A POSSIBLE FOCUS OF ANDEAN ARTISTIC INFLUENCE IN MESOAMERICA

Author(s): MINO BADNER

Source: Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 9, A POSSIBLE FOCUS OF ANDEAN
ARTISTIC INFLUENCE IN MESOAMERICA (1972), pp. 1-56
Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41263415
Accessed: 03-02-2016 01:32 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STUDIES IN PRE-COLUMBIAN ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY NUMBER NINE

A POSSIBLE FOCUS OF ANDEAN ARTISTIC

INFLUENCE IN MESOAMERICA

by

MINO BADNER

Dumbarton Oaks Trustees forHarvard University Washington,D.C. 1972

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my gratitudeto Esther Pasz-

toryforher valuable suggestionsand criticisms.
Gordon Ekholm kindly consented to read and
comment on this paper beforeit was submitted
forpublication. My thanks go to him as well as
to Elizabeth Benson,who edited the finalmanu-
script.
Mino Badner
Rice University

Copyright© 1972byDumbartonOaks
TrusteesforHarvardUniversity, D.C.
Washington,
ofCongressCatalogCardNumber:72-90528
Library

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A POSSIBLE FOCUS
INFLUENCE IN
There is general agreement that meso-
american and Central Andean peoples must
have influenced one another to some degree
before the Spanish conquest. Yet the specific
participants and the exact nature of their
contact remains in doubt (Coe 1962b: 181;
Lathrap 1966:275). A briefreview of the more
salient instances of suspected Preclassic con-
nections between the cultures of these two
areas will prepare the ground for the primary
purpose of this paper, which is to trace the ori-
gin of certain possibly exotic components of a
single artstyle,that ofIzapa.
The earliest evidence of Mesoamerican im-
pact on Peru comes with the introduction of
maize and other cultigens in the Preceramic
Stage (Lanning 1967:75). At a later date ele-
ments of a few Initial Period Andean ceramics
(ca. 1400 B.C.) findcorrespondencesin some an-
cient Mexican complexes.1But it is thepossible
connection between the art of the Olmec cul-
ture of Veracruz (ca. 1200-600 B.C.) and that of
Chavin de Huantar in the northernhighlands
of Peru (ca. 1200-300 B.C.) that has generated
the greatest amount of interest and dispute.
lathrapmentions thata number ofcharacteristics
en-
countered inEarlyGuanape, Haldas,andChiravessels(ca.
1400B.C.) findparallelsin thoseof Chiapade CorzoI.
Curayacu I designs
alsohaveanearlyMesoamerican quality
duplicated in Chiapade CorzoI andEarlyZacatenco;and
a fewpre-Chavin solidhandmade figurines, one
especially
from LasHaldas,bearsimilaritytotypes
from TresZapotes
(Lathrap1966:269-70).
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OF ANDEAN ARTISTIC
MESOAMERICA
Postulating an association in the case of two
such widely separated and important styles
poses numerous problems. In the present case
these are compounded by the fact that Olmec
and Chavin have been considered pristinecul-
tureswhich exerteda seminal influence on the
subsequent development of civilization in their
areas. Consequently the autonomy or so-called
cultural integrityof each is stoutly defended
(Lanning 1967:100-1). Still a number of stu-
dents feel that Olmec and Chavin art are in
some way related. Initially this opinion was
based on the presence of general corre-
spondences in styleand subject matter.Chavin
and Olmec carvers employed precise incised
lines and a peculiar combination of softcurves
and rectangular shapes with rounded corners
(Covarrubias 1957:54). A highly stylized feline
was veryfrequentlyrenderedin both traditions,
and raptorial birds and serpents also make
repeated appearances (della Santa 1959:340-
2
59).
As noted, these parallels are rathergeneral,
and hence to many scholars, not fullyconvinc-
ing of Olmec-Chavin connections (Lathrap
1966:273, 275; Lanning 1963: 100; Kidder,Lum-
brerasand Smith 1963:94). However, more arbi-
traryand specific instances of similarity be-
tween Olmec and Chavin art exist- similari-
ties that do supportthe likelihood of historical
2Fora general
listofsimilarities
inmaterial
culture
be-
tweenOlmecandChavin,seeFord1969:190.
relationship.Simply the presence of felinesub-
ject mattermay not be veryimpressive,but this
does not complete the analogy. The manner in
which this image was renderedmust be consid-
ered, too. Delia Santa (1959:361) has observed
an X inscribed between the fangs of a Chavin
cat comparable to that oftenencounteredin sty-
lized Olmec jaguar masks (the so-called St. An-
drew's cross). An even higherdegree of conver-
gence in feline representationis evident when
one turns to the famous seated Olmec human
figurinefromAtlihuayan, Morelos, that wears
a fantasticjaguar skin draped over its back (Fig.
la and b). The flayed animal's head has a pair
offlame-scrolleyebrowssimilarin typeto those
of many Chavin cats (Fig. 28), and its tail, di-
vided into a series of horizontal segments,also
findsechoes in Peruvian examples (Fig. 2). Per-
haps most noteworthyare the pelage markings
on the jaguar's skin. They have been reduced to
a series of simple crosses, a stylizeddevice com-
mon to the pelts of Chavin felines as well (Fig.
2).3
Additional surface decorations shared by
Olmec and Chavin art include figure-eight
scrolls- like those sported by the cornice cats
on the New Temple at Chavin de Huantar (Fig.
28) and also carved into Chalcatzingo Petrog-
lyph5- and a curious kind offace marking.The
latter motif, which is incised on numerous
anthropomorphicOlmec jades (Fig. 24) has re-
cently been identified as characteristic of the
God of Spring,Xipe (Coe 1968a: 111, 114). This
tattoo-likeconfigurationis a double band that
passes vertically through the eye and down
along the cheek. It reappears in Chavin works,
such as theupturnedhead ofthe hawklike being
carved on the north column of the Black-and-
White Portal of the temple at Chavin de Huan-
tar (Fig. 23) and on the more humanoid figures
ofthe
(1959]hascompared
3Heine-Geldern bronze tigers
ChineseShangperiodto Chavinstonemortars in jaguar
form. connection
Thepossible betweenOlmecandChavin
culturedoesnotexcludethefurther oftrans-Pa- 4Inrebuttal,
possibility
cificinfluence
from ancient
China,butthisproblem is far pre-Chavm
toocomplex tobedealtwithhere.
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thatembellish a soapstone Cupisnique tumbler
in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (Fig. 38).
The cheek-strapdesign is also found at Cerro
Sechin in the Casma Valley, in whose carved
figures Smith, in an unpublished master's
essay, has found what he believes to be Olmec
elements (Kidder, Lumbreras and Smith
1963:94).
A final comparison will end this admittedly
superficialsurveyof Olmec and early Peruvian
artistic similarities. A blackware bottle from
Kotosh in the Central Andean highlands bears
a design of an ear of maize (Fig. 3a). According
to Coe, this almost-glyphiccorn motifis quite
at home in Mexico where it frequentlyappears
on Olmec jade celts (Fig. 3b) but is extremely
unusual forPeru. Consequently, he reasons, it
must be intrusive in the latter area, and since
the vessel it appears on comes froma phase im-
mediately preceding the Chavin Horizon (Ko-
tosh IV),4 he feels that the occurrence of the
maize motifindicates thepresence ofOlmec in-
fluenceat a sufficiently early date to have been
critical in the development of Chavin culture.
"The chances are verygood," Coe writes,"that
all New World civilizations, including Chavin,
have a single point of originon the Gulf Coast
plain of southern Mexico" (Coe 1962a:580).
Elsewhere Coe elaborates this theoryvis-a-vis
Olmec and Chavin artto conformto thefollow-
ing developmental model: Mesoamerica intro-
duced into Peru a ceramic complex, the snarling
jaguarcult, and the Olmec artstyle.The Olmec
sculpturalstyle mergedwith a native Peruvian
traditionbased on iconographicfeaturessuch as
the condor and double-headed monster,motifs
already found at the Preceramic Period site of
Huaca Prieta (ca. 2000 B.C.), to produce the art
of Chavin (Coe 1963:101-4).
Olmec art may indeed have affectedthat of
Chavin,-but,even ifthis influencewas as exten-
sive as Coe proposes, it is importantto bear in
Lanningmaintainsthat,whilethevesselis
thisdoesnotmeanthatitis chrono-
atKotosh,
logically inPeruas a whole(Lanning
pre-Chavin 1963:100).
mind that both traditionswere fora long time
contemporaneous. If contact between them oc-
curred,is it necessary to suppose that it took
place solely during a period when only one
could be the beneficiaryof the other? Coe him-
selfhas eloquently put the case against looking
at diffusionas a one-sided affair(Coe 1960:364-
5). The double-headed monster is, afterall, a
5 1963:94; Lathrap 1966:272; Ford 1969:189).
veryancient Peruvian device (Bird1963:29-34).
Yet it appears on a unique Olmec find(Fig. 10)
associated with the latest period (IV) at La
Venta, ca. 600 B.C. (Drucker,Heizer and Squier
1959:274; Coe 1968a:66, 148). And the cross-
shaped spots on the jaguarpelt worn bythe Atli-
huayan figurine,a work of undeterminedage,
are characteristicof Chavin, not Olmec, feline
skins. Maybe both the two-headed serpentand
the pelage markings are evidence of Andean
reciprocity.While this reciprocity is perhaps
only sporadically evident in Olmec art, espe-
cially duringthe earlyMiddle Preclassic Period,
recent findingsmay indicate that Peruvian in-
fluencewas well established in Mesoamerica by
late Middle Preclassic times, that is to say, well
beforethe Classic and Postclassic Periodswhen
its impact is generally acknowledged (Lathrap
1966:274-5).
A glance at work done in the Valley ofMexico
and Morelos will illustrate this point. Porter
specifically compared Chavinoid Cupisnique
ceramics fromPeru to those fromTlatilco in the
Valley of Mexico and identifiednumerous in-
stances of similar vessel adornmentand vessel
shape. In the formercategoryare such traitsas
zone-and-panel decoration, excised ware, and
rockerstamping. Parallels in vessel formscon-
sist of, among others, flat-bottomed,straight-
sided bowls, effigyvessels, bottles, whistling
pots, and, most strikingly, stirrup-spouted
jars- a typeof containerthat is almost diagnos-
5Thismotif alsooccursat a veryearlydatein Chinaas
Covarrubiashasnoted(Covarrubias Fig.18).The
1954:45,
circum-Pacific of thedouble-headed
distribution serpent
motif inFraser
is traced 1968:57-64.Itsmeaning andorigin
intheartoftheNorthwest CoastofAmerica is discussed
inBadner andHeine-Geldern 1966:15-18,24-5.
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tic of North Peruvian pottery.In Porter'sview
the similar traits in Tlatilco and Chavin argue
forhistoricconnections (Porter1953:71-9). The
direction in which these traits supposedly dif-
fused has never been stated with absolute cer-
tainty,but most experts have feltthat the evi-
dence favorstransmission fromnorth to south
(Coe 1962a:579; Kidder, Lumbreras and Smith
One reason forthis conclusion is that the Tla-
tilco specimens in question have long been as-
sociated with Olmec culture, whose earliest
dates (ca. 1200 B.C.), were until recently
thought to precede those of Chavin by several
centuries (Coe, Diehl and Stuiver 1967; Lan-
ning 1967:26-7, 96). ThereforeMexican works
could be interpretedas influencing Peruvian
development ratherthan the reverse.That this,
however,need not be the case, at least so faras
stirrup-spoutedvessels were concerned, was
soon indicated by the fact that such jars occur
earliest in the Machalilla style of southern
Ecuador (ca. 2000-1500 B.C.).6 Therefore the
possibility that the stirrupspout diffusedfrom
Ecuador both to the north and south has been
entertained(Ford 1969:187; Kidder,Lumbreras
and Smith 1963:93-4; Lanning 1967:101; Evans
and Meggers 1966:246-7; Coe 1960:368, 372).
Recent excavations may modifythe picturestill
further.An analysis of the ceramics unearthed
at the San Pablo mound in Morelos, which are
identical to certain vessels fromTlatilco, sug-
gests to Grove (1970) that Tlatilco and other
sites of its type show not one but at least two
phases. Only the earlier one is related to high-
land Olmec (see also Tolstoy and Paradis
1970:347, 349-51) and it is devoid of stirrup-
spouted vessels! The San Pablo mound, dated
at roughly900-500 B.C., seems to representthe
second later phase, and it does have containers
with the stirrupspout. Grove holds that Meso-
6Coesaysthattheearliest stirrup
spoutedvesselsin the
New Worldbelongto the Valdiviaphasein Ecuador.
is notsatisfied
Lathrap thattheseexamplesaresufficiently
welldocumented andreserves judgment(Coe 1960:368;
1966:272).
Lathrap
american stirrup-spouted vessels are post-
Olmec, thus explaining the puzzlement of
scholars at theirabsence in actual Olmec sites.
He concludes that introductionofthisnew ves-
sel form(plus some others)may reflectoutside
cultural influences from an as-yet-undeter-
mined area (Grove 1970:62-72). Consideringthe
time that separates Ecuadorian Machalilla and
post-Olmec Tlatilco, could this source be Peru,
perhapsduringone of the phases of the Chavfn
Horizon? Of course, in seeking a place that
might have been a focus forAndean influence
in either Middle or Late Preclassic Meso-
america, it is not landlocked Morelos, site ofthe
San Pablo mound, that naturallyattractsatten-
tion, but ratherthe Pacific Coast, where direct
sea contact with Peru would have been more
likely.7
Subsequent to the final abandonment of La
Venta (ca. 600-500 B.C.), the last great classic
nuclear Olmec centerin Tabasco, a new major
art style emerged in Mesoamerica. It has been
named afterits typesite, Izapa, which is located
on the Pacific Coastal Plain close to the
Chiapas-Guatemalan border. Nearby, El Jobo,
Abaj Takalik, Chocala, El Baul, and Kaminal-
juyu are among other sites that possess Izapan
style monuments (Miles 1965). More distant,
and this time situated to the west, an obviously
intrusive object with distinct Izapan charac-
teristicshas been recoveredat Chiapa de Corzo
(Agrinier1960:11; Bernal 1969:168-9), and even
furtherafield the style is representedat Tres
Zapotes in Veracruz (Stirling 1943:72-3; Pros-
kouriakoff 1968:123; Coe 1965a:696;
1965c: 773).
Three radiocarbon dates of 150 B.C. obtained
fromthe stela-producinglevel at Izapa seem to
indicate that fully mature Izapan monuments
were made around the firstand second cen-
turies B.C. (Easby and Scott 1970:94-5). How-
ever, the originof the style must surely be ear-
lier, though precisely how much earlier is not
clear. Indirect evidence in the form of Izapan-
style findsin secure MirafloresPhase contexts
at Kaminaljuyu has indicated a Late Preclassic
date going back to 300 B.C. (Miles 1965:255;
Coe 1965c:772; Borhegyi 1965:13-14). Even
greaterantiquityis possible. Miles, whose essay
on Guatemala-Chiapas and Pacific Slope sculp-
ture is still the most thorough available, di-
vides the Preclassic Period of this entire area
into four subdivisions8 which she feels cor-
respondroughlyto major ceramic phases (Miles

