Covarrubias, The Eagle, the Jaguar, and the Serpent

 Miguel Covarrubias, was a Mexican born artist and early pioneer of the study of pre-Columbian art. He spent much of his life in New York City in the 1920’s, and 30’s, and achieved a level of fame and success as an illustrator and caricaturist whose work appeared in Vanity Fair and the New Yorker. At the same time he was a painter and did some public commissions. When he and his wife returned to Mexico City he continued to work and develop his ideas on pre-Columbian art, whose study was in its infancy. He was multidisciplinary in his approach, and willing and able to draw comparisons  between different cultures, unconstrained by the siloed approach scholars take today. In his time, there was not much known about the Mayans, and the Olmecs had only just been identified/discovered, and the timeline was conjectural and has been changed by new discoveries. The most important development since his time is our ability to read Mayan hieroglyphs and finally understand what was written on the buildings and stelas with inscriptions. But he had an eye, and his pioneering work is still valuable to us today. 

In his book, “The Eagle, the Jaguar, and the Serpent”,  he related the art of China to that of the Mayans, and made comparisons around the Pacific rim cultures with the art of various places of the Americas. It is quite amazing the comparisons he came up with, and attempted to systematize by types. His explanation for these similarities was a theory of diffusion, which is the transmission of motifs and ideas through contact with other cultures, either directly by a person from one culture finding their way to the other culture, or by transmission, with no direct contact but people being influenced by other cultures via intermediate cultures.  Diffusion is difficult to accept in this case, as the time and space differentials are so great. Archaic Chinese art dates to between 1500 to 200 B.C., while the height of the Mayan cultures isn’t until 300 to 1000 A.D., roughly speaking. But the visual similarities he highlights are uncanny and undeniable. And then there is the problem of a lack of evidence of direct contact or explanation as to how these motifs spread over such a distance and long time period.

Illustration by Covarrubias in his book, “The Eagle, the Jaguar, and the Serpent”. 

Covarrubias describes the problem thusly; 

“….the scientific world is now sharply divided into “diffusionist”(those who believe in an early diffusion of Asiatic and Pacific cultural traits through America) and “isolationists”(those who claim that all Indian culture was a local development)…..”

I would say it is the isolationists who are predominant today, you don’t hear about diffusionist theories. However, the isolationists also don’t address the similarities evident in the visual artistic record or suggest any alternative explanation. 

While much of the scholarship of Covarrubias has been superseded by new discoveries, he does present intriguing ideas that are not addressed by modern scholars. They simply ignore the issue as unsolvable and unexplainable and therefor don’t look at it. I do have some ideas for explaining the similarity, but those I will discuss later.

In this exhibition, I am presenting the early Chinese jades from my collection  in relation to the art of the Mayans from the surviving architecture here in the Yucatan. This exhibition is a visual exercise and meant to be thought provoking. It is a subject that I would like to see explored further and I am convinced that in time we will understand these similarities, as there is so much we are still discovering about the Mayans and ancient American civilizations.  

Opening my gallery in Merida; Inaugural Exhibition, Monster Masks in Chinese and Mayan art

    

              

On left, jade pendant with monster mask from China, Western Chou Dynasty, ca 1000 B.C.

On the right, stacked God masks from the facade of the Codz Poop, Kabah, Yucatan, 7th to 10th Century A.D.      

     After 5 years of living in Merida I am opening a gallery in my front sala with a small exhibition showing the visual commonalities between archaic Chinese motifs and those of Mayan art. I have been looking at archaic and early Chinese art for most of my life, from the time I was first exposed to it when I was at Harvard and saw the Grenville Winthrop collection in the Fogg Art Museum. It was not a subject I pursued for study, at the time I was most captivated by the art of the ancient classical world, Greece and Rome and ancient Egypt. Later when I was dealing in antiquities, it was the art of Classical Antiquity that I handled. But early Chinese art is something I have always looked at and sought out on my visits to museums here and abroad.

    In the last two decades, I began to see very fine examples of Archaic Chinese jades on the market at prices that seemed like bargains, as well as early Chinese Buddhist sculpture. I started buying a few jades and then also some early Chinese Buddhist sculpture as the people who came into my gallery responded to them. It was also becoming more difficult  to source or afford the level of Greek and Roman sculpture that I wanted to handle. Over the past decade before I moved to Merida, I had bought and sold a number of fine jades and Buddhist sculptures. 

I moved to Merida in fall of 2019, and moved into my house in January 2020. I had in my mudanza a part of my collection, without a clear idea of what I would do with them. But the idea of having a gallery exhibiting them was in my mind and was a factor in choosing the house I did buy as it has a large front room suitable for exhibiting sculpture. However the pandemic took the wind out of my sails and I became somewhat detached from my own collection. I feel now I am coming back into my own self again, and this exhibition is part of that. 

My interest in ancient art is catholic with a small c, wide ranging and inclusive. I find the art of different cultures and times to be fascinating in that they illustrate the many different solutions different peoples came to problems or issues common to us all. In the case of the Meso-American world, some of those ideas are quite alien and for some, repulsive. I am speaking here about blood sacrifice which has been part of that belief system since the very beginning and reached its apogee with the Aztecs and their large scale human sacrifice. Attempting to wrap ones mind around such a different view of the world and of life is challenging. I don’t judge, rather I would like to understand what was in the minds of these people who practiced such things. 

Art allows us the most direct and unmitigated view into these other alien cultures mind set, even if we don’t fully understand what we are seeing, on some non verbal level it is communicating and it can resonate with us. There is still so much we don’t know about the pre-Columbian world, and while knowledge is expanding and new discoveries are still being made, we are far from having a full picture. 

The relationship between early Chinese motifs and the art of the Mayans specifically is something we cannot explain at this point but is very apparent. I present these objects and images simply to provoke thought and illustrate the value of looking at Mayan art in relation to the art of other cultures times and places. If anything, it reaffirms the value and standing of Meso-American art as one of the world's great traditions worthy of being shown with that of the old world and the unexpected similarities we find. 

Aké, a little known site and how it relates to Merida.

View of Hacienda Aké 

I have only recently discovered the little known, and under appreciated, Mayan site of Aké, which is about an hour from Merida to the east. I have heard of it before, but it was closed during the pandemic, as were all the archeological sites here, and was very late to reopen. While what is visible is not a large area and its lack of renown could lead one to think Aké was a minor Mayan city, the ruins themselves tell a different story; they speak of glory and power. Currently located in a small tipical Yucatecan village, and I mean small, which has an open plaza in front of a hacienda which is built by, on top of, and among the remaining ruins. Fronting the open green plaza is the main hacienda house flanked on one side by the remains of a rather tall and steep pyramid. 

Between the pyramid and the main hacienda house is a small chapel, built on top of another Mayan pyramid. You can see through the trees around it, that behind it and the hacienda house, are more ruined buildings, and all of this is before you come to the main archeological site another 100 yards away. Just before the entrance is an impressive long low platform behind a fence, which is not open to the public, but part of what must have been a grand Mayan city. 

Platform visible from the parking area.

Large pyramid after the entrance

Just after the entrance, there is a large multi-stepped pyramid of some size and height, made of large stone blocks, megalithic construction, with the stonework to support large god masks which would have been finished in thick stucco. The pyramid has rounded corners like the massive platform at Izamal. The scale of the god masks, and the large cyclopean blocks date this temple to the pre-Classic period, about 200 A.D. Meso-American pyramid temples are layered, and hard to read when in semi restored condition as this one is. On one side are protruding platforms, which leads me to think that maybe there was another pyramid constructed on top of the pre-Classic one. This is certainly the case in other sites, but I don't know enough about Aké. 

The Palace

View of the Palace and the steps of large blocks

The most photographed and emblematic structure at Aké is this long platform topped by columns, which is referred to as The Palace. While it is more likely a temple rather than residence, the name is a handy way to distinguish it from the other structures. Wide and low, this building is deceptive. Upon approach, you realize the large size of the blocks it is constructed of are truly cyclopean. What appears to be a low platform is higher than one thinks, and it takes effort to scale the steps, which are difficult to climb, and must have been very challenging in antiquity given the average size of the Mayans. The columns on top are in fact quite large and rather tall and they must have supported a roof of wood, much like the forest of columns at Chichen Itza. 

View from top of the Palace

From the top of the Palace is a view of the plaza, where to the right is the large pyramid and beyond that can be seen another tall forested mound, which is is another large pyramid, still awaiting restoration. The verdant forest surrounding the site no doubt hides many other structures, for this was a major Mayan city in antiquity.

