The leono,raph~0' Middle AmericanSculpture

Texts by, IGNACIO BERNAL

MICHAEL D. COE

GORDO F. EKHOLM

PETER T. FURST

WOLFGANG HABERLAND

GEORGE KUBLER

H. B. ICHOLSON

). ERIC S. THOMPSON

GORDON R. WILLEY

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

COpy1ight c 1973 by The Metropo~t.ll Museum of An

All rights reserved. No ~rt of this publication may bereproduced or tr~smilt~ in ¥lY fOfm or by any me~ns,

eleclfoniC or rnech~nical, including pholOCOpy, record­Ing, or ~ny inform~llOn stor~ge ~nd relriev~1 system, v.ilh­001 permIssion in ....Tiling from the publisher.

Printed by PI,lnlin Press, DivisiOn of Reehl Utho, Inc.

llBItARY or cO"GItfSS CATAlQCl ...c IN l'lI8UCAliON Do\TA

I"" 1il.lInoI"'''''' DI ......... AJnt1\U.~"""""onn .. P'lIIf" In lho, -01..- .•c~ 10 lhe "'''lIOn u ..Iot;...,.

Iftooe C_,. _ p.oew-.:t .1 I ..,~'" Iwkl .. the Me1lopl)l;unM..._ "''''8 Ck'Obft I"J1'll

lncloK\el: b<t!Iosr.pIw..

I IndllM 01 M"l(o-5<..IP' ..,......c:_"e'~'. 2. Indi.n, 01 Cen".1" ..... ric•• -Sc ..lpt"..-Co"8"""'. l. Me.lco--.Anll<tu"",.-C""tt'fil'tl•• Cen'r.l ........,I(~ ..........hq"""'<-CO!VI..I.' Ilfo...... '$"""'''', n. NewYork te+.,." Mtl#OpQ~lin MUM"'" 0/ ...... fll Luby. [~bI'th I.tnlltdy.8foIOft Co"';'. KuIpt"", 01 Mo<,ldlt """'''CI,

442487

Contents

FOREWORD vii

The Icanology of Olmec ArtMICHAel D. COE 1

Stone Reliefs in the Dainzu AreaIGNACIO BERNAL 13

Iconographic Aspects of Architectural Profiles at Teotihuacanand in Mesoamerica

GEORGE KUBLER 24

The Eastern Gulf CoastGORDON F. EKHOLM 40

Maya Rulers of the Classic Period and the Divine Right of KingsJ. ERIC S. THOMPSO 52

The late Pre-Hispanic Central Mexican (Aztec) Iconographic SystemH. B. NICHOLSON n

West Mexican Art: Secular or Sacred?PETER T. FURST 96

Stone Sculpture from Southern Central AmericaWOLFGANG HABERLAND 135

Mesoamerican Art and Iconography and the Integrity of theMesoamerican Ideological System

GORDON R. WIllEY 153

Science and Humanism among AmericanistsGEORGE KUBLER 163

Stone Seulpture'rom Southern Central America

Wolfgang HaberlandHilmburgisches Museum fur V61kcrlwnde und VOfgeschichtc, Hamburg

1. Generalized phases and/or periods Qf cultural development, soulhemCentral America. After various sources.

~'"'" ......""""" c..~ .... ~... ,...,..- '"'" .... """""._. - -~ ...... --'"""' --

"'_D.I"f ." ."~- ...... --""_•. _.."""'" ..... --A.D•• "'- ....... ............ -

~lt.......

A,O.'''' 0•• M¥:iU"'.' "" --,.- ------,A.0.7W ,..,..., ,...,

'UfOM_. .'" -,-

""" """ ...... --~.. -------.... .... -.... - --- o.mow... --~.aMoo

e-...- .....- ..., ....-...... '"""0 --aLe ------

M.....

...c.

_ •.C. ~'"

ISII I.e.. ~~

"" '.e. --'34

STONE SCULPTURE FROM SOUTHERN CENTRAL AMERICA 135

Stone monuments from southern Central America were first reported about Ihe

middle of the nineteenth century tFriedrichstnaI1841; Squier 1850.1852; Boyle1868). They did not, however, stimulate a continuing interest, as did the Mayamonuments. Investigations of them nearly ceased. II one excludes notices on

newly discovered styles, only a few articles about Central American monuments

can be named (Richardson 1940; Mason 1945; Stone 19(1). Modern investigations

and good photographs of Ihe objects are largely unavailable. Therefore the offenfanciful drawings of Bovallius (1886) and Squier (1852) are still used for discussions

of Nicaraguan statues (for example. in lothrop 1%6). ThiS is like using Waldeck'sdrawings (1838) for a comparison of Maya monuments. Some reasons for the

neglect of our topic may be the absence of extensive cities, ceremonial centers,and buildings; the inaccessibility of the monuments; and the absence of strati­

graphically established chronologies. It is significant that only after the develop·ment of the first chronologies. photographs illstead of the old draWings accorn·

panied a general book on Central American archaeology (Baudez 1970).

2. Sou/hem Central America with disfribution ofmaIn stone sClilp/ure styles.

1- Penollome I and JI2- ViJlalba3- Cebaco4- BarriJes5- Olquis and P,llm<tf6- Capellfldas7- Mercedes8- Stlbtltlba9- Lake

,,. WOLFGANG HABERlAND

To overcome the difficullies inherent in such scattered material, an account

must be given of the main styles of stone figures In Panama. Costa Rica, andNicaragua. describing their general characteristics, ~ting them as far as possible,

and comparing them with one anOlher. The emphasis will be on human and

animal figures. Excluded will be functional stone sculptures such as altars, melales,mace heads. and so on, which would require a spedal paper, and ah.o miniaturestone carvings. Finally. singular pieces as well as some groups of smaller figuresare omitted. espe<.ially if they lack adequate dates. Tlleir inclusion would onlyconfuse lhe alreadydiffjcult picture. For general information, I present a sequence

of phases andior periods (figure 1) and a map showing the distribution of themajor styles (figure 2).