7Chard arguedagainst theexistence ofsignificant

long-
distanceseacontact alongthePacific coastfrom Middleto
SouthAmerica (Chard1950:9-16) before Kon
Heyerdahl's
Tiki expedition and beforePre-Columbian sherdswere
found ontheGalapagos Islands, sixhundred milesfromthe
nearestshore(Coe 1960:384-5). Sincethenit hasbecome
increasinglyevident toexperts suchas EvansandMeggers
thatcontact musthaverepeatedly takenplacebetweenMe-
soamerica andthewestcoastofSouthAmerica in
starting
EarlyPreclassic
timesandgaining inthecenturies
intensity
justbefore theConquest. It seemsthatin SouthAmerica
theprincipalareaofcontact centered around thenorth
coast
ofEcuador, perhaps becausetheHumboldt Currentim-
pedednavigationfarthersouth(Evans and Meggers
1966:263).Lanning holdsthatthecoastalrafttraderoutes
didnotextend intoPeruandsaysthereis no evidence of
ocean-going craftat all in theInitialPeriodbetween 1800
and900B.C.(Lanning 1967:87). Nevertheless, Coehaspos-
tulatedthata long-range maritime tradingnetwork had
beenestablished between thePacific CoastofMesoamerica
andEcuadorat a sufficiently earlydatethatthisrouteor
anextension ofitmayhavebeenusedbyOlmecsorOlme-
coidsto reachPeruas earlyas 1000B.C. (Coe 1963:104).
goodreasonnottounderestimate
Thereis certainly theca-
pacityofancientpeoplesto undertake longarduoussea
journeys, inthecaseofSouthAmerica,
especially where so-
phisticatedvesselswereinuseatthetimeofEuropean dis-
covery.Pizarro'spilotcaptured a heavilyladenPeruvian
balsaraft.Whensighted, thelarge,elaborately outfitted
craft
wasbeating upagainst thewindandthestrong Nino
Current. Incaseamencouldventure farintotheperilous
rapidsoftheHumboldt andNinoCurrents withtheaidof
guara,movablecenter boards,whoseuseenabledraftsto
perform all themanoeuvres ofa regular ship.Heyerdahl
identifiesas guaraa number offlatboardsoftenthought
tobe ceremonial digging sticks(Lanning which
1967:168)
havebeenrecovered fromlea, Paracas,and Chimuarea
burials(Heyerdahl 1959:334-5).Thoughtheactualantiq-
uityofhighly skillednavigation in SouthAmerica is not
known, itsindigenous nature militatesinfavoroftheprop-
ositionthatearlypre-Inca peoplewerecapableoftraveling
longdistances overwater.
8Thefourth intotheEarlyClassic.
extends

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1965:242, 273). Division One is associated with art.12 Shared traits include scenes contained
Las Charcas (600-500 B.C.); Two, with Provi- within a stylized jaguar mouth, the realistic
dencia (500-300 B.C.); and Three and Four,with depiction ofplump human forms,a frequentuse
Miraflores(300 B.C.-A.D. 200) and Arenal (300 ofthe St. Andrew's cross, a repeatedoccurrence
B.C.-A.D. 300). 9 Some of the Izapan carvingsto of the U element, scrollwork clouds, and the
be dealt with in this paper are ascribed by Miles flame-scrollbrow (Coe 1965c:759, 773). At the
to Division Two, that is to say, a period equiva- same time, however,Izapan artexhibitsnumer-
lent to ca. 500-300 B.C. Whether Miles' style- ous elements unknown or uncommon in Olmec
evolutionaryanalysis, a systembased on formal works. Its carvings are done primarilyin relief
criteria,is correctcannot yet be determined,10 and in a floridcurvilinear style. Altars are set
but it may be noted that the initiatorydate of up in frontof stelae.13But the most noticeable
500 B.C. for Division Two harmonizes with changes are iconographic. Subject matter ex-
data contained in the most recent archae- plodes. The comparativelylimited,oft-repeated
ological report on Izapa (Ekholm 1969). A repertoryof the Olmec artist- man, bird,were-
chronological chart in this publication indi- jaguar, jaguar, and snake- is superseded by a
cates that the Late Preclassic Period, during host of fantastic, occasionally unique images
whose florescence most of the site's famous part animal, human, and vegetable. These are
carved stone monuments must have been often combined in equally fantastic and puz-
erected,occupies a time block stretchingfrom zling compositions charged with drama and
500-100 B.C. (Ekholm 1969:4, 19).11Evidently movement. A masked fishermanwith animal-
Izapan chronologyis still fluid,and adjustments head feet,grotesque divingbird-men,dragons-
are to be expected, but this much is clear: the both double-headed and entwined- saurians,
Late Preclassic association commonly attri- and rubbery trees laden with fruit are all
buted to the Izapan style still seems secure even depicted.
ifthe style's precise antiquityand development It is now generallyaccepted thatmany Izapan
within this period remains in doubt. elements- its stela-altar complex, serpent-
The antiquity of the Izapan style is certainly dragon, and curvilinear mode, to mention a
reflected in the similarity it bears to Olmec few- influenced the Mayans so that Izapan
style is regarded"as a connecting link in time
9Thedatessupplied herearebasedonBorhegyi 1965:57. and
space between the Olmec civilization and
10Thelatestpublished material
available tomestatesthat the Classic Maya which came after"(Bushnell
noevidence to refute orsupport Miles'ssystem hasbeen 1965:27). To Coe, the process of transmission
foundsofar(LeeandLowen.d.:15). is almost directlylinear fromthe Olmec. One
investigations under theauspicesoftheNewWorld Ar- can hardly express this position more clearly
Foundation
chaeological wereconducted atIzapabetween than in his own words:
1962-65.Several excavationreportsareinpreparation; but It is here suggestedthat all known major
onlySusannaEkholm whichdealsprimarily
's publication,
withEarlyandMiddlePreclassic has
ceramics, appeared at art styles of lowland Mesoamerica have a
thiswriting.
Ekholm doesnotattempt an analysisofLate single origin in the Olmec style. . . . From
Preclassicmaterial; nevertheless,thegeneralchronology this
thataccompanies herworkincludes a divisionfortheLate was derivedthe Izapan styleof the Late
Preclassic. Preclassic, which spread across the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the Pacific
12Coethinks theIzapanstylemayevenhaveoriginated
nearorwithin theOlmecclimaxregion ratherthanonthe slope and lowlands. In and near the low-
Pacificcoast(Coe 1965c:773). His opinionnotwithstand-
ing,anddespite chronologicalproblems, a studyofpossible 13Stirlingfound onlyoneinstanceofa stelawithanaltar
Izapaninfluence onLateOlmecmonuments suchas those in the Veracruz-Tehuantepec region,namely,at Tres
atChalcatzingo andsomeatLa Ventacouldprovefruitful. Zapotes, site(Stirling
anlzapa-influenced Seealso
1943:73].
SeeProskouriakoff 1968:123. Bernal1969:172.

