PONDERING THE PALMA: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND FORMAL TYPOLOGY IN CLASSIC VERACRUZ ART HISTORY

______

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the School of Art

University of Houston

______

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

______

By

Cierra Frances Linander

May, 2017

PONDERING THE PALMA: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND FORMAL TYPOLOGY IN CLASSIC VERACRUZ ART HISTORY

______Cierra Frances Linander

APPROVED:

______Rex Koontz, Ph.D. Committee Chair

______Randolph J. Widmer, Ph.D.

______H. Rodney Nevitt Jr., Ph.D.

______Andrew Davis, Ph.D. Dean, Kathrine G. McGovern College of the Arts

ii

PONDERING THE PALMA: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND FORMAL TYPOLOGY IN CLASSIC VERACRUZ ART HISTORY

______

An Abstract

Presented to

The Faculty of the School of Art

University of Houston

______

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

______

By

Cierra Frances Linander

May, 2017

Abstract

This thesis significantly expands the corpus of portable sculptures known as the palma. ​ ​

The palma object-type has remained anomalous throughout the years despite being linked ​ ​ to the ballgame and other stone accoutrements of Classic Veracruz civilization. Classic

Veracruz may be defined in time (c. 0- 1000 CE) and its region (the Gulf Coast of Mexico, largely in the modern state of Veracruz). Previous scholars defined the palmas through their consistent basal forms. The revised palma corpus developed in this thesis identifies many other formal, functional, and iconographic patterns unexplored by previous scholars.

Part One presents historiographies and functional analyses, discussing the palma object-type and the urban center of Classic Veracruz culture, El Tajín, for the extensive sculptural programs that feature individuals wearing palmas with motifs and characters found on the extant palmas. Part Two presents revised typological explorations as well as a

Catalog of Illustrated Typology and Palma Related Iconography. ​

iv

Table of Contents

Introduction 1 ​

The Anatomy of a Palma 11 ​

Part One: Historiography and Functional Analysis

Chapter 1: A History of Examining the Palma 17 ​ Chapter 2: Public Iconography of the Tajín Complex 46 and its Relationship to Palma Function and Imagery

Part Two: The Revised Palma Corpus

Chapter 3: Typological Explorations 73 ​ and Other Patterns to Consider

Chapter 4: Catalog of Illustrated Typology and Palma Related Iconography 100 ​ ​ Conclusion 127 ​ Epilogue 132

Appendix

Catalog Image List 135 ​ Figure Image List 139 ​ Figure Images 140 ​ Bibliography 157 ​

v

Introduction

With an origin of existence unfettered by Western convention, Mesoamerica was home to ancient innovators, profound philosophers, and powerful, divine kings. Thought to be inferior upon contact with the Europeans (and for many centuries hence), these cultures actually parallelled the development of highly organized and complex societies– often surpassing in population and the ability to accommodate and maintain the growing populus of those cultures in the Old World who would eventually become their superiors.

Though certain technologies were never developed nor employed (such as metal tools, the wheel, or pulley), the complexity of their religious pantheon (and therefore their cosmovision) was reflected in every aspect of their existence. The corresponding artistic production of this region, often based in religious and political rites, establishes their place as sophisticated artistic cultures that also serve as a laboratory of human creativity due to its lack of links to the Old World. One aspect of this thesis attempts to document the sophisticated art style through close observation and productive typologies, while another part of the essay treats the complex religious rites in which the palma was used.

This essay focuses on one object-type known as the palma. These sculptures were ​ ​ created over a one thousand year period by Mesoamericans of the Mexican Gulf Coast and developed in the latter half of the first millennium C.E.. Made of basalt, or other porous volcanic stone, the palma corpus is made up of highly varied forms. While the following chapters will discuss formal and iconographic attributes of the palma

2

object-type in its specific regional context, it is important to first consider the cultural production that preceded them. The term Mesoamerica describes a certain geographic and cultural region occupying large portions of present day Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala, along with parts of El Salvador and Honduras (Figure 1). By and large when this region is discussed, it is in terms of the Pre-Columbian past; a time defined literally as before

Christopher Columbus set out in 1492, but moreso understood here as the time before

Spain and other countries made extensive contact with the existing cultures and began parsing the land for resources and labor, around 1519.

While organized life began developing in this area as early as 7000 BCE,

Mesoamerica may be defined on one level as a civilization that rose along with a single agricultural system by the second millennium BCE.1 Ancient Mesoamericans shared a basic diet of beans, squashes, and chilis though it was maize that served as a true cornerstone of the development of the region. Through the domestication of these plants, nomadic cultures developed into grounded settlements some millennia later. Despite the extremely varied geographic landscape of Mesoamerica, these crops gave rise to an influx of healthy, strong populations.

It may be helpful for the reader to have a brief synthesis of the development of complex societies with sophisticated art traditions that were developed in isolation from those in the Old World. Most recognizably preserved Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican history can be divided into three major periods; PreClassic, or Formative, (2000 BCE-250

CE), Classic (250 CE-1000 CE), and Post-Classic (1000 CE -1519 CE). Each of these

1 Michael D. Coe and Rex Koontz, Mexico: from the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 7th ed. (London: Thames & ​ ​ Hudson, 2013), Introduction (unpaginated digital version).

3

time periods has corresponding diagnostic characteristics seen in cultural developments, political structure, and artistic output, etc. What we are most interested in for this thesis is the Classic period; more specifically the Epi-Classic period, (650 CE -1050 CE), the period associated with palma production.

Around 1800 BCE in Mesoamerica, villages began to form as did the advent of pottery. Within the next few hundred years, significant settlements developed and so began the construction of pyramid temples and other monumental architecture.2 Radiating outward from the Gulf Coast (adjacent to the region that will later produce the palma), societies emerged that almost unanimously employed a numerical system based on 20, practiced ritual use of a 260-day calendar along with a 365-day solar calendar, used cacao and jade as monetarily and religiously significant materials, and most importantly for us, practiced a ritual and sacrificial rubber ballgame that will later serve as a context for the palma. Despite all of these fundamental similarities, Mesoamericans used artistic style to distinguish one culture from the other —a practice that continued throughout

Mesoamerican history.

The first iteration of organized society and art style in Mesoamerica is thought to be that of the Olmec.3 Flourishing between c. 1600 BCE and 400 BCE, and occupying a large region along the Gulf Coast, (largely in the current Mexican states of Veracruz and

Oaxaca) the Olmec built large mound temples and incised their iconographic representations of rain and maize gods throughout their lands on surfaces great and small.

Other formative cultures that moved south and inland adopted these traditions, especially

2 Mary Ellen Miller, The Art of Mesoamerica: from Olmec to Aztec, 4th ed. (London: Thames & Hudson, ​ ​ ​ 2006), 30. 3 Coe and Koontz, Mexico, Introduction. ​ ​ ​

4

the 260-day calendar and practice of the ballgame indicated by the presence of accompanying courts. This move away from the Gulf Coast later gave rise to great cultural centers such as Teotihuacan, a metropolis that fell by 600 CE that was rarely matched in population by global contemporaries, as well as the great city-states of Maya rule, leading eventually to the Post-Classic Aztec, among many others.

Nearly a millennium after the rise of the Olmec, a new culture emerged along the

Gulf Coast.4 Using archaeological data of the culture's apogee and capital city, El Tajín

(Figures 2, and 6-9), we can deduce the height of the cultural production endured from

650-1000 CE.5 Named at its discovery by Europeans in the 18th century for the Totonac god of lightning, the site of El Tajín dominates the region's architectural accomplishments. While Totonacs occupy the region currently, scholars do not believe they lived in the region during the Classic era.6 It is also known that Huastecs occupied coastal terrain during this time, though the overlap with Tajín has not been well accounted for, thus leaving the identity of the city’s builders unknown. El Tajín is situated outside of current day Papantla, in northern Veracruz. A mountainous jungle engulfs this antique site, bringing staggering humidity from the nearby Gulf coast to those who dare explore, even in the early morning hours.

In 1954, Tatiana Proskouriakoff defined the Classic Veracruz style, identifying the stylistic similarity between the ancient city’s sculpture and a large group of

4 Cherra Wyllie."Continuity and Change in Late Classic Southern Veracruz Art, Hieroglyphs, and ​ Religion" in Classic Period Cultural Currents in Southern and Central Veracruz, eds. Philip Arnold III and ​ ​ Christopher Pool (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, 2008), # . 5 Rex Koontz, Lightning Gods and Feathered Serpents: the Public Sculpture of El Tajín (Austin: ​ ​ ​ University of Texas Press, 2009), 2. 6 Miller, Art of Mesoamerica, 98. ​ ​ ​ ​

5

finely-carved portable sculptures; it is this style that will occupy us in our analysis of palmas. The Classic Veracruz style can be recognized most readily through a pervasive use of double-lined scrolls which occurs on the monumental sculpture as well as within the portable stone sculpture tradition, the latter of which also serves to define the style.

These portable stone object-types are identified as the yoke, hacha, and palma (Figure 3) ​ ​ ​ ​ which have come to be associated with the rubber ballgame and remains unique to

Classic Veracruz cultural and regional production.7 Architectural adornments and artistic embellishments rendered in the Classic Veracruz style feature these recognizable distinctions, and sets them apart from the stylistic developments of other Mesoamerican societies. As first pointed out by Proskouriakoff, the sophistication of Classic Veracruz style is matched only by the skilled Maya sculptors’ command of intricate details and control of carving technique.8 Classic Veracruz ornamentation remains remarkably baroque, in that it is organic, curvilinear, and dynamic (Figure 6).

In Tajín, an obsession with the Mesoamerican ballgame resonates in the seventeen ballcourts discovered to date—two of which feature extensive iconographic implications, to be discussed later, along with the portable accoutrements for the ballgame (Figures 7 and 8). This obsession with the ritual, sacrificial ballgame is even more evident through the establishment of a distinct central plaza and performative, ceremonial center of sorts, featuring iconographic references to the portable stone sculptures, their presence in the ballgame and surrounding rites, and vice versa. Because the ballcourts appear in the archaeological record near 900 CE, it is reasonable to date the palma object type near this

7 Tatiana Proskouriakoff. “Varieties of Classic Central Veracruz Sculpture.” Contributions to American ​ ​ Anthropology & History, No. 58. (Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1954). 67. ​ ​ 8 Ibid, 65. ​

6

date as it is the first time they appear in the public iconography of the site.9 Though the palma object type has been loosely defined and associated with the ballgame due to their presence in ballcourt reliefs, the true function of these objects remains largely unknown and highly speculative. They must have been associated with political power, however, for much of modern scholarship stresses the significance of the iconographic programs at

El Tajín; yokes, hachas and palmas that appear therein, and their relationship to the accession rites of local kings.

The thesis at hand will then perform a functional analysis as well as propose a revised typological exploration of the palma object type. Because we do not have archaeological contextual evidence available for the vast majority of these objects, an examination of type and function requires an adequate corpus, which did not exist when I began the thesis project. In order to expand the corpus for closer stylistic and iconographic analysis, I travelled for several weeks during the summer of 2016 to visit the most significant collections of palmas—those of Mexico. Most notably, I spent a significant amount of time at the Museo Nacional de Antropología e Historia in Mexico

City and the Museo de Antropología de Xalapa, matched only by one another in their extensive collections and dedicated preservation of Mesoamerican culture. In addition to these institutions, I spent several days walking the Pre-Columbian site of El Tajín; the height of Classic Veracruz culture, the presumed origin of the individuals who created the objects of this study. There, I saw firsthand the ballcourt relief panels and their orientation within the now-abandoned city’s ceremonial center.

9 John F. Scott. "Human Sacrifice in the Iconography of Veracruz," in Blood and Beauty: Organized ​ ​ Violence in the Art and Archaeology of Mesoamerica and Central America, edited by Heather Orr and Rex ​ Koontz (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2009), 109.

7

Somewhere along the line, Dr. Rex Koontz (my committee chair and mentor) shared his vision of a database of palmas incorporating some of the images he gathered throughout the years along with the additional data of the project I was to embark upon.

