jiRT. 14. THE JADE OF THE TUXTLA STATUETTE WASHINGTON. 1.1 



jnarked contrast with the narrower and ovel face, the generally more 

 rounded eye, the prevailing curved or aquiline nose, and the grim 

 expression of most of the faces of later Mayan art. Some of thpse 

 peculiarities of the Tuxtla statuette may, it is true, have been de- 

 termined by the shape of the boulder from which the figure was 

 carved. Most of the Mayan representations of the human face are in 

 profile, except in the large stelae, and this may possibly account for 

 some of the differences. But the differences between the Tuxtla 

 and the usual Mayan sculptural representation of the face are so 

 marked that it would seem to be possible that the Tuxtla statuette 

 represents a racial type distinct from that of the Maya.^^ 



4. It appears to be generally assumed that the Tuxtla statuette 

 represents a god ; but it is suggested here that it represents rather a 

 priest dressed in ceremonial costume, who wears a bird mask and a 

 cloak that siniulates the body and wings of the bird. 



Masks were commonly worn among Amerindian tribes during 

 various ceremonies, with the object of representing some animal of 

 totemic or other significance. The idea that the bird's beak is part 

 of a mask is suggested by the fact that it is placed below the man's 

 nose, leaving the whole of this and the upper part of the face visible, 

 as well as the ears and ear plugs at the two sides. Some Amerindian 

 masks covered only part of the face, as among the Hopis,'^ and Hodge 

 gives an illustration ^* of a figure in repousse copper from Etowah 

 Mound, Georgia, who wears a mask that represents a bird's beak, 

 with a strap covering the chin, the man's eyes, nose, and mouth being 

 all very evident. There are examples in Mayan art of masks only 

 partially covering the face, according to an oral communication from 

 Doctors Morley and Spinden. 



The legs and feet below the wings seem to me to be those of a man, 

 rather than those of a bird, as the feet are quite thick a«d are curved 

 at the heel and at the base of the toes; the toes, also, are parallel 

 and are nob divergent as are those of a bird. It is true that the feet 

 are sketched in simply, with incised lines, but it is difficult to believe 

 that the artist who could delineate the beak so well that the genus 

 and even the species are recognizable should at the same time repre- 

 sent the flat, wide foot of the Cochleariiis, with its highly divergent 

 toes, in such an unnatural and uncouth way as we see here. 



'6 Doctor Morley was kind enough to read over this manuscript and has given me permission to say 

 that, in his opinion, the stylistic and somatological difTerenees are so marked that, were it not for the 

 undoubtedly Mayan glyphs, the statuette would be incapable of interpretation as belonging to Mayan 

 culture. This independent convergence of opinion lends some weight to the hypothesis that the Tuxtl t 

 Statuette is not of Mayan origin. 



I'F. W. Hodge, Handbook of American Indians, vol. 1, p. Slfi. 1<)1'2. 



'8 Hodge, Idem., pp. 340 and S4S. 