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 lands of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco,
this Izapan style evolved independently
into the Early Classic art of Cerro de las
Mesas. . . . From the Pacific slope, Izapan
art eventually spread southeast and up
across the Valley of Guatemala and down
into the Peten lowlands, where it could
have given rise to the earliest known
Mayan art.
The ultimate relation of Classic Maya
with Olmec can therefore be traced
through the medium of the Izapan style
(Coe 1965c:773; see also Coe 1968a:121;
1968b:63).
In this view Izapan art is but a continuation of
Olmec and differsfromit because of a process
of gradual stylisticevolution similar to the in-
evitable "classic" and "baroque" cycles that
Wolfflinpostulated forEuropean painting (Coe
1965c:774).
The pivotal position that the Izapan style
probablyoccupies in the historyofMesoameri-
can art makes the question of its pure Olmec
pedigree a critical one. Can the many intricate
elements found in it which have little in com-
mon with earlier Olmec work (Proskouriakoff
1968:123; Bernal 1969:12) be accounted foron
the basis of evolution alone? If so, we must
creditIzapan-Olmec culture with a series ofin-
novations in complex iconographyand compo-
sition at least as rich and revolutionaryas were
those made by the original Olmec themselves.
This would constitute a literally unparalleled
example of sustained (1200 years) independent
invention by a single artistic tradition. Pros-
kouriakoff'swords strike to the heart of the
matter:
No civilization has arisen froma single
focus. ... Its genesis is the interaction of
cultures,and no isolated and homogeneous
culturehas everrisenmuch beyondits orig-
inal level (Proskouriakoff1968:1 19).
In view of the above, it seems unlikely that,
aftersix or seven hundredyearsofslow develop-
ment,and afterthe abandonment ofthe centers
in which it firstflourished,Olmec art should
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
suddenly have blossomed along the Pacific
Coast into a new form, unaided. Surely the
Izapan style must have arisen out of an Olmec
traditionenrichedbycontact with otherartistic
modes (Bernal 1969:12). Ifthe close similarities
between highly complex, arbitrarymotifs dis-
cussed below is any indication, some of these
ultimatelystemmed fromPeru.
An exhaustive comparisonof the sculptureof
the Guatemala-Chiapas Highlands and Pacific
Slopes with that of possibly relevant Andean
styles is rendered impractical because the
Mesoamerican material is as yet inadequately
published and illustrations (usually of poor
quality) are widely scattered,hence difficultto
assemble. The most accessible images are those
fromKaminaljuyu and fromIzapa itself.Forthis
reason almost all the monuments here cited are
limited to some of the better-knownexamples
fromthese two sites. Even this restrictedsam-
pling, however, is rich in motifs and offers
ample opportunityfornotingcongruenceswith
early Peruvian art. These congruences will be
described in order of increasing complexity,
moving fromisolated conventions to composi-
tional ensembles.
That hallmark of classic Olmec style, the
snarlingwere-jaguarmouth, underwentexten-
sive modificationand variationinto many types
at the hands of Izapan craftsmen (see Miles
1965:Figs. 2 and 3). Three typesare ofparticular
interesthere. One is especially well illustrated
in Kaminaljuyu Stela 10 (Miles 1965:255), a par-
tially destroyed Miraflores Phase (Miles Pre-
classic Division Three) reliefthat has recently
been attributedto Protoclassic times, i.e., 100
B.C.-A.D.100 (Easby and Scott 1970:102).
Represented in profileat the upper-right-hand
cornerof what remains of the composition is a
large bearded and helmeted anthropomorphic
personage (Fig.4). His mouth is curled up at the
corner revealing a sharp backward-sweeping
fangpreceded by a full set of teeth. These fea-
tures differ considerably from the typical
Olmec were-jaguar mouth which is charac-
terizedby a rounded fleshyupper lip depressed
at the ends and toothless gums with a stressed
medial alveolar ridge. In those instances when
canines are indicated in Olmec works (as in the
Kunz Axe) they are usually rectangularor cleft
at the ends (Coe 1965c: 757; 1965b: 14), not
pointed as in the Kaminaljuyu relief,and they
are set into an alveolus otherwise devoid of
teeth. Actually the mouth of the bearded char-
acter in Stela 10 compares more closely to that
carvedon the famous Lanzon or "Smiling God"
(Rowe 1962:9, 19) found at Chavin de Huantar
(Fig. 5) than it does to any Olmec prototype.
Points of similarityare not only common, grin-
ning,upturnedcorners,sharpbackward-curved
fangs,and a full set of dentures,but the general
configurationof the lips as well. In contrastto
the classic Olmec maw, whose thick upper lip
tapers to a point at the ends where it meets its
narrowerlower counterpart(Fig. la), the lips on
both the Lanzon and the Stela 10 bearded per-
sonage are rendered as a continuous straplike
outline of virtually undeviating width that
stretches entirely around the mouth. Some-
what greatermodulation is apparentin the Ka-
minaljuyu example,-still,the top and bottomlip
are essentially the same thickness which de-
creases only slightlyas theymergein a seamless
curvebehind the rearfangofthe grimacingface.
A second set of Chavm-Izapan similaritiesin
the manner of representinga fanged,dentated
maw can be pointed out by considering some
nonanthropomorphic images that appear on
two of fourhuman femursfound in Tomb 1 at
Chiapa de Corzo. While the tomb itselfbelongs
to the Chiapa VI Period, thoughtto correspond
to 100-1 B.C., the carved bones in question are
clearly Izapan in style and were probably Late
Preclassic heirlooms acquired through trade
(Agrinier 1960:23; Bernal 1969:168-9; Miles
1965:257). Bone 3 has, among the several figures
embellishing it, one (Fig. 6) which has been
identifiedas some sort of saurian or alligator-
monster seen from directly above (Agrinier
1960:15-16). Along the animal's body axis are
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
fouroverlapping,longitudinallystriated,wing-
or beard-likeappendages14that terminatein the
beast's large head, which is roughly oval in
shape. At the broad or neck portion of this
taperedoval restsa flatfeatherlikeform15 whose
base is flankedby two eyes inscribed in scrolls.
Below, circular nostrils are indicated and still
fartherforwardat the narrowend of the oval is
a U-shaped muzzle with rectangular upper
teethprotrudingbetween a pair ofpointed out-
flaringfangs.The convention ofrepresentingU-
snouted monster-headsseen fromabove is fre-
quently encountered on reliefsfromChavin de
Huantar (Fig. 8). In addition to other complex
traitstypical of this style but irrelevanthere,16
such creaturesare endowed with scroll-shaped
eyebrows, rounded teeth, and outward-ex-
tended canines similar to those of the Chiapa
saurian. Although Chavin U-snouted monsters
appear only in the role of subsidiarydesign ele-
ments (Bennett 1942:5), the Chiapa de Corzo
beast can also be comparedto a largemonument
fromChavin de Huantar with which it shares
some vague congruences- the Raimondi Stone
(Fig. 9). The lower thirdof the Raimondi Stone
is occupied by a humanoid formthat stands in
a full-facesymmetricalpose and holds a staffin
eitherhand. Risingverticallyfromthe top ofthe
being,who has been identifiedas a deity(Rowe
1962:19), is an extraordinarilyconvoluted rep-
resentationofhair or a headdresswhich fillsthe
remaining portion of the composition. When
turnedupside-down,this head ornamentis eas-
ily read as a number of fangedU-snouted mon-
14Theyareverydeeplyundercut. (1960:17)sup-
Agrinier
posesthatthiswas doneto indicatethattheybe viewed
as appendages
thatareraisedorstandoutfromthebody.
a flattened
15Perhaps hornordorsalfin(Agrinier
1960:7].
16Many at Chavinde Huantarare en-
representations
crusted
withinnumerablesecondarymotifs.Thiscompari-
sonoftheChiapade Corzosaurianto ChavinU-snouted
monstersdrawsparallelsonlybetweenwhatmightbe
termedcoresimilarities,
i.e.,thosebasicto theprimary
imageconcept.
ster maws viewed fromabove, each similar to
the Chiapa saurian. The snouts are arrangedin
an ascending series in which one emergesfrom
thatdirectlybehindit and partiallyoverlaps the
one immediately in front.This produces an in-
sistent,repetitiverhythmofforms,reminiscent
of the segmented plates on a lobster tail. Of
course, the Chiapa de Corzo Bone 3 beast has
only a single head, but its highly conven-
tionalized bodyis constructedofan overlapping
series of tapered shapes that seem to echo re-
motely yet significantly,the compositional
principal of the Raimondi Stone head orna-
ment.
The saurian depicted fromabove on Bone 3
is evidentlyrenderedin profileon its compan-
ion piece, Bone 1 (Agrinier1960:16-17). A sec-
ond view of the beast's head fromanotherangle
discloses previously hidden elements and af-
fords opportunity for discussion of a third
Izapan mode fordepictingthe mouth. Seen from
the side (Fig. 7), the Chiapa de Corzo monster's
muzzle consists of a long upper snout distended
by an enlarged alveolus that curves down and
over the teeth to form a forward-protruding
hook that surmounts a barely discernible,un-
dentated lower jaw. A vestigial lower jaw, in-
deed its total absence, is not unusual in Izapan
images (see Miles 1965:Figs. 2b and d, 3e and
h) and finds a parallel in Chavin art where ag-
nathic heads and faces are commonplace (Rowe
1962: 15-17, 19, 20). The dilated alveolus and/or
alveolar bar is actually one of the hallmarks of
Izapan styleand is presenton many carvingsin
numerous variations (Miles 1965:251; Coe
1965c:773). In some cases the alveolus is so dis-
tended that it formsa long, downward-pointing
central fang (Miles 1965:256, Figs. 2b and i,
3b,c,e,h). This curious convention might be
tracedexclusively to the stressedmedial alveo-
lar ridge of the Olmec were-jaguarmouth (Fig.
10). But why should such an extremedistortion
of a relativelyrealistic motifhave occurred?In
this regardit may be noteworthythat Chavin
mouths of the earliest style phase already dis-
play a central protrudingfang as a prominent
10
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
iconographic feature (see Figs. 9, 21, 23, 27;
Rowe 1962: 17).17 Some sort of acquaintance
with this motifon the part of Izapan craftsmen
could have provided them with the impetus
necessary to metamorphose the well-known
medial alveolar ridgeinto a long pointed tooth.
The Chiapa de Corzo saurian describedabove
is merely one relativelytame example ofmany
reptilian monsters encountered in Izapan art.
Dragon-headed serpentlike creatures were, in
fact,a favoritesymbolic motif both as a single
subject and as part of more complex composi-
tions carved in this style (Miles 1965:242). Sev-
eral variations of the Izapan reptile theme have
Peruvian analogues. Among them are the dou-
ble-headed dragon or monster, the undulating
monster,the entwined dragon,and themonster
that flowersinto a plant. Each may be consid-
ered in turn.
Izapa Stelae 1, 5, 11, and 12 (Stirling1943:62,
64, 67-8) all have some kind of double-headed
serpentinecreature included in theircomposi-
tions.18In Izapa Stela 1 (Fig. 30), the creature
functionsas a horizontal ground-linethat sup-
ports a scene carved above it. The remaining
threemonuments, Stelae 5 (Fig. 47), 11, and 12
(Fig. 49), show the monster's body curvingup
at the ends to forma U. We recall that this out-
line correspondsroughly to that of an incised
double-headed serpentpresenton an Olmec ear
spool associated with the last building phase at
La Venta (Fig. 10). Tempting as it is to consider
this example ancestral to the Izapan forms,cer-
tain factors caution against uncritical accept-
ance of such a proposition.The Olmec work is
unique and small; it has a third central face
which is absent in the Izapan versions, and its
17Rowesaysthatthepresence ofa central
toothonfaces
shownin profileis a relatively
lateChavincharacteristic
(Rowe1962:6).Inanycase,bothinitsearlyandlatemani-
theChavinversion
festation, enjoysamplechronological
overitsIzapancounterparts.
priority
18Averycleardepiction
ofthismonster is alsopresent
on thegreatstelaofEl Meson,central
Veracruz, which,
whileprobablyofrelatively
latedate,stillbearsa strong
(Covarrubias
Izapanimprint 68).
1957:Fig.
U-shaped silhouette is at least partially deter-
mined by the circular surface it decorates.
Moreover, the piece is late (La Venta IV), and
it is just conceivable that this singular Olmec
double-headed monster reflects Pacific Coast
influence rather than the reverse (Proskouria-
koff 1968:121-3; Bernal 1969:173; Benson
1968:116-17). Or, it could be that several An-
dean contacts broughtthe double-headed snake
to Mesoamerica at differenttimes where it was
first adopted by the Olmec and later more
intensely embraced by the cultures of the Pa-
cificCoast of Guatemala and Chiapas. In Peru,
as already noted, the double-headed serpent
makes an extremelyearlydebut at Huaca Prieta
and becomes a staple in many subsequent
styles.19
Oddly,clear Chavin specimens of the double-
headed monster are hard to find, perhaps be-
cause they are partially obscured in the bewil-
deringmultiplicityofimages that encrustmost
Chavin representations.A possible instance of
the two-headed beast can be seen in the crea-
tures that encircle the central face of a gold
Lambayeque pectoral now in the collection of
the Museum of the American Indian,New York
(Rowe 1962:P1. 26). The body and head of the
fanged StaffGod embossed on a famous gold
plaque at the Museo Rafael Larco Herrera also
seem to be combined with double-headed
snakes (Fig. 11). By farthe most distinctChavin
versionof the double-headed serpentthat I have
been able to locate is carved on the brokenpiece
of a ceremonial mortar found in the Great
Temple at Chavin de Huantar (Fig. 12). This
stone fragmentis embellished with a frontalfig-
ure who wears a headdress composed of an eas-
ily decipherable but ratherdomesticated-look-
ing variant of the two-headed snake. Such a
head ornament is quite popular in Moche de-
signs and it makes a dramatic Mesoamerican
appearance on a post-Olmec plaque from San
19Moche, the great
Paracas,Nazca, and particularly
curvedserpentat Huaca Dragonnear Chanchan(ca.
A.D.1000)cometomind.
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JeronimoCosta Grande, Guerrero (Fig. 13). In
this instance it is worn by a fangedpersonage
who bears remarkableresemblance, in pose and
detail, to the fangedStaffGod of the Museo Ra-
fael Larco Herreraplaque (Fig. 11). It is also sim-
ilar to Moche depictions of a fangedgod. The
Pacific Coast of Guerreromay thus have been
an area that experienced some Andean influ-
ence too. Be that as it may, the search fordou-
ble-headed serpentmotifshas led farafield and
it is necessary to returnto Izapa.
Delia Santa (1959:353-4, Fig. 16) has com-
pared a relief carvingof a two-headed jaguar in
Chavin styleat the Museo Rafael Larco Herrera
with the creatureat the base ofIzapa Stela 1 (Fig.
20
30). Unfortunatelythese images share no sim-
ilaritybeyondtheirbicephalism. T o beginwith,
the Chavin specimen reproduces a mammal;
the Izapan creaturedoes not- indeed,'its iden-
tityis so complex and ambiguous that it war-
rantsspecial consideration. Although the Stela
1 monster fits into the double-headed serpent
or dragoncategoryby virtueof its two terminal
heads, which are separated by a long "body,"
otherdetails suggest that the image can be read
in alternateways. The two heads at either end,
whose elaborate nose scrolls and eyebrow scal-
lops correspond roughly to elements in some
Chavin creatures (Tello 1960: Figs. 39, 63, 83,
84 and Pi. XXIX A), do not face in opposite direc-
tions. Instead, they confrontone another, and
theirsharedbody,which consists ofwavy paral-
lel lines interspersedwith fish,can thus be in-
terpretedas a stream or "body" of water that
issues fromboth heads. It seems that here the
double-headed monster has been employed as
a metaphor for living water and its source.21
Metaphoric images are typical of Chavin sculp-
20This
comparisonwas evidently underthe
undertaken
thatIzapaStela1is Olmec.
impression
21Asimilar
two-headed monster atthebottom
is present
theser-
ofIzapaStela23 (seeMiles1965:Fig.12d).Perhaps
pentontheearlier stageofthemainpyramid intheCiuda-
delaatTeotihuacan a monster-living-waters
alsoexpresses
metaphor,anideathatmayhavebeenderived fromIzapan
orIzapan-like
prototypes.
11
ture, a point to be discussed at greaterlength
in another context below. For the moment it
will be sufficientto mention that fish accom-
pany the bodies of two confrontingmythical
aquarian reptiles (caymans) carved on the
Chavin Yauya Stela (Rowe 1962:P1. 31) as they
do the confronting-headeddragon on Izapa
Stela 1.
If the exact visual configurationsof the dou-
ble-headed monsters cited in the various ex-
amples above do not seem strikinglycongruent,
somewhat more direct Izapa-Chavin formal
correspondences are evident in a deceptively
simple subject, the undulating dragon motif.
One side of Stela D at Tres Zapotes bears the
representationofa serpentinemonster(Fig. 15).
The creature's head is stamped with typical
Izapan traitssuch as the distended alveolar bar
and conventionalized side fang.Curved nostrils
and a massive, highly simplified eyebrow are
also present. The monster's short snakelike
bodyis constructedoftwo multi-outlined,hori-
zontally oriented S shapes that partially over-
lap. Only the rear scroll of each of these is visi-
ble. As the second S terminates the dragon's
body, the creature's tail does not stick straight
out but curls up and back in upon itself.Viewed
as silhouette, the combination of slightlyflat-
tened overlapping scrolls creates a rhythmic
meanderpattern.Dragon-serpentsfromthe cor-
nice at the southwest cornerofthe New Temple
at Chavin de Huantar (Fig. 16) are remarkably
similar to the Tres Zapotes monster just de-
scribed. Far simpler in constructionthan their
Izapan-stylecounterpart,theyneverthelessdu-
plicate a substantial number of its properties.
These include blunt, massively fanged,heavily
eyebrowed heads. Equally important, the
Chavin dragons have relatively short bodies
thatforma multi-, in this case, double-outlined
meander or undulating patternthat terminates
in an inward-curved,scroll-shapedtail.
In one known instance at Izapa, at the lower
right-handcorner of Stela 7 (Fig. 17; Stirling
1943:66) a serpent-dragonnot only undulates
but seems literallyto braiditselfinto knots.Un-
12
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
fortunately,the lefthalf of this image is badly
eroded; however,a recent reconstructionofthe
monument soon to be published by Garth Nor-
man, who kindlypermittedme access to some
of his drawings for study, clearly shows that
only a single serpent- not two interwoven- is
depicted. This seems strangeforthe braided,as
opposed to undulating, ophidian body is more
appropriateto a representationof two entwined
snakes than ofone.22Perhaps the single serpent-
dragonof Stela 7 evolved fromsuch a paired en-
tangledimage. Instances ofjust such a motifon
later Veracruz palmas and yokes (see Covarru-
bias 1954:Fig.21; von Winning1968:Pls. 318-19)
and a cylindricalMayan vase (Fig. 18a) demon-
strateits existence in Mesoamerica, and Chavin
prototypesmay be said to exist. For instance,
the hair of the "Smiling God" (Rowe 1962:19)
carved in relief on a slab found at Chavin de
Huantar (Fig. 18) is representedas a series ofen-
twined snakes. The same configuration is
present in the entwined serpents that issue
fromthe mouths of monster heads painted on
an lea textile executed in pure Chavin style
23
(Rowe 1962:P1.30).
Perhaps the most recondite rendition of the
dragonmonster at Izapa shows a plant growing
out of the mythicalbeast's head. In Stela 5 (Fig.
47), the most ambitious work at the site, this
is an enormous eight-branchedtreethatsprings
from a subterranean dragon, ascends the full
height of the reliefand acts as the central fea-
tureofits extraordinarilyintricatecomposition
(Miles 1965:258-9; Stirling1943:64-5). A more
compact, concentrated version of the dragon-
plant motif appears on the bottom of Stela 2
22Thissuppositionis supported by innumerableOld
World ofentwined snakesofwhichthose
representations
ontheclassicalcaduceusarebutthebest-known example.
Formoreancientversions ofpairedinterwoven serpents,
see,forinstance,
Campbell 1964:Figs.1,3;Frankfort
1955:
PI.51c.
23Heine-Geldern a Salinar
haspublished specimen ofthe
entwined motifthatcorresponds
monster-serpent to that
bothdesigns
onanElTajinpalma.Hetraces backtoancient
versions
Chinese onLateChoubronze
encountered vessels
Fig.11;1966:279,
1959:325,
(Heine-Geldern Fig.5candd).
(Stirling 1943:63). Here (Fig. 20) the monster's images ranging from a complete feline and
bodyhas been reduced to a single paw appended avian at the snout to an animated seashell and
to a greathead out ofwhose top sproutsa thick, the disjointed partsor heads ofbestial creatures
rubberygourdtreeheavily laden with fruit. on the torso itself.Three of these auxiliary fig-
The originof the dragon-plantmotifat Izapa ures can be singled out as being in varyingde-
is not only interestingforits own sake but be- greessimilar to the Izapan flowering-dragon de-
cause the device becomes important in later vice. All are blunt-nosed,heavilyfanged,disem-
Mesoamerican art. At Palenque, to mention bodied monster heads with protrudingplant-
just one prominentMayan center,several mon- like extensions. The largesthead points upward
uments have a formthat has been interpreted and has a blooming eight-branchedtree, cov-
as a mythical tree springingfrom a dragon's ered with eyes, growingfrom its mouth.25An
head (Proskouriakoff1965:479). 24 identical creature which spews forth a short
As in the centraltoothand double-headed ser- twigwith distinctlyveined leaves is also carved
pent, there are possible Olmec antecedents for on a mortarfragmentfromChavin de Huantar
the Izapan flowering dragon. Chalcatzingo (Tello 1960:Fig. 126A). The second monster
Petroglyph1 (Fig. 19), a colonial Olmec work, head with vegetation on the Tello Obelisk
may contain germs of the dragon-plantmotif. growsa tripleflowerfromjust above its nostrils.
A major element of the composition is a U- However, the third and smallest subsidiary
shaped combination cave/jaguar mouth in image is the most directly analogous to the
which a figureis seated. At points along the pe- Izapan dragon-plantmotif. It, like the monster
ripheryof the cave's enormous maw growsmall at the bottom of Izapa Stela 2, gives rise to a
plants thought to represent maize (Coe thickclump ofvegetationdirectlyout ofthe top
1968a:92-3). Olmec were-jaguarjade celts also ofits head.
sometimes have a highly conventionalized ear One final, admittedly tentative comparison
of corn rising out of their skull-cleft (Coe based on communityof subject matterbetween
1962a:579). The question is whether the elabo- an Izapan reliefand the Tello Obelisk will con-
rate Izapan floweringdragonwas derivedsolely clude this discussion of flowering reptile
fromOlmec models or whetherit might be the motifs.A large,upended alligatoris represented
productof these prototypesreinforcedand mod- on the left side of Izapa Stela 25 (Fig. 26). For
ified by an outside source. To my knowledge, themost partthe creatureis renderedin a natu-
no Olmec work shows a branched plant, such ral, highly convincing manner, altogetherdif-
as foundat Izapa, growingout of a head, and the ferentfromthe arcane conventionalized mode
head itself is never that of a dragon or serpent. of the Obelisk cayman. Still, both share one
But preciselythese attributesare presenton the curious element. The Izapan alligator's body
Tello Obelisk, one of the greatestmonuments does not terminate in a realistic tail as one
fromChavin de Huantar (Fig. 21). The Obelisk would expect; instead, it fans out into several
is a rectangular shaft carved on all four sides. twistingbranches. The Chavin cayman's cau-
Like the Yauya slab, referredto earlier in con- dal appendage is similarly inappropriateto the
nection with Izapa Stela 1,it representsa fantas- beast, forit is constructedof several rectangles
tic alligatoror cayman with a fishliketail (Rowe
1962:18-19). The alligator's body is covered
with a bewildering network of subsidiary 25Telloidentifies
thisdetailas themonster's phallus
- a curiousparallelto theplant-like
(Tello1923b:279-80)
on someMonteAlbanDanzantes.
genitals Thebranched
objectmaybesymbolic ofbothvegetation andwater.
Esther
24ThepaneloftheTempleoftheCrossandthesarcoph- Pasztory,
whohaswritten a dissertationonthewallpaint-
aguslidfromtheRuztombin theTempleoftheInscrip- ingsat Tepantitla,
Teotihuacan, informs methata multi-
tions. branchedtreeinoneofthemurals is alsofilled
witheyes.