Throughout my own travels and research, I encountered a great many of these preliminary 80 or so palmas that he provided, many of which were from Proskouriakoff's original 47 presented in her 1954 ¨Varieties of Classic Central Veracruz Sculpture.¨ Most significantly, he had images from a trove of palmas housed in the MAX collection that were not, and to my knowledge are still not, part of the permanent collection on display.10

These palmas have proven to be ripe with iconographic links between the traditions of

Tajín public sculpture and the palma object type as a whole. I thank him now, and always, for sharing this preliminary data as well as the individuals at the MAX for allowing him to view these otherwise hidden objects many years ago; they have provided pivotal insight and data to this thesis.

Apart from these, I independently found another 200 or so palmas. I looked through the catalogs of Sotheby's and Christie's as well as lesser known auction houses. I filtered through online databases and browsed as many online collections of art and anthropology institutions as possible. I even recruited colleagues and family members to seek out palmas in their global travels. In fact, though the thesis transcript is now complete, I continue to look through exhibition catalogs and even obscure Pinterest forums; it never ceases to amaze me where I might find a palma. The options are nearly

10 When I looked as of April 12, 2017, these and other fragments have been at long last been included in ​ their online collection, in addition to the objects in the permanent collection which have been online for years,, although they were not previously online as recent as January 2017 nor on view during my visit to the MAX in June 2016.

8

exhaustive. Be that as it may, unfortunately some of the images included in this thesis are unprovenanced— that is to say, of unknown origin, usually online. Although, to the best of my ability, I have acknowledged the majority of original documents and articles, etc. that these images first appear, for the sake of research I include some images of palmas whose origins may never be known.

In addition to significantly expanding the palma corpus, I have also considered more about the individual forms than has been previously documented—including in the only comparable text to mine, a 1978 thesis on palmas by Luis I. Sanchez O. that largely focuses on archaeological data to consider spatial distributions of certain iconographic patterns. True archaeological data, however, only applies to a handful of his alleged 176 palmas, nearly half of which he attributes some site but does not provide the sources in which he gleaned such information. Further, most of the palmas he provided illustrations for were those that Proskouriakoff worked with (and illustrated) as well as many of the additional forms I saw in Mexico City, Xalapa, and the Xalapa bodega, although his work focused on otherwise unpublished objects from many other private and unknown collectors in Mexico, very few of which he illustrated and contribute to my revised ​ ​ corpus. More on Sanchez's thesis in Chapter 1.

In my own work, individual features examined include iconographic content

(including by not limited to the physical form of the palma itself in addition to any carved motif), a material assessment (the condition of the piece and if the iconographic read is compromised as such), depth of carving (especially in relation to sculptural forms versus graphically incised), as well as the shape of the base, shape of the fan, and the other

9

aspects of the anatomy to be discussed below. By examining these characteristics individually, patterns began to emerge. From these patterns, seriality became diagnostically evident. Part of what distinguishes this study from others is this act of careful looking. By slowing down the process, I have developed a working diagnostic hypotheses for the highly varied palma corpus in question that holds true for nearly every new palma I encounter along the way. In fact, while I was initially concerned with drawing a hard line to delineate what is and what is not a palma, I have developed such a specific visual vocabulary that I feel I may have even detected some fraudulent sculptures.

This thesis will proceed in two parts. Part One will be two individual literature reviews leading to a historiography of both the palma object-type itself via Fewkes,

Ekholm, Proskouriakoff, Sanchez, Shook and Marquis, and Scott (Chapter 1) as well as an extensive examination of the public iconographic programs of El Tajín and Classic

Veracruz culture as discussed by Spinden, Kampen, and Koontz (Chapter 2). Necessary contextual information saturates both of these chapters which provides a necessary preface to Part Two; without these preceding discussions of functional analysis and specific iconographies across Tajín public sculpture, it would be nearly impossible to follow along with my own extensive patterning of formal characteristics among the varied objects nor fully recognize the specific iconographic trends shared among Tajín and the palmas themselves. As such, the second half of the thesis will then be devoted to my own personally developed typological explorations (building off of Proskouriakoff)

(Chapter 3) as well as establishing specific iconographic trends relating to the public

10

sculpture programs discussed earlier and delineating major characteristics and participants through a Catalog of Illustrated Typology and Palma Related Iconography ​ (Chapter 4).

Though, like many scholars, I shy away from certain topics due to a lack of important contextual data, this thesis endeavors to accomplish two significant contributions not previously attempted. First, I have enlarged the known palma corpus to more than six times the size of Proskouriakoff's preliminary study. This has allowed me to develop a more accurate typology with diagnostic characteristics which can be applied across the object type. This detailed work provides a much more clear path for any future studies that will better place the palma object type in Mesoamerican space and time. Of course, this is in the event that sound archaeological data becomes available for new and old in situ discoveries, alike. Second, by dedicating so much time to carefully examine each of the 275+ individual palmas' anatomies as well as placing them in various formal and imagery based groupings, iconographic patterns that have never been previously discussed have now become more visible. Proskouriakoff made a suggestion of iconographic similarities among the various Classic Veracruz traditions, but ultimately recognized the need for an expanded corpus for such a task and focused more on the formal and stylistic qualities that could be patterned out.11 More precisely, I am able to point out direct references to Tajín public sculpture in the specific motifs found on many of the various palmas, though the exact iconographic meaning may remain unknown.

Nonetheless, through this iconographic and formal patterning, I also provide more

11 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 68. ​

11

compelling evidence that connects the Classic Veracruz tradition of palmas with those of

Southern Mesoamerica- an argument that until now has been considered futile.

The Anatomy of a Palma

There is no previously agreed upon vocabulary for the different parts of the palma. Before we embark upon this journey of exploring one of many great mysteries in the distant Pre-Columbian past of Classic Veracruz (650-1000CE), it will be helpful to first establish some basic terminology that will be henceforth used to describe these objects. It is my hope that the more precise descriptions of the parts of the palma provided below will help the reader discern the subtle differences in palma form and structure that provide the foundation of my argument. In fact, I created these anatomical references to help myself better describe the palmas in a new and more specific way in order to deviate from the vague language provided by previous scholars. Further, the following essay includes a fairly detailed and complex argument on the typologies used to organize the palma corpus (Chapter 3). The discussion of typologies will be made much clearer with these vocabulary terms I have designated at hand. See Figures 10-15

(in-text below) for palmas diagramed with this new set of terms.

Fan- The palma object-type received it's name from the basic shape of a Mexican palm ​ frond. In many palmas, there seems to be a distinct difference between the topmost portion of the palma, henceforth known as a fan, and the trunk immediately below. Most ​ ​

12

often, the fan slightly bows away from the main body of the palma like the base of the bowl on a champagne flute. Though many scholars describe a slight tilt forward of these fans, it has been little discussed in forms of diagnostics; the larger corpus shows this tilt coming from deeper within the palma form along the back, often originating at the base.

Trunk- The trunk then occupies the area immediately below the fan. It is almost as ​ ​ ​ though the above described fan is the foliage and the area that supports it is the enduring trunk of a tree. Depending on the type of palma, the trunk can be broad and deep or long and slender, or somewhere in between.

Back- The back of the palma has always been interpreted as the ¨wearer's side,¨ flat in ​ ​ ​ nature and usually creating the forward tilt of the fan. Some backs feature carving all over, while the majority stop a curious distance from the base of the objects. The backs of many palmas have extensive incised iconographic references to the public sculpture and rites of Tajín, though they are incised not sculptured like the thrust of the palmate form.

Thrust- The thrust of the palma indicates the forward sculptural projection along the ​ ​ ​ vertical axis (Figures 10-15) upon which the palma form is generally oriented- it is less so part of the physical form like the fan or foot, but instead serves to describe the way in which the trunk bursts forward and provides depth to the palma form.

Foot- One of the largest mysteries to me still is why the carved motifs of many palmas do ​ not pass a certain area towards the base of the trunk, usually about ⅔ of the way down,

13

particularly on the posterior side. This treatment of the carvable surface creates what looks almost like a ¨sock¨ on the foot of these forms, which make up the bottom most part ​ ​ of the trunk, including the bottom of the thrust along the vertical axis. A foot that does not have a “sock” would then be an incised ¨inset,¨ as it is etched in the same manner as the major palma body. The foot is not diagnostically exclusive to any of the proposed typologies to come and palmas that feature all-over carving or are completely unadorned also have what I call the foot; it is the entire area in which the palma balances upon– comprised of the base, bottom, and maybe a heel and or a toe. In diagrams below, the foot is indicated by a solid line across the palma’s trunk so as to marcate the distinct area, but there is no hard and fast rule of how far up into the trunk the foot goes. In the case of a socked foot, the foot begins where the the top of the sock does.

Heel- Many palmas cannot stand upright on their own. For palmas whose posterior ​ ​ ​ features an extended talon that projects downward enough to disrupt the ability of the sculpture to balance, this backward projection shall be called the heel. ​

Toe- As the frontmost aspect to the thrust at the base of the object's trunk, the toe of the ​ ​ ​ palma is rounded area that caps the front of the foot. Not all palmas have this, in fact the majority don't, though it is not a feature specific to type. Since it has been little discussed if at all in terms of basal differences in palma forms, I thought it should be at least pointed out here. In some instances, the toe features a carved motif so as to be an incised inset and on others it is an extension of the uncarved sock of the foot.

14

Base- For over a century, the palma object type has been grouped together because their ​ bases are fairly similar. However, the larger corpus points to a wider set of basal forms.

Keeping with the current metaphor, the base of the foot serves as an arch- the degrees of ​ ​ which are highly varied. All of the base types will be described in Chapter 3 (and illustrated in the Catalog) as I break down individual diagnostics for my proposed ​ ​ typologies, but for now know that they can range from flat (the surface area of which completely or nearly completely makes contact) to an oblique arch.

Bottom- I will argue later that all palmas take the same basic form along a vertical axis, ​ providing a different base than previously established. As a distinct characteristic separate from basal concavity, what I dub the bottom can take the shape of one of a few ​ ​ variations, but it always widens towards the posterior. The bottom shapes themselves are not perfectly definable, but instead they provide the distinctly perpendicular, T-shaped axis that nearly each of the 275 plus palmas amassed for the revised corpus appear to be oriented upon. Proskouriakoff even pointed this axis out, though scholars ignored this more accurate observation and instead focused on the concavity of the base, not the ultimate shape it creates. The vast majority of these objects are symmetrical, though not a mirror image, with even weight distribution and therefore exist on a basic T-shaped base.

Thus, the approximate shapes of bottoms can be triangular (due to a nearly flat or nonexistent arch), hourglass, or somewhere in between. The degree of concavity is what creates the ¨shape,” ie: hourglass, because when turned to rest upon its back, the palma's

15

base appears to be cinched in the center, like an hourglass. Likewise, because of the basic

(albeit upside down) T-shape, a flat or nearly flat base is filled in like a triangle.

Figure 8 (left): T-shaped axis over St Louis Palma. See Cat. No. 56 for full palma. ​ Figure 9 (right): T-shaped axis and hourglass bottom shape (dotted line). See Cat. No. 74 for full palma. ​

Figure 10 (Left): Diagramed by author, illustration after Proskouriakoff: Figure 6, palma 1. ​ Figure 11 (Right): Diagramed by author, illustration after Proskouriakoff: Figure 7, palma 13. ​

16

Of course, it isn't that simple. Not all palmas adhere to these two basic forms so as to have each anatomical feature. For now, it is most important to remember that the basal concavity remains the singular, popular diagnostic feature of the object type to date. But as displayed below, they do not all feature such a markedly high arch.

Figure 12 (Left): Diagramed by author, palma from Yale University Art Gallery, online. ​ Figure 13 (Right): Diagramed by author, palma from Museé du Quai Branly, online. ​ ​ ​

Note about the images: In the course of reading this text, you will encounter Figure Numbers as well as ​ Catalog Numbers. This is my attempt to provide you with as many palma examples as possible in the Catalog of Illustrated Typology and Palma Related Iconography (Chapter 4). Figure images are in the ​ Appendix, with the exception of the four diagrams above (Figures 8-13). In the text, you will also see figures out of numerical order. This is because they are arranged in the appendix by theme or location; especially in the case of the public iconography sculptural programs, which are presented in the most currently understood reading order (per Koontz, 2009).