Some of the large stone blocks of the early period of construction

The third platform temple of the main plaza

The ruins atAké reveals a long history, from the early pre-Classic megalithic structures to later classic and post classic structures such as the third temple platform flanking the main plaza which is constructed of smaller blocks. This rises in sharply defined levels with a central staircase leading to the top. Without ornament surviving, it is hard to date, but the style of construction indicates that it is likely post classic, up to 1350 or 1400 A.D. 

You might ask why I would pay so much attention to one of the “lessor” Mayan sites. One reason I am so interested in Aké is precisely it is of manageable size and therefor easy to explore and not crowded. In fact the two times I have been there it has been completely empty except for me and the man at the entrance. But what is compelling about Aké are the layers of history evident. The early Classic temples of megalithic construction, along with the later Classic and post classic structures, and the Colonial hacienda built in, over and around them. The scale of the larger structures is impressive, and are reminiscent of Izamal and in fact, it is thought it was affiliated with it, or even a tributary of Izamal. There is a sacred road, sac-be, connecting Aké and Izamal, and the style of megalithic construction and rounded corners of the structures is similar. 

Another reason I find Aké so interesting is that I feel it provides clues as to what the Mayan city of T’ho, where Merida was built on and off,  would have been like. Of that city, nothing remains, but it was said that it had 5 large “cerros”, hills, which were the remains of pyramid temples. The Spanish took down the ancient constructions for the material to build their own churches and buildings, without recording what was there. Deducing what they would have encountered originally is very difficult, but a site like Aké may give an idea. The surviving structures at Aké date from the formative pre-Classic,  2^nd Century A.D., to post-Classic, which is 1000 A.D. to the 14^th Century. It is thought by some that it was inhabited up to the conquest or abandoned just a few years before it. What was there at the time of the Spanish is hard to know and it became the site of a hacienda during the Colonial period. The hacienda is still active and henequen is still being grown and processed there. 

When I first moved to Merida, and was reading about it, one fact I came across stuck that with me, is that it has been continuously inhabited for over 2,000 years. I don’t recall where I saw that, but when you are at a site like Aké where the earliest surviving structures come from the 3^rd Century A.D., one can imagine people were living there for a while before they were constructed. And in fact the earliest Mayan structures at other pre-classic sites were not of stone but of rammed earth, as the Olmecs used at their cities. These would not have survived or were subsumed under later constructions, which is typical for meso-American cultures. Thus when looking at a pyramid in Mexico, almost always the one we see today covers an earlier one, and that another one earlier yet. Sometimes later archeologists remove the later construction as it often suffered badly from the effects of time, revealing an earlier temple protected under it. There are layers of history here. 

In Catherwood and Stephen’s seminal book, “Incidents of Travel in the Yucatan", published in 1843, they relate that the plaza grande in Merida was where the main pyramid temple of the original Mayan city was, and the Spanish took it down for the stone to build the cathedral just to the east of it. In fact Stephens was told there was so much stone, that the entire city was built from this one pyramid. This likely exaggerates the amount from that one pyramid, but between it and the others that were originally here, there would have been enough. The slightly raised platform of the plaza grande is what remains of the original pyramid. This makes sense to me, as these raised areas, which we see in Merida in many of the plazas before the churches, represent an enormous amount of material and work and are most likely traces of Mayan platforms or pyramid bases. 

The Cathedral of Merida

View of interior of the Cathedral

View of interior of the cathedral and the support columns

When looking at the exterior of the cathedral you can see the large and irregular blocks of stone on the corners, and on the interior the large stones used for the columns. These came from the original pyramid where the Plaza Grande is now. The large size of the stones are similar to those found in the temples at Aké and Izamal. Could this be a clue to what was originally here when the Spanish came? 

Chalcatzingo Monument 9: The repatriation of a major Olmec monument

 

Chalcatzingo Monument 9

In early April it was announced in the press that the government of Mexico had negotiated the return of a major Olmec sculptural relief, known as Chalcatzingo Monument 9. Chalcatzingo is an archeological site in the state of Morales which is dates to the early first millennium BCE, and has a number of other significant Olmec monuments.  The piece depicts the earth monster with an open quatrefoil mouth, which is carved through creating an opening. The piece is 1.8 meters, about 6 feet, high and was carved into a large boulder, which was flat or cut down at some point. I have never seen an image of the back to indicate which. 