13

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thatfan out slightlyto forma fishtail. In short,
both the Izapa Stela 25 and the Tello Obelisk
saurian have broad, equally incongruous rear
ends.26
The Izapan menagerie of fantastic creatures
is not restrictedto reptiles, dragons,and their
kin. Monstrous avians combiningman and bird
propertiesoccur with some frequency.These
cannot reasonably be traced to Olmec sources.
Two small Olmec-style were-jaguar figurines
with raised batlike wings are known,-but they
are unique, atypicalworksfroma marginalarea,
Costa Rica, and probablycombine local innova-
tionwith outside influence(Coe 1965c:753, Fig.
16). Moreover,these little chubbycarvingsbear
virtuallyno resemblance, formalor expressive,
to the dramatic, grotesque,human-avian mon-
stersportrayedon Izapa Stelae 11, 9, 4, and 2.27
In all of these reliefs,with the exception ofStela
9, in which the figurestands erect,thebird-man
monster seems to dive head down, wings out-
stretched,into the composition below. Unfor-
tunately,in most instances the creature is so
badly eroded that a veryaccurate descriptionof
specificdetails is not possible. Miles has recog-
nized a scroll headdress and catlike face-mask
on one example (Miles 1965:252), and Stirling
notes that the plungingpersonage of Stela 11 is
equipped with outstretched arms and scrolls
rising from each shoulder (Stirling 1943:67).
Stela 2 (Fig. 22),28 while also weathered, ap-
parentlypreservesthe clearest renditionof the
divingbird-manmonster.When the figureis in-
verted,it seems to representa kneeling human
wearing a bird costume and a bird-beakmask
26Rowehascommented ontheTelloObeliskfishtailin up beyond the main body of the wing. In other
thefollowing
manner: ". . . thismythical
detailmaybeno
morethana misunderstanding onthepartofartistswho less dualistic Chavin avians this phenomenon
werenotpersonally
familiar withtheir
subject,
caymans oc- is more pronounced (Rowe 1967:Figs. 12 and
onlyata muchloweraltitude"
curring (Rowe1962:19).
27ForStela11,Stirling
1943:P1. 53aandMiles1965:252. scrolls on top of the Izapan "diver's" wings.
ForStelae9,4 and2, Stirling
1943:66,Pis.56a,51a,49b, Like this creature the composite "angels" do
Miles1965:256.
placesStela2 inPreclassic
28Miles DivisionFour(Miles
1965:257-8).
placed on a head turned in profile (Stirling
1943:63). The complex construction of the
wings is especially noteworthy.They are fully
extended in a heraldic, symmetrical fashion.
Every one of the distinctly carved, blade-
shaped featherson each wing is anchored to a
commonly shared shoulder panel whose outer
end terminates in a now-indistinct,upward-
curled form.The bird-man'stail plumage also
deserves attention. Instead of descending in a
fan-shaped cluster directly beneath the body,
as is typicalin heraldicallyconceived birds(the
eagle on the Great Seal of the United States is
one example), the feathersswing to one side.
The diagonal extension thus created exposes
the human legs of the bird-manand emphasizes
the creature's dual identity.
The core imageryof the Izapa Stela 2 compos-
ite human-avian is astonishinglysimilar to that
ofthe guardian "angels" (Rowe 1962: 19) carved
in low relief on flankingdoorway columns at
the Black-and-White Portal of the temple at
Chavin de Huantar (Fig. 23).29 These figures
clearly portray composite mythical beings.
They have the body,legs, and armsof a man but
a bird's head and wings (Rowe 1962:19). As in
the Izapa Stela 2 "diver" theirfaces are turned
to one side and wear an incongruous-looking
raptorialbeak (here attached to the otherwise
standard, blunt, Chavin jaguar snout). The
wings ofthe "angels" are similar to those of the
Izapan bird-manas well. Extended in a symmet-
rical, heraldic manner, they too have a small
numberoflargedistinctfeathersthatissue from
a shared straplikepanel. The outer edge of this
panel is decorated with a linked series of tiny
heads, the last of which seems to curl slightly
13). Perhaps it is the ultimate source for the
•
29DellaSantahas notedthepresence
ofhumanswith
"condor"wingsatIzapaandChavm(dellaSanta1959:355).