PP indicates palmas featured in Proskouriakoff´s 1954 ¨Varieties of Classic Central Veracruz Sculpture.¨ SM for palmas in Shook and Marquis’ 2009 Secrets in Stone: Yokes, Hachas, and Palmas from Southern ​ Mesoamerica. (see Bibliography for full records). ​

Please remember, these photos are provenanced to the best of my ability, though some come from unknown web origins and for the sake of research, they remain in my study. Further, the majority of these images have been heavily modified to isolate the sculptural form itself, as well as manipulated to make subtle details more visible, as seen above in Figures 12 and 13.

17

Part One: Historiography and Functional Analysis

Chapter 1: A History of Examining the Palma

The palma object type was named by Strebel for its visual likeness to a Mexican palm frond, prototypically featuring a narrow base and a thin fan-like top.12 However, there is no evidence that these objects actually emulate a palm frond or any other plant form. Instead, the objects form one of the traditional portable sculpture types established as the Classic Veracruz style by Tatiana Proskouriakoff, comprised of the yoke, hacha, ​ ​ and palma (Figure 3).13 By the Late Classic period in Veracruz (ca. 650-950 CE), as seen ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ in many relief carvings in the ballcourts of El Tajín, we see ball game-related participants clad in a variety of these implements; the yokes, hachas, and palmas (Figure 22). It was through these images that scholars first defined the function of the yokes, hachas, and palmas, beginning in the 1940’s with the groundbreaking work of American Museum of

Natural History curator Gordon Ekholm. Yokes function as a large belt to be worn around the waist of the player. Hachas, also referred to as “thin stone heads” by Ekholm,

12 Luis Ignacio Sánchez Olvera, La Palma: Un Estudio Temático-Estilístico de Microrregiones en Veracruz ​ ​ Central, Unpublished Master's thesis, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, México: 1978, pp. 12. ​ ​ ​ 13 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 67.

18

were often thought to be attached to the yoke.14 The palma was similarly hafted or bound to the yoke, likely never at the same time as the hacha.15 Spinden and other early scholars recognized the evolution of the hacha to the palma, which implies a similarity in function ​ ​ and origin, albeit unknown.16

With origins as early as 1400 BCE, the ballgame was performed in a variety of contexts, and it has certainly changed over the three millennia of its known existence.17

Most of what we do know about the ballgame comes from Conquest era accounts from the Spanish as well as from a sacred Mayan text, the Popol Vuh. The Aztecs were known to have used the ballgame as a gladiatorial athletic event (which could be wagered upon for extra sport) as well as produce sacrificial offerings to the gods, as human blood shed would ensure the sun would rise again.18 More modern interpretations suggest the ballgame was a means to commemorate warfare through a staged reenactment.19 Given the archaeological findings of 5-15 pound solid rubber balls, sometimes stored in underground springs as early as 1600 CE, and the construction of over 1300 ballcourts throughout the expansive region, the ceremonial event was popular to the point of

14 Gordon F. Ekholm,“Palmate Stones and Thin Stone Heads: Suggestions on Their Possible Use.” ​ American Antiquity 15, no. 1 (July 1, 1949): 1-2. ​ 15 Look to the Northwest South Ballcourt panel at El Tajín (Figure 22); here a figure wears what have been ​ interpreted to be a yoke and palma also features what looks to be a thin stone head. Though it is tempting to see this as an hacha, it is more likely of the Maya tradition of a back mirror. Additionally, a form that could be a speech scroll emits from its mouth. 16 Ellen S. Spinden, “The Place of Tajín in Totonac Archaeology.” American Anthropologist, New Series, ​ ​ 35, no. 2 (April 1, 1933), 243. 17 María Teresa Uriarte. “Unity and Duality: The Practice and Symbols of the Mesoamerican Ballgame” in ​ In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. E. Michael Whittington. (London: ​ ​ Thames and Hudson, 2001), 40-51. 18 Richard F. Townsend, The Aztecs. (London: Thames & Hudson, 2000), 218. ​ ​ ​ 19 Koontz, Lightning Gods, 45. ​ ​ ​

19

ubiquity and nearly synonymous with Mesoamerica.20 The game itself was played in a marked court, generally I-shaped, with players attempting to hit a rubber ball into the space of their opponents (Figures 8 and 9). However, any further consideration of the rules and function of gameplay at El Tajín would serve as pure speculation as no illustration or other evidence exists in the archaeological record.

Ekholm astutely noted that yokes, hachas, and palmas form a complex of stone artifacts unlike any other known examples throughout history in that they do not have a

“function easily understood according to our own [mostly Western] experience.”21 In fact, their names are given rather arbitrarily, and only serve as a readily available visual metaphor and have nothing to do with their function.22 Looking at the structure of the portable sculptures to help define use, the function of the yoke is clear: to serve as protective padding for the striking of the solid rubber ball, or as a ceremonial effigy thereof. It is much less clear how the hacha and then the palma could have functioned in actual game play. Perhaps these latter objects also provided the body with surfaces of contact against the tough rubber balls, as touching the ball with extremities and digits in many versions of gameplay was forbidden. Nonetheless, the palma object type remains a functional and historical problem within the portable stone sculptural tradition of Classic

Veracruz, and much that has been said about them thus far remains highly speculative.

20 Michael J. Tarkanian and Dorothy Hosler. "AMERICA'S FIRST POLYMER SCIENTISTS: RUBBER PROCESSING, USE AND TRANSPORT IN MESOAMERICA." Latin American Antiquity 22, no. 4 ​ ​ (2011): 469-86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23072570. 21 Gordon F. Ekholm, “The Eastern Gulf Coast,” in The Iconography of Middle American Sculpture, ed. ​ ​ ​ Ignacio Bernal (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1973), 46. 22 Mitsuru Kurosaki Maekawa, "Estudio sobre los yugos: Análisis comparativo de los yugos y sus ​ contextos en Mesoamérica, en especial, los yugos de la Costa del Golfo de México," (Unpublished Master's thesis: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 2006), 6.

20

Due to their marked presence in the ballcourt relief panels of El Tajín, the single most important association of the palma object type has been with the Mesoamerican ballgame.23 Puzzlingly, the aforementioned ballcourt reliefs that illustrate palma use do not actually represent palmas in modes of gameplay, but illustrate instead ceremonial scenes that are connected to the ballgame through the presence of the palma (and yoke) worn by the participants (Figure 24). Palmas can also be seen in an even later Epi-Classic iconography at the site, the Mound of the Building Columns. Here, what can be inferred as three distinctly different palma forms (see Chapter 3 for an extensive discussion of various palma forms) rest on yokes of various participants during the ascension rites of

13 Rabbit - again, the palma appears not in the ballgame but in other key rites (Figure

31).

Before we dive into the intricate iconographic complexes and speculations as a means to categorize the object type based on a larger sample, we must first trace the scholarship on palmas and their place in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican traditions.

Though many important scholars have linked the palma more generally to the ballgame in Mesoamerica, no scholar has been able to convincingly define the specific function of these objects in the ballgame or associated rites. In an attempt to move away from the problems of functionality, this exploration of the palma object type will not only consider previous scholarly attempts at defining their true role but also move between the interpretations by focusing on the diagnostic elements of their arguments. Throughout this first section, I will be presenting a variety of scholarly takes on the palma object type

23 Ekholm, “Palmate Stones,” 2. ​

21

while paying special attention to the diagnostic characteristics presented by each author, as well as the specific language in which they speak of the highly varied group. My hope is that by reiterating these key ideas throughout the text, you will be ready to embark upon my own work of sorting, considering, and pondering the problematic palma by

Chapter 3. The headings provided indicate the scholar from who I am paraphrasing and analyzing.

Fewkes

In 1907, Jesse Walter Fewkes published an early exploratory presentation of ¨Certain

Antiquities of Eastern Mexico.¨ In a section titled ¨paddle-shaped stones,¨ Fewkes describes several objects from the collection of Governor Dehesa that have long since been identified as palmas, many of which now reside in the Museo Nacional de

Antropología e Historia in Mexico City.24 Fewkes noticed that though there are few of these objects, the variation of form must not go without note as many of these

¨paddle-shaped stones¨ resemble an oar with a convex base while others are shorter, avian forms with splayed wings. In other instances they appear to be human heads with a ridged formation across their skulls, and others more feature a distinctive fan, sometimes spliced to display radial digits.25

Looking solely to the base of the object as a means of unifying the type, the ethnologist suggested these grooved forms fit on a curved edge, though questions of function may be troublesome. It would appear, however, that the presence of decorative

24 Jesse Walter Fewkes, Certain Antiquities of Eastern Mexico. Washington: Bureau of American ​ ​ ​ Ethnology, 1907. Page 261. ​ 25 Ibid, 262. ​

22

motifs on both sides of these forms suggest that all sides were intended to be visible; these puzzling portable sculptures were meant to be seen in-the-round. Fewkes also suggests that because of their quantity, it was likely they functioned simultaneously.26 He further noted their potential use in altars, but he also consider the possibility these varied forms were merely adornments for architecture and other such constructs. Finally, noticing the high variation in form and decorative motif, Fewkes states ¨ït would appear that all these different objects were connected in some way, but how we can not [sic] yet answer satisfactorily.¨27

Spinden

Ellen Spinden's publication “The Place of Tajín in Totonac Archaeology” from 1933 will be discussed more extensively in Chapter 2. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize her groundbreaking work that carefully considered the extensive architectural and iconographic programs at Tajín in a more authentic archaeological setting. Spinden was the first to discuss at length the corpus of representations of the palma found in the monumental sculpture at the ancient site of El Tajín.28 Contrary to later scholars, Spinden does not address the functionality of the palma, but instead explores the iconography of the antique city in its original architectural context. This author supplied detailed and accurate, drawings of the ballcourt reliefs that allowed later scholars to formulate their hypotheses. In the publication, Spinden establishes Seler’s observations that connect El

Tajín architecture, namely ballcourt reliefs, and that what “resemble most in style the

26 Ibid, 261. 27 Ibid, 262. ​ 28 Spinden, “Place of Tajín,” 226. ​

23

ornamentation of the problematic stone yokes... and the sculptures... known under the name of ‘palmas.’”29 In addition to the connection of style that will later become diagnostic of the Classic Veracruz culture, Spinden noticed a similar treatment of the bases of the hacha and palma object types and asserted an evolution from the former to the latter.30 Exactly how and when this shift occurred, however, remains largely unexplored by this scholar and all who followed.

Ekholm

Using the Tajín iconography with depictions of the palma found in Spinden’s article as a starting point, Gordon Ekholm presents one of the earliest, and undoubtedly one of the most pivotal, explorations of the palma object type in his 1949 article, “Palmate Stones and Thin Stone Heads: Suggestions on their Possible Use.” In addition to the illustrations, much of the data utilized comes from the aforementioned article published by Ellen

Spinden. In his text, Ekholm explains that asserting the true function of these palmate stones is troublesome due to a lack of documentation of their use. He asserts that the

Classic period cultures “proceeded the period of the codices and the historical sources” and thusly assumes no extant written record signifies a lack of a written language altogether.31 And because the rules of gameplay are not documented as in other

Mesoamerican cultures, the Classic Veracruz ballgame would remain shrouded in mystery as well. This theory remains troublesome to this day. Scholars struggle to prove or disprove the presence of books or other written documents in this region; artifacts that

29 Ibid, 242. 30 Ibid, 243. ​ 31 Ekholm, ¨Palmate Stones,¨ 1. ​

24

may very well have been made of perishable materials that have long since been erased from the historical record in the impossibly hot, moisture-rich jungles of Veracruz.