The first group in the south I turn to is the one found by Verrill (1927; n.d.)in the vicinity of Penonome, province of Code, Panama. Only about a dozenof the more than one hundred statues mentioned by Verrill (1927, pI. IV) haveever been published (Verrill 1927, figs. 16-20; n.d., pis. opposite pp. 76, 84;

lothrop 1937, fig. 17; 1942, fig. 419; Dockstader 1964, fig. 188). There are alsoa few sculptures at the Museo Nacional de Panama, some of them mislabeledas coming from Barriles (Torres 1966, p. 21; compare Verrill 1927, fig. 18), atthe Museum of the American Indian, New York, and at the Rietberg Museum,Zurich (figures 3, 4). Even this inadequate material, which is dated into the earlyCode phase (A.D. 500-800) (Ladd 1964, p. 222) points to toAo different styles atleast, perhaps contemporaneous, perhaps not.

Stone columns with only the head set off and sculptured somewhat twa­dimensionally form the Penonome I style. The arms, the "snakelike" curved legs,and the male genitals are carved in flat relief on the columnar body (Verrill 1927 ,

figs. 17, 18; n.d., pI. oppOSite p. 76, upper right and lower left; lothrop 1937,

fig. 17). The only attribute that can be detected is a flute held by one of thefigures (Dockstader, fig. 1881. Sometimes the relief is more deeply carved, thecolumnar character more disguised, as in the Rietberg monument (figure 3).

This statue is further distinguished by as~ond figure, perhaps a monkey, clingingto its back (figure 4).

The Rietberg monument forms a transition to the Penonome II styfe. Here,the figures are fully rounded and more naturalistic. Judging from the only twoexamples published (Verrill n.d., pI. opposite p. 76, upper left, opposite p. 84,

bottom), the squatting or silting figures are placed on medium-high square pedes-

3. Stone figure, advanced Penonomc I style f,om the "Vemll sire" nea,Pcnonomc, province of Coc(e, Panama. Rietbefg Museum. Zurich.Photograph: Zoe Bmswangef.

4. Back VICW of same figufe. Photograph: Zoe Bmswanger.

STONE SCULPTURE FROM SOUTHERN CENTRAL AMERICA 1]7

"8 WOLFGANG HABERLAND

tal~. which may be charaderistic of this style. If this holds true, animals (birds:Verrill 1927, fig. 18; jaguars: Ibid., fig. 20) on rather large pedestals should beincluded. One of these pedestals with a jaguar on top. in the Museum of theAmerican Indian, shows in addition a small human figure in a flat relief; oneof its arms is held by the jaguar with a forepaw. Jaguars are also shown in asilting-up position (lothrop 1942, fig. 419). Two figures with hum.<ln bodies and

jaguar heads. in the Brooklyn Museum (Bennett 1954, fig. 193; von Winning

1968, figs, 520, 521), could also belong to this style, even if they are sometimessaid 10 come from Chiriqui. If the Brooklyn figures could be traced 10 a Chiriquiorigin. however, they might be included in the Villalba slyle. named after anisland off David. in Chiriqui (Haberland 1960a).

Only two of the figures at Villalba, mounted on high round shahs. were stillcomplete in 1959. Other pedestals showed remnants of sculptures broken offand carried away (Haberland 1960a, fig. 4). One of the complete figures wasa standing female. rather crudely carved (figure 5) (ibid., fig. 3B), the other asmall armadillo (ibid., fig. 3A). While stylistic differences between Ihe humanfigures of Villalba and Penonome II are obvious (according to the few examplesknown to me) there is a general similarity. not exclusively based on the factthat in both groups the figures are mounted on shafts. A connection betweenthe two styles seems probable bUI needs further investigation. Dating, whichwould playa significant role. is difficult since no excavation has yet been doneat the Villalba site (Linares 1968, pp. 12·13). Some sherds I picked up there indicatean occupation during the San lorenzo phase (A.D. 800-11(0).

The connections and dating of the Cebaco style, also from Chiriqui, are evenmore obscure, since its four figures are without any accompanying material(Holmes 1888, fig. 6; MacCurdy 1911, fig. 40; Museo Chiricano 1966, frontispiece).All are standing females without bases. While in general they can be consIderednaturalistic. a trend 10 geometric shapes is unmistakable. It is demonstrated by

the rendering of the upperexlremities: shoulders and lower arms are horizontallyplaced, the upper arm is venkal. being separated from the body by rectangularspaces. The face is triangular. A headband and a belt, always present, the beltsometimes with incised ornamenlS, are the only decorations.

A third group of stone figures in ChiriqUI is found at Barriles and other sitesalong the Costa Rica·Panama frontier (Barriles, Chiriquf: Haberland 196Oc.; Torres,and others; Santa Marta, Chiriqui: Vidal Fraitts 1968; Cerro Gordo, Dtquis region:von Winning, fig. 516). Most important are the double figures, sho",ing an adornedmale riding pickaback on a nude male (Torres, p. 16, left; Baudez, fig. 104) (figure6). They are usually interpreted as "kings" riding slaves. The single figures areall males, standing on small round bases (Haberland 196Oc, figs. 3, 4; Torres,p. 16, right. 18; Baudez, fig. 105). Their ornaments are similar to those of Ihe"kings" and include necklaces with anthropomorphic figures, waistbands, conical

STONE SCULPTURE FROM SOUTHER CENTRAL AMERICA '"

5. female slone figure In VIllalba style,photographed on Isla de los MuC'rtos (Villalba),province of (lmiqui, P,lnama.

6. Double figure in Barriles style. The "king"wealS a "coolie" hat and ilnthropomorphlcpendants. In hIS left hand hC' holds it Ifopllyhead. From the Baffiles sIte. pfO\/Oce of ChmquJ,Panama. Museo Nanonal de Panama.

~(,

"coolie" hats, and trophy heads. The figures can be called naturalistic, in spiteof the fact that the arms are quite elongated and tubular. The pronounced trian·gular faces recall the Cebaco style. As shown earlier by me (196Ob, p. 13; 196Oc,p. n1) and recently confirmed (lchon. 19681. the Barriles style is part of theAguas Buenas phase (Haberland 1955). Other stone sClJlptures. all functional,of this phase are large, highly ornamented metates with cOiryOitids (Torres, p.20). a "stone altar." with the only female figure (ibid., pp. 23-24), stone drumswith relief sculpture on the nat sides (ibid .. p. 15; Sander 1961, fig. 2), and thefamous "stone balls" (Lothrop 1963, pis. V.VII; Stone 1943, p. 30; and others).The connection of the stone balls with this group is ascertained at Santa Marta,where fragments of Barriles figures, a drum, and a ball were found together(Vidal Frailts), and at La Pinlada (near San Vito de Java, Costa Rica), where Ipicked up Aguas Buenas sherds after drums and balls had been removed (LUigiMinelli. personal communication). The dalTng of Aguas Duenas is still uncertain.However, Ihere are indications 10 place it either A.D. '·300 or A.D. 300-500 (Haber­

land 1969a).