14

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
not have fan-shaped tail plumage, a common
featurein other Chavin birds (Rowe 1967:Figs.
12 and 13). Instead, two diagonally extending
formsexpose the monsters7human legs, a func-
tion analogous to the single sideswept tail clus-
terof the Izapan bird-man.
Anotherbizarre Izapan bird that may be cau-
tiously compared to Chavin models appears in
the upper righthand of Stela 25 (Fig. 26), diago-
nally across from the upended alligator de-
scribed earlier. Available photographsdisclose
littlemore about this eroded image than its pro-
file pose and an S-shaped drooping tail similar
to that of the bird-mancreaturein Stela 2. But
a drawingof Stela 25 recentlypublished by Lee
and Lowe (n.d.:Fig. 5) and a soon-to-be-
published reconstructionby Garth Norman af-
forda somewhat improvedview ofthemythical
avian. It clearly has a single, heavily outlined,
raised wing, a horizontal body, and a beaked
headdress surmountinga lower face. These at-
tributes- profileposture,horizontal body,soli-
taryraised wing with shoulderpanel, diagonally
downward-slopingtail feathers,and a birdbeak
superimposed on a face- are all present on
eagles which decorate the cornice of the Black-
and-WhitePortal at Chavin de Huantar (Fig.27).
Parenthetically,the Izapan profile-birdis cov-
ered with complex, indecipherable curvilinear
elements that may relate to the subsidiary
images that encrustChavin sculpture.
The last beast to be discussed in this study
will be the jaguar. Some Izapan reliefs are
framedbya conventionalized jaguarmouth.30In
otherinstances the entireanimal is represented
(Stela 12, Fig. 49; Stirling1943:67-8). The simi-
larity between Olmec and Izapan jaguars has
been oftencommented on (Coe 1965c: 773; Ber-
nal 1969:172), and, indeed, therecan be no ques-
tion that the later Pacific Coast feline was
derivedfromthe earlierVeracruz tradition.Yet
30In
IzapaMonument bothjaguarheadand lection
2, however,
thefigurecontainedwithinitsopenmawarefullythree- resentseatedfelinemonsters andhavebeententatively
dimensional PI.53b;Bernal1969:172).
1943:68,
(Stirling
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
even this most typically Olmec of all Olmec
motifs underwent extensive modification at
Izapa. An extremelyrevealingtransformationis
evident on Izapa Stela 6 (Fig. 29), which Miles
places in Preclassic Division Two (Miles
1965:251; Stirling 1943:65). Carved on this
stone is a seated, pot-bellied jaguar whose head
has been partiallyobscured by ancient vandals.
The lower portion of the animal remains sub-
stantially intact and discloses a rump which
ends not in a tail but in a little jaguar head that
may have a protrudingtongue. This extraor-
dinarymotif is present in only one other Nu-
clear American style- that of Chavin.31 By
closely examining the hindquartersof the jag-
uar monsters that decorate the cornice at the
southwest corner of the temple at Chavin de
Huantar and also the feline mortarin the Uni-
versity Museum, Philadelphia, Collection
(Figs. 2, 28), one can observe that the tail of the
creature emerges from the open mouth of a
monstermask. This device has been dubbed the
"rump-mask" motif (Fraser 1968:109-11) and
is an instance of that primary attribute of
Chavin style called "kenning" by Rowe.
Rowe uses the term kenning to describe the
complex metaphoric system of multiple imag-
ery employed in Chavin carving.It is a system
apparently based on comparison by substitu-
tion. Snakes replace hair; a long mouth-band
may mark the major axis or outline of a crea-
ture.In the most common formsof Chavin ken-
ning, a projection of the body- the tail, in the
case of the cornice jaguars- is compared to a
tongue and thereforeshown protrudingfrom
the mouth of an extra face placed on the ani-
mal's rump. Legs, feet,and wings are treatedin
the same way and then in turn even kenned
themselves (Rowe 1962:15-17). To the erudite
initiated viewer the resultant maze of images
itis alsofoundon twowellknown,
31Curiously almost
identical
bronzeChineseyuvesselsintheSumitomo Col-
andtheCernuschi Museum, Paris.Theseworks
rep-
classified
as LateShang(Fraser
1968:110-1).
15
formsa cohesive and comprehensible pattern.
However, the most obvious visual impact that
kenningmakes on the untutoredeye is simply
that secondary faces or heads replace certain
normally non-cephalic parts of the body, such
as the rump. This is possibly what impressed
Izapan craftsmen.It may well account forthe
isolated rump-maskon the jaguar of Stela 6 and
partlyforthe other curious kenningspresentin
Izapa Stela 1 discussed below.
It will be rememberedthat the base of Stela
1 (Fig. 30), a monument that Miles ascribes to
Preclassic Division Two (Miles 1965:252), is
decorated with an ambiguous double-headed
monsterwhose horizontal waterlike body sup-
portsthe remainingcomposition carved above.
This consists of an enigmatic anthropomorphic
figurewith an unclear bestial face and an olla-
shaped basket strapped to his back. He stands
slightlybent over at the waist holding a bowl-
like net that contains a fish. Attached to the
bottom of this implement is a monstrous ag-
nathic head (see Miles 1965 :Fig. 2f)with verti-
cal lines and scrolls issuing down from its
mouth. The image may be a metaphorforwater
which tricklesout of the net and back into the
dragon-headedstreambelow.321know ofno spe-
cific Chavinoid device similar to this one, but
otherkenningsassociated with the net-holding
personage,who is identifiedas a fishinggod by
Miles (1965:252), have parallels in Chavin
sculpture.The deitywears a strangelyanimated
breechclothwith a forward-curling flapthatter-
minates in a serpentinehead. It is reminiscent
and may be an adaptation ofthe snakes that ex-
tend from the waistband of Chavin anthropo-
morphic figuressuch as the Smiling God and
the StaffGod (Figs. 18,9). The most blatantken-
ning in Izapa Stela 1 occurs on the deity's feet.
They are actually representedas grotesque ag-
nathic reptilian heads with heavily dentated
32Perhapsthispersonage on Stela1 is oneof
represented
theearliest
ina longlineofMesoamerican
rainmakers who
areshownbending overwhileatwork(Rands1955:296-8).
16
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
upperjaws.33Astoundinglyclose parallels exist
in Chavin art,as can be seen on the cornice fe-
lines of the temple at Chavin de Huantar (Fig.
28). Justa casual glance at any of these animals
shows that theirpaws are kenned into viciously
dentatedbut agnathic monsterheads that differ
fromthe Izapan model only to the extent that
they spew forthclaws. The identical monster-
foot device, this time depicted from the front
ratherthanin profile,is presenton the bird-man
"angels" carved on the flankingcolumns of the
Black-and-WhitePortal (Figs. 23, 31). Here, as
at Izapa, the animal-head feet are attached to
human, or at least humanoid, legs.
Similaritiesbetween certainconventionsand
motifsin Chavin and Izapan arthaving been ob-
served, it is now appropriateto consider con-
gruences which extend beyond isolated config-
urations to compositional and/or thematic
complexes. A moderately well-documented
monument, Kaminaljuyu Stela 9 will initiate
discussion.
Stela 9 is proto-Izapan in style and was dis-
covered in C-III-6, a Las Charcas Phase mound,
togetherwith a cache of early Providencia pot-
terywhich permits a conservativelyestimated
date ofat least 300 B.C. and possibly one as early
as 450 B.C. (Miles 1965:248; Proskouriakoff
1968:123, 131; Easby and Scott 1970:100). The
work (Fig. 34) has three of its five sides carved
with a scene very similar to one executed in
Chavin style,on an engravedconch shell found
at Chiclayo (Fig. 35). Both compositions show
a standing profilefigurewho seems to blow a
shell trumpet while an enigmatic serpentine
creaturewrithes,head turneddown, at his feet.
33TheIzapanfishingdeityor,moreaccurately,a number
ofhisattributes,
couldhavesurvived fora verylongtime
inMesoamerican art.Suchtraitsashislong-snoutedbestial
face,animal-headedbelt,and,aboveall,kennedfeetare
presentonthegodidentified as Tiger3 Turquoisecarved
intothefamousMonteAlbanPeriodIIIA"BazanStone"
(Caso1965:856,Fig.13).A well-known hunchbacked Co-
lima figurestandson a two-headed fish(Covarrubias
1957:P1.
XXIIIright).
Bothhisbulging backandthecreature
heperchesonmight possibly bedistant, diluted
highly and
versionsof theIzapanfishing
reinterpreted god'sback-
basketandreptilian
feet.
To be sure, thereare some differencesbetween
the Peruvian and Mesoamerican versionsofthis
design. In the small Chavin linear rendering,
the conch-blower is stocky, and his two arms
are awkwardlyraised, holding the flask-shaped
instrumentto his lips. The body of the clearly
defined serpentlike head that rests just to the
left of his feet is inextricably entwined in a
maze of angular loops which rise to engulfthe
musician in a convoluted patternof subsidiary
agnathic monster faces and snake heads. The
monumental Kaminaljuyu figure is more dy-
namic and sculptural than that of the Chiclayo
shell. It strikesa complex twistedpose with legs
turnedin the opposite directionof the torsoand
its formsare attenuated and free-flowing.Un-
like the Chavin conch-blower,the Kaminaljuyu
personageraises only one hand toward the elab-
orate shape glued to his mouth. Whereas this
curvilineardetail is identifiedas a speech scroll
by Miles (1965:250), Proskouriakoffentertains
thepossibilitythatit may representa largeshell
(Proskouriakoff1968:123). Such an interpreta-
tion is entirelyconsistentwith the object's cen-
tral spiral and scalloped upper edge, charac-
teristicsdistinctlyreminiscent of a sea conch.
The monsterplaced to the rightof the Kaminal-
juyu figuredeviates somewhat fromits Chavin
analogue, too. It is more fluid and even more
convoluted than the latterand it does not engulf
the conch-blower in a series of elaborate ken-
nings. Significantly,the variations between Ka-
minaljuyu Stela 9 and the Chiclayo shell cannot
mask, nordo theydiminish,the inordinatesim-
ilarityof subject matterand basic organization.
Both carvingsrepresentidentical arbitrarythe-
matic material arranged in substantially the
same way: a standing human conch-blower
plays his curious instrumentin the company of
a writhingserpentinemonsterwhose head rests
near the musician's feet.
A more dramaticallyactive composition than
that of Stela 9 is carved on Stela 19 (Fig.37), an-
otherKaminaljuyu relief,dated at 300-100 B.C.
byEasby and Scott (1970:101) and clearlyIzapan
in style. The scene depicted on this work con-
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sists of two interactingcharacterswhose rela-
tionship implies combat. A running-crouching
human figure,wearing a grotesque mask with
a pronounced alveolar bar, "wrestles" a serpent
whose tail and head terminatein homologous
fringedelements. Grasped in both hands of its
antagonist, the creature convulses into a
number of tightloops or coils which are placed
at intervals along its sinuous body. Almost
identically the same "wrestling" theme is
presenton a Cupisnique soapstone tumbler in
the RobertWoods Bliss Collection (Fig. 38). As
in Stela 9 and the Chiclayo shell, differencesin
size and composition between the Kaminaljuyu
and Chavin specimens now under discussion
exist. For instance, the design on the soapstone
vessel has two "wrestlers" ratherthan one. But
each is the mirrorimage of the otherplaced on
an opposite side of the cylindricalcontainer so
thatin the end only one is visible at a time. Both
depict standing humans with grotesque, up-
turnedprofilefaces, similar to that of the Ka-
minaljuyu figure,- and each grasps in its hands
the hoselike bodyof a creature.Like the serpent
in Kaminaljuyu Stela 19, this being terminates
in identical tassle-like elements at either end.
Furthermoreit also coils into precisely the
same kind of tightrhythmicallyspaced loops.
Admittedly the Kaminaljuyu snake arches
above the "wrestler's" head, who raises both
arms to hold it, whereas the serpentinebody on
the Cupisnique tumbler stretches across its
captors'waists. This minordiscrepancyis offset
bythe factthat the reptileis clutched by identi-
cally straight-thumbed,stick-fingeredhands
with out-turned palms in both examples. In
sum, the divergences between the Cupisnique
tumbler design and the Kaminaljuyu Stela 19
composition are overshadowed by basic yet im-
pressivelycomplex parallels in theme and even
representation. Surely two so similarly con-
ceived artistic creations are art-historicallyre-
lated in some way.
Ifconflictis implicitin the Kaminaljuyu "ser-
pent-wrestler"theme, it is completely explicit
in Stela 21 (Fig. 39) fromIzapa, placed by Miles
17
in Division Four of her Preclassic chronology
and recentlyattributedto a period around 150-1
B.C. (Miles 1965:258; Easby and Scott
1970: 101). The reliefon this monumentvividly
portraysthe ultimate result of martial confron- An excellent example of a trophyhead has been
tation. On the righta victorious warrior,wear-
ing a monster-head helmet, stands over the
prostrate body of his victim. He holds his
enemy's severedhead aloftbythehair. Fromthe
bottom of this grislyprize, as well as fromthe
neck ofthe corpsebelow, gush curvedbands and
scrolls symbolizing blood.34 In the back-
ground- witnesses to the drama just enacted-
are two small men who carrya palanquin. The
vehicle contains a seated figure,and a large
jaguar crouches on its roof.
The decapitation scene on Izapa Stela 21 is
importanton a numberof counts. First,it initi-
ates an iconographic tradition- preserved for
many centuries- that finds perhaps its most
elaborate expression in the Postclassic ball-
court reliefsat Chichen Itza. Second, and spe-
cificallyrelevant to the question of Andean in-
fluence,the Stela 21 carvingprobablyshows the
earliest unequivocal representation of head-
hunting in Mesoamerica (Easby and Scott
1970:94-5). The adoption of this custom is fur- manoid who holds a trophyhead in one hand.
therattestedto in Tres Zapotes Stela A, where,
as at Izapa, a decapitated head is carriedby the closes that both figuresare renderedin profile
hair (Stirling 1943:13, Fig. 3; Miles 1965:258). with the rightarm flexed at the elbow so that
Evidence that heads were not merely severed
but also treatedand preservedas trophiesis of-
feredon the monument fromEl Jobo,a site very
near Izapa. Here, Stela 1 (which bears a late type
ofIzapan signature)is embellished with a large
figurewho holds a trophyhead suspended from
a strap passed through its mouth or cheeks
(Miles 1965:258-9, Fig. 15b).
Now, the tardyemergence of a trophy-head-
hunting cult in Mesoamerica suggests that it
was probablyintroducedfromthe South,where
it is widely distributed and of demonstrably
34This
issimilar onthebottom
tothescrolls ofthebasket-
netinIzapaStela1whichseemtosymbolize
shaped flowing
water.
greatantiquity(Kidder 1940:447-8; see alsoMe-
traux 1949:406-7; Nordenskiold 1931). In Peru
the practice of taking and preservingheads was
common in the earliest archaeological phases.
foundat the Initial Period site (before1800 B.C.)
of Asia on the South Central Coast (Lanning
1967:77). Decapitated humans as well as trophy
heads are depicted in the reliefsat Cerro Sechln
(Bushnell 1965 :P1. 142); and the subject remains
a favorite motif virtually throughout the his-
toryof Andean art,enjoyingparticularfavorin
Paracas textiles and Nazca pots but frequently
employed in other styles, too (Moche, lea, Tia-
huanaco, Chimu, etc.). Therefore,it is not sur-
prisingto findthe motifof a victorious warrior
carrying a severed head at Chavin (Rowe
1962:Fig. 17). What is remarkable, and reveal-
ing, is that one such portrayalbears a striking
resemblance to the earliest known head-bran-
dishing warrior in Mesoamerica - the trium-
phant figureofIzapa Stela 21.
Sculpture 53 from Chavin de Huantar (Fig.
40), a square stone slab discovered byJulioTello
in 1934 (Tello 1960:246), is carvedwith the low-
relief image of a standing, fang-mouthedhu-
Comparison with the warrior of Stela 21 dis-
it extends out in frontof the body. In each, the
hand ofthis arm graspsa fistfulofhair thatpro-
trudes partially above the thumb and from
which a severed head dangles. In the Izapan, as
in the Chavin, image, conventionalized strap-
like ribbons of blood pour out of the bottom of
the trophywhich is rendered in profilefacing
away fromits captor. The Chavin head-holder
has a fan-shaped form attached to his left
shoulder that extends down to the waist. It is
constructedof a series of flaringparallel bands,
the nethermosttwo ofwhich apparentlydepict
the flappingends ofa sash. Even these elements
are duplicated in the Izapan warriorwho wears
a flutteringparallel sectioned cape and a tail-
like belt-endthatissue fromhis back and rump.