However, it is well known that other contemporary Classic cultures did indeed have written languages, including those documented in codex form, even some sites along remote reaches of the Gulf Coast (near Yucatan). Therefore, Ekholm was correct in acknowledging the troublesome lack of evidence for the role of the palma in actual gameplay, but his reasoning is somewhat off the mark.

Commenting on the concentration of palmas in central Veracruz, Ekholm points out the earlier hacha form can be encountered through a much larger geographic area, as far north as Tampico and as far south as Honduras. However, there is a certain difficulty of dating both the hacha and palma object types due to this absence of written record as well as a true lack of archeological context for the apex of Classic Veracruz culture in

Tajín. By examining their formal attributes and the manner in which they are carved,

Ekholm dates them to the Classic period, which is recognized by scholars today to be from 250-1000CE.32

Acknowledging the somewhat wide variety of form and motif of these mysterious stone sculptures, Ekholm asserts that the main commonality between the varied forms of palmas lies within the curvature of the base (see Catalog Numbers 17-21 for varieties of bases). Furthermore, because not all bases rest properly on a flat surface so as to remain upright, they must have been attached to a yoke in some fashion.33

Relying on the drawings Spinden provides in the 1933 article, Ekholm points the reader

32 Coe and Koontz, Mexico, Intro. ​ ​ ​ 33 Ekholm, ¨Palmate Stones,¨ 1-2.

25

to a pictographic recreation of a ballcourt relief found in El Tajín that depicts a sacrificial scene whose characters wear objects that formally resemble palmas in profile (Figure 24).

By examining the “curious elongated objects projecting upward at an angle from the large belts encircling their waists,” Ekholm acknowledges a continuity in the “convexity of the back surface adjacent to the body of the person wearing it” while “the front surface has a double curve exactly as in the actual palma [in the ballcourt relief panels] and there is the concavity on the under surface where the object rests on a thick rounded belt.”34 He concludes that this continuity could “hardly be coincidental and leaves little doubt that there is some relationship between the two;” the curious could-be attachments seen in ballcourt reliefs and the extant stone palmas (Figure 16, PP 1).35 Ekholm then implores, based on the aforementioned reliefs, “can palmate stones be explained as objects of ceremonial import used by resting them upon a thick belt and thus carrying them in front of the body?”36 By examining the lack of means of attachment via plaster or other adherent, the function of these stones as mere “architectural ornaments” seems improbable, especially over a ceremonial role.37

In reference to their stylization, Ekholm asserts “the quality and elaborate design of palmas indicate that they must have been ceremonial objects... Sculptured in relatively ​ ​ soft and brittle stone… palmas must be handled with great care and it is difficult to ​ ​ conceive of their having had any utilitarian purpose.”38 Furthermore, the notion of these long, thin palma forms made of such brittle stone withstanding the impact of the

34 Ibid, 2. ​ 35 Ibid. ​ 36 Ekholm, “Palmate Stones,” 3. ​ 37 Ibid. ​ 38 Ibid. ​

26

substantially weighted, solid rubber balls is equally implausible. Not forgetting the scenes from ballcourt reliefs, he comments on the appearance and function of yokes, especially those made of stone, and insists that though he was not claiming “that palmas were designed to rest on stone yokes,” there is a connection between the two object types, since both were “used in the ballgame; [yokes likely] evolved into the the stone belt…

[which] were resting places for the elaborate palmate stones.”39

Going along with this hypothesis, Ekholm comments on the implementation of the palma object type by examining the manner which their bases would have rested, requiring ties or for it to be a hand-held object. Claiming, “it is more probable… that the objects shown in the relief carvings were not actual stone palmas... It is quite likely that ​ ​ palmas were carved in wood as well as stone… [and] wooden prototypes had some actual ​ function when worn on the belt … [S]tone palmas were largely just a conventionalized ​ ​ form… and the functional form was retained even after the function ceased to exist.”40

Ekholm proceeds to defend this hypothesis while considering the possible counter arguments, namely that extant stone palmas are too large and would impede the vision of the wearer but discredits such shallow arguments by reminding the reader that “religious belief and ceremonial activity in ancient Mexico were harsh masters.”41

Of the many important observations asserted by Ekholm's 1949 article, two things are paramount for us when considering the palma; one, the stone palmas (those extant today) are most probably a ceremonial replication of a wooden or other version made of a sturdier perishable material; and two, the common thread uniting the varied palma forms

39 Ekholm, ¨Palmate Stones,¨ 4. ​ 40 Ibid. ​ 41 Ibid, 5. ​

27

is the curved base, and since these bases do not stand unsupported on a flattened surface,

(like the hacha) they must have been attached to a yoke in some fashion, as they illustrated together in the Tajín ballcourt panels. The first observation is bolstered by the palmas' presence in ballcourt reliefs (recall Figures 22 and 24). Again, these reliefs do ​ ​ not show the ballgame itself, but instead ceremonies, often sacrificial, with participants clad in these implements. The second argument is later discussed by Edwin M. Shook and Elayne Marquis, who assert that the curvature of many palmas’ bases is so insignificant “it has no specific purpose but rather a continuity of a traditional stylistic feature.”42 The last observation, too, comments on the ceremonial functionality of the stone palma objects and establishes that stone palmas were likely a similar continuation of tradition. Coincidentally, Shook and Marquis wrote about the only other known significant source of palmas outside of the Classic Veracruz context. While those 20 plus palmas from near Quelepa, El Salvador deviate from the Classic Veracruz corpus, some stylistic (and at times diagnostic) features can be found through each region's styles, so much so that there seems to be a continuity in tradition in certain forms and or their corresponding iconographies. More about Shook and Marquis later in this and other chapters.

Proskouriakoff

Pioneering Mesoamericanist Tatiana Proskouriakoff discusses palmas extensively in her

1954 essay “Varieties of Classic Central Veracruz Sculpture.” Following Seler, Spinden,

42 Edwin M. Shook and Elayne Marquis. Secrets in Stone: Yokes, Hachas and Palmas from Southern ​ Mesoamerica (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1996), 219. ​

28

and Ekholm, she recognizes the connection between these confounding sculptures at hand and their presence in ceremonial ballcourt reliefs at El Tajín. In an attempt to sort these problematic forms, Proskouriakoff created a preliminary seriation according to the stylistic features of these portable stone sculptures and astutely recognizes their relationship to specific attributes of the Tajín style. In her essay, Proskouriakoff immediately articulates the lack of art historical and archaeological context for the region and likens her assertions to an anthropological treatment of the decorative forms found throughout these Mesoamerican sculptures. That is to say, Proskouriakoff made great preliminary observations and connecting particular patterns of palma forms, but the scope of her study was too limited in order to fully prescribe a diagnostic typology for the expanded palma corpus.

Proskouriakoff agrees with Spinden that logically the palma form superseded the hacha.43 Looking to the most evident example of an hacha actually being worn (Figure

28), she explains that in “this early date the figure wears on the front of its belt a bird head which Garcia Payon (1950) has identified as an hacha, whereas on the ballcourts it is a palma which is represented. This seems to confirm the view that, of the two forms, the palma is of later origin.”44 Ever the pragmatic researcher, she often shies away from function and chronology due to a lack of archaeological context, but of them she says “it is not necessary to regard these ambiguous forms as transitional or early, but [instead] they imply a common function and perhaps a common origin” and declares “the full variety of small sculptures of specialized forms found in Veracruz has never been

43 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 68. ​ 44 Proskouriakoff, ¨Classic Veracruz,¨ 85.

29

described, and until it is better known, we cannot hope to infer sequences.”45 Her boldest endeavor at chronologically sorting these forms comes from a suggestion that PP 16, 19, and 20 show possibly show signs of artistic maturity and complexity (Figure 15).

While this thesis looks to the yoke and hacha purely as a means of comparative material, Proskouriakoff uses them to offer insight to otherwise unknown Classic

Veracruz traditions. She considers the difference in motif between yokes and hachas to actually possibly suggest a “difference in symbolic function.”46 Yokes contain motifs

“mythological, religious or [perhaps] official concepts of the community as a whole, whereas hachas may be heraldic in a sense, representing symbols adopted by private families, teams, or even individuals.”47 Proskouriakoff does not, however, have a compatible suggestion for the palma object type. She also claims that while yokes can be more easily divided by design, “the variability of the palma style seems to result from a random selection of specialized traits and to have no apparent significance.”48

Proskouriakoff comments on the highly divergent styles of the palmas which represent their namesake most profoundly and that of the thin stone heads (Figures 16-19 are pages from her essay). Within her own typology, she even recognizes that the intermediate steps between a true hacha and a true palma ¨perhaps should have a designation of their own.¨49 Although she remains admittedly stunted through a lack of available material for such a task, she explains that she ¨refrained from giving specific designations to the several forms that [came to her] attention for the very reason that they

45 Ibid, 68. 46 Ibid, 80. ​ 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid, 71. 49 Ibid.

30

probably do not cover the complete range of variations.¨ 50 However, she categorizes the various portable stone sculptures- namely yokes, hachas, and palmas- referencing ​ ​ ​ ​ Spinden’s earlier work on these objects, and provides a basis of comparison by describing the basic palmate form and classifying palmas based on similar formal and decorative elements.

Proskouriakoff describes the palma form as being ¨tall, fan-shaped at the top, and tapering toward the bottom, where a mass projects forward. Its base is t-shaped and the surface on which it rests is concave from front to back as if the stone were to be set on a curved edge, in some cases this approaches an obtuse angle.¨51 Like Fewkes and Ekholm,

Proskouriakoff acknowledges the wide range of palmate stone forms and sizes, noting

“the objects classed in this category vary greatly in size, shape, and proportions. Some palmas are less than 15 cm. high, while others more than 80 cm. Some are slender and tall, others are of the natural proportions of a human head set on a low pedestal.”52

She then identifies the most common visual motifs as anthropomorphic and zoomorphs while recognizing the ubiquity in these decorative styles, stating “it is characteristic of palmas that this fusion of scroll and grotesque design is carried out to a particularly high degree,” though they are not mutually exclusive.53 Unlike the basic form of the palma object type, Proskouriakoff says the varied scroll forms occupying the palma surfaces are not readily distinguishable and “more ornate palmas seem to employ any or all the devices traditional to palma design, no two of which seem to form a constant

50 Ibid, 68. 51 Proskouriakoff, ¨Classic Veracruz,¨ 81. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid, 82. ​

31

association.”54 Lastly, in relation to form, she states “Certain tall palmas… tend to use cruder forms and structureless arrangements that suggest provincialism or decadence.”55

Not commenting on stylistic traits, she does however notice that tall slender palmas ¨tend to be carved in simple low relief¨ but concedes ¨we do not find among them designs as elaborate as those which sometimes occur on palmas of more moderate proportions.¨56

Proskouriakoff considers the formal consistencies of a notched fan and figures adorned with a crest, but ultimately resigns to the limits of her corpus. More on these attributes in Chapter 3. She also organizes the “ornately carved palmas” (which she often refers to as having a “baroque” quality) into four major themes: “(1) the standard palmate form with a distinctive mass projecting in front, and decoration of grotesques and scrollwork…; (2) a similar form, with a human figure taking place of the projecting mass…; (3) an unusually slender form with the projecting mass much reduced or eliminated…; (4) the laterally flattened form.”57

Interestingly, Proskouriakoff disagrees with several of Ekholm’s preliminary observations and hypotheses on the function of the palma. While she concedes that nothing in the design of a stone palma doesn't indicate it was actually worn, she argues that it is unlikely that these stone reproductions of wearable ballgame impedimenta served solely as ceremonial effigies. She further explains, “it seems more likely that their use in ceremonies was incidental to a practical function, appropriate to their form and material. Possibly they were set up during the ballgame as temporary markers.”58 She

54 Ibid, 83. ​ 55 Ibid, 81. ​ 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. ​ 58 Ibid, 67. ​

32

continues with this inquiry by examining the designs present on the backside of many palmas, noticing “the carving always stops short of the base of the palma, as if a low step or ledge against which the palma was placed obscured the lower part of the back surface.”59 Proskouriakoff does recognize the limitations in this argument, however, noting that by looking at the bases it is evident neither palmas or hachas remain upright on their own, and would therefore require ¨some sort of sockets or other devices… to hold them in place,” especially as an architectural feature.60 At the time of her 1954 publication, and even present day, ballcourt excavations were unable to prove or disprove this theory either way.