,.. WOLFGANG HABERl.'" 0

The Diquis styte of southern Costa Rica is well known for its flat. highly stylizedstanding figures. male and female. Several subSfyles occur, but these may be

due only 10 the different skills of the sculptors. Often rectangular slits (betweenthe legs and between the arms and body) logetherwith horizontal bars (shoulders,hands and genitals, feel and rounded base) give the figure its geometric appear­ance (Lothrop 1963, pis. Xb, XIII, X1Va·b, XVI) (figure 7). This impression is fortified

by the short tubelike neck and Ihe gently CONed face with its only slightly raised

features. In this, the most geometric type. the ,urns hang down. On the otherfigures they are bent, with the hands on the stomach, or raised to the breastor shoulder, and so forth (ibid., pIs. XII, XIVc, XVb). Here Ihe slils belweenarms and body are often omitted. Most of Ihe figures are naked. The rare beltsare usually snakelike (ibid., pI. XII). Bands on legs and arms are more frequent(ibid., pis. Xe, XIII, XIVa) (figure 7). A few seem to wear short shoulder capes(ibid., pI. XIVa) (figure 7) and headbands or headdresses (ibid., pis. Vlllc, XU a,XVIII). Other attributes are trophy heads (ibid., pl. XII), scarifiations (ibid., pI.XVIII; Mason, pI. 59E, q, what may be half masks (ibid., pis. 58A, E, 598, El,and a staff or dub (ibid., pI. 59A). Besides humans, mythical beings with humanbodies and jaguar heads occur (lothrop 1963, pis. XIX-XXI). They are often highlyornamented and show forked tongues ending in snake heads (ibid., pI. XXI).Finally, we find rounded but also highly stylized figures of jaguars (ibid., pI.XXlla; Mason, pI. we, 0), crocodiles (lothrop 1963, pI. XXllb, B), and birds(Mason, pI. 6OB). The dating of this important group, which shows some stylisticsimilarities to the Cehaco style, is still uncertain (lothrop 1963, p. 29). Personalcommunication in the field indicates, however, the possibility that they are con­temporary wilh, or part of, the Soruca phase, dating about A.D. 11()1).1500.

The Palmar style is found in the same region of southern Costa Rica (Mason,pis. 520, E, 53C-E; lothrop 1963, fig. 9, pis. IXb, Xla-e, XVa). liS figures, whichare all, as far as can be ascertained, male, are fashioned from boulders, wilhfeatures in flat relief. Only the heads are more pronounced. Necks are missing,as are, sometimes, Ihe lower extremities, which otherwise are straight or, rarely,curving. Two staffs held vertically (ibid., fig. 9) are the most prominent of thefew attributes. The dating of these rather simple figures is uncertain, so nothingcan be said about Iheir relationship with the Diquis style. Certain slylistic trends,like the treatment of the faces, indicate that the Palmar group may have beenIhe base from which the Diquis style developed.

One of the best-known styles of stone sculpture in southern Central America,the Mercedes, is found in the Valle Central of Costa Rica and itsAtlanlicwatershed,especially the region of linea Vieja. Mason's study of the Keith collection, Hart­man's report on his acavations (1901), and publications by Doris Slone (1948,1961) give a good idea of the scope and content of this style. /I;tost of the naturalisticthree-dimensional figures fall into one of three types, which are united through

STONE SCULPTURE FROM SOUTHERN CENTRAL AMERICA 141

style and the absence of bases. One type consists of standing females, whosehands usually support their breasts (Mason, pis. 36, 37). Besides their elaboratecoiffures, only a waistband (ibid., pl. 37CJ or a scarification (ibid., pl. 39E) occurs.Another type, standing males (ibid., pis. 40, 41), shows many more attributes.Except for a few ,....ith ornamented belts (Stone 1961, fig. n (figure 8), they, too,are naked. Not rare are trophy heads In the hands or on the back (ibid., fig.7; Mason, pI. 40; Aguilar 1952) or clubs or axes held in the hand (Mason, pI.41A,D-f). Whether a figure In the American Museum of Natural History withelaborate scarifications and an animal above its head (Vaillant 1949, p. 46) shouldbe Included in this group was once somewhat doubtful because of styfistic differ·ences. However, I recently examined the piece, and as far as the rendering ofthe face, the shapes of the limbs, and the general treatment are concerned,the figure is quite within fherange ofthestyle. TheanimaJ on top is a crocodile-likecreature, which appears again at the end of the elaborate headband on the righlside of the head. As will be mentioned further on, there is a group of severalsculptures in the Mercedes style with human bodies and crocodile heads. These

7. C('omc/ric stone figure, lerna/e. in Diquis slyle. Note the shoulder capeand the bands on the arms and less. PhOl08raph: Carlos Balser.

8. Double "sure of standms males.Mercedes slyle. NOle the broadornamented belts. The left figure wears aIrophy head on hIS back. Photograph:Carlos Balser.

142 WOLfGANG HABERLAND

"deities" afe all male and profusely ornamented with scarifications. Most probably,the figure in question depicts the same general concept, only in this case thehuman head has not been transformed and is instead crowned by a complete,if somewhat miniaturized, animal. Whether this is also meant 10 be a "deity"like the other ones or a priest of its cult is nol clear. In any case, this exceptionalstatue has to be included within the style.

