FEWKES] ARCHEOLOGICAL OBJECTS 173 



shed some light on the relationship between stone collars and three- 

 jDointed idols. Reference is here made to the otijects which, from their 

 shape, may be called ' ' elbow stones." " several of which occur in differ- 

 ent collections. Some of these stones closely resemble fractured or 

 broken collars of the slender ovate type and often have parts which 

 may be compared to the boss, panel, and panel margin of entire col- 

 lars. The finish of the extremities of the elbow stones indicates that 

 they are not broken collars, but are of anothei type having some simi- 

 larity to the stone collars. Their signiticance in relation to the theory 

 that three-pointed stones and collars were the two component parts of 

 a single object lies in the fact that a head resembling a mask-like three- 

 pointed stone is sometimes found on the part of the elbow stone cor- 

 responding to the undecorated i)anel of the stone collar. The face is 

 cut on the undecorated panel instead of being fastened to it. as in the 

 case of collar stones. 



Two examples of these elbow stones with faces may l)e mentioned 

 to illustrate their significance in this connection; one (plate LXix. i, V) is 

 figured by Mason, the other by Pinart. Professor iVIason is doubtful 

 whether the specimen which he illustrates* is a broken collar adapted 

 to a secondary use or belongs to a distinct class. Something could be 

 said in support of the former supposition, but there are similar speci- 

 mens whose resemblance to a broken collar is less apparent. The 

 elbow stone figured by Pinart '" has a human face represented on that 

 part of its surface which coi-responds to the undecorated panel of a 

 collar. In his description of this object, Pinart writes: '"L'orne- 

 mentution des premiers varie assez, bien que le principal sujet de 

 Tornementation se trouve toujours a la partie ou la collier presente un 

 rentlement. Cette ornementation represente dans la cas presente une 

 figure humaine; nous avons lecontre egalement la grenouille, la 

 chouette, etc." 



The figures of the above-mentioned objects resemble each other so 

 far as the position of the face is concerned, the ears and iillet over the 

 forehead being in both instances well represented. Pinart's specimen 

 has the arms, or extensions comparable with that portion of the body 

 of a collar, longer than those figured by Mason, and they are beaded 

 at the extremity, a feature not represented in any stone collar. Sim- 

 ilar beading is found on an elbow stone figured by Mason '' in which 

 no face is cut on the panel region, and the same feature occurs in a 

 rude elbow stone which was collected at Ponce. In the Mason speci- 



aThis designation, here used for the first time. Is a convenient one to apply to thici group of stone 

 objects peculiar to Porto Rico and Santo Domingo. The group includes many aberrant forms of 

 elbow shape, the exact use of which is problematical. One of these is illustrated by Mason. The 

 American JIuseum in New York has several beautiful elbow stones. 



& Figure 58. The Latimer Collection of Antiquities from Porto Rico in tlie National Museum at 

 Washington. D. C. Smithsonmi Report. 1876. 



cSee Pinart, plate x, figure 3. 



dFigure 195, The Latimer Collection. 