Undoubtedly, Proskouriakoff's work defining the Classic Veracruz style and focus on the portable stone sculpture tradition surrounding the Mesoamerican ballgame remains highly revelatory still today. However her study included about 47 palmas, as compared to the 275+ forms examined for this study. And of her 47, she was only able to provide a diagnostic typology for 24 of the forms. The significant change in the size of the corpus between Proskouriakoff’s essay and this thesis is a chief reason that this project was undertaken - to gather and discuss the many palmas that have come to light since

Proskouriakoff’s initial work.

Sanchez O.

Only one other scholarly work has attempted to take on the palma object type as a whole and consider various iconographic and formal traditions in the quantity presented in this

59 Ibid, 67-68 ​ 60 Ibid, 68. ​

33

thesis. Luis Ignacio Sanchez Olvera's 1978 unpublished thesis on the palma serves as an overly ambitious reminder to the shortcomings of the current study of palmas due to profound lack of archaeological data. Sanchez, too, provided a (much briefer) historiography of many similar scholarly examinations of palmas, such as Spinden,

Ekholm, and Proskouriakoff. However, he largely worked with unpublished documents and objects, attempting to consider the spatial patterning of various palmas traditions throughout the Gulf Coast region. For instance, he mentions the one other attempt (apart from Proskouriakoff) to address a typology of the sculptures in question, notes there were ten categorized types given by this author, but does not discuss any more of the content, including those proposed categories.61 While his thesis working with spatial patterns would be incredibly helpful in the development of palma studies when added to my own typologies proposed later, he continually encounters the same issues this thesis does while attempting to establish regional traditions or an evolution of forms- we simply do not have the archaeological data to substantiate such claims. In turn, all of these assertions of locality become pure speculation given the lack of proof. However, Sanchez begs to differ and claims the three known sites of palma excavation (Santa Luisa and

Pollinapan in Veracruz and Quelepa, El Salvador) create a starting point for the development of a chronological context for the palma object type.62

Sanchez does notice patterns in form (which sometimes turns into iconography) consistent with my own observations. Dividing the palmas into their basic designs and motifs, he determined there are four major types of palmas; palmas of human head

61 Sanchez, La Palma, 15 ​ ​ ​ 62 Ibid, 11. Author's translation from original Spanish. ​

34

design, palmas of human body design, palmas with geometric motifs, and palmas with zoomorphic motifs.63 Within each of those four variations, six to seven distinguishing features differentiate them; each distinction different from the next category. Many of these ¨designs¨ are much more loosely connected than Sanchez implies, especially considering the lack of known iconographic content to link any of these traditions to.

Further, he oscillates between the figures occupying the structural forms of palmas and any carved motifs with little distinction between these two highly divergent sculptural traditions. While my Catalog in Chapter 4 will also move between types to discuss ​ ​ iconography, I am by no means asserting regional continuities until much more evidence comes to light.

Shook and Marquis

While geographically the presence of palmas has traditionally remained by and large within the central and northern Veracruz state, it is important to note that 23 palmas, in addition to many yokes and a couple of hachas, were found in Southern Mesoamerica. ​ ​ While this thesis examines the palmas of the Classic Veracruz tradition, those found in this southern Mesoamerican area, ¨primarily in El Salvador on the southeast periphery of the Maya area,¨ may offer some insight into the palmas of the Veracruz.64 Edwin Shook and Elayne Marquis published a study on these outliers that presents some diagnostic information to consider in relation to the Veracruz objects.

63 Ibid, 14. Author's translation from original Spanish. ​ 64 Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 219. ​ ​

35

While Ekholm and Proskouriakoff assert that the curved basal construction of

Classic Veracruz palmas both help define the object type and indicate they were most likely designed to sit upon a rounded edge, like that of a yoke, Shook and Marquis establish that no such basal continuity exists to suggest the same for Southern

Mesoamerican palmas. In fact, the bases are particularly shallow in depth and “no specific element in the design” of this group “suggests their function, such as for wearing, carrying, mounting or inserting.”65 The bases of the palmas from their study are so insignificant, their very existence is to simply continue a particular diagnostic feature of the other like objects.66 I will also argue below that this is true of certain types of Classic

Veracruz palmas which also lack this basic formal device and thusly call into question the effectivity of defining the function of an entire object type based upon the degree of concavity in their bases. Nonetheless, a slight concavity or not, this feature is observable enough to be considered present on most of the whole forms from the Southern palma traditions.

Of the twenty-three palmas featured in their study of palmas, nineteen in total are from El Salvador, three of which were found within their archaeological context, Cache

24, a burial which also contained several yokes and an hacha.67 Similar to the Veracruz variety, these found in Quelepa were likely from the Late Classic or Early Post-Classic periods.68 Southern Mesoamerican palmas too were carved from a porous, volcanic rock

65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Shook and Marquis look to Andrews' excavation record of Quelepa: E. Wyllys Andrews, The ​ ​ archaeology of Quelepa, El Salvador, (New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane ​ University, 1976). 68 Ibid. ​ ​

36

like that of Veracruz palmas. This material notably “cannot be worked into the high polish often seen on fine examples of yokes and hachas” which were made of more metamorphic materials such as greenstone.69 Interestingly enough, two of these El

Salvador palmas however, were carved in limestone.

Shook and Marquis organize the Southern Mesoamerican palmas into distinct types based on formal and iconographic attributes, not entirely unlike Proskouriakoff’s taxonomy of the Veracruz counterparts. Though the imagery and certain forms of the

Southern Mesoamerican palma corpus deviate largely from that of Classic Veracruz palmas, there are some distinctly unique features that carry a continuity between the significantly separated locales. These and other patterns will be discussed extensively below in Part Two of this thesis.

The group known as Type A comprises just over half of the study’s palmas. Four others distinguish themselves from the previous examples, known as Type B, while the remaining seven do not fit categorically with either of the aforementioned types, but also do not relate to one another to create new stylistic categories. Type A palmas (Catalog

Numbers 22- 29) are described as having “a carved projecting mass of bilateral symmetry ​ ​ centered on a bifurcated winged form of the same height” while “the frontal mass is carved to represent a serpent, bird, animal, or anthropomorphic motif.”70 These palmas also all feature a “multi-feathered vertical crest above the frontal carved mass.”71 The stone sculptures “[flare] out gently towards a rounded top with a notch in the center” that

69 Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 219. ​ ​ ​ 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid, 220.

37

varied from “squared, stepped, or shaped like a ‘V’ or ‘U’.”72 Proskouriakoff also referred to the presence of the notch in the fan of the palma in the Classic Veracruz tradition to be a distinguishing attribute of the object type.73

Unlike many Veracruz palmas, the backs of these palmas remain unadorned and the forms rest upon a squared bottom. However, when viewed in profile, the entire backside of the palma slightly tilts forward, beginning at the base. This is an almost unanimous feature of those from Veracruz, as well. Plumed serpent imagery dominates half of these examples and feathers or crests appeared on most (Cat. No. 27 and 29).

Shook and Marquis describe the bottom half of the palmas to “extend forward and narrows towards the front, forming a base” upon which the carved iconographic motif resides.74 The objects are able to stand freely due to an even distribution of weight and the particular flatness of their base shape. Further, two-thirds of Type A palmas vary no more than 1.5 cm of their maximum width and depth, indicating there was almost a formulaic strategy established for the Southern Mesoamerican production of palmas and

“suggesting artistic sophistication” through this “balance and harmony.”75

Type B palmas (Catalog Numbers 30-32) include the four other relatable forms that also feature a bifurcated fan as well as a slight tilt forward at the top similar to Type

A. The Type B forms are significantly taller, more slender in width but widen from the base upward to the fan, often more closely resembling Proskouriakoff’s Types 1 and 2.

72 Ibid. 73 Proskouriakoff, ¨Classic Veracruz,¨ 81. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid.

38

Beyond these diagnostic attributes, they begin to deviate from one another stylistically, and two of them “have carved motifs on the upper half of the back.”76

In their closing remarks, Shook and Marquis establish that the origin and purpose of the Southern Mesoamerican palmas remains unknown, making them just as elusive as

Classic Veracruz traditions. Offering a solution for their arrival, they assert it is “more likely… that most of the palmas from El Salvador were carved of local stone by local craftsmen who brought to El Salvador only the knowledge and tradition of palmas” instead of having arrived to the area through the migration of peoples and accompanying traditions.77 The palmas of these region are far outnumbered by the yokes and hachas, though the “only instance known … of the three artifacts being found together is in

Cache 24.”78 Therefore it is highly unlikely the object type in this context was associated with the ritual Mesoamerican rubber ballgame like those from Mexico’s Gulf Coast. The scholars also establish the Southern Mesoamerican palmas to be stylistically apart from the Veracruz versions, focusing on feathered serpent imagery (they argue this motif is not present in any Veracruz palmas), instead of the haunting, sacrificial implications of the former, while further the bifurcated fan tops appear in few examples in Veracruz. My research has indicated otherwise for the latter two points. For a detailed discussion of continuities between these and the Classic Veracruz tradition, see end of Chapter 3 and

Catalog images in Chapter 4. ​ Finally, Shook and Marquis address the function of the Southern Mesoamerican variety of the palma object type. Explaining that they “may have served as special

76 Ibid. ​ ​ 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid, 221.

39

symbolic ornaments for a particular ritual and being easily portable, [they] were placed on some architectural unit, such as a temple, an altar, or a ballcourt.”79 Further, they assert that if they were in fact used as an architectural adornment, “they were probably positioned at a height where the pronounced tilt of the palma, with its symbolic central mass, would create a downward facing effect, overseeing the event in progress.”80 While the material evidence doesn’t necessarily match up with Classic Veracruz traditions, the last piece of insight is the closest to an explanation I have encountered for the pronounced tilt forward in a significant number of palmas. However, having explored in person the ballcourts of Tajín, it seems improbable that all of these palmas were able to stand upright by their own means atop a stone monument and no evidence of adherent has been discovered. Furthermore, many of the Classic Veracruz palmas feature this pronounced forward lining fan, which sort of curls making the back “slouch;” they are less able to remain upright, however, due to more angled arches and significantly taller statures, which provide much more weight to balance.

Shook and Marquis were unable to determine any patterns in the remaining palmas of their study that do not fit into Type A or Type B, the latter of which has only four examples opposed to the seven left unsorted and undiscussed. While some are difficult to decipher due to their fragmented nature, others seem to echo other palma forms from Classic Veracruz. For instance, SM Palmas 16 and 21 (Catalog Numbers 33 and 35, respectively) retain a similarly thick trunk form, slightly concave bases, and rounded toes that definitely project way from the main body of the palma. It is difficult to

79 Ibid. 80 Ibid.

40

determine in the image, but the sculptured treatment of Palma 16's fan is consistent with

Classic Veracruz traditions. Further, Palma 20 (Cat. No. 36) adopts the diving caiman motif found on several examples from Mexican collections, coupling a Sculpted Saddle form with a radial fan- a triple-combination of forms and icons not seen together throughout Veracruz, but seen abundantly in separate instances. For more on palma typologies and other patterns to consider, see Chapter 3.