Athird type unites the so-called sukia figures, squatting males wilh their elbowsupon their knees, either holding a tubular instrument to their mouths (lines1945; Mason, pI. 43) or crossing their ,urns <ibid., pI. 43A-q. It is believed thatthey depict shamans, or sukias, using smoking tubes or cigars. Double squattingfigures of this type are mostly carved back-to-back (ibid., pI. 44C), while thestanding figures are depicted side-by-side, (lines 1941, fig. 24) (figure 8),

Further types are highly ornamented figures with a human body and a crocodilehead (Mason, pl. 35A, 8), anthropomorphic monkeys (ibid., fig. 24), and crocodiles(ibid., fig. 26). heeptianal are the numerous human heads (ibid., pis. 45, 47),often richly carved at the crown. Here. the "coolie" hat appears again (ibid.,pI. 450). There is a wealth of functional stonework, all highly ornamented, tobe found within the Mercedes style (ibid., pis. 15-34). As Hartman's excavationsdemonstrated, the Mercedes style is part of the last phase of Highland CostaRica and may be dated between A.D. 1000 and the Conquest. In the ReventazonValley on the Atlantic slope, stone figures appear in the Middle B period, datedbetween A.D. 850 and 1400 (William J. Kennedy, personal communications).

Another style in Highland Costa Rica centers around the Canton Juan Vinas.

The Capelladas style (Lehmann 1913, pp. 83·84, figs. 17-18; Mason, pp. 276-283,figs. 2~33) includes crude kneeling male and female figures, their arms oftenrelieflike, a standing female with a "coolie" hat (ibid., fig. 31), and simple siltingjaguars as well as one bird. There are no indications as to the archaeologicalconnedions or dating of these figures.

In Nicaragua the Chonlales style has been known at least since 1841, whenFriedrichsthal reported about it and brought one statue back to Vienna (Nowotny1956, 19(1) (figure 9). Chontales drawings have been published by Richardson(figs. 38, 39a, c). These drawings and the photographs of the Vienna monument(Nowotny 1956, figs. '-5) were until recently the only material available, sincethe older drawings (Belt 1874; Boyle; Pim and Seemann 18(9) are not reliable.A set of six stalues was recently published by Baudez (figs. 84..89). Togetherwith 01hers I have observed in Juigalpa (figures 10,11), capital of Chontales, theyform a sufficient corpus from which to generalize. All of them are columns,probably naturally shaped, with a round, oval, or flattened section. If complete,they measure generally between 2 and 2.5 meters, the largest measuring 4.8me1ers (Baudez, fig. 88). All the features, including the face, are raised in flatrelief. The arms are orten bent, with lhe forearms placed horizontally {figure

STONE SCULPTURE FROM SOUTHERN CENTRAL AMERICA 143

9. Side view of Chontales slatue, brought by Friedrichsthalin 1841 to Vienna. Note ornamented arm and belt andspear-shaped club across the front of the figure. TheIwo-d,menSlonal quality of this columnar statue is obvious.Museum fijr Vijlkerkunde, Vienna_ Photograph: Frilz Mandl.

10. Stone fl/Jures in Chontales slyle, IUjgalpa, departmentof Chonlales, NlcilragUi1, 1963. Note dub and ornamentedbell of figure In the foreground, scarcely raised mftef ofligure beyond.

11. Stone figures In Chontales style, IUiga/pa, 1963. Onforeground figure nole elaborale headdress, ornamentedextremities and belt, and clubs held In hand and under arm.

10). Frequently, spear-shaped instruments, possibly clubs, are held with both

hands (ibid., fig. 87; Richardson, fig. 39a; Nowotny 1956. fig. 1) (figures 9-11).The legs are straight (Richardson, fig. 38a; 8audez, fig. 881, or bent at right angles,as if the person were sining (Richardson. fig. 38b; Baudez, fig. 85) (figure 9).or, in about fifty percent of the figures, undulating, "snakelike" (Baudez, figs.84, 86). The feet always point inward regardless of the leg position. The neck

iseilhershorl or missing entirely. Besides dubs, broad belts are common al1ributes(Richardson, fig. 39a; Nowotny 1956, fig. 1) (figures 9-11). Occasionally a loinclothis depioed (Baudez, figs. 84, 88). Both belts and loincloths are ornamented with

144 WOLFGANG HABERLAND

geometric. oflen plaitlike patterns. Similar designs sometimes occur on the

extremities (ibid., fig. 85; Richardson. fig. 39a; Nowotny 1956, fig. 3) (figures

9,1'). A snake head in profile at the top of a loincloth;s an exception (Baudez.fig. 64). Some figures wear broad necklaces with pendants ( O\votny 1956, fig.5; RiChardson, figs. 38a, b. 39a). The most complicated of these is oil stylizedbird. accompanied by two human figures (Baudez, fig. 85). The headdresses rangefrom simple bands. sometimes with geometrical ornaments (Richardson, fig. 38a,b). and "coolie" hats, to very elaborate affairs (figure 11). About oil quarter of

the statues, in spite of extensive damage 10 the upper parts, still show animalson the top of the head or headdress (Baudez, fig. 89). Sometimes only a verydose inspection reveals remnants. For instance, Baudez fig. 85 shows nothing,but my field notes mention "a very weathered animal on the head." An animalcarved in relief on the head, as it happens sometimes, could not have beenseen, even in mint condition, when the monuments were erect.

Three questions in connection with the Chontales style are especially difficultto resolve: sex, distribution, and dating. Since the figures' genit.als are not shown,sex determination is nearly impossible. However, despite the frequency of smallbreasts, the loincloths, c1ublike instruments, and rich ornamentation make themale sex probable. The distribution is only generally known, since no up-to-datesite map has been compiled, but obviously all or most of the statues come fromthe SierradeAmerisque, which divides lake Nicaragua from the Atlantic drainage.As to the dating, nothing definite can be said because of the lack of scientificexcavations in this part of Nicaragua and the absence of pottery found with themonuments.

last to be mentioned are the statues found near Subtiaba and around lakeicaragua and lake Managua. As noled earlier, illustrations of these statues have

been poor until now; the six in Baudez (figs. 78-83) are the exception. Correlatingphotographs of the statues, especially of those at the Colegio Cenlroamericanear Granada, proved difficult since the draWings in SqUier 1852 and Bovalliusare somelimes completely incorrect (figures 12, 13). Further, some of the Colegiamanumentscannot be correlated because their place of origin is no longer known.Statues from Ometepe Island in lake Nicaragua, which I found, are includedin this study.

