o d " representations. The meaning of other forms of head ornaments such as peaks and hat semblances are obscure [22-24]. There is a unique head topped by a composite ornament consisting of three ball-shaped elements and a point [ 5 1 ] . The color of the stone may also have had symbolic significance. With the exception of pieces carved from calcite and other stones, the color is preponderantly green, from pale to dark. The same color was popular with other Mexican cultures. The choice may have been motivated by a fertility concept related to agriculture. The use of red paint was not as popular in the Mezcala region as it was in other parts of Mexico, but it is occasionally found on figures. In some instances the paint appears to have been applied to the cuts only, or used to delineate the mouth, eyes, and eyebrows. Undoubtedly it had a symbolic meaning and may have been associated with blood or sun. The unfinished top of the head, characteristic of a large number of Mezcala figures, may have had esoteric significance. Since the butt of plain axes is usually rough it is possible that the figures simply carry over a trait common to the functional object, but this would not explain why the trait is found on many figures which are not carved from axes. It has been suggested that the figures were used as "pestles" for ceremonial purposes. The uniform appearance of the unfinished top and the general

23

absence of accidental breaks on the side of the head do not support this view. On the contrary it is quite evident that the top of the head was occasionally pecked or in some way retouched in order to simulate an unfinished work. There is a remote possibility that this was done for superstitious reasons, caused by belief that man should not emulate divinity by making a perfect work.

The multiform aspects of the work and the unique quality of the style are based on a long tradition hardly paralleled in the early, lithic heritages of cultures outside Mexico. For sincerity and purity of form Mezcala sculpture is a valid example of figurative abstraction successfully achieved without arbitrary distortion. Its aesthetic quality and monumentality deserve recognition as fundamental, and valuable, artistic statements.

Dating Techniques A major problem concerning Mezcala stone sculpture is its dating. This is tentatively estimated to range from 300 B.C. to A.D. 300; the uncertainty results from the lack of scientific investigation in the region. There is a strong possibility that the Mezcala tradition had an earlier start, that at one time it may have been coeval with the lithic traditions indigenous to the Chontai region. This hypothesis is predicated on the following: 1. Mezcala style has a homogeneous and distinctive character developed in relative isolation. Outside influence—when present— is late and not early. 2. Examples of Mezcala sculpture that could be regarded as Olmecoid belong to the latest phase. The similarity of certain ritual objects to Olmec spoon-shaped and concave pendants indicate that the Mezcala pieces were original in concept rather than derivative. 3. In types M-20 and M-26 there is a stylistic rapport between the Chontai and the Mezcala tradition. This influence initially seems to have occurred at an earlier date than the Olmec contact mentioned under point two. 4. There is a similarity between type M-24 and Teotihuacan style. Teotihuacan style seems to be the combined offspring of Chontai and Olmec styles plus Mezcala influence. The Mezcala M-24 type is more likely to have influenced the shaping of Teotihuacan style than the reverse, as the latter seems to have had no independent formative cycle. 5. To my knowledge there are no recorded finds of Mezcala sculpture outside the Guerrero enclave. A dubious report of four figures unearthed at Tlapacoya could not be verified. A large figure supposedly found in the Valley of Mexico has not been documented. Chontai material is also absent from sites of known date. Both traditions could thus be earlier than is currently supposed. The Mezcala tradition may have flourished during pre-Christian times, but exactly how far back is a matter of conjecture. The region could hardly have sustained a large population and changes in a primitive society are usually very slow. Accurate dating will be possible only with controlled excavation.

