A Re-examination of the Mesoamerican Chacmool Mary EllenMiller Although chacmool literally means "red or great jaguar court receptions."3 paw" in Yucatec Maya, it has become the terminology used Once he had excavated the sculpture, Le Plongeon sought to refer to the large number of three-dimensional sculptures to remove it from Mexico and take it to Philadelphia for of reclining male figures in Precolumbian Mesoamerican the Centennial Exhibition of 1876. The Mexican govern- art (Figs. 1, 4, 15, 16, 19-24). The expression was coined ment took exception to those plans, and gunships removed by Augustus Le Plongeon, a roguish explorer and master the sculpture to the National Museum of Anthropology in of self-deception who in the 1870's and eighties invented a Mexico City, where it remains today (Fig. 1).4 Upon its ar- fictitious drama supposed to have taken place at a handful rival there, Jesus Sanchez, a zoological taxonomist in the of Maya cities in northern Yucatan during the last few cen- museum, noted its similarity to two sculptures from Cen- turies before the Spanish Conquest. In this story, three tral Mexico, and the pan-Mesoamerican identity of the brothers, Aac, Cay, and Coh, had lived at the large site of chacmool was born.5 Perhaps because no other name had Chichen Itza. Prince Coh married Kinich Kakmo and to- convincingly been assigned to this class of sculpture, the gether they ruled Chichen. Cay became the high priest, and name chacmool has persisted despite its inappropriate- Aac, the youngest brother, held sway over Uxmal, some ness. The tag has also been valuable, because it has suc- one hundred miles to the southwest. Aac then murdered cessfully linked sculptures from disparate geographical and Coh, and his widow built a series of memorials at Chichen chronological settings without implying a universal Itza to Coh, who was posthumously known as Chaac interpretation. Mool.1 Since Le Plongeon's time, fourteen chacmools have been At Chichen Itza Le Plongeon excavated one of the struc- documented at Chichen Itza.6 Twelve have been located at tures he identified as belonging to this funerary complex, Tula, and examples from Tenochtitlan, Tlaxcala, Micho- the structure now known as the Platform of the Eagles. He acan, and Cempoala, as well as other places, have been found a sculpture of a reclining jaguar covered with rubble found. No chacmool can be convincingly dated before the on top of the structure (Fig. 2).2 Following this archaeo- early Postclassic or terminal Classic period. It is a sculp- logical success, he then began excavations into the core of tural type equally as unknown at Tikal as at Teotihuacan. the mound. Approximately seven meters down from the Once the chacmool appeared, ho~wever,it rapidly spread top of the mound (thus, according to his own description, through Mesoamerica, being seen as far south as Costa below the groundline of the structure), Le Plongeon found Rica. Despite the great number of these figures that are a major cache consisting of a stone urn and the sculpture known and recorded, convincing arguments for their ori- he called Chaac Mool (Fig. 3). "It is not an idol," he wrote, gin, dissemination, and meaning have rarely been made.7 "but a true portrait of a man who has lived an earthly life. Interpretation and understanding of the chacmool fig- I have seen him represented in battle, in councils, and in ures have been blocked, I believe, because of assumptions Research at Chichen Itza was supported by an A. Whitney Griswold Fac- 4 An interesting account of Le Plongeon's efforts to keep his monument ulty Research Grant from Yale University. This study was suggested by is included in Robert Brunhouse's essay. "Augustus Le Plongeon," in In the investigations of George Kubler. Search of the Maya, Albuquerque, 1973, 136-165. s Jesus Sanchez, "Estudio acerca de la estatia llamada Chac-mool o Rey 1 As related in Le Sacred the Augustus Plongeon, Mysteries Among Mayas Tigre," Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico, I, 1877, 277-78. The ter- and 11,500 Years New York, 1886, 78-82. Quiches, Ago, minology chacmool is now generally written as a single word. 2 Le Plongeon's coincided with his illustra- 6 archaeological findings rarely Karl Ruppert, Chichen Itza, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1952, tions of same. Of Figure 3, for example, the apparent discovery of the 166. chacmool, he wrote, "The natives still use [these gestures of respect] among 7 This, them: Sanchez (see note 5); Desire themselves, when their white neighbors are not present" (Augustus Le despite many attempts. Among Ancient Cities the New World, New York, 1888; Juan Plongeon, Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx, New York, 1896, 132). Charnay, of Enrique Palacios, "El simbolismo del Chac-Mool: su Revista me- The only report of the excavations