Four figures of the Subtiaba style were found by Squier alar near Subtiaba(1852, vol. 1, pp. 318-321). All are kneeling or standing humans, their heads eitherbetween the jaws of a serpent (ibid., vol. 1, p. 329) or surmounted by a snakehead with the lower jaw missing (ibid .. vol. 1. p. 321). Feathers fall down theback (ibid., vol. 1. pp. 318-319), to which a shield is sometimes attached Toltecfashion (ibid., vol. 1, p. 316). Some wear a shieldlike object as a pendant (ibid.,vol. 1, pp. 320..321). The Subtiaba figures show considerable Mesoamerican influ­ence, which sets them apart from the lake style in spite of certain similarities

STONE SCULPTURE FROM SOUTHERN CENTRAL AMERICA 145

13, Statue E, from Punta de lasFigurois. in the ColegioCentroamerica. The alligator onthe back of the figure \Vascompletely mIsinterpreted byBoval/ius (figure 12). Inspection ofthe statue Itself df/ows itsassignment to the Pen.~aco/a typeof the Lake styfe.

12. Statue E, from Punta de las Figuras. Zapacera Island. Nicaragua.Drawing by 80vallius (pl. 27). Compdre with figure 13.

with the Pensacola type. Whether it is really a special type. as indicated by thedraWings. or part of Ihe Pensacola type, and therefore the lake style, can onlybe clarified lhrough study of the originals. for the time being. I should liketo consider them as a special style, to which I should add two upper parts ofstatues, now standing in front of the church of Alta Gracia on Ometepe Island(Schmidt 1963, figs. 1-6). They show few similarities to the monuments fromSubtiaba, but again some Mesoamerican influence seems to be present. A standingfigure in the Colegio collection, without provenance, may also belong to thisstyle.

Four types can be distinguished in the lake style. Monuments of the Ometepetype are easy to recognize, even when their heads are broken off, as is thecase with several of the figures from Ometepe Island. Of the twenty statuesof the Ometepe type, thirteen are still on Ometepe Island (Haberland 1969b,fig. 124) (figure 14), six are from Zapatera Island (Bm'allius, pis. 12·16; Squier

WOlfGANG HABERLAND

1852, vol. 2, pI. opposite p. 64; Haberland 1962, fig. 2; Baudez, fig. 83) wolleone, in the Colegio collection, is without provenance, Toe male or female figuresall sit, naked and unornamenled, on benches. Toeir heads are often inclinedforward as if under the heavy load of an animal head worn on the back andneck or head. The animals include birds of prey (eagle?) (Bovallius, pI. 12; Haber·land 1969b, fig. 124) (figure 14), crocodile (Bovallius, pI. 14; Haberland 1962,fig. 2; Baudez, fig. 83), jaguar (Squier 1852, vol. 2, pI. opposite p. 64), and deer(figure 14, background). Excavations conducted by Peter J. Schmidt (as part ofthe Seventh Archaeological Expedition to Central America of the HamburgMuseum) at Chilaite, Ometepe Island, where a torso still remains, show thaithe Ornetepe type is part of the Middle Polychrome Period of Greater Nicoya.This is strengthened by comparison of individual traits such as the lower eyelidswith designs on Papagayo Polychrome pottery (lothrop 1926, pis. 36<:. 44b, 65b,and others). The connection conforms with the ideas of Baudez, who dates themA.D. 800·1200.

The link between the Omelepe and the Zapatera Iypes, apart from the style,is the animal headdress, which may change in Zapatera figures into a helmetmask (Bovallius, pis. 1·4, 30; Baudez, fig. 81). Contrary to the Ometepe type,Zapatera figures stand, sometimes in a backward slanting position, and the heador headdress is surmounted by a tenon. All of these so far known come frornZapatera Island. Figures of the third, or Pensacola type, also stand. Instead ofan animal head on lOp of a human one, as in the first two types, an animaldings to the back (Baudez, fig. 79). The human head is sometimes placed betweenthe jaws of the animal (ibid., fig. 78). Of the eleven monuments of this typenow known, five are from Zapatera Island (ibid., fig. 79; Bovallius, pis. 9-10,27-28; Squier 1852, vol. 2, pI. opposite p. 52, pI. opposite p. 62, fig. p. 63) (figures12·13), two from Pensacola in the Isletas de Granada (ibid., vol. 2, frontispiece,pI. opposite p. 36; Baudez, fig. 78), and one from Nacascolo on the Golfo deCulebra north of Nicoya Peninsula (Cabrera 1924, p. 279; Stone 1958, fig. 11).The provenance of the remaining three is unknown. This type has, therefore,the widest known distribution of the lake style. This would be considerablyextended if the Subtiaba monuments prove to be of this type, 100. The datingof the Pensacola figures is based on two facts: (1) sherds Icollected from Nacascoloare undoubtedly of the Middle Polychrome period, and (2) the crocodile onthe back of one figure (figure 13) is stylistically very similar to animals atop PotosiApplique incense burners (Schmidt 1966, fig. 4), which can be dated into thesame period. This further strengthens the aSSignment of the lake style inlO theMiddle Polychrome period.

The characteristic element of the fourth style. seen in the Sapote group, isa high pedestal, rectangular in section in five cases, round in one. All exceptone show human figures on top, often dwarfed by the pedestal. The figuressit cross-legged (Bovallius, pI. 18) or on a bench (ibid., pis, 24·25; Squier 1852,

STONE SCULPTURE fROM SOUTHER CE TRAL AMERICA

14. Monument J. Alta GraCIa, m front of tht' church, Orne/cpl.' Island.Be<lutdul example of the Omefepc type 0; the L.lke style: male figureSilting on a bench. l'\,lth the head of a bird of prey on top. In thebad-ground, Monument 4, Alta Gracia, of the same typc, but I\ith d deerhead on top.15. Statue f. square pillar With relief sna~e and geometric InC/Slons.Punla del Sapote, Zapatcra Island, Nicaragua, in the Co/ecroCentroamerka. Extreme example of the Sapote typt.· of the Lake slyle.Compare Bovallius. pl. 5.