A brief discussion of Mezcala lapidary techniques is essential to the understanding of the technical implications in the development of a stone sculpture tradition. There is little doubt that it evolved as a by-product of an early lithic industry which produced tools made from plutonic rocks inappropriate for flaking. As flaking material, such as flint and obsidian, is scarce in the region the local industry used abrading and polishing methods. Axe heads were first shaped by chipping and pecking and then laboriously ground and polished. With the exception of the butt, the whole surface of the axe was ground by rubbing it on a slab of wet sandstone or by using sand as an abrasive. Much Mezcala sculpture is carved from the same, or equally hard stones, and the same working methods were undoubtedly used. The basic form was probably roughed out by chipping and pecking and then finished by abrading. The surface was polished by rubbing it with skin and polishing powder. Grooves and cuts were made with sandstone blades or wedge-shaped tools, plus water and abrasives. Crushed quartz or other equally hard minerals may have been substituted for sand as the abrasive. Natural stone points, such as quartz crystals, were occasionally used to cut into moderately soft stones like serpentine, carbonates and sulphates. Suspension and fastening holes and dot eyes were made with a rotary drill, presumably operated by a bow. Drills were solid and more or less conical in shape. Hollow drills were used in a few instances on hybrid types of figures, but this practice may indicate outside influence. It is not clear when drilling as a technique was introduced. Some fairly early figures have drilled dot eyes or a single suspension hole, but the evidence is inconclusive. A string-sawing technique was occasionally used for open cuts between arms and body and between columns of miniature temples. Holes were drilled at both ends or /and along the center line of the intended cut. The opening was then completed by sawing away the superfluous material with a string using water and an abrasive. So time-consuming are these operations that the old saying "constant dripping wears away the stone" seems appropriate to epitomize the infinite patience of ancient Mezcala lapidaries.

Conclusion Mezcala style is basically independent: it represents a regional phenomenon with its own developmental cycle. The sculpture, motivated by religious concepts, is delimited by the medium and the tools used to work it. It maintains a constant, rigid adherence to a basic form. Contained and consistently proportioned, having no extended appendages, it could—proverbially—be rolled down a hill without damage. Its justification is in a communion between man and his imaginary sacred world. It is the concrete response to a strong spiritual impulse. The flat planes and delineating cuts are integrated in a pleasing architectonic realization. Abstraction is at times extreme, but the geometric construction is so skillful that the work retains the essence of its inspirational theme. The figure is reduced to a consistent basic form.

24

1 Type M-2. Diorite, 37/s" high. Collection Mr. Sandor Bernath, Northport, New York

- ^

m

2 Type M-4, aberrant. Serpentine, 47s" high. Anonymous collection 3 Type M-4. Diorite, 4" high. Collection Mrs. Claudia G. Boyd, New York 4 Type M-6. Andesite, 43/V' high. Anonymous collection

1 '

5 Type M-6. Andesite, 374" high. Collection Mrs. Claudia G. Boyd, New York .

6 Type M-8. Metadiorite, 23/Y' high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Miles J. Lourie, New York

,

.

•

•

•

:

rajF?

™

I

3

^m Hfay; •

.

. " ^H 4 ~^i

"JJ|^C

^r^^^ :-f^

25

7 Type M-10. Andesite, 472" high. Collection Dr. Franz Ebstein, New York 8 Type M-10. Diorite, 4" high. Anonymous collection 9 Type M-10. Fifth stone group, 1" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Genichiro Inokuma, New York 10 Type M-10. Diorite, 43/Y' high. Anonymous collection 11 Type M-10. Andesite, 9" high. Collection Mrs. Claudia G. Boyd, New York 12 Type M-10. Metadiorite, 12V2" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Herman Jervis, New York 13 Type M-12, aberrant. Andesite, 153/s" high. Anonymous collection 14 Type M-12. Andesite, VW high. Anonymous collection 15 Type M-12. Grey calcite, 55/e" high. Anonymous collection 16 Type M-12. Andesite, 6" high. Anonymous collection 17 TypeM-12. Stone ?, 472" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Arthur N. Seiff, New York

!

PB^A.-'

1 -'fragl H H | ^*Ai. c$9H

j£k

^Bi^H

10 26

28

29

18 Type M-12. Andesite, 4" high. The University Museum, Philadelphia 63-18-2 19 Type M-14, aberrant (or M-22 due to nose definition). Andesite, 14" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Arthur N. Seiff, New York 20 Type M-14. Grey calcite, 2074" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Herman Jervis, New York 21 Type M-14 aberrant (or M-22 due to nose definition). Andesite, 9" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Herman Jervis, New York 22 Type M-16, aberrant. Serpentine, 372" high. Collection Miss Mildred Friedland, New York 23 Type M-16, aberrant. Serpentine. 4" high. Collection Miss Mildred Friedland, New York 24 Type M-16, aberrant. Serpentine, 37s" high. Collection Miss Mildred Friedland, New York 25 Type M-16. Light serpentine, 374" high. Anonymous collection 26 Type M-16. Light serpentine, 574" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Arthur N. Seiff, New York 27 Type M-16, aberrant. Light serpentine ?, 4" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Albert B. G. lardella, New York 28 Type M-18. Andesite, 8 3 /7' high. Collection Mrs. Claudia G. Boyd, New York 29 Type M-22. Diorite, 5" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Miles J. Lourie, New York 30 Type M-22. Dark serpentine, 63/s" high. Anonymous collection 31 Type M-22. Dark serpentine, 77s" high. Anonymous collection 32 Type M-22. Dark serpentine, 5" high. Collection Dr. Franz Ebstein, New York 33 Type M-22. Dark serpentine, 472" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leon Meadow, New York 34 Type M-22. Dark serpentine, 37s" high. Anonymous collection 35 Type M-22. Dark serpentine, 472" high. Anonymous collection

33

34 30

•

,;K 7 :-7--

36 Type M-22. aberrant. Dark serpentine. 572" high. Anonymous collection 37 Type M-24, aberrant. Dark serpentine. 474" high. Collection Mrs. Claudia G. Boyd, New York 38 Type M-22. Fifth stone group, 572" high. Anonymous collection 39 Type M-22. aberrant. Fifth stone group, 5V4" high. Collection Dr. Franz Ebstein, New York 40 Type M-24. Dark serpentine, 57s" high. Anonymous collection 41 Type M-24. Calcium sulphate, 9" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Arthur N. Seiff. New York 42 Type M-26, aberrant. Fifth stone group, 47s" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leon Meadow. New York 43 Type M-26. Grey calcite, 77s" high. Anonymous collection

44 Type M-16, aberrant. Fifth stone group, 27s" x 272". Collection Mr. and Mrs. Albert B. G. lardella. New York 45 Type M-20. Serpentine, 5" x 472" Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leon Meadow. New York 46 Type M-22. Dark serpentine. 23/s" x 372". Collection Mrs. Claudia G. Boyd. New York 47 Type M-22, aberrant. Porphyry. 5" x 33/s". Collection Mr. and Mrs. Albert B. G. lardella. New York 48 Type M-22. Dark serpentine. 43/e" x 33/s". Anonymous collection 49 Type M-24. Fifth stone group, 27s" x IV2" Collection Miss Alice Ferguson. New York 50 Type M-24. Andesite, 27 8 " x 1V2". Anonymous collection 51 Type M-24. Metadiorite, 6" x 274". Collection Mrs. Claudia G. Boyd. New York

46 34

51 35

52 Type M-24. Dark serpentine, 672" x &W. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leon Meadow. New York 53 Type M-24. Dark serpentine, A3U" x 4". Anonymous collection 54 Type M-24. aberrant. Fifth stone group, 5" :" x 5". Museum of Primitive Art 57.137 55 Type M-26. Diorite ?. 31 V' x 27 2 ". The Newark Museum 65.138 56 Temple with figure. Grey calcite. 5 3 7" x 4 " . Collection Mr. Arthur Bullowa, New York 57 Monkey. Fifth stone group, 272" high. Collection Miss Kathleen Haven, New York 58 Miniature vessel. Diorite, 4" high. Collection Mr. and Mrs. Arthur N. Seiff. New York 59 Bird. Fifth stone group, 3 3 7" long. Anonymous collection 60 Ritual object. Dark serpentine, 474" x 2 3 /7' Collection Mrs. Claudia G. Boyd. New York

36

59

37

I

Texcaltitla 'Taxco MORELOS

- • * . _

Ixcateopan V-+'

Amacusac River,

*

Tecalpulco < Zapote

Zapoapa

*Jotoapa «\

Jlaxmalac^

Teloloapan PalapaT^v"^

2

"^

. Metlapa

.Tonalapav

[epecoacuilco

^

7

Zacacoyuca'j

lapala

GUERRERO

k

Sta. Cruz \Mayanalan

Las Tunas .Apipilulco Tlanipatlan

Tepecoacuilco River K I \ . • Tetelilla

Cuetzala,

Tonalapa del Sur i

Atenango del Rio

•Palula

^y Ahuelican

Coacoyula Cocula River

Tuliman

Ahuehuepan Xalitla Salsas

San Miguel, Ameyaltepec

Balsas River

Atenango i River. Totolzintla

Mancilla

Balsas River Canon del Zopilote

Tenantla, // Amatitlan.

7,

I

Xochipala Venta Vieja

'Apango,

.,.-y .

10 MILES

Zitlala

Zumpango del Rio

•

38

Bibliography Covarrubias, Miguel 1948 "Tipologia de la industria de piedra tallada y pullida de la Cuenca del Rio Mezcala," El Occidente de Mexico, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Cuarta Reunion de Mesa Redonda, Mexico, pp. 86-90. 1956 Mezcala, Ancient Mexican Sculpture, New York.

Andre Emmerich Gallery.

1957 Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Mexico. Museo de Ciencias y Arte 1964 Escultura Precolombia de Guerrero, exhibition catalogue with essay by Daniel F. Rubin de la Borbolla, notes by William Spratling, Mexico.

-+-+

Mexico-Acapulco Highway

New York, Finch College Museum of Art 1965 Guerrero, Stone Sculpture from the State of Guerrero, exhibition catalogue with text by Carlo T. E. Gay, New York.

All weather roads

Illustrations

Dirt roads and trails

Drawings: Frances Pratt

Mexico,

Guerrero-Morelos border Towns Villages

Photographs: Franz Ebstein 32 Sidney Edwards 13.46 Andre Kertesz 9 Elisabeth Little 1. 6. 7, 8. 11. 17. 22. 23. 24. 29.36,37,41,45,56,57,58 Leon Meadow 33. 52 Newark Museum 55 Charles Uht 54 University Museum. Philadelphia 18 Others by the author Map: Carlo T. E. Gay Cover and frontispiece: illustration 18

39

Price: $4.00

Selected Publications of The Museum of Primitive Art Chavin Art: An Inquiry into its Form and Meaning, by John Howland Rowe. 1962. 40 p., 55 illus. Price: 2.00 Art of Empire: The Inca of Peru, by Julie Jones. 1964. 56 p., 85 illus. Price: 3.95 Sculpture from Mexico in the Collection of the Museum of Primitive Art. 1964. 32 p., 28 illus. Price: 75 cents Sculpture from Peru in the Collection of the Museum of Primitive Art. 1964. 32 p., 27 illus. Price: 75 cents The Jaguar's Children: Pre-Classic Central Mexico, by Michael D. Coe. 1965. 128 p., 208 illus. Price: 8.95 Ancient Peruvian Textiles from the Collection of The Textile Museum, Washington, D.C. Introduction by Mary Elizabeth King. 1965. 48 p.. 44 illus. Price: 3.75 Lecture Series Number One: Aspects of Primitive Art. Three lectures by Robert Redfield, Melville J. Herskovits and Gordon F. Ekholm. 1959. 100 p., 12 illus. Price: 2.75 Number Two: Three Regions of Primitive Art. Three lectures by George Kubler, S. Kooijman and Hallam L. Movius, Jr. 1961. 107 p., 42 illus., 7 text figs. Price: 3.50 Number Three: Technique and Personality in Primitive Art. Three lectures by Margaret Mead, Junius B. Bird and Hans Himmelheber. 1963. 110 p., 37 illus. (2 in color), 91 text figs. Price: 5:00 Bibliographies Number One: Bibliography of Torres Straits Art, by Douglas Fraser. 1963. 6 p. Price: 50 cents Number Two: Bibliography for Olmec Sculpture, by Julie Jones. 1963. 8 p. Price: 75 cents Number Three: Bibliography of Yoruba Sculpture, by Herbert M. Cole and Robert Farris Thompson. 1964. 11 p. Price: 75 cents Number Four: Bibliography of Sepik District Art Annotated for Illustrations, Part I, by Douglas Newton. 1965. 20 p. Price: 1.00 Studies Number One: The Great Bieri, by Robert Goldwater. 1962. 8 p., 4 illus. Price: 25 cents Number Two: Malu: Openwork Boards of the Tshuosh Tribe, by Douglas Newton. 1963. 8 p., 10 illus. Price: 1.50 Number Three: Tiahuanaco Tapestry Design, by Alan R. Sawyer. 1963. 14 p., 18 illus. Price: 1.50 Number Four: A Maya Sculpture in Wood, by Gordon F. Ekholm. 1964. 12 p., 15 illus. Price: 1.50