Scott

Decades passed with little to no development on the palma object type until John F. Scott wrote the chapter “Dressed to Kill” in The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican ​ Ballgame in 2001. Here, Scott too notes the function and formation of Pre-Columbian ​ ballgame appurtenances including yokes, hachas, and palmas. Commenting primarily on ​ ​ the progression of the yoke, both in function and style, Scott asserts the stylistic and functional relationship between these three items and likens the evolution of the hacha to the palma, which had been previously discussed by Spinden, Ekholm, and

Proskouriakoff. He also makes the claim that palmas were handheld in order to remain upright, ¨such hand positions are occasionally represented on high relief on the palmas themselves,¨ using PP n (Figure 17) to bolster his argument.81 ​ ​ By examining the various carved formations and icons included on stone palmas,

Scott categorizes them as “late to the sequence of ballgame regalia.”82 Proskouriakoff

81 John F. Scott, “Dressed to Kill: Stone Regalia of the Mesoamerican Ballgame.” In The Sport of Life and ​ ​ Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. E. Michael Whittington (London: Thames and Hudson, 2001), ​ 61. 82 Ibid. ​

41

initially introduced this idea in 1954 by noticing that “scroll ornament on palmas is consistently of later type, and it seems probable that the palma did not come into general use until sometime during the Late Classic period or at its close.”83 Some years later, in his essay “Human Sacrifice in the Iconography of Veracruz,” Scott confirms this observation and places the palma object type in the archaeological context of the Late ​ ​ Classic and or Epiclassic period.84 By looking at relief panels from the South Ball Court in Tajín, Scott deduces that because the ballplayers sport palmas, they must be from the

Epiclassic period as “excavations in Veracruz have found palmas only in the Epiclassic context.”85 He further supports this claim by including fieldwork conducted by S. Jeffrey

K. Wilkerson as well as Arellanos and Beauregard that examine palmas found in the

Epiclassic period at San Luisa and Rancho El Paraíso, respectively. Using the dates of El

Tajín’s “main occupation, 850-1000 CE,” the urban center considered to be the height of

Classic Veracruz culture, it is reasonable to date most palmas nearer to this Late

Classic/Epiclassic archeological context versus the Early Classic implied by the dates suggested on many esteemed institution's object labels.86

Furthermore, Scott asserts the relationship of the palma object type to scenes of various ball court reliefs of players featuring yokes and palmas throughout Classic

Veracruz and establishes a pattern that indicates the use of palmas in sacrificial settings surrounding the ballgame. Scott then further contextualizes the function and iconography

83 Proskouriakoff, ¨Classic Veracruz,¨ 90. ​ 84 John F. Scott, "Human Sacrifice in the Iconography of Veracruz." In Blood and Beauty: Organized ​ ​ Violence in the Art and Archaeology of Mesoamerica and Central America, eds. Heather Orr and Rex ​ Koontz. (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2009), 109. 85 Ibid. ​ 86 Ibid. ​

42

of the palma object type by discussing other “scenes of ritual violence.”87 He states,

“while the scenes are not specifically located within ballgame paraphernalia or in ball court, the game is implied because the scenes are on palmas, the only known function of which was to be worn on ballgame belts in ceremonies.”88 Following Scott’s ideas, by likening the iconography to ballcourt reliefs, even if the object itself does not contain a scene of sacrifice, it can be inferred that the icons carved into the many various stone palmas, too, represents the ballgame and other ritualistic ceremonies.

Finally, Scott examines the cosmological relationship of the symbolic stone impedimenta to the ritual ballgame by referencing a 2006 Master’s thesis by Ninon

Roose which relating yokes to the underworld and palmas to the upperworld.89 In conclusion, Scott proposes that “[stone regalia] worn prior to and after the game [were] set aside, … employed as markers of on the court. Rulers and other high elites could have worn these objects… as a reminder to their viewers of their role in bringing into balance the forces of the upperworld and underworld.”90

Chapter 1 Synthesis and Conclusions

Until now, the development of palma studies has not expanded much since the preliminary findings of these scholars, beginning in the early 1900s. By and large, they conclude that in order for an exact function to be known of these objects, we need more

87 Ibid. ​ 88 Ibid, 110-111. ​ 89 Ninon Roose, Le complexe jougs-haches-palmes en Mésoamerique . Thèse de doctorat en Préhistoire, ​ ​ Ethnologie et Anthropologie. (Université de París: Panthéon Sorbonne, 2006), 251. 90 Scott, “Human Sacrifice,” 111. ​

43

archaeological information. That said, we can determine many things from what has and has not been said until now:

Fewkes was the first to group ¨paddle shaped stones¨ together because of their related convex base shapes, and noticed they could fit on a curved edge, like that of the yoke. He points out these objects were meant to be seen in-the-round given that they are sculptured on both sides and that the decorative motifs these objects seem to be related to one another.91 He also recognizes that despite low quantity, their forms vary significantly.

Some years later, Spinden recognized the evolution of the hacha to the palma, but we still lack archaeological data to substantiate these claims; a point Ekholm and many others cling fast to. Ekholm noticed the particular material the extant stone palmas are made of could not withstand the impact of a solid rubber ball and therefore they must be a ceremonial version; how specifically they were used beyond wearability in such ceremonies is still unknown.

Proskouriakoff advanced our understanding of these traditions by establishing the

Classic Veracruz style, revolving around the baroquely ornate double-lined scroll patterns and the portable stone sculpture trio of the yoke, hacha, and palma. She also noticed they are highly varied in form but in limited quantity; she provides a typology for only 23 of her ¨baroque forms¨ but is unable to do the same for another 24 palmas and related forms, comprising the other half of her study.92 Ultimately Proskouriakoff was unable to ​ ​ prescribe diagnostics for the ¨seemingly random traits of unknown significance.¨93

Sanchez O. amassed more palmas than anyone else, but the images included largely

91 Fewkes, “Certain Antiquities,” 261. ​ 92 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 81. ​ 93 Ibid.

44

featured already published palmas further preventing future scholars from expanding upon his study by utilizing the other 100 lesser unknown palma forms. Even more erroneously, he relied on the archaeological evidence of five or so palmas to establish spatial patterning of more than 180 palma forms.94 And finally, Scott relies on archaeological evidence of the ballcourts themselves at Tajín to date the palma object type to the Late or Epiclassic period.95

What does this culmination of over a century worth of scholarship on these anomalous forms mean going forward? The major uniting comment by all who have looked at the palma object type en masse is the call for a significantly expanded corpus of these objects in order to provide accurate diagnostics for a revised typology. Further, to accurately establish chronology and evolution of style as well as any regional consistencies and differences, more archaeological data is also absolutely required to substantiate any claims.

Presented above are also two different attempts at a formal typology of the objects in question, that of Proskouriakoff and Classic Veracruz palmas, and the other of Shook and Marquis and their Southern Mesoamerican trove. Both approaches feature a variety of terms in which to describe many of the palmas, but neither offer solutions for all of the palmas in their respective studies, not to mention all of those amassed for this study. In fact, well more than half of the known palmas (those in my database) do not fit into these

94 Sanchez includes geographical information for almost half of his study’s forms, though it seems to be ​ more speculation through the lens of limited formal and iconographic patterning versus well documented archaeological data (of which very little exists), such as the case of the Santa Luisa Palma excavated by Wilkerson from an elite burial at that site: S. J. K. Wilkerson, “In Search of Mountain Foam: Human Sacrifice in Eastern Mesoamerica,” in Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica, ed. E. H. Boone. ​ ​ [Dumbarton Oaks; Washington, D.C.],101-132. 95 Scott, ¨Dressed to Kill,¨ 63.

45

typologies. Thus, with the findings above and my own palma anatomy (Introduction), I propose a re-examination of the palma object type based on a significantly increased corpus in Chapter 3 of this thesis. While Sanchez's thesis features an alleged 176 palmate forms and fragments, no more than 10 of the 100 plus illustrations he diagrams are palmas outside of Proskouriakoff’s original 47 and the now well-known and accessible collections at the MAX and MNAH. He does, however, share information (if any) regarding provenance of these objects. Since most of them were located in Mexican institutions and the rest in private collections, it is my belief that there are at least another

50-100 or so palmas out there that I have yet to encounter. That said, I still have a collection of at least 100 more objects than have been previously looked at together, and the hypothesis I made in relation to the variation of these forms continues to work for all new palmas I encounter.

46

Chapter 2: Public Iconography of the Tajín Complex and its Relationship to Palma Function and Imagery ​

By and large, what limited knowledge we do have of the palma's function comes from their appearances in Tajín public iconography. Tajín has been long established as the urban center of Classic Veracruz culture, leading into what some have deemed

Epiclassic or Early Post Classic, c. 600-1000 CE.96 The appearance of the palma in archaeology, as well as in imagery, coincides with Tajín’s apogee.97 Further, and as we will see below, the object is found mainly in this region that roughly parallels Tajín influence.

The palma’s connection with the ritual ballgame emerges almost exclusively from its appearance in ballcourt scenes at El Tajín. In fact, the single most important connection (in relation to form, function, and iconography) established in the last century of scholarship is with that of the ritual ballgame and surrounding rites.98 Varied profile views of what appear to be palmas resting on a presumed yoke occur in the iconography of the Aparicio panels (Figure 20), a central ballcourt in Tajín (Figures 22 and 24), as well as the Mound of the Building Columns (Figures 30-32), which is associated ascension imagery. Interestingly enough, the presence of the palma in these sculptural treatises simply establishes certain participants in scenes of sacrifice as ballplayers simply because they wear the garb traditionally associated with the game, the

96 Annick Daneels, “Collapse and Regeneration: Developmental Cycles in the Gulf Lowlands,” in Oxford ​ ​ Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology, eds. Deborah L. Nichols and Christopher A. Pool (Oxford: ​ Oxford University Press, 2016), 348–371. 97 Scott, “Dressed to Kill,” 63. ​ 98 Ekholm, “Palmate Stones,” 3. ​

47

aforementioned yoke and palma. Nowhere in the available monumental and portable sculptural traditions is gameplay actually described or illustrated, thus obscuring the interpretation of a potentially true function of the palma object type and how it functioned in the ritual ballgame itself, apart from wearability.

This chapter aims to examine the extensive public sculptural programs throughout the Classic Veracruz site of El Tajín in order to better consider the iconography of the group of highly varied, yet undeniably linked, palmas found in this study. More specifically, right now we are concerned with the presence of the palma in the public iconographic programs. This chapter will also serve as a preface to a visual essay in the

Catalog of Illustrated Typology and Palma Related Iconography in Chapter 4, situating ​ ​ ​ imagery found on the palmas themselves in relation to the public iconography in the same time period and region. This task will be accomplished by examining the scholarship from the last century by looking at Spinden, Kampen, and Koontz, respectively. Each of these scholarly examinations of the Tajín complex provides thought provoking and detailed considerations that build upon one another's interpretations of the iconographic traditions of the South Ballcourts (henceforth often abbreviated SBC) as well as the

Mound of the Building Columns (MBC). While the iconographic programs contain extensive, elaborately carved scenes that remain largely undeciphered while allowing glimpses into these ancient traditions, this chapter will focus primarily on each scholar's take on the presence of the palma in the monumental public sculpture of the site. For the most recent and most extensive look at the entire Tajín iconographic program, see

Koontz's 2009 book Lightning Gods and Feathered Serpents. ​ ​

48

Spinden

As introduced in Chapter 1, Ellen Spinden's 1933 article ¨A Place for Totonac

Architecture¨ offers some of the most comprehensive early scholarship on the palma object type. The article provides the first extensive look at the South Ballcourt program in

Tajín and even commented on the iconographic motifs of the Mound of the Building

Columns as well as ¨minor art¨ sculpture, such as the palmas themselves. Unfortunately,

Spinden often slips into the pitfall of reading the Tajín complex through a thick lens of a ​ priori knowledge of Maya and Aztec imagery and often conflates uniquely Classic ​ Veracruz themes (which she calls Totonac) for antecedents of or, even more erroneously, as an epilogue to the Maya (contemporaries of Tajín) and or the Aztecs, who occupied the central Valley of Mexico a half a millennia after the fall of Tajín. The error of chronology, and therefore ethnology, is through no fault of her own; ceramic production could not be linked to other early Mesoamerican cultures and the appropriate technologies, such as radiocarbon dating, had not yet been invented. Thus, Spinden had no preexisting chronological framing device in which to situate El Tajín and all aspects of what is now known as Classic Veracruz culture.