vol. 2, pl. opposite p. 60), or squat (Bovallius. pIs. 21-22). One pedestal is plain(Squier 1852, 1'01. 2, pI. opposite p. 60), another shows only a small ornamentedband immediately beneath the figure (8ovallius, pI. 211. All the other bases areornamented with incised geometric or naturalislic designs, such as a cross (ibid.,pl. 18), figure eights (ibid., pI. 24), rows of rhomboids (ibid., pl. 25; Baudez,fig. 80), and hourglass shapes (ibid .• fig. 80). The only pedestal withoul a figurehas a naturalistic design: a snake with short body, open jaws, and bifurcaledtongue (Bovallius. pI. 5) (figure 15). This pedestal perhaps forms ill transilionto the rectangular slabs and round columns with human figures in relief. whichmight be part of the group (ibid., pis. 20, 29, 31·32). Finally, as far as can bescen, the "monsler wilh Ihe human head" may be included, since Ihe base

'48 WOLFGANG HABERLAND

I

!.~

j

X

X

X , ,

XX

,

,,: .•,

,

, , X

•

1Cl X,k x x x

•R x x )(

H ,

H X

•

,

X

II

,

,

I I

,x X 5

5

, ,+,

I

,, , ,,

, 'I,;,

I, '

,,,,,,

,,,

o ,

,, ,

T

,

T, T

l, , T

,X

X

,

X,X X

, , ,

,

, I

, X ,

X I

, ,, ,

,, ,

, ,

, ,,X ,

Sublllbo.....(Om~pel

Ibpoll\l! ....

(1'<:'~ll I(

ls.polll!l )(

,-,1 1'e~1I

2 V,lI~

, 00...

4 IWtllft

5 OiqIU

5 '.IIN.

•,••""..""

16. Selected attributes of the main stone figure styles and types fromsouthern Central America.

Abbreviations: (column 6) T· squaftmg, L- kneeling(column 7) O· figures one above the other

N· figures side-by-sidc(column 17) 5- club, B- ax(columll 22) R- animal Oil oock k- animal on hctJd

H· .mimal head on head or fleck

shows some geometric incisions (ibid., pI. 23; Squier 1852, vol. 2, pI. oppositep. 64). Whether its base was high or low cannol be ascertained. All monumentscertainly belonging 10 this group are from Zapatera Island.

Some of the attributes in these sculptures may aid us in the correlation ofthe different styles. (figure 16). One group is obviously formed by the Pena.nome I. Palmar. and Chontales styles. all apparentty shaped from nalural pillars

STONE SCULPTURE FROM SOUTHERN CENTRAL AMERICA ,..or boulders. The rendering of Ihe figures is more lwo-dimensional Ihan three.dimensionaL The legs are often "snakelike" and without joints. All the figuresare standing and male, with possible exceptions in the Chontales style. Thefiguresof the Palmar and Chon tales styles often hold dubs or staffs. The flute in thepoorly known Penonome I style may be an equivalent.

As for the dating of the styles: Penonome I is dated between A.D. 500 .md800 (Early Code phase), and Palmar may be contemporary. if it is earlier Ihanthe Diquis style, while the (hontales style apparently flourished between A,D.800 and 12(1(), All these styles may be remnants of an older stratum where freesculpture in the round had not yet been achieved. In that case the style shouldhave been more widely distributed at an earlier time, but proof for this is lacking.Perhaps older statues were manufactured in another, perishable m.lterial, suchas wood. If this is true, it would also indicate the reason for the shape of thesculpture of these styles.

Speculating about this, one has to take into account the presence of the fullyrounded, three-dimensional figures of the Barriles slyle, which are part of theAguas Buenas phase dUring the first centuries of our era (Haberland 1969a). As

far as I can see, the Barriles monuments are the oldest of their kind in southernCentral America. There are still reminiscences of an original column shape inthe Barriles trun ks and extremities, but these .lre at least cleverly disguised. Severalimportant altnbutes are already present in the Barriles style. Especially notable

is the trophy head, also displayed during Ihe last cenluries before the Conquestin the Diquis and Mercedes styles. Of equal interest is Ihe "coolie" hat, whichBarriles shares with the Capelladas, Mercedes, and Chon tales styles. These andother attributes like the small human figures in relief of the Penonome style(Torres, p. 21), which appear again as pendants at Barriles (Haberland 1960<::,fig. 4) and Chontales (Baudez, fig. 85), give tantalizing glimpses of possible inter·

connections, um·erifiable because so many of the monuments are so pogrly pub­lished.

Finally, I touch on two kinds of figures which may prove of importance: com·posite figures and human figures with animals on their backs or heads. Thecomposite figures. generally with a human body and an animal head, appearin the Diquis style with a jaguar head and in the Mercedes, Chontales, and lakestyles with a crocodile head. To this can be added either the Penonome II orthe Villalba style, depending upon which one the anthropomorphic jaguars in

the Brooklyn collection represent.Human figures with animals on Iheir backs or heads are frequenl in the lake

and Subliaba. styles, but Ihey also appear in the Chontales style, which becauseof Ihis and other attributes might be considered contemporary \\.Ith the lakestyle. Thereare one or two other instances of this trait in southern Central America:.One is a figure, already mentioned, which is part of the Mercedes style (Vaillant,p. 46); the other is the figure of Penonome I style in the Rietberg collection

ISO WOLFGANG HABERLAND

(figure 4). On the other hand, only one stone animal figure without a human

being is knO\ovn from the lake style (from Pensacola, Squier 1652, \/01. 2. pI.

opposite p. 37), and none is known from the Subtiaba, Chontales, or Penonome I

groups. In those styles, however, where animals or their heads are not connected

with human figures, statues depicting animals alone are not rare (Penonome II,

Villalba, Diquis, Capelladas, Mercedes). That is, the treatments seem to be mutu·

ally exclusive. It may be still more significant that of the five animals portrayed

alone, four also appear with human beings (jaguar, crocodile, bird of prey, mono

key). This fact, and the apparent exclusivity just mentioned, may be worth further

investigalion-as is the case, indeed, with other problems that have only been

skirted here.

Acknowledgments:

Numerous details described here have been investigated by me in the field duringthree trips to Central America, finandally aided by the Deutsche forschungs­gemeinschaft, Bad Godesberg: the Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearch. New York; and the Ibero-Amerika·Stiftung, Hamburg. So many peopleaided me in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama that I cannol name them all--onlythank everyone of them as well as the foundations mentioned. For providingphotographs and the permission to publish them, my spedal thanks go to theRietberg Museum. Zurich (figures 3, 4); the Museum fur Volkerkunde, Vienna(figure 9), and myoid friend C.ulos Balser, San Jose de Costa Rica (figures 7,8). Photographs 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and figures 1, 2, 16 are my work. Forputting my poor words into readable English and for eliminating my mistakes,my heartfelt thanks go to Joan Holt, lauren Shakely, and Elizabeth K. Easby.The lalter and her husband, Dudley [asby, Ir., arranged my visit to the symposiumand the U.S., for which I shall always be graieful.

References

Agu.Lu p, <... r1m. H.

'9~Z. [I completo df' lu <:~l>l'us IrOll'O ttl 1;0f'lnot08l~ Cost.rro<:l'n:s... Uni",,,rstdld de ~ta

Ilk•• SKuon T~s d" Cr. 'r {"W1~. no. t.

~ J~I' • CO!iU Itln

S...d..z. O..udl:> r1970. C"nlr..1 "",,,rk.. Au:h...olog'" Mund'CI'ne¥... P.IIlS .lind MunlC'h

St4l. rho,,..~

167.&. lhr Nahlfdh.lln N'Grasu.. london.

tk-nnl'lI, Wendf'll C.1'154. AnclenlAtts of Ih.. And<;>s. hhibil,on C.lI~·

Iogue. Tht'Muscum of ModE'r" Arl. """'" York.

8ov.tlhus, C<Jri1886. Nlu.r..guan AnliqU,\l"~' Siodholm.

Bo\it'. rrt'dl'n<k

ltlf>l!l, AR~ "un'S" (,00110\"01 "PCf'>QO..t r-.....rin"".. o( \\lIndt'rrng~ thrOUKh 'llu.agu.l andCl»la Rl(II, l(lffdon.

STONE SCULPTURE FROM SOUTHERN CENUi\l AMERICA 15'

C..b,tr;, Vinor M.

1924. Cuan;lusle.Ubto conmem(lf."Y(ldE~Cen­len."i(ldelaln..orpo<~c'On dell'..'ido!k' "'icoya

• Cos.. Rica. !>;In lose df" Cosl<l Riu.

Oocksl.<lde,. f'~eridt I.

19M, Indi.n ...... ' to "'\Iddle Am(',k... G'teowid•.Conn.

F"oedr,chslh.l. (m..nu@!I/WI. 'l01~ on Ihf" l .. ~f" of ....>(.."8u...nd lhe

p'OVill(E' of (.honl.l~. In eu"lemal". Jtoy<ll Gt"O­S''f'h,c lou,1\<11, vol. II, pp. ')7.100. london.

H..btrliffld, Wolfg"ng

1955. Pre!'""narv reporl on I.... Aguas 8<Jen<lS

Comple". COSl" !lou. llhnos, lO. no. 4 pp.22-1­no, SIoc~holm.

1%0... Vill .. tb... 1'1. l. I'.nama An:ha ...ol0Wsl, 3,no. I. PI'. 7.11. 8alboa, c.z.

19E(lb c. ...n..,;O'! d ...rque'oW<1en F'<1 ............ Pub­

li(,Klon" dI' I.. ReY+stl "lo'Prl<1 ~ no. ll, pp.7·16, P..n.. m.,

19b<k. o.p Slt'inhgu'l'n von 6.,riles In P~n<1ma

Oil' UmS<"h<111 In V.,ssenu:h.ul lind TKh"d,. 60.no. 23. pp. nO-n2 Fr.v>kiun. "''l.

1%2. Nio,aglla-Arch<l(llogisches Neul.nd.l)ie

Umschau in Wlssf"nsch.ft und TKhnik, &2, "0.

10. PI' 310-l0. frankfurl", M.

1')(,9.. hrl~ ph<l.l't"S.J,nd lheil Rl"l.."on.hip in

Souillefn (Anll;o! Am('flc.J,. 38'10 Inle'n.JIlJ~r

AmCrikaOlSlf'Okong,ess. V..,h..ndtungen, I. pp.229-242. Munich.

19&% Oi.. "'uhu~" Meo-- und Z""u".m...riw.t-Qndbud> dI'r ~llu'gesc"'chl", (u8"' Tu,"h~I'd. VlH. Dit Kutlurf'fl AlI.Amenhs. FranUun iI.

M.

!i;,nm.n. C. V.

l'A1l. Ar(hOll"OIClgOaI R~e..'c~s In CMU RICa,Stockholm

Holm~. \ViUi.n, 8.IBM An(l",n! All of Ihe p,O\-,ncf' of Chiriqui

Colombia. Sm'lhsoni.v> InShlohon. Bu'l'''u ofAtnf"llun tlhnok>«Y. bth .\"....... IPpOl"', pp. I·

181. \\.shl"8IOO.

khon. Al.IlIn1%11. ll' p'oblem~ de I.. (l."1<1m,qul' dp 8.iI"I.",Bolt'l,n d(>l MU\OO Chm,ano. no. 6. pp I'.N.

O'-1d.P..nan\ll,

lM lohn19M. A'(Iw~calInyesllpl'~,n 110" ".rll..

.mI S..nla ,1.101"" Zones til Pana"",. Sm,th)"n'."In~lilullon.Bu,l'''u 01Ame,i,m fthno1og¥, Bull(-·

lin 1'.13 \\'u""'SlOn.

lri't,.,..nn. \hllf'r

19U. 0. ... Af(hoIOS''' ("()<,Y 1l>C~ e-tf~l(·n ""

dN S..mmlung hll" \\11" HI Mu\"um der Natul'hi\IOlIschen Cl~ells(h..l, ~U .....".nberg. rl'~t·

sc:h,,11 ~um"4. Anlhropolo~'" gless.pp 6:'­

1~"'ur~r8'

l,n;u"s de ~p'" OlS"1968. Cuhural ChronolQ8yoithl' Cullof Chlnquo,P.n.. ,.,... Smilh.....,nial1 Conl"bul"lIlS 10 .... nlhfO­

paloS'! 8. W~h,nglon.

t."e\. Jorgl' A.19011 U '"f" abong..... ,n CO'ito I,u (I illt" ""

Cos" Rin. SKoon l. S<ln losli de COStl I,u.