was published by Stephen Salisbury, interpretaci6n," xicana de estudios iv, 1940, 49-56; and Cesar Lizardi Ra- Jr., of the American Antiquarian Society, who for several years financially antropol6gicos, mos, "Elchacmool mexicano," Cuadernos americanos, xiv, 1944, 137-148. supported Le Plongeon's work ("Dr. Le Plongeon in Yucatan. The Dis- Corona Nufiez has raised the most about the chac- covery of a Statue called Chac-Mool, and the Communications of Dr. Le J. interesting questions mool in "Cual es el verdadero del Chac-mool?" Plongeon Concerning Exploration in the Yucatan Peninsula," American significado Tlatoani, I, 1952, 57-62. The most recent is that of Alfredo Cuellar, Tezcat- Antiquarian Society Proceedings, LXIX,1877, 70-119). study zoncatl escult6rico: el "Chac-Mool" (El dios mesoamericano del vino), Le as cited 77. 3 Plongeon by Salisbury, Mexico City, 1981. 8 THE ART BULLETIN MARCH 1985 VOLUME LXVII NUMBER 1 ri:~ z~zL4c~cKI ~------r~ .n*raq ITr Ti~t _________L??LX~ t!IIJ - ~ zz4.iJL1 2 Platformof the Eagles,as reconstructedby Le Plongeon (from Augustus Le Plongeon, Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx, New York, 1896) 3 (s I? ???,,:rl ?~ ~i r* -r?~L~ 4? ?r' ?. t E-~ ?r :r ??~'C " ~PBr,' ?I~?r - .', :s3~'~ a ,?t..i 1 Chacmoolexcavated by AugustusLe Plongeonfrom Plat- - \? form of the Eagles,Chichen Itza. Mexico City, MulseoNacional F ir `j,?~3: de Antropologia(courtesy Slides and PhotographsLibrary, Yale 'C) University) r i ,: ?i'i O r " ??'~,~ I 'r :1? %; `V'';t;zl??- *r ;"b,,1'Cj"II i ~f~;ja: r. " '654,?ii?r.g, II ?r I ~.ia?- . .. i".. t ~P?9? p; ~c~ .y *)(?~LT ?? \? dP .J ~ p~gC~s~J ?- ~C~ r ,tP~:1P I r r S, ~' ~- 1 ' .i k.,, ~a$~S~ 4 Chacmoolexcavated by EarlMorris and the CarnegieInsti- tution from Templeof the Chacmool(courtesy Slides and Pho- P~L~s~~ij~E ?'~ tographsLibrary, Yale University) chacmool is not: its posture, context, variety, and icon- are all consistent with Classic art. In this 1. ography Maya 'e re-examination of the chacmool, Classic Maya evidence will -r be used to suggest that the Postclassic chacmool develops 51~ from traditional Classic Maya representations. The distinctive posture of the chacmool is what allows the many sculptures to be united under one term, regardless of their origin. In all cases, the figure reclines on his back, r 'C his knees bent and his body on a single axis from neck to toes. The elbows rest on the ground and support the torso, creating tension as the figure strains to sit upright. The hands meet at the chest, usually holding either a disc or a 3 Le Plongeon with his chacmool (from Le poses Plongeon) vessel. The head rotates ninety degrees from the axis of the body to present a frontal face. This recumbent position represents the antithesis of aggression: it is helpless and of a Central Mexican origin for the sculptures.8 The prob- almost defenseless, humble and acquiescent. lem is that antecedents in Central Mexico do not exist. No These salient qualities of the chacmool's posture are the pre-Toltec prototype can be identified at Teotihuacan, same characteristics that describe Classic Maya captive fig- Xochicalco, or Cacaxtla. Nor does the chacmool survive ures appearing on altars, carved stairs, basal panels of ste- in Central Mexican manuscripts, a provocative lacuna. Of lae, and even in the Bonampak murals (Figs. 5-6). Captives course, Le Plongeon's outrageous hypothesis has been one reason that investigation of a Maya origin has been ne- 8 glected. There are, however, compelling reasons to con- This idea was first articulated by Charnay (pp. 357-368). The main scholar to sider a Maya origin without the notions of Le counter the notion of a Central Mexican origin is George Ku- entertaining who has considered the of these at Chichen for if the to three-dimensional bler, preponderance sculptures Plongeon, impulse sculpture Itza a likely indicator of their source ("Chichen-Itza and Tula," Estudios is generally foreign to Classic Maya art, the nature of the de cultura maya, I, 1961, 65.) THE MESOAMERICAN CHACMOOL 9 may also recline on their bellies or sides (Fig. 7), but all much as a chacmool does. The reclining figures at Uxmal share common features with the posture of the chacmool: reveal genitalia, perhaps an additional note of humiliation both knees and elbows are bent (and their arms often show or passivity. constrictive bindings). Although frontal faces are generally The recumbent posture of the Classic Maya captive also rare in Maya art, the notable exception is of captive fig- appears in the two-dimensional art of Chichen Itza and its ures.9 At both Xultun and Naranjo the frontal face of the environs, in material that has traditionally been designated captive is common, perhaps part of a regional style,10but Toltec, not Classic." Although the Chichen figures who is also occurs elsewhere, as at Bonampak (Figs.