18

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Despite the details, motifs,themes, and com-
positions that unite Preclassic Pacific Slope
Chiapas-Guatemalan sculpture to that of the
Chavin Horizon, important differences be-
tween the two obviously exist. This can even
be pointed out in so closely congruenta com-
plex as the triumphanthead-trophy-holder just
recorded. In contrast to the dynamically strid-
ing figureof Izapa Stela 21, the Chavin warrior
stands rigid and immobile, his body composed
of stocky, inert, conventionalized forms. And
here the elaborate scene that surrounds the
Izapan headhunter- the sprawling victim and
thepalanquin carriedin the background- is ab-
sent. By and large, with the notable exception
of such small works as the Chiclayo shell and
the Cupisnique soapstone tumbler,Chavin art
is static, formal,and devoid of interactingfig-
ures. Exactly the opposite is trueofmany of the
reliefsat Izapa and, to a lesser degree,those from
Kaminaljuyu (Miles 1965:252). Especially at
Izapa, stelae compositions approach a lively
semi-narrativeformula in which several par-
ticipantsrelate to each otheron the same picto-
rial plane. For example, the most complex com-
position at Izapa, that on Stela 5 (Fig. 47), ac-
cording to Miles a Preclassic Division Four
work, includes in its cast of characters two
seated groupsofmen in animated conversation.
Behind each of the larger more important fig-
ures is an attendant,one of whom holds a para-
sol over the dignitaryin front of him (Miles
1965:258-9). Basically the same motif is also
presentat the bottom ofIzapa Stela 12 (Fig. 49;
Stirling1943:67-8). The qualities of hieraticor-
ganization, figural interaction, narrative con-
tentand dynamic movement in these composi-
tions are not foundin Chavin art.It is therefore
impossible to ignorethefactthat in thisrespect
they are more spiritually akin to the lively
scenes depicted on the ceramics of Chavin's
most famous North Coastal successor- the
Moche culture of the Chicama and Moche Val-
leys.
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Not only general qualities but also specific
themes in Moche and Izapan art can be com-
pared. Parallels to the consulting,gesticulating,
seated figuresof differing rank just describedin
Stela 5 (Fig. 47) are foundin many Moche narra-
tives (Fig. 48) where the superior conversant
also oftenhas an attendant placed behind him
as at Izapa. Mythical charactersrepresentedon
Izapan stelae occur on Moche vessels.35Winged
bird-men (Fig. 25), similar in overall concept
ratherthan appearance or specific attributesto
the "diver" of Stela 2 (Fig. 22), abound. The
rump-masked,pot-bellied feline of Izapa Stela
6 (Fig. 29) has lean jaguar Moche cousins whose
sinuous tails, but not rumps, end in long-ton-
gued cat heads (Fig.33). Even specificelements
ofIzapa Stela 21 (Fig.39) can be foundin Moche
art.The stridingwarriorwith animal-head hel-
met holding a severed head, his sprawling foe,
and the personage carried in a litterhave ana-
logues in a variety of Moche compositions as
does the trophyhead with a rope passed through
its mouth in El Jobo Stela 1 (Figs. 41, 42, 43;
Miles 1965:Fig. 15b). Men in boats, and combat
between a deity-likewarriorand fantasticrep-
tilian or fish-likecreatures,are favoriteMoche
themes (Fig. 45; Kutscher 1950:Fig. 17). Both
these subjects are presenton Izapa Stela 3 (Fig.
44), a previouslyunmentioned work,where the
raised club-bearingarm of the humanoid com-
batant and the disposition of his bestial oppo-
nent offeran impressive parallel to the Moche
version of this drama. The victorious protago-
nist in the supernatural Moche battles is
usually a god with a serpent-headed belt
(Kutscher 1950:65) reminiscent of the type
worn by the deity in Izapa Stela 1 (Fig. 30).
Sometimes the Moche deity is engaged in fish-
ing, like the Izapan god, though his prey is a
monstrous fish-demon,not ensnared in a net,
but caught at the end of a hooked line (Kutscher
1950:Fig. 58; 1954:P1. 61C). A second detail of
Izapa Stela 1, the act of carryinga pack strapped
35For of Mocheiconography see Larco
interpretations
Kutscher
Hoyle1939,- 1950;1954;1967;Tello1923b.
19
to the back, is also known in Moche painting,
however, in a genre context (Fig. 32). In addi-
tion,the horizontal double-headed serpentwho
supports the figureof Stela 1 and the arched
double-headed monsters that enframe Izapa
Stela 11 (Miles 1965:252, Fig. 12d) and 12 (Fig.
49) possess numerous Moche parallels (Fig. 14)
that functionin an analogous fashion. Doubt-
less additional shared Moche-Izapa conven-
tions could be discovered, but, as the function
of these comparisons is a restrictedone within
the context of this paper, only three more
themes will be pursued. They are the musician
who plays in thepresence ofbeasts, thenet-cap-
turedanimal, and the animated skeleton.
The conch-blowerperforming beforea mythi-
cal monster has been described in the Chavin
style Chiclayo shell (Fig. 35) and Kaminaljuyu
Stela 9 (Fig. 34). A Moche craftsmanemployed
substantially the same composition on a so-
called "mountain-sacrifice" vessel (Fig. 36).
The pot is modeled to show a multi-peaked
mountain. Its apex is covered by a sacrificial
victim lying face down with his hair flowing
over the side of the forwardslope. To the right,
on a somewhat lower hillock, sits a helmeted
personageplayinga shell trumpet.At the musi-
cian's feet crouch at least two beasts. One of
them can be identifiedas a large reptile by its
serratedtail and is thereforeclearly analogous
to the serpentine monsters incorporated into
the Chiclayo shell and Kaminaljuyu conch-
blower scenes.
Izapa Stela 12 (Fig. 49), according to Miles a
Division Four monument (Miles 1965:258), has
been referredto in passing solely with regardto
the U-shaped, double-headed monster that en-
closes the design and the seated figuresplaced
at its bottom.Other aspects ofthis composition
are equally noteworthy.From above the ser-
pent's two heads depend ropes from which
hangs the limp carcass of a jaguar. While the
carving'ssurfaceis badly defaced,it is still pos-
sible to discern that the feline's body is cradled
in a roughlywoven or plaited object. Stirling
proposes that this might represent a mat-
20
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
coveredaltar (Stirling1943:67-8). A differentin-
terpretationis suggested by comparison with
some Moche huntingscenes. A numberofthese
show the runningprey being driven into a net
(Fig. 50; Kutscher 1954:16-17). The Izapan ja-
guaris obviously alreadycaught,and the hunter
depicted on Moche vessels is absent, but the
coarsely plaited object beneath the animal
might well be the device that was used to en-
snare it. Ifthisis so, thenthe net-hunted-animal
theme occurs in Izapan as well as Moche art.
The last Izapa-Moche parallel to be men-
tioned is the animated corpse. Stela 50 from
Izapa (Fig. 5 1), a monument not previouslycon-
sidered here, has as its main character a male
figurewhose seated pose (repeatedin Izapa Stela
10)36is similar to that of the reclining man of
Petroglyph2 at Chalcatzingo (Cook de Leonard
1967:Fig. 1). Like the Chalcatzingo personage,
the Stela 50 male is ithyphallic,but with this
the similaritybetween the two images ends; for
whereas the former is well fleshed, even
chubby, the Izapan figureis actually an ani-
mated skeleton whose long, scroll-ended
phallus protrudes from a hollow bony groin.
Bony, cadaverous personages,at times engaged
in a sortof "dance ofdeath" (Kutscher 1950:33),
are depicted on various Moche vessels
(Kutscher 1950:Fig. 34; 1954:Pls. 30-2). What is
most strikingis that a number of Moche ca-
davers are emphatically ithyphallic (Fig. 52),
and at least one of these (Fig. 53) is seated in
much the same pose assumed by the Izapan
skeleton.
In termsof the major thesis of this paper,the
significantquestion raised by Izapa-Moche par-
allels is whether some of the motifs that have
been ascribed to Chavin influence could really
have been transmittedto Izapa as residual ele-
ments preserved in Moche models. A precise
chronologyexpressed in absolute dates for all
three artistic traditionsmight help to resolve
placesStela10in either
36Miles DivisionTwoorThree
ofthePreclassic
(Miles1965:251-2,
Fig.12c).
this problem. As yet none exists, but a general Izapan style was sandwiched between them in
assessment of the relative position occupied by time, perhaps overlappingwith the later phases
Izapa vis-a-visChavin and Moche artis in order. of Chavin at the start and then coexisting for
Forthemoment the best guess is thatthe Izapan a period with Moche. To reiterate,does that
monuments here discussed were produced mean that the motifs here ascribed to Chavin
sometime between ca. 400/300 B.C. and A.D. intrusioncould reallyhave been transmittedto
200, with the likelihood that the greatestactiv- Izapa in the formof Moche translations?One
ity took place in the centuries just preceding suspects that in most instances Moche works
and following the time of Christ. The dates of are too recent to have functionedin this capac-
Chavin style,as published within the last dec- ity; for while they might conceivably be con-
ade, have been variously estimated as: temporaneous with, they are unlikely to be
circa 700-200 B.C. (Rowe 1962:5) older than their Izapan analogues. Of course,
circa 800-200 B.C. (Ford 1969:189) concurrencedoes not exclude the possibilityof
circa 900-200 B.C. (Lanning 1967:25, 96) influence.Forthisreason and because too much
circa 1000-100 B.C. (Bennett and Bird latitude persists in both Moche and Izapan dat-
1960:82) ing systems to correlate them accurately, the
circa 1200-300 B.C. (Rowe 1967:73) problem of whetherIzapa received Chavin ele-
circa 1200-500/400B.C. (Sawyer 1968:18-19, ments via Moche models cannot be answered
24)37 exclusively on the basis of chronological data.
Those forMoche culture*varyfrom: Furtherevaluation must take iconographicand
circa A.D.300-800 (Rowe 1962:21) especially stylisticevidence into account.39
circa A.D. 1-580 (Rowe 1967:87) It is possible to isolate Chavinoid compo-
circa A.D. 1-800 (Larco Hoyle 1966:Table I) nents in Izapan sculpture which are either in-
circa 150 B.C. -A.D. 900 (Bennett and Bird consequential or absent in Moche art and there-
1960:82) forewould not have been derivedfromit. Prom-
circa 200 B.C. -A.D. 600 (Lanning 1967:26-7, inent among them is an emphasis on relatively
123) heavy, rounded-offblocky shapes that are cov-
circa 200 B.C. -A.D. 700 (Sawyer 1968:40)
circa 400 B.C. -A.D. 700 (Kubler 1962:247)
Overall this much is clear: even the earliest ter- 39Moche potteryhasbeendivided intofiveperiods (Larco
minal date forChavin (400 B.C.) and one of the Hoyle1948:28-36), andlinearnarrative painting is saidnot
toprecede theceramics ofPeriodII orIII,whilemountain-
later initiatory dates of Moche (A.D.I) places sacrificevesselssuchas theoneillustrated in Fig.36 have
each traditionwithin strikingdistance ofIzapa. been associatedwithPeriodsIII and IV (LarcoHoyle
1948:30-5; Kubler1962:258-9; Sawyer1966:26-8). Sawyer
Accepting some of the later dates forthe end of assignsMochePeriods II-IVtoa timespanfrom 50B.C.to
Chavin and earlier ones for the beginning of A.D.500 (Sawyer1968:40-4), in whicheventtheywould
Moche presents the possibility that both, or in- probably be toolatetohaveaffected anybuta fewIzapan
works. Another estimate holdsthatMocheII beganca. 150
termediaryversions ofboth, were partlycoeval B.C.(Kubler1962:xxxv); a greaterimpacton Izapamight
with Izapa and indeed with one another.38 thenbecontemplated. Afurther rubliesintheimprecision
Broadlyspeaking, however, it appears that the thatsurrounds thedating oftheIzapanstyleitself. Accord-
ingtoMiles'ssystem, IzapaStela2 (Fig.22)couldhavebeen
produced anytimebetween 300B.C.andA.D.300,thatis
tosay,either before orafter theriseofMochelinearnarra-
37By andlarge,the accordance
ofgreater to
antiquity tivestyle.Uncertainty iscompounded bythefactthatmon-
Chavinseemstobetheresult ofmorerecent
scholarship. uments withdistinct Chavinparallels suchas IzapaStela
21 (Fig.39)andKaminaljuyu Stelae10(Fig.4) and19(Fig.
38LarcoHoyleis of theopinionthatthesculpture
of 37) maydateafter150B.C.,withinpossiblerangeofthe
Chavin deHuantar is contemporaneous
withMocheperiod Mochenarrative mode - ifindeedMocheII ceramics com-
III(LarcoHoyle1966:139]. menced ca. 150B.C.