19015 Su~ia' Tsugii' ol>OB'o Rf'Vl)U d" 10)Archnm ""ar:ioNIl'S deo COlola It.u, 9, n..... 1·2pp. 1~.4l_ s...~~ (O'!u RJu,

lOlh'op. Samuel "-19~6. I'Query 01 Co~u RI<.. and N'G" ..guaMUSPllm of Ihl' NnpnGn IIw::".... He~1' found.!·

110ft, Conl"boItior>s. vol, 8 "I""" York..

1'»7. Cod/'. lin Arch.o('(llogiCM ~lud~ of eMU,"

p<1"a....... pl. I. M...."'..." 01 lite PubottyMU'if"umoi Arch.:loology and Elhnology, H",..atd UnM"·

\;ly. wi. 7. Clmbrtdll;f', M.tSs.

19012. Cod<-. An Ard•.IlIi"Oio8'(3I Stuch 01 (""nl''''P..oa..... , pl. ~. Mf'fOOI~(lllhe F'ubod'rMu~","of Anhaf'()lotly ,nU Elhnolog) H."..,d U...,I""·sily, ~'ol. 8. c..mbridge, M;l5\

1'J63 Archal'OfO!) of 'hoe O,qu" O..ll<l (o,laRJc.. P;tpl"'s 01 1M- I'NbodY\lu-l'U.... of ArtNf'­Ql0S\' 4lfid Elh"olo~ H.......,d U.-.""",,I) ~of, .1.

CMfllmds". ,\otlls.

1%6, '\r{h"l'Ol"g~ of lo.....' (,,"I,.., ...."'(.,,, ..

H"'dboo~ 01 ModdIt' /Vn('n('an IndI"'" Rtbrrr\\ ..u,tlopC' 11"1> I'd ,uI .. pP ,Il)..!f('" u-,U,

MacCurdy. Gemge G.1911. AStudyol Chlriquian Antiquities. "'kmoirs01 the Conn&ticut i\carlemy of Arts and Sci­ences,], pI. 1. New Ha...eo.

Ma~on. J. Alden1945. Costa Riun StoneWQrk. TheMinorC. KeithCollection. The AmNinn Museum of NaturalHistory. Anthropological Pilpe.., 39. pt. 3. N('WYork.

Mu~eo Cklrkano1966. Bo!etin del MuSl"O Chincano, flO. 3. DavId.Panama.

NO....'(ltny, Kar! Anton1956. lin ~('n1falamenkamscherMonolith ausdem Be~lt~ ...on (manue! "on F!;edri~h~thal.

Archi" fur Vo!kerkund,-" If., pp. 104-115. Vienna.

1961. [in Z.mtralam£>riki!nischer MonolHh au,dem Be!i,t~ von {manuel "on fri!.'d.;chslhal. 2.Archiv lur Vblkerkunde, 16. pp. 13;-139. Vienna.

Pim, Bedford. and Seem;mn. Bl!fthoid1869. DoUlnlls on the Roadside, iJl Panam...Nic..rallua, and Mosqu;to.loJldon.

R;'::h':lld~on. Fromc;s B.

1940. Non-Ma'{il Monument<ll Sculpture 01 Cen.tral America. In Thl!: Maya and Their Neighbors.pp. 395-416. New York and london

Sander, Dant961. All Archaeologicill Discove.y to Rio Negro.Panam" Arch;wologist, 4, 00. I, pp. }-3. l'lalboa.c.t.

Schmidt, Pett'!" I.1%3. Dos monumentos de piedr.. de la hla do:Omet<'pe. Ethoo~. 28. nos. 2.4, pp. 1l7_146.5to<kholm.

1966. (I Reospiradl'l"Q, antiguo lugar de ofrend.en el cerro CQllcepci4n. 151.1 de Omete-pe. Nica-•.Igua. J6th Con8"!'10 Internaciorwl 00 Arne".cani$tas. Actas y Memoria•. vol. I, pp. 4~.431.Seville.

-\>qu(el, l:phraim G.t350, Okou.....,t d'anc1erl$ monuments wr lesiles du lac de Nlcalagua. Bulletin de SOCifll' deGi-ographie do' Par'S. 3rd Sf'!" ....oIs. 13-14. Patl~

WOLFGANG HABERLAND

Squier, Ephraim G.

1852. Niuragua. Its People. Sceoery. Monu­m('JlU and the Proposed I ntlHocunit Canal.N~ York.

Stone. Doris1943. The BaSK (u1lult's of Centlal America.Handbook of South Amerirao Indians(Smithsonian 10stllUtlon. Bureau of AmericanEthnology. Bulletin 143). ...01. 4. pp. 1b9-193.Washington,

1958. Introduccion a la arqueol08ia de CostaRIca. San Jose de Costa Rica.

1%1. The StOIlt' Sculplureol (ostil Rica In b.<lr;in Prt'.Columbian Arl and Alchat'ology. S. K.lothrop and others, cds., pp. 19hW9. C"m­bridge, Mass.

Torr..r. de Arali~. Reina1%6. Arte Precolombino d", Panam... R..."i~edoffprint from the Il.('visu loteria. no. 128.Panama.

VillllanL Georgt' C.1949. AlliMS and Craftsmen In Ancient CentralAmerlu. The Amerian Museum of Natural His·tory, S<:ienre Guide. no. 83. New York.

Vernn, A. Hyatt1927. hcavations m Code Province, Panama.Museum 01 the Am",,,,.:an Indian. Here Foundl­lion, Indiiln NOles. 4, no. 1. pp. 47-6 t. Ne'~ York.

n.d. Old Clviflzations 01 theNewWorld london.

Vid.11 fralltS. Meraod('s luisa1968. los h..lI..~gos de Santa Marta. Soletm delMuseo ChiricilflO. no. 6, pp. 2-7. DavId. Panama.

von \·"'nning. Hasso1%8. Pr~Co1umb'.In Art of Me>Jco and C"nlralAmNica. New York.

Waldeck, fred"li, dt'1838. Voyagt' p<ttoresque t'l d,ch('ulogiqu€' dansIii province de Yu<:alan, Paris.