This is a rare example of a major artistic monument being repatriated to Mexico. The news is full of pieces being repatriated, but very rarely are they significant. This piece is undeniably important. I have known of this piece for years as it is cited in articles and books for its depiction of the earth monster and the quatrefoil opening of its mouth. This quatrefoil is an important element of Meso-American art and architecture. As such, this monument is one of the earliest depictions of it and is considered a formative piece. 

It is unknown when or how this monument, which weighs nearly a ton, left Mexico and came to the US, where it was in a college museum collection. Interestingly, the name of the college or museum is never given in the announcements of this return. I gleaned it was from Colgate College, but have not been able to track down more confirmation of that. I find this odd, it is as if that information is being suppressed, perhaps the institution doesn't want it know that it had the piece at all. The return is being arranged by the Antiquities Tracking Unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. It is unclear where the piece is now, wether in New York or in the place from which it will be transferred. 

This is an example of a piece that should go back to Mexico, in contrast to many of the claims being made on pieces that add nothing to the Mexican cultural heritage and are of negligible artistic or historic  significance. Not every potsherd and minor object needs to come back, the storerooms of the museums are already full of them with multiple examples. This monumental relief however, is singular, and of great significance, I celebrate its return to Mexico and look forward to seeing it in person.

The absurdity of Provenance

This jade ceremonial axe, called a Yue, from the Neolithic period in China sold at the latest "Important Chinese Art" sale at Sotheby's NY, for over one million dollars including fees and commissions. Below is the link to the catalog:

 A jade blade at Sotheby's

It is only 7 1/4 inches long, and while beautiful with its varied color, translucent green and opaque white altered areas, it is not that exceptional. I have owned many as good or better and sold them for a tiny fraction of the price achieved in this auction. The reason for the price is only the provenance, it is said to have an ownership history traceable to the 1950's, and lastly belonged to the "Guennol" collection, the collection of Alistair Bradley Martin and Edith Martin. They did collect some amazing objects, most famously, the Guennol Goddess, (here is a link  Guennol goddess, ) that sold for a record breaking 57 million dollars. 

Photo of Guennol Goddess from Sotheby's

The Martins were buying when things were more available, and they bought very well, purchasing some exceptional pieces, which they then loaned them to museums, legitimizing them. The goddess was on loan to the Brooklyn museum for decades and was a piece I visited on every time I went there. I was distressed when it disappeared from view and then sold at auction. No one knows where it went, it is said to some middle eastern oil monied collection.  However, in contrast to this piece, I feel the high price was justified by the uniqueness and beauty of the piece. This blade is not unique, there are many such ritual jade blades on the market and it is not exceptional of type. In fact it is rather small, I have seen and owned, others larger and of equally or more beautiful jade. There were and are no parallels for the Goddess, there are many others for the blade. 

This sale, almost more than any other in recent years, illustrates the absurd importance of the story around an object being more important than the piece itself. If it had come from a less famous collection, it would have sold for a small fraction of the price. The problem with valuing the story around a piece, rather than the piece itself, is that absent the story, with only the object in front of you, what do you have? The price would indicate that this is an exceptional, rare and paramountly beautiful piece. It is none of those things. It is good of kind, but not exceptional. The Guennol Goddess on the other hand is sin pari, without equal. 

When I started working in antiquities for the revered dealer, Matthias Komor, his advice to me was to look with my eyes and not my ears. It is now the reverse today with the story around the piece is more important than what you see with your eyes. In the future, an object such as this, when the pendulum swings back to valuing the piece returns, this blade will just be a jade ritual blade, whereas the Guennol Goddess will remain a unique and important piece. 

Antiquities in the New York Times again.

Investigators seized 27 antiquities from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, including this marble head of a Greek youth dated to the third to second century B.C.Credit...The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Antiquities taken from the Met

Once again, for the second time in three weeks, an article about antiquities being seized from the Met appears in the NYTimes. The last one was about Cambodian pieces being seized, this time it is classical and Egyptian. And once again pieces that were part of the public domain here in the US are being taken, and returned to the “country of origin” for an uncertain fate. 

 

I recognize that looted antiquities is a problem in that it involves the destruction of archeological sites and loss of context, but I don’t think the best solution is what is being enforced here. First it makes targets of public museums, and takes out of public view objects that enriched the museum going public. When pieces are returned, they end up in smaller museums, if they are displayed at all, and very few people see them. Italy loves to have exhibitions of returned pieces, but after they end, where do they go? I have been around long enough to remember going to visit the Euphronius krater at the Met, only to have it returned to Italy. When I went to the Etruscan Museum in Rome, I did see it again. However, this is a barely visited museum, and the vase had no special placement and was out of place there, as it is Greek and not Etruscan. So the vase went from a place of honor where it was seen by the many thousands of people who go through the Met each week, to a small museum which hardly anyone knows about. 

 

I am not denying that the trade in antiquities has been a shady business, particularly in the 1970’s to 1990’s, and I saw much of that first hand in my early career as a dealer of ancient art. But I don’t like to see pieces taken off public view here. Italy and Egypt both have more art then they know what to do with, none of the pieces in discussion here add anything to their cultural patrimony. Anything that can be learned from them can be done in NY as well as Italy. As for the idea that stolen is stolen and things should be returned to the rightful owners, that works if you accept the premise that art belongs to the State and cannot be owned privately. Because that is the effect of these laws, that declare that everything found in the ground belongs to the government. That isn’t how that works here, where private individuals have ownership rights. 

 

As it the case of the Cambodian pieces at the Met, I think a better solution is to acknowledge the correct provenance, even transfer ownership to Italy or Egypt but to leave the pieces on view, on long term or permanent loan to the Met. If crimes were involved in how they reached the market and the museum, prosecute those, and go after the people who sold them. But let us not strip our encyclopedic museums here.

 

The Metropolitan Museum and its Asian collection

Illustration from NYTimes article

NYTimes article on Cambodian objects at the Met

A very interesting article appeared in the New York Times on August 18th (the link is above)  titled, "Cambodia Says it has found its Lost Artifacts: In Gallery 249 at the Met". Well yes, the Asian galleries at the Met are full of pieces from SouthEast Asia, including Cambodia. Given the attitudes of the time these pieces entered the museum, and the political chaos of the region which was then at war, we can be certain that many were were looted by todays standards. At the time, the entire antiquities market operated with little concern for the issue of cultural patrimony. Now a reappraisal is occurring, and the Asian collection at the Met is the focus here. 

The question is, this history happened, and what do we do about it now. The most common answer I read, is that stolen is stolen and to return everything. Unfortunately with ancient art, which is generally found in the ground, and has no ownership history before discovery, all of it could be considered stolen if the nations declare that all cultural property belongs to the state. Which is fine and good if you think we should atomize culture and have everything return to the nation of origin. But what an impoverished world that would be, we could only have American art here, and Western European art? Nothing from ancient cultures, not even from the Mediterranean world, let alone Africa, Asia and the the other Americas?

I wish there was more nuance to the discussion. As someone who loves encyclopedic museums, I don't want to see them disassembled but that seems to be what is happening, bit by bit. And who benefits from this, certainly not the people in New York or the United States, or the many people from around the world that come to see NYC and the Metropolitan Museum. The reason it is such an important museum is the diversity and depth of its collections. You can truly appreciate the range of human expression across time and from all over the world. My life has been dedicated to the appreciation of ancient art, and in more recent years, early Chinese Buddhist sculpture. To understand it, seeing Indian and Southeastern Asian sculpture puts it in perspective, something I could do visiting the Metropolitan Museum. The richness of the collection with the many examples available of these disparate cultures amplifies its educational quality. To strip away significant examples would diminish the museum and the experience. While I may be a rare bird, that is the whole point of an institution such as the Met, which is not catering to the lowest common denominator. 

Nowhere in the public discussion do I read about the value of encyclopedic museums, rather it is all about the provenance of the objects. Standards have changed since these collections were formed, which is something I will write about more fully in the future. But they exist now, and are in the public sector. They may not be owned by the public, but they are on public view and available to the public. In fact it is the visibility to the public that makes these museum collection an easy target for these ideologically driven investigators. 

I would like to have the value of encyclopedic museums acknowledged and balanced against the legitimate concerns about looted art. Maybe a solution could be to transfer ownership to Cambodia in this case and leave the pieces on view in the Metropolitan Museum on long term or permanent loan. In the rare case of a site specific object or one of such importance that it has no parallel in Cambodia, have them returned. The pieces in the museum can serve to promote Cambodia and inspire people to visit as well as educate people about the accomplishments of this amazing culture.