While exploring the dense jungle near Papantla, Mexico, Ellen Spinden and company encountered the extensive complex that is El Tajín. Relying on Ruiz' rediscovery of the long-since abandoned complex in 1785, she designates the same name for the Pyramid (now known as the Pyramid of the Niches (Figure 18)) as well as the site, establishing the Totonac translation of Tajín as the Spanish trueño, meaning the “Place of ​ ​

49

Thunder.”99 Spinden quickly associates this name with the Central Mexican rain deity,

Tlaloc, who she deems as a crucial participant within the Classic Veracruz cosmovision and has come to be associated ¨with the Mexican year symbol.¨100 However, she quickly notes ¨equally good reasons can be developed for assigning the pyramid to the Sun God or the Morning Star.¨101

Spinden associates the pervasive construction of niched edifices (Figure 18) with

Maya structures but ultimately designates this formation as a Totonac tradition. She further connects the coils present on yoke forms as well as palmas to those in architecture. These single-lined spirals dominate the architectural adornments, nearly as abundant in number as the niches (Figure 19). Spinden later acknowledges a double-scroll pattern present throughout relief carvings as a Totonac tradition as well; while these forms are similar in shape, they are more elaborately executed.102 These forms later become diagnostic of the Classic Veracruz style established by

Proskouriakoff (Chapter 1, page 27), and serve as a different manifestation of the abundant, identifiable scroll motifs diagnostic of the region's style.

Despite issues with accurately ascribing an ethnic origin to the site's builders and iconographers, Spinden did encounter the site in a more authentic state than it exists now.

This allowed the explorer to discuss where exactly the remaining panels and other stone monuments were placed (including within the fill of the buildings), and allowing associations to be made between the Central Plaza program and the South Ball Court,

99 Spinden, “Place of Tajín,” 233. ​ 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid, 237.

50

among others. For example, many of the singular panels were first encountered as square slabs broken into pieces perched upon an elevated platform as well as at the base of the large Pyramid. In some cases, however, it is unclear if these slab panels belong to this plaza or if they fell from the pyramid above. Along the edges, carved into these slabs was a common curvilinear, coiled border measuring six inches in width, as well as images of gods and men performing various ceremonies and rites.103

Of the ballcourts, Spinden considers them to be ¨perhaps the most interesting feature of the Tajín ruin.¨104 At the time, not all seventeen courts had been uncovered as they are now; however, Spinden and company were able to partially reconstruct two of the central ballcourts: they replaced the massive stone slabs of the North and South

Ballcourts and resituate the iconographic templates within their originally intended setting. Spinden notes these two courts are oriented in an approximately east-west direction. The NBC is inferior in size to the SBC, though their construction is similar; parallel carved panels, comprised of three stacked, massive stones, form the walls of the courts, topped by a sloped talud bench on the north side. Painting a more complete picture of the constructions in their true glory, Spinden explains that ¨set back slightly from the sculptured stone bench there must have been a perishable superstructure.¨105

At the time of the publication, only the four corner reliefs of the South Ball Court were available to Spinden (Figures 22-25), occluding the two central panels which contain linked imagery and other scholars argue complete the cycle of whatever tradition it is being visually documented. Each of the ballcourt relief panels is actually made of

103 Ibid, 229. 104 Ibid, 236. 105 Ibid, 237.

51

three carved, stacked registers, instead of a disengaged slab like Structures 2 and 4 or the

Aparicio panel. Graciously noting the arrangement of the stone slabs upon encounter;

Spinden noticed the topmost register somewhat extended forward, an attribute she supposes, may be a result of the larger ruin that forms the ballcourt wall, but also that it may have allowed a ring to be attached.106

Spinden recognized the skeletal form (Figure 21) rising from the cauldron placed in an aqueous setting as a major motif of the Greater Ball Court (SBC), in addition to the schematized serpentine scroll imagery that occupies much of the top and bottom most registers.107 Spinden explains that the urn itself may suggest burial while the water forms in the bottom of the reliefs reference Chignahuapan, or the purgatory-like journey in

Aztec religion in which the soul of the deceased must cross nine rivers. She does quickly recognize, however, the more present iconographic associations of water and the ballcourt by looking to Aztec codices and a legend of the Mexica patron deity of war,

Huitzilopochtli.108 In addition to the rising skeletal figure, Spinden describes the four available panels as having two other common, yet somewhat differing, features; ¨a zone at the top consisting of plumed serpent scroll work combined with what may be a star symbol in two instances; and at the base of each sculpture is a band of serpent scroll work on which stand the figures in the principal scene.¨109

While presenting the pictographic motifs, Spinden comments on the condition of the stones. She notices the southeastern most panel (Figure 23) is the most damaged. She

106 Ibid, 245. 107 Ibid, 246. 108 Ibid, 247. 109 Ibid, 248.

52

also comments on the hierarchical scale of figures in the panel. Looking to the headdress worn by one of the figures, Spinden suggest this may embody Xochiquetzal, the Aztec goddess of weaving. The southwest panel (Figure 25) features an avian form with open ​ ​ wings, that at one point was incorrectly identified as a turkey.110 Spinden asserts it must be an eagle and therefore the scene is ¨a ceremony of initiation of a youth into one of the

War Societies,¨ an interesting hypothesis without a specific Aztec analog; most scholars do not find this hypothesis convincing.111 This she attributes to the Toltecs, as well as the masked figures from the northwest panels, which features the precious Aztec New Fire

Ceremony inside of the ballcourt.112 This argument is furthered by the presence of the ball, as represented here as a flattened disc similar to the Codex Laud, at the feet of those enacting the New Fire ceremony.113

Spinden argues the setting of the northern panels (Figures 24 and 26) is likely from a cross-section view of a ballcourt, featuring players who do not wear skirts, but instead what appear to be yokes and palmas. She somewhat backs down from her strong readings of Aztec and Mayan imagery when she explains that the function of the zoomorphic figure to the right of the northeastern panel, be it feline or canine, along with other anthropomorphized animalian deities and impersonators ¨were related if not interchangeable” with those of Mexica or Maya origin, while their correct identifications within the Tajín pantheon “is not as easy” since it is unknown.114 She backs this up by saying ¨without plunging too far into the maze of Mexican myth, we can see that the

110 Ibid, 249 111 Ibid. ​ 112 Ibid, 250. 113 Ibid, 251. 114 Ibid, 252. ​

53

Totonacs shared with their Mexican and Maya neighbors the belief in a god who was associated with the beast of prey and dealt thunder and lightning at the ball court.¨115

While, it is not entirely incorrect to assume some continuity, the reality is that these cultures were separated through vast geographical and chronological distances.

The northeast panels (Figure 24) clearly represent a human sacrifice. Spinden largely associates the scene with Chichen Itza while many of the participants recall earlier Veracruz cultures, such as the Olmec. Spinden explains that since the many figures featured in the ballcourt reliefs sport ornamental headgear and skirts, these represent the ceremonies surrounding the rites instead of ¨players garbed for the game.¨116

Other, more central, figures dressed in what have been interpreted as yokes and palmas have therefore been interpreted as ballplayers, in addition to the aforementioned ceremonial attendants (Figure 22). Her argument is bolstered by Sahagun's account of lavish living by the Totonac people that created lovely garments from fine fabrics.117 She also claims these figures are wearing gloves- garb typical of ballplayers as described in the Popul Vuh and in Duran's account of ceremonial rites. She describes a protuberance from the waistband as ¨horn-like¨ and suggests ¨ït may be the quezeuatl, the rawhide belt and covering of the hips;¨ it appears here that she is mistakenly labeling these as the

Aztec appartunices for the yoke and palma of Classic Veracruz.118 As far as the central

115 Ibid, 253. 116 Ibid, 257. 117 Spinden does not mention which of Sahagun’s volumes she is referencing but it is likely: Bernardino De ​ Sahagún, Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain Vol. 10: The People, ed. Charles ​ E. Dibble and Arthur J. O. Anderson (Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2012). 118 Spinden, “Place of Tajín,” 258. ​

54

sacrificial victim goes, Spinden suggests he is a captive warrior defeated in the game, which was commonly associated with Aztec New Fire rites.119

Spinden also discusses the Mound of the Sculptured Drums (now known as the

Mound of the Building Columns as discussed in the intro to this chapter)(See Figure 30 for North Column). Again, her interpretation is clouded in loose Aztec connections, but notes the difference in the programs between up here in Tajín Chico and the central ceremonial precinct of Tajín proper below. At the time of this early study of Tajín monumental sculpture only seventeen of a hypothesized thirty carved roundels spanning more than three feet in diameter were present; Spinden suggests they were circular altars but may actually prove to be columns given their appropriate study– indeed they did.

With the currently understood running iconographic frieze order completely unknown at the time, Spinden imagines an illustrative series of ceremonial rites. Of their iconography, she recognizes processions of people with architectural indicants of setting like those of the North Ballcourt.120 Many of the figures are clad in similarly patterned textiles and embellishments as other major sculptural programs.

Kampen

Nearly forty years passed between Spinden's preliminary iconographic assertions and the extensive work of Michael E. Kampen, who took on the iconographic traditions of the entire architectural complex in his 1972 book The Sculptures of El Tajín. Here, Kampen ​ ​ examines the various public sculpture types found within the El Tajín complex and

119 Ibid. 120 Ibid, 261.

55

analyzes their relationships to the larger program. Possibly most significant to the development of Tajín iconographic studies are the drawings provided by Kampen.

Everything from the ballcourt relief panels to the most miniscule carved corner of a fragment, Kampen did not miss a detail. Alongside the drawings, he provides a more subjective description versus the Aztec-laden interpretations offered by Spinden and

Ekholm, simply detailing their garb and minimal action through formal analysis. These drawings have proven crucial to my development of iconographic patterns of palma related imagery.

Kampen identifies the Pyramid of the Niches, North and South Ball Courts, as well as the Mound of the Building Columns as the ¨four major architectural groups¨ in the Tajín complex, each with an extensive program of iconographic elements present

(Recall Figure 9).121 They also provide the most definitive evidence for the significance of the ballgame to this culture. However, some panels are highly fragmented and incomplete, providing gaps in the true iconographical read. As I will argue later, any true and comprehensive iconographic read of the Tajín complex must acknowledge the lacuna of the material record lost to time, from the looted panels in the Mound of the Building

Columns to the possibility of a written language conducted through fugitive pigmentation and or documented on perishable materials.

In a complete 180-degree turn from Spinden, Kampen refused to look at Tajín's visual traditions through an exclusively Maya or Aztec lens. Some years later in another, lesser recognized publication, he somewhat recants such a strong opposition and

121 Michael E. Kampen, The Sculptures of El Tajín, Veracruz, Mexico. (Gainesville: University of Florida ​ ​ ​ Press, 1972), 3.

56

considers various iconographies from Aztec traditions to comment on palma icons.122

Nonetheless, despite Kampen's vehement opposition, it is not wholly incorrect to document stylistic continuities throughout Mesoamerican time and space, especially in the case of uniformly diagnostic elements. For instance, asserting that a figure with markedly begoggled eyes and a distinctive fang makes reference to the Central Mexican rain deity, Tlaloc. Although it can be deduced that their cosmovision operated through a

260-day ritual calendar and the existence of ballcourts relied heavily on many uniting principles to the Mesoamerican area, it is unwise and impractical to view the Tajín iconographic traditions solely through the lens of another culture, and only view the aforementioned figure as the Central Mexican Rain deity. Though some iconographic traditions remain undeciphered, a truly failed read is one that assumes the iconographic traditions of one Mesoamerican culture would directly correspond with those of another culture, no matter how separated they are in time and space. Most likely, the Tajín pantheon represents a syncretic yet unique cosmovision to the Veracruz region, as seen in similar deities such as the existence Olmec, Maya, and Aztec maize and rain deities, including the aforementioned Tlaloc.

Though Kampen does make significant mention of the palmas’ presence in Tajín public iconography, he remains perplexed about their function given a lack of archaeological data. Described as ¨crescent shaped items on the front of the heavy waistbands,¨ Kampen likens the palmate form with a general typographic description;

¨each of these items has a notched lower outer edge and a slightly concave base

122 Michael E. Kampen, "Classic Veracruz Grotesques and Sacrificial Iconography." Man, New Series, 13, ​ ​ ​ no. 1 (1978): 116-26. doi:10.2307/2801069.

57

conforming to the convex resting place on the thick waistband support… extending from the waistband upward and outward in front of the chest.¨123 This description comes from the profile view offered in the northern corner panels from the SBC (Figures 22 and 24). ​ ​ In a panel from the Pyramid (Figure 26), a figure dons what appears to be an hacha in profile- worn on the front of the comparably large waistband, a presumed yoke.

Kampen analyzes (and ultimately sides with) Ekholm's interpretation of the function and use of hachas and palmas given their presence in several ballgame and sacrificial scenes at Tajín and goes as far as to speculate that these stone versions could have in fact been worn by an individual with the athletic prowess required for the game.

Kampen is most put off by the fact that we do not know how the game was played in

Tajín, as such speculating the level at which one of these heavy stone objects identified as a palma or hacha may impede upon a player's movement rendering it ¨futile to argue… when we do not understand what movements were necessary to the game, especially the specific game as it was performed at El Tajín.¨124 In the end, Kampen accepts the

¨conservative¨ reading put forth by Ekholm; these items worn by the ballplayers will henceforth be known as yokes, hachas, and palmas. However, it is nearly impossible to determine materiality from the ballcourt relief representations of said impedimenta, therefore it may never been known definitively whether those palmas featured in the ceremonial scenes are made of stone or not.

Kampen identifies ballplayers by their adornments- what is presumed to have been worn in the ballgame.125 Ironically enough, scenes with the appropriately outfitted

123 Kampen, El Tajín, 31-32. ​ ​ 124 Ibid, 47. 125 Ibid, 45-46.

58

individuals do not represent the game in the mode of play leaving “the only logically valid interpretation of the meaning of the ball game must come from an analysis of the subjects represented on the ball court walls and in Tajín reliefs, in general.¨126 These players wear the thick waistband, what we have accepted to be called a yoke, as well as items in the front, which we accept as hachas or palmas, and we accept them as players for the garb they wear. Palmas in particular are seen in larger number and carry a strong presence through the South Ballcourt panels- most vividly present in what Kampen describes as the most sophisticated of the panels, at the northeastern panel at the SBC

Figure 24. What is lacking, however, is the profound understanding of the Tajín cosmovision and local history to account for all of the characters present so we may know exactly what is occurring in the ballcourt relief scenes and other monumental public sculptures.

Scenes of sacrifice do exist without equipment clad participants, but they are different than these representing players, set in ballcourts with lavish ceremonies suggesting that ¨they were public rituals of great importance.¨127 Kampen points to what he calls Pyramid Sculpture 7 (now known as Structure 2) (Figure 29) and the NW panel of the SBC as the ¨earliest point in the ceremonial sequence represented at Tajín… where one ball player holds a knife at shoulder level and faces a second character whose arms are folded over his chest.¨128 This knife is not seen at the throat nor are the figures assuming the ¨final sacrificial position¨ as seen in a subsequent panel (Figure 24) which

126 Ibid, 48. 127 Ibid, 54. 128 Ibid, 53. ​

59

depicts the confrontation of three characters.129 The left-central figure ¨seated on a low rounded support and is forced backwards by a character also wearing ballgame equipment,” while the right figure also wears yoke and palma, faces them with a knife held at throat of victim.130 Referencing his predecessors, Kampen notes that Spinden and

Garcia Payon have interpreted the SBC to be read from the SE panel moving clockwise through ¨the selection, initiation, appearance on the ball court, and the ultimate sacrifice of a warrior or ball player… a series of scenes from the life of a single person¨131 Kampen argues instead that the principal participant of each scene differs in attire and adornment, indicating the panels illustrate more than one important figure involved in the ceremonies.

Of the presence of palmas in the sculptured reliefs at Tajín, Kampen explains that everything from the execution of forms and the specific imagery of their elaborate decoration, palmas closer resemble the sculptures found at Tajín than that of yokes and hachas. He further argues since most palmas are found (however ungrounded) in Central

Veracruz, it is likely there is a specific relationship between the palma object type and the site of Tajín which may ¨represent a Late Classic style development in central Veracruz aimed at the presentation of increasingly complex iconographic themes such as the human sacrifices connected with military activities and the ritual ball game.¨132 What is most curious about these astute observations as that he stops there- he does not pick up with any specific palma iconography until his 1978 article on ¨Classic Veracruz

129 Ibid. ​ 130 Ibid. ​ 131 Ibid, 54-55. 132 Ibid, 88-89.

60

Grotesques and Sacrificial Iconography¨ making any connections to Tajín sculptural programs. More on specific palma iconography in Chapter 4's Catalog. ​ ​

Koontz

Several more decades passed with few attempts at reimagining the iconographic programs of El Tajín and Classic Veracruz at large. Rex Koontz's 2009 publication

Lightning Gods and Feathered Serpents provides the most recent scholarly examination ​ of the site, including how the individual ¨architectural and sculptural programs” work together, establishing the Pyramid of the Niches and the South Ballcourt to be part of adjacent precincts and in the same the central iconographic program. Koontz's consideration of Tajín's sculptured iconographic programs looks at their related motifs and historically narrative content.

One of the first major mentions Koontz makes of the palma in Tajín public iconography is in relation to Structure 2 Panel (erroneously labeled as Pyramid of the

Niches Structure 7 by Kampen) (Figure 29). Here, Koontz interprets three central figures in an architectural setting resembling the ballcourt; the central human figure on right wears yoke and ¨crescent-shaped¨ palma while raising the ¨sacrificial knife.¨133

Heartbreakingly, the central action is completely missing from the panel leaving the other two principal figures nearly destroyed, though there is evidence of wearing the same skirt and train, and likely other ball game paraphernalia as well. The author comments on the missing main component to this scene; a central figure around which the scene's action

133 Koontz, Lightning Gods, 17-18. ​ ​ ​

61

revolved is missing, all but three stacked serpent heads the author compares to the

Aparicio ballcourt panels of decapitated ballplayers; there too (recall Figure 20), the ballplayer wears a textured skirt and also what have been agreed upon as a yoke and a palma.134 Koontz asserts this scene can also be read as connected to the illustrative ballcourt relief panels due to the Central Plaza's structural relationship to the SBC. In addition to the architectural setting, the ballgame is further implied by the presence of the skullball at the center of the panel which makes this is the closest known example of the actual ball game being played at Tajín.

Of the major sculptural programs, Koontz notices the prevalence of iconography related to the South Ballcourt that resonates throughout the site; it is at this site in which palmas most often appear, and it is of this iconographic sequence that palma imagery corresponds.135 He notes the SBC and one other court, the North Ballcourt, are notably larger, featuring taller vertical walls (ornately carved at the SBC) and a smaller apron, signalling their prominence as sites designated for ritual, not the ballgame.

Through an investigation of other Mesoamerican iconographic traditions, Koontz asserts the relationship established in these ball court scenes ¨represent activity designed to force alliances immediately before a military action.¨136 The four corner panels of the South

Ballcourt, are flanked by top and bottom registers of Classic Veracruz scrollwork, the top featuring highly abstracted zoomorphs. They also feature a framed skeletal figure rising from a pot that sits in a liquid environment; this figure is contained within its own frame, leaving the principal scene to account for the remaining ⅔ of the panel.

134 Ibid, 17-19. 135 Ibid, 38. ​ 136 Ibid, 45.

62

Koontz establishes the correct reading order of the SBC and begins the narrative with the northwestern corner panel, where an alliance is made on the ballcourt (Figure

22). This architectural framework is ¨defined by a depiction of the profiles of Structures 5 and 6 (Kampen and Wilkerson).¨137 The identification of the central characters wearing the ballgame appurtenances of yoke and palma bolster this argument, though the author notes their lack of full ensemble and further concludes this scene is of the associated rites, not of the ballgame itself.138 Koontz also considers the positioning of the central figure's arm; the difference in interpretation is palpable as one suggests submission and the other suggests the elevated status of the individual. Two others figures are in the scene; on the left, a human with an elaborate zoomorphic headdress with a rounded netted cap with a baton in hand as well as a similarly tied skirt and train around the waist, but no yoke nor palma, descending the slope of the court while a zoomorphic feline figure to the right kneels atop the courtside wearing a similarly netted (though differently shaped) headdress and ballgame related attire, again sans yoke and palma.

The second panel in the narrative moves to the southeast corner, which serves as a continuation of the warfare themes established in the previous panel (Figure 23). Here, a central figure is flanked with a seated figure to each side. The seated figure on the left holds three spears in his hand which he brandishes for the central figure, who looks toward them while crossing his chest with his right arm. The action of the figure on the right is less clear. The figure on the left has the diagnostic supraorbital plate as well as an

¨elliptical jewel¨ associated with other Tajín supernaturals.139 Thus, here we see Tajín

137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid, 47. ​

63

supernaturals presenting the markedly human central figure with weapons, a manifestation of legitimizing warfare. Directly above the spears is another Tajín supernatural that Koontz establishes as a War-Serpent figure (based from Taube's diagnostics including the commonality of sharing weapons and others materials of war with humans) seen in Maya traditions. Therefore, as the author argues, ¨the first two panels… speak directly to indigenous conceptions of war.¨140 Like the ball game, war itself is never represented; it is the larger iconographic context that allows for the interpretation of these panels.

Set in the same ballcourt architecture as the first, the the third panel in the series also features the same figure with a netted headdress (established as same figure due to the baton it carries, and it's inclusion in other scenes further associating it with this ritual)

(Figure 24). This individual restrains the central, sacrificial victim as a third participant wields the blade seen in Panel 1. Each of these figures sports a yoke, palma, skirt, and knee pads; all related to the ball game. From above descends another skeletal supernatural figure that is seen other times in scenes in which they ¨claim the fruits of sacrifice.¨141

Koontz illustrates the third panel's composition by focusing on the main action taking place; a ritual sacrifice. Though it can be agreed upon as the primary action of the panel, the significance of this sacrifice has been debated. The reading of the knife's direction dictates decapitation or heart removal for the sacrifice. The former feeds into the reading of the panel at Structure 5 with a decapitated spray of serpentine figures,

140 Ibid, 49. 141 Ibid, 50.

64

indicating the SBC is the moment leading up to the sacrifice while Structure 5 is the moment immediately after.142

The fourth corner panel features an anthropomorphized avian figure that hovers over human figure with his arms crossed upon his chest, who lies across an (probably) artificial mountain or other pyramidal platform (Figure 25). Two musicians stand by; on ​ ​ the left with a rattle, to the right with the drum, creating a scene of dance. The gesture of the winged figure too indicates dance.143 The reclining figure with crossed arms likely corresponds to an elite figure. Agreeing with Urcid, Koontz asserts the commonly agreed upon reading of the Tajín panels is likely incorrect and that instead the vulture dance follows the sacrificial decapitation within the ballcourt.144

The central bird figure appears again at the Mound of the Building Columns; descending upon another scene of sacrifice. The two are identified as the same character from the diagnostic beaded apparatus that drapes across the figure's beak. This bird has been identified as a vulture by Kampen and ¨specifically opposed to the short dramatically hooked beak of other bird figures at Tajín.¨145 Wilkerson, however, suggests that the bracketing of the figure corresponds with the crest of a harpy eagle.146

Nonetheless, ¨the human sacrificial rituals directly associated with this bird iconography would have drawn large numbers of these birds, especially the vultures, to the

142 Ibid, 50-51. ​ 143 Mary Ellen Miller and Karl A. Taube, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya: an ​ Illustrated Dictionary of Mesoamerican Religion. (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), . ​ 144 Koontz, Lightning Gods, 53. ​ ​ 145 Ibid, 52. 146 S. Jeffrey K. Wilkerson, “And Then They Were Sacrificed: The Ritual Ballgame of Northeastern ​ Mesoamerica” in The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. Vernon L. Scarborough and David Wilcox (Tuscon: ​ ​ University of Arizona Press, 1991), 58.

65

monumental centers. They would have consumed any remnants