21

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ered with profusesurfacedecoration comprised
ofelaborate scrollworkand scrolledprotrusions
rendered as straplike forms. Sometimes mul-
tiple outlines like the ones on the undulating
dragonof Tres Zapotes Stela D (Fig. 15) are em-
ployed. Particularly complex straplike forms
occur on Kaminaljuyu Stela 19 (Fig. 37) and
especially on Izapa Stelae 11 and 2 (Fig. 22). In
addition to their encrusted surfaces,the latter
two monuments have a partiallyfrozen,almost
iconic quality- and this in spite of the action
depicted in them: a bird-man diving into a tree
in one case and into a creature squatting on a
double-headed serpent in the other. But the
diver's rigidwings are, it seems, fullyextended,
not so much in flightas in heraldic display; and
the compositions of the stelae are closed, basi-
cally frontal,formal, and bilaterally symmet-
rical. All ofthese attributes,fromornatesurface
decoration to static design, could have been
inspiredby late Chavin art but not by the mer-
curial linear style or dynamically moving fig-
ures ofthe Moche draftsman.
Some iconographic and/or motif elements
present in Chavm and Izapa but not, to my
knowledge, used in Moche design can also be
enumerated. These include the agnathic heads
found on many Chavin reliefsand in a variety
of Izapan dragon masks (Miles 1965 : Fig.
2b,d,e,f;Fig. 3e and h) as well as the Chiapa de
Corzo saurian (Fig. 7). The same observation
holds true for the central tooth and distended
alveolus. The monsterhead with floweringtree
so conspicuously representedin Izapa Stelae 2
(Fig. 22) and 5 (Fig. 47) and presentin the Tello
Obelisk (Fig. 21) is also not part of the Moche
idiom. Nor, with a few exceptions- such as the
terminalheads on some creatures7tails- is ken-
ning (Fig.33). Clearly the rump-maskon the ja-
guar of Stela 6 (Fig. 29) cannot be traced to
Moche models of this sort any more than can
the kenned agnathic monster-maskfeet of the
fishingdeity in Izapa Stela 1 (Fig. 30). Both of
these devices are absent in Moche art but con-
spicuous in that of Chavin. While the list of
Izapa-Chavm sans Moche analogues might be
22
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
expanded to encompass more examples, a basic
point has been sufficientlyillustrated: Izapan
artcontains a strongChavinoid strain which is
independent of Izapa-Moche similarities and
thereforeart-historicallydistinctfromthem.
The parallels between Moche and Izapa pose
another problem, much of it beyond the re-
stricted scope of the present study. Never-
theless, some impressions about their art-his-
torical significanceand potential forfurtherre-
search are permissible. To be sure, a numberof
shared Moche-Izapan traits- double-headed
serpents, bird-men, the musician performing
beforebeasts and the trophy-head-bearing war-
rior- are probablycollateral relatives ofChavin
ancestry. Yet others cannot be explained in
these terms.Dignitaries in palanquins, men in
boats, "conversing figures/'club-wielding dei-
ties combatting supernatural monsters, net-
hunted animals, ithyphallic skeletons, and,
above all, realistic narrativescenes repletewith
action, interactionand vivid movement do not
occur in the art of Chavin. If Chavin cannot be
used to account forthis constellation of Izapa-
Moche similarities, some other explanation
will have to be found. This can probablynot be
done by restrictinginvestigationexclusively to
Izapa and Moche as the system ofrelationships
that they participate in may be indirect and
complex. In other words, while Moche-Izapa
parallels have been introducedhereprimarilyas
a foil against which to test the validity of the
Chavin-Izapa hypothesis,it is also evident that
theymay open furtheravenues forinvestigation
in Mesoamerican and Andean linkages. These
investigationswill have to cast a wide net to in-
clude otherpossibly relevant traditions;forin-
stance, the ceramic complexes ofWesternMex-
ico which are roughly coeval with, and bear
close affinityto, those of the Moche culture
(Kubler 1962:256; Easby and Scott 1970:119-
20). Dangerous as it is to prognosticatein mat-
ters such as this, one may venture to say that
whatever the direction and scope that future
studyofIzapa-Moche relationshipsmay take,it
will have to consider implications inherentin
the position that each of these traditions
occupies in the developmental sequence of art
in its area.
Compositions portrayingseveral relief fig-
ures in vivid action and interactionappear quite
early in Mexico. They are already present on
Olmec monuments, such as Altar 5 and Stela
3 fromLa Venta whose strugglinginfants(Fig.
46) and flyingwarriorsverge on the narrative
and perhaps anticipate themes of combat be-
tween paired antagonists. Clearly the Izapan
proclivityfor representingfiguresin dynamic
interrelatedmovement has ancient domestic
roots.Moreover,this tendencydoes not weaken
with time but is sustained and elaborated by
succeeding Mesoamerican cultures.In contrast,
the realistic Moche graphicstyle is an anomaly
within the Andean culturalsphere.Throughout
threemillennia of artisticdevelopment in this
area, the Moche, and only the Moche, depicted
complex graphic narrativescenes showing nu-
merous figuresin vigorous action. Emergingin
theirworkunheraldedby anylocal antecedents,
this representationalidiom disappears without
progenytogetherwith the eclipse ofMoche civ-
ilization. Subsequent Peruvian arts revertto a
formulastressingessentially static and isolated
images.40 All this implies that action-filled,
non-Chavinoid Moche parallels with Izapamay
exist within the framework of a southward
movement of Mesoamerican influence.
Whether some of that influence stemmed im-
mediatelyfromthe Izapan styleto affectMoche
art directlyis a fascinating possibility but, at
present,a moot point. Nor is it clear whether
the non-Chavinoid motifs shared by Izapa and
Moche traveled in only one direction,-afterall,
they could reflect various degrees of Andean
and Mesoamerican reciprocity. Our current
40TherootsofMochearthavebeensought in
variously
Recuay,Gallinazo, andVicus.Noneofthese,how-
Salinar,
everrealistic
someoftheirimagesmaybe,displaysignsof
two-dimensional narrative
graphic in
suchas encountered
theMochescenesdiscussedhere(see Sawyer1968:25;
1966:22;Kubler LarcoHoyle1944;1965b).
1962:249;
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
data are simply too vague to award clearcut pri-
orityto one or anotherarea in all cases.41
The relationship between Chavin and Izapa,
the primarysubject ofthis study,is less ambigu-
ous. There can be little question about Chavin's
chronologicalprecedence. And thoughit would
be desirable to close the time gap thatmay theo-
reticallyseparate the two styles and certain of
the monuments that have been compared, any
serious doubt of connection between Chavin
and Izapan art should be dispelled by the
strengthofthe visual and iconographicsimilari-
ties that they have been shown to share. These
may be summarized as follows:
1. The fanged,grinning,strap-lippedmouth.
2. The fanged, U-shaped monster-snout
depicted fromabove.
3. The mouth with a centralfang.
4. The double-headed serpent-monster.
5. The multiple-outlined,undulating or me-
ander-shaped dragon-serpent with retrousse
tail.
6. The entwined or "knotted" serpent.
7. The floweringmonsterhead.
8. The grotesque masked bird-man with
heraldicallyextendedwings.
9. The grotesque profilebird with drooping
tail and single raised wing.
10. The jaguar with kenned rump mask.
11. Kenned agnathic monster-headfeet.
12. The conch-blower performingbefore a
writhingserpentinecreatureplaced at his feet.
13. The grotesque wrestlerin combat with a
rhythmicallycoiled serpent-dragon.
14. The victorious warrior holding a blood-
gushingtrophyhead in his extended hand.
Finally it may be reiteratedthat, like Chavin
sculpture,Izapan sculpture oftenhas a surface
41For
example,ifIzapaStela50 is a Preclassic
Division
Threemonument (Miles1965:251-2] to be datedaround
thentheithyphallic
300B.C.-A.D.200, skeletononit may
be almostexactly
contemporaneous withMocheversions
ofthesamemotif,tosaynothingoftheProtoclassic phallic
imagesofWesternMexico.
23
profusely covered with elaborate, scrolled,
straplikeformsexecuted in low relief.
The quality of the parallels recapitulated
above as evidence ofcontact does not restsolely
on theircomplexity,-it is augmented by the na-
ture of their occurrence. Considering the arbi-
traryselection imposed by the chances of sur-
vival and the few examples that have come
down to us, one cannot but be impressedby the
high ratio of congruences found in Chavin and
Izapan-styleworks. This frequentincidence of
similarityamong a small group of monuments
suggests fairlyintense influence and therefore
supports the belief that the Pacific Coast of
Guatemala and Chiapas was once a focus of
Andean artistic contact in Preclassic Meso-
america.

24

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Illustrations

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fig.1 Atlihuayan, Olmecfigurine
Morelos, a. face
showing
andb. backoffantastic
jaguar'sskin(after
Covarrubias
1957:Fig.21).

Fig.2 Chavin.Mortar
intheform
ofa jaguar Bennett
(after
1954:Fig.23).

Fig.3 a. Kotosh.Designfrom a bottle,

b. Olmec.Design
from a celt(after
Coe 1962:Fig.2).

Fig.4 Kaminaljuyu.
DetailofStela10(after
EasbyandScott
1970:PL60).

Fig.5 Chavi'ndeHuantar.
DetailoftheLanzon(after
Rowe
1962:Fig.7).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 3

4 5

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 7

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.6 Chiapade Corzo.Detailofdesignon Bone3 from
Tomb1(after 1960:Fig.12).
Agrinier
Fig.7 Chiapade Corzo.Detailofdesignon Bone1 from
Tomb1(after 1960:Fig.13).
Agrinier
Fig.8 ChavindeHuantar.Detailfrom a fragment
ofa cor-
niceorstela(after
Bennett
1942:Fig.19).

Fig.9 ChavindeHuantar.
TheRaimondi
Stone(after
Rowe
1967:Fig.10).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 f

10

11

12

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 13
Fig.10 La Venta.Olmecdesignonanearplug Covar-
(after
rubias1957:Fig.75).

Fig.11 Chavin.Detailofa designon a goldplaque(after

Rowe1967:Fig.23).

Fig.12 Chavinde Huantar.

Designon a fragmentfroma
mortarfoundin theGreatTemple(afterTello 1960:Fig.
126b).

Fig.13 San Jeronimo

CostaGrande.Designon a stone
Covarrubias
plaque(after 1957:Fig.49). 14
Fig.14 Moche.Painteddecoration froma ceramic
vessel
LarcoHoyle1939: PI.XXIX).
(after

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.15 TresZapotes. imagefrom
Dragon StelaD (after
Covarrubias
1957:Fig.23).

Fig.16 Chavi'n
deHuantar. imagefrom
Dragon cornice
atthesouthwest
corner
oftheNewTemple(after
Tello1960:Fig.71).

Fig.17 Izapa.Stela7 (after

a photograph
from
theInstituto
NacionaldeAntropologia
e Historia,
Mexico).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 17

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 19

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.18 a. ClassicMaya.Reportedly
fromtheSouthPacific
Coast.Cylindrical vasewithinciseddesignoftwointer-
twining serpentmonsters KunstdeiMaya1966:Pi.
(after
53,Kat.nr.114).b.ChavindeHuantar. from
Representation
a slabfoundin thepatiooftheNewTemple(after Rowe
1967:Fig.21).
1 (afterCoe
Detailof Petroglyph
Fig.19 Chalcatzingo.
1968a:93).
Stela2 (after
Fig.20 Izapa.Detailfrom from
a photograph
theInstituto
NacionaldeAntropologiae Historia,
Mexico).
Fig.21 ChavindeHuantar. roll-out
Partial ofthereliefs
on
theTelloObelisk(after
Rowe1967:Fig.6).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.22 Izapa.Stela2 (after
a photograph
from e Historia,
NacionaldeAntropologia
theInstituto Mexico).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.23 ChavindeHuantar.
Roll-out oftheguardian
andreconstruction from
angelfigure thenorth
col-
Portal
umnoftheBlack-and-White Rowe1967:Fig.8).
(after

Fig.24 LasLimas,Veracruz. ofa headscratched

Drawing onanOlmecfigure Coe 1968a:114).
(after

Fig.25 Moche.Detailofpainted ona ceramic

decoration vessel(after
LarcoHoyle1939:83).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fig.26 Izapa.Stela25(after
LeeandLowe1968:Fig.5).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.27 Chavfn
deHuantar. eaglefrom
Profile thecornice
oftheBlack-and-White
Portal Rowe1967:
(after
fig.16).
Fig.28 Chavinde Huantar. fromthecornice
Jaguar relief
at thesouthwest
corner
oftheNewTemple
Rowe1962:Fig.34).
(after

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.29 Izapa.Stela6 (after
a photograph
from
theInstituto
NacionaldeAntropologia
e Historia,
Mexico).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.30 Izapa.Stela1 (after
Willey1966:
Fig.3-36).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 31 32

33

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.31. ChavindeHuantar. Detailofa lowerlegfromthe
guardian ofthesouthcolumn
angelfigure oftheBlack-and-
White Portal Rowe1967:Fig.9).
(after

Fig.32 Moche.Detailofpainted
decorationona ceramic
vessel(after
Carrion
Cachot1923:Fig.10).

Fig.33 Moche.Detailofpainted ona ceramic

decoration
Tello1923b:Fig.46).
vessel(after
Roll-out
Fig.34 Kaminaljuyu. onStela9 (after
ofthedesign
EasbyandScott1970:Fig.9).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DesigninChavinstyle
Fig.35 Chiclayo. ona conch
incised
shell(after
Rowe1962:Fig.40].

Fig.36 Moche."Mountain pot (afterWasser-

Sacrifice"
1938:PI.548).
man-SanBlas

Easbyand
Designon Stela19 (after
Fig.37 Kaminaljuyu.
Scott1970:PL59).
Roll-out
Fig.38 ChicamaValley? designona
oftherelief
Cupisnique tumbler
soapstone Rowe1962:Fig.39).
(after

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 37

38

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fig.39 Izapa.Central ofStela21 (after
portion Easbyand
Scott1970:PL58].

Fig.40 Chavinde Huantar.

Figure carvedinlowrelief
on
Tello1960:Fig.81).
53(after
Sculpture

Fig.41 Moche.Detailofa design

ona ceramic
vessel(after
Kutscher1954:Fig.53].

Fig.42 Moche.Detailofa painted ona ceramic

design ves-
sel(after
Disselhoff
andLinne1960:178,Fig.27).

Fig.43 Moche.Detailofa painted ona ceramic

design ves-
sel(after
Tello1923a:Fig.2).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 41

42

43

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.44 Izapa.Central ofStela3 (after
portion 1965:PI.17].
Bushnell 44

Fig.45 Moche.Detailofpainted ona ceramic

decoration vessel(after
Kutscher
1954:Fig.60A).

Fig.46 LaVenta.Olmecrelief onthesideofAltar5 (after

carved Covarrubias
1957:Fig.26).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 45

46

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 47

48

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig.47 Izapa.Stela5 (after
Miles1965:Fig.14).

Fig.48 Moche.Detailofa painted

decoration
on a ce-
ramicvessel(after
Kutscher
1954:Fig.23).

Fig.49 Izapa.Designon Stela12 (after

a photograph
from theInstituto
NacionaldeAntropologla e Historia,
Mexico).

Fig.50 Moche.Detailofa relief ona ceramic

design ves-
sel(after
Kutscher
1954:Fig.13B).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
51

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fig.51 Izapa.Stela50(after
Bernal1969:PL86).

Fig.52 Moche.Ceramic
vessel(after
LarcoHoyle1965a:21).

Fig.53 Moche.Ceramic
vessel(after
Tello1938:PI.87).

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BIBLIOGRAPHY America.KroeberAnthropological Society
Agrinier, Pierre Papers, vol.1,pp.1-27.Berkeley.
1960 TheCarved HumanFemurs from Tomb1,Chiapa Coe,MichaelD.
de Corzo,Chiapas,Mexico.PapersoftheNew 1960 Archaeological Linkages withNorthand South
World Archaeological Foundation , no.6,Pub.no. America atLaVictoria, Guatemala. American An-
5.Orinda. , vol.62,no.3,pp.363-393.
thropologist Menasha.
Badner,Mino,andRobertHeine-Geldern 1962aAnOlmecDesignon an EarlyPeruvian Vessel.
1966 Two StudiesofArtin thePacificArea.Wiener American Antiquity , vol.27,no.4, pp.579-580.
Beitrage zurKulturgeschichte undLinguistik, vol. SaltLakeCity.
15.Vienna. 1962bCosta Rican Archaeology and Mesoamerica.
Wendell C. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, vol. 18,
Bennett,
1942 ChavinStone Carving.Yale Anthropological 1963 no. 2,pp.170-183. Albuquerque.
OlmecandChavin:Rejoinder toLanning. Ameri-
Studies , vol.3. NewHaven. can Antiquity, vol. 29,no. 1, pp. 101-104.Salt
1954 Ancient ArtsoftheAndes.TheMuseumofMod- LakeCity.
ernArt,NewYork. 1965aArchaeological of Southern Veracruz
Synthesis
Bennett, WendellC.,andJunius B.Bird andTabasco.InHandbook ofMiddleAmerican In-
1960 Andean Culture 2nded.revised.
History. Ameri- dians(Robert Wauchope andGordonR. Willey,
can Museumof NaturalHistoryHandbook eds.),vol. 3, pp. 679-715.University of Texas
Series, no.15.TheNatural History Press,Garden Press,Austin.
City. 1965bTheJaguar's Children: Pre-Classic CentralMex-
Benson,ElizabethP. (ed.) ico.TheMuseum ofPrimitive Art,NewYork.
1968 Dumbarton OaksConference ontheOlmec,1967. 1965cThe OlmecStyleandItsDistribution. In Hand-
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collec- bookofMiddleAmerican Indians(Robert Wau-
tion,Washington. chopeandGordon R.Willey, eds.),vol.3,pp.739-
Rainer,JohnA.GrahamandRobertF.Heizer
Berger, 775.University ofTexasPress, Austin.
1967 A Reconstruction oftheAgeoftheLa VentaSite. 1968aAmerica's FirstCivilization. American Heritage
Contributions oftheUniversity ofCalifornia Ar- Publishing Co.,Inc.,NewYork.
chaeological ResearchFacility , no. 3, pp. 1-24. 1968bSanLorenzo andtheOlmecCivilization. InDum-
Berkeley. bartonOaks Conference on the Olmec,1967
(ElizabethP. Benson, ed.),pp.41-78.Dumbarton
Bernal,Ignacio OaksLibrary andCollection,
1969 TheOlmecWorld.(Trans, byDorisHeydenand Washington.
Fernando Horcasitas.) University of California Coe,MichaelD.,RichardA.DiehlandMinzeStuiver
Press,Berkeley andLosAngeles. 1967 OlmecCivilization, Veracruz, Mexico:Datingof
Bird,Junius B. the SanLorenzo Phase. Science,vol.155,no.3768,
1963 Pre-Ceramic Artfrom HuacaPrieta, Chicama Val- pp.1399-1401. Washington.
ley.NawpaPacha, vol.1,pp.29-34.Berkeley. Coe,WilliamR.,andRobertStuckenrath, Jr.
Borhegyi, StephanF. 1964 A ReviewofLa Venta, TabascoandItsRelevance
1965 Archaeological Synthesisof the Guatemalan to the Olmec Problem.The KroeberAnthro-
Highlands. InHandbook ofMiddleAmerican Indi- pologicalSociety Papers, no.31,pp.1-45.Berke-
ans (RobertWauchopeand GordonR. Willey, ley.
eds.),vol.2, pp.3-58.University ofTexasPress, Collier,Donald
Austin. 1955 Cultural Chronology andChangeas Reflected in
Bushnell,G.H.S. theCeramics oftheViruValley, Peru.Fieldiana:
1965 AncientArtsof the Americas.Frederick A. Anthropology, vol.43. ChicagoNaturalHistory
Praeger, NewYork. Museum, Chicago.
Campbell, Joseph Cookde Leonard,Carmen
1964 TheMasksofGod:Occidental Mythology. The 1967 Sculptures and RockCarvings at Chalcatzingo,
Viking Press,NewYork. Morelos. Contributions oftheUniversity ofCali-
CarrionCachot,Rebeca forniaArchaeological Research Facility,no.3,pp.
1923 La Mujery el Ninoenel Antiguo Peru.Inca,vol. 57-84.Berkeley.
1,no.2,pp.329-354. Lima. COVARRUBIAS, MlGUEL
Caso,Alfonso 1954 TheEagle,theJaguar andtheSerpent: IndianArt
1965 Sculpture andMuralPainting ofOaxaca.InHand- oftheAmericas. Alfred A.Knopf, NewYork.
bookofMiddleAmerican Indians(Robert Wau- 1957 IndianArtofMexicoandCentral America. Alfred
chopeandGordon R.Willey, eds.),vol.3,pp.849- A.Knopf, NewYork.
870.University ofTexasPress, Austin. Disselhoff,H.D.,andSigvaldLinne
Chard,ChesterS. 1960 TheArtofAncient America. CrownPublishers,
1950 Pre-Columbian Tradebetween NorthandSouth Inc.,NewYork.

54

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Drucker,Philip,RobertF.HeizerandRobertJ.Squier mentin LatinAmerica: AnInterpretive Review
1959 Excavations atLaVenta, Tabasco,1955.Bureauof (BettyJ.Meggers and Clifford C. Evans,eds.),
American Ethnology Bulletin170.Smithsonian Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections146,no.
Institution,
Washington. 1,Publication4517,pp.89-101. Washington.
Easby,ElizabethKennedy, andJohnF.Scott Kubler,George
1970 Before Cortes:Sculpture ofMiddleAmerica. The 1962 The Artand Architecture ofAncientAmerica:
MetropolitanMuseumofArt,NewYork. TheMexican, Maya,andAndean Peoples.ThePel-
Ekholm, SusannaM. icanHistory ofArt(NikolausPevsner, ed.),Pen-
1969 Mound30a andtheEarlyPreclassic CeramicSe- guinBooks, Baltimore.
quenceofIzapa,Chiapas,Mexico.Papersofthe KunstderMaya,
New WorldArchaeological Foundation , no. 25. 1966 KunstderMayaaus Staats-undPrivatbesitz der
Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo. RepublikGuatemala. Exhibition,Wallraf-
Evans,Clifford, andBettyJ.Meggers Richartz-Museum, Cologne.Rautenstrauch-
1966 Mesoamerica andEcuador. InHandbook ofMiddle Joest-Museum, Cologne.
American Indians(Robert Wauchope, Gordon Ek- Kutscher,Gerdt
holmandGordon R.Willey,eds.),vol.4,pp.243- 1950 Chimu:eine Altindianische Hochkultur. Gebr.
264.University ofTexasPress, Austin. Mann,Berlin.
A. 1954 Nordperuanische Keramik. Gebr.Mann,Berlin.
Ford,James 1967 IconographicStudies as anAidintheReconstruc-
1969 A Comparison of Formative Culturesin the tionofEarlyChimuCivilization. InPeruvian Ar-
Americas: DiffusionorthePsychic Unity ofMan.
Smithsonian Contributions toAnthropology, vol. chaeology:SelectedReadings(JohnHowland
11.Washington. Roweand DorothyMenzel,eds.),pp. 115-124.
PeekPublications, PaloAlto.
Frankfort, Henri EdwardP.
1955 TheArtandArchitecture oftheAncient Orient. Lanning,
PelicanHistory ofArt.Penguin Baltimore. 1963 OlmecandChavin:ReplytoMichaelCoe.Ameri-
Books, canAntiquity, vol.29,no.1,pp.99-101.SaltLake
Fraser,Douglas F.(ed.) City.
1968 EarlyChineseArtandthePacificBasin:A Pho- 1967 PeruBeforethe Incas.Prentice-Hall, Inc.,En-
tographic Exhibition.InterculturalArtsPress, glewoodCliffs.
NewYork. LarcoHoyle,Rafael
Grove,DavidC. LosMochicas.
1938-39 2 vols.Lima.
1970 The San PabloPantheon Mound:A MiddlePre- 1944 CulturaSalinar.SociedadGeografica Americana,
classicSitein Morelos, Mexico.American An- BuenosAires.
,vol.35,no.1,pp.62-73.SaltLakeCity.
tiquity 1948 CronologiaArqueologica delNortedel Peru.So-
Heine-Geldern, Robert ciedadGeografica Americana, BuenosAires.
1959 Representations oftheAsiaticTigerintheArtof 1965aChecan.NagelPublishers, Geneva,Paris,Mun-
theChavinCulture: A ProofofEarlyContacts be- ich.
tweenChinaandPeru.In ActasdelXXXIIICon- 1965bLa Ceramica deVicus.Linia.
gresoInternacional de Americanistas, San Jose, 1966 Peru.(Trans,byJames TheWorldPub-
Hogarth.)
vol.1,pp.321-326. SanJose. Co.,Cleveland
lishing andNewYork.
1966 TheProblem ofTranspacific Influences inMeso- Lathrap,Donald W.
america.In HandbookofMiddleAmerican In- 1966 Relationshipsbetween Mesoamerica andtheAn-
dians(RobertWauchope, GordonEkholmand deanAreas.InHandbook ofMiddleAmerican In-
GordonR. Willey,eds.),vol. 4, pp. 277-295. dians(RobertWauchope, GordonEkholmand
UniversityofTexasPress, Austin. Gordon R. Willey, eds.),vol.4,pp.265-276. Uni-
Heyerdahl, Thor ofTexasPress,
versity Austin.
1959 GuaraSailingTechniqueIndigenous to South Lee,ThomasA.,Jr.,andGarethW.Lowe
America. In ActasdelXXXIIICongreso Interna- n.d. SituacionArqueologica delasEsculturas deIzapa.
cionaldeAmericanistas, SanJose, vol.1,pp.333- Sponsored by B.Y.U. FundacionArqueologica
340.SanJose. NuevoMundo, 1968.
Kidder,Alfred,II Lowe,GarethW.,andJ.AldenMason
1940 SouthAmerican PenetrationsinMiddleAmerica. 1965 ArchaeologicalSurvey oftheChiapasCoast,High-
In TheMayaandTheirNeighbors. D. Appleton- landsandUpperGrijalva Basin.In Handbook of
Century Co., Inc.,New Yorkand London,re- MiddleAmerican Indians(Robert Wauchope and
printedbytheUniversity ofUtahPress,1962,Salt Gordon R. Willey, eds.),vol.2,pp.195-236. Uni-
LakeCity. ofTexasPress,
versity Austin.
Kidder,Alfred,II, LuisG. Lumbreras S. andDavid B. Metraux,Alfred
Smith 1949 Warfare,Cannibalism and HumanTrophies. In
1963 CulturalDevelopment in the CentralAndes - Handbook ofSouthAmerican Indians(Julian H.
PeruandBolivia.InAboriginal CulturalDevelop- Steward,ed.),vol.5,pp.383-409. BureauofAmeri-

55

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 canEthnology BulletinNo. 143.Smithsonian In- della Santa,Elizabeth
stitution,
Washington. 1959 LesCupisniques etl'OriginedesOlmeques. Revue
Miles,S.W. del'Universite deBruxelles, NewSeries,vol.11,
1965 Sculpture oftheGuatemala-Chiapas Highlands pp.340-363. Brussels.
andPacificSlopes,andAssociated Hieroglyphs. In Sawyer, AlanR.
HandbookofMiddleAmerican Indians(Robert 1966 AncientPeruvian Ceramics: The NathanCum-
Wauchope andGordon R.Willey, eds.),vol.2,pp. mingsCollection. TheMetropolitan Museumof
237-275.
University ofTexasPress, Austin. Art,NewYork.
NordenskiOld, Erland 1968 Mastercraftsmen of AncientPeru.SolomonR.
1931 Originsof the IndianCivilizations in South Guggenheim Foundation, NewYork.
America.Comparative Ethnographical Studies9. Stirling,MatthewW.
Goteborg. 1943 StoneMonuments ofSouthern Mexico.Bureauof
Porter,MurielNoi American Ethnology Bulletin138.Smithsonian
1953 TlatilcoandthePre-Classic Cultures oftheNew Institution,
Washington.
World.VikingFund Publications in Anthro- Tello, Julio
no.19.NewYork.
pology, 1923aObservaciones deleditoral discurso delprofesor
Proskouriakoff,Tatiana Seler.Inca,vol.1,no.2,pp.375-382. Lima.
1965 Sculpture andMajorArtsoftheMayaLowlands. 1923bWiraKocha.Inca,vol.1,no.1,pp.93-320. Lima.
InHandbook ofMiddleAmerican Indians(Robert 1938 Arteantiguo peruano. Inca,vol.2.Lima.
Wauchope andGordon R.Willey, eds.),vol.2,pp. 1960 Chavin: CulturaMatriz dela Civilizacion
Andina.
469-497.
University ofTexasPress, Austin. Universidad NacionalMayorde San Marcos,
1968 OlmecandMayaArt:Problems ofTheirStylistic Lima.
In Dumbarton
Relation. OaksConference on the Tolstoy,Paul,andLouiseI. Paradis
Olmec,1967(Elizabeth P. Benson, ed.),pp. 119- 1970 EarlyandMiddlePreclassic Culturein theBasin
134.Dumbarton OaksResearch Library andCol- ofMexico.Science, vol.167,no.3917,pp.344-351.
lection,
Washington. Washington.
Rands,RobertL. vonWinning, Hasso
1955 SomeManifestations ofWaterin Mesoamerican 1968 Pre-Columbian Artof Mexico and Central
Art.BureauofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 157, America. Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,NewYork.
pp.265-393.Smithsonian Institution, Washing- Wasserman-San Blas,BrunoJ.
ton. 1938 Ceramicas delAntiguo Perudela Coleccion Was-
Rowe,John Howland serman-San Bias.CasaJacobo Lda.,Buenos
Peuser,
1962 ChavinArt:AnInquiry intoItsFormandMean- Aires.
ing.TheMuseum ofPrimitive
Art,NewYork. Willey,GordonR.
1967 FormandMeaning inChavinArt.InPeruvian Ar- 1966 AnIntroduction toAmerican Archaeology,vol.1:
chaeology:SelectedReadings(JohnHowland NorthandMiddleAmerica. Prentice-Hall,
Inc.,
RoweandDorothy Menzel,eds.),pp.72-103. Peek Englewood Cliffs.
PaloAlto.
Publications,

56

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:32:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions