Chapter D: Pl. 5

Male, standing figure. Head, chest with arms, and upper part of legs broken off, and lying in four pieces on the ground. The pedestal was square, with the upper part ornamented with angular wreaths; it remained fixed in the ground in its original place, and carried still the feet and the legs (to the knees) of the figure. The face was of quite a different type from those of A and B, with very prominent cheek-bones, large lips, and strongly protruding under-jaw; it was adorned with a crown-shaped head-gear. The ears were also here hidden by flat pieces, thickening upwards, with the lower corners rounded. The back of this statue, as well as its position in the periphery of the stone-mound, points to its having formed part of the wall of the building; but it seems not, however, to have served the purpose of supporting the roof, because the upper part of the crown was finely chiselled, and exhibited no trace of a tenon. It differed in this point from all the other statues in the circumference of the mound 1, with the exception of E 1, that was situated almost opposite to D at the western longside. The height of the head from the upper rim of the crown to the lower edge of the chin was 45 cm. The length of the trunk from the shoulders to the thighs was 60 cm. The breadth across the shoulders was 54 cm.

D 1

Not figured.

At a distance of 5 m. from D, in the periphery of the mound, there rose obliquely from the ground a male, half-sitting statue with its arms crossed. The head and the uppermost part of the chest with the exception of the right shoulder were wanting, and could not be identified among the existing fragments. It wore a beard reaching to the crossed arms, being in this respect as well as in posture and workmanship very like F. It measured 102 cm. from the shoulder to the thighs. The breadth across the shoulders seemed to have been less than 50 cm.

D 2

Not figured.

Near the place that ought to have been occupied by the next statue, there were lying fragments of an unusually narrow, square pedestal or pillar. It was narrower than the following E, but in other respects it resembled this more than it did any of the others found here.

E

Pl. 5.

Contrary to the other images of this mound, indeed, of this whole locality, it did not represent a human figure, but formed a square pillar, provided with carvings on its front side. It carried a narrower superstructure (tenon), bordered in front by a sharp-cut frame, 6 cm. broad, 3 cm. deep. The carvings on the front side of the pillar itself consisted of wreaths somewhat more than 2 cm. deep with a breadth varying from 3 to 5 cm. They appeared to represent the head of an animal with an eye surrounded by two concentric circles. The sides of the pillar were narrower, smooth, without any traces of wreaths, but bordered by a square-cut frame, 6 cm. broad and 3 cm. deep. The back of the pillar, which was turned towards the building, was rough, without any frame. The front side was provided with a frame only above, and along the eastern side. The front side of the pillar was 50 cm. broad, the lateral sides 37 cm. broad. The tenon was 40 cm. in height by 38 cm. in breadth. The pillar was so deeply imbedded in the ground, that in spite of our digging strenuously, I did not succeed to lay bare more than about 125 cm. of its length, reckoned from the upper edge of the tenon.

E 1

Not figured.

Male, standing, much damaged. The human figure supported on his head the head of a massive animal of the feline genus, by its form most reminding one of the _African_ or _Persian_ lion(!). The statue was thrown down and broken in several pieces; only the head of the animal was so far preserved as to enable one to discern something of the original sculpture. Upon this head was part of a square tenon. The length of the statue from the upper edge of the forehead to the thighs was 84 cm., the breadth across the shoulders 39 cm., the length of the face 24 cm. The head of the animal was 54 cm. high and 52 cm broad.

E 2

Not figured.

Fragments of a female, sitting statue were shattered in the vicinity of the place, that should have been occupied by the tenth statue. The head was adorned with a turban-shaped head-dress, without any trace of a tenon. It is, however, very uncertain whether this statue has formed part of the series.

Between the last-mentioned statue and F there was not the least vestige to be found of that statue which ought to have been the eleventh in number, when reckoned from A.

F

Pl. 6, 7, and 8.

Male, half-sitting figure, with its right arm hanging straight down, and its left one bent, and resting on the chest. According to my impression, received on regarding the statue and sketching it, it represented a chieftain or warrior with a mask before his face and a helmet on his head. I have arrived at this conclusion from the reasons, viz. that the face was here incomparably much stiffer than in the other images, without the slightest attempt of indicating the muscles, the cheeks, or the mouth; further that the eyes were marked by two concentric circles with a little (peeping-)hole in the centre, and that the whole face and the covering of the head were so much broader proportionally to the breadth of the body than in the other statues. (A somewhat similar head was found on the heavily injured statue at the mound 5.) The head-cover may be considered to exhibit the form of a helmet; this reached to the shoulders at both sides, hiding the ears completely; but nearly at the place of the ears there was on each side a shallow circular depression with a small excavation, probably representing a hole, in the centre. From the lower part of the helmet a thick elevation, grooved length-wise in front, came down over the chest. It may be regarded as representing a breast-armour, or possibly a beard. From the face itself, below the nose, a piece of the same shape as the just described elevation was seen to descend, but it was of much smaller dimensions. The left shoulder with the bent arm was somewhat more raised than the right. Both shoulders were uncommonly large and broad, so that the artist almost seems to have intended to indicate the blade-bone. The arms were pressed close to the body, disproportionately narrow when viewed from the front, but more than sufficiently broad when viewed from the side. On its left bent fore-arm the statue held a little round shield, at the anterior margin of which the hand projected, showing, unusually enough, the thumb of the same length with the index. The chest and abdomen were sculptured with some signs of muscles. The legs were short and thick, the feet clumsy, with no traces of toes. The image stood on a pedestal, the upper part of which showed a deep cavetto. The pedestal was deeply immersed into the ground. Immediately above the helmet was the square tenon. The length of the statue from the upper edge of the tenon to the upper edge of the pedestal was 207 cm. The breadth across the shoulders was 57 cm., that of the head 36 cm. The statue was on the whole well preserved, and stood, no doubt, in its original situation.

As it seems to be beyond a doubt that the above described statues, which were found standing more or less erect, and at almost equal distances, nearly five meters from one another, remained in the situations where they had been originally placed, it cannot be considered too bold, to suppose that we have here before us an ancient temple exhibiting an example of how such a building might be arranged with the Niquirans. It is evident that the ground-plan of the edifice has been a broad oval, and it is highly probable, on account of the back of the statues not being elaborated, but only roughly cut, that it has not been open, but enclosed by walls, the statues serving as pilasters. However, it must be admitted that this latter circumstance is far from being proved. The figures A and B, being larger than the others in the periphery, and more deeply fixed in the ground, may possibly have stood at each side of the entrance or perhaps of a flight of steps, leading up into the temple. The roof was probably supported by a plate of stone or wood, carrying light rafters, covered with palm leaves or such like materials.

STONE-MOUND 2.

This mound, also oval, was much smaller than mound 1; its longer diameter was eighteen meters, the shorter twelve. It was situated due E. of 1, separated from it by a depression in the ground, ten to twelve meters in breadth, and was made up of more or less irregular stones. It is impossible to decide whether this mound has also been surrounded by a series of statues, and in such a case, by which, because even those statues which were found in the neighborhood of it, did not remain in situ, but were overthrown, and more or less broken. The same was also the case with the four remaining stone-mounds. Thus I shall only briefly indicate their situations, and then return to the description of the statues in the order that they were measured and delineated.

STONE-MOUND 3.

It was situated due S. of mound 2, and held rather the same dimensions, but it was less symmetrical in form. Near it only R and R 1, two large stone-slabs, lids, or parts of a wall, ornamented with human figures in high-relief, were found.

STONE-MOUND 4.

Due S. of mound 1. Respectively twelve and ten meters in diameter. Near it the statues M, P and Q were found, none of which can, however, be with certainty alleged to have been roof-supporter. P has surely stood quite free.

STONE-MOUND 5.

Situated furthest southwards, of the same dimensions as mound 2, but containing a much less quantity of stones. Only one statue, F 1, was found there.

STONE-MOUND 6.

The smallest of all, situated furthest to the east, of a more irregular form. In its vicinity three statues were found, of which only one, O, was delineated. The others were crushed into small fragments.

The smaller objects found by excavations made in, and beside these mounds, will be spoken of in connection with the other ceramic relics, discovered in Ometepec and Zapatera.

I now return to the description of the several statues.

G

Pl. 9 and 10.

This statue, a double figure, was dug up out of the ground between the mounds 1 and 2. It has probably stood free, because considerable portions of its back were well elaborated. It is quite evident, that it has not served to support a roof, as the upper part of the head of the upper figure wanted every trace of a tenon, and was carefully finished. It represented a male figure, somewhat stooping, with bent arms, the hands leaning on the hips. Upon this human figure that of an animal was seated, embracing with its fore-paws the head of the male figure. The animal was probably intended to represent a monkey. The male figure had an ugly face, with a long straight nose; the eyes were formed by quite circular cavities, the mouth was widely open, and the chin very short. The ears were covered by thick, square, flat pieces, as in the image B. The neck was long, the shoulders were much raised, large and powerful; the arms were bent, pressed close to the sides of the body, very narrow when seen from the front, broad and flat when seen side-ways. The chest and stomach were pretty roughly worked; the muscles however were sharply marked. The legs were short, without any trace of muscles or even of knees. The feet were completely wanting, the legs being abruptly cut off. The second figure, the monkey, rested its lower jaw upon the head of the principal figure, clasping the hind part of it with its long fingers. The head was large, with prominent muzzle and jaws, low, curved forehead, and broad nose, with round nostrils. The hanging ears were long and broad, rounded backwards. The mouth was open, showing strong, sharp teeth. The fore-legs or arms were very long, the fore-arm was bent at a right angle to the upper arm, the shoulder-blades were very broad and powerful. The back was strongly curved inwards, the tail long, longer than the animal itself, hanging straight down. The hind legs were short, strongly bent, drawn up towards the abdomen, and abruptly cut off above the feet, as in the principal figure. The length of the statue from the top of the animal’s head to the upper edge of the pedestal was 175 cm. The breadth of the human figure across the shoulders was 31 cm.; the breadth of the monkey across the shoulders was 21 cm.

G 1

Not figured.

It was of the same kind as G, i. e. representing a human figure, on whose shoulders and head an animal was seated. It was much damaged, and almost impossible to delineate. The anterior portion of the animal’s head was crushed, as were also the legs and arms of the human image, whose face seemed designed to represent a skull with a long neck. The face of the principal figure was 21 cm. long. The length of the animal from the crown of the head to the root of the tail was 50 cm. The legs and claws of this animal were larger than those of the monkey in G.

G 2

Not figured.

Male torso, impossible to complete. It was lying near G, and seemed to have belonged to the mound 2. It measured 57 cm. from the shoulder to the thighs. The breadth across the shoulders was 48 cm.

H

Pl. 11.

Male, sitting image. This is the first representative of a kind of idol, of which, as far as I know, not more than a single one from Central America previously has been figured.[6] SQUIER has also given an illustration of a statue from _Pensacola_ (Las Isletas), in which a head of an animal is placed upon the head of a human figure, but there the animal’s head evidently serves only as a helmet; this seems also to be the case with the above-mentioned image E 1, from the western side of the stone-mound 1. With regard to the present image, on the contrary, I believe that the head of the animal is the more important figure, representing a deity, the human figure being nothing but the bearer of the god, viz. a kind of caryatid. I formed this opinion on account of the very strongly marked supporting postures exhibited by the three human figures, bearing heads of animals, which follow next in my description. Of the image H only the upper portion remained; this showed, that the human figure had been sitting, or half-sitting, but not in what manner the arms had been used as supports. The head of the animal was a splendid head of a jaguar, very finely elaborated, and pretty well preserved. The mouth was somewhat open, showing distinctly elaborated lips, blunt molars and sharp, large cuspids. The muzzle was somewhat longer than necessary, the nostrils oval, somewhat widened; the eyes formed oval cavities, powerfully cut; the ears were rather small, with the margins, as it were, indented. Two volutes and a powerful intumescence at the sides were possibly designed to mark the strong muscles of the head. The human figure was carefully elaborated. The face was well preserved, with the exception of the mouth and the chin, that were cut off with a chisel, or some other keen instrument. The forehead was rather low and separated from the head of the jaguar, by a roll or fillet. The nose was large, almost straight; the eyes were rather small, the cheeks full, the cheek-bones not prominent. The ears were unusually small, of natural shape. The neck was particularly vigorous, the muscles of the breast well developed. The shoulders and upper arms were full, and well cut, the arms not quite detached from the sides. The back of the statue not being elaborated seems to indicate that it has been placed against or in a wall. That it has not served the purpose of supporting a roof, is proved by the finely hewn upper side of the jaguar’s head with its erect ears. The head of the jaguar was 63 cm. long; its height from the top to the lower hinder corner was 42 cm. The height of the ear was 10 cm. The length of the face of the human figure was 24 cm.

[6] SQUIER, l. c., p. 64, and the plate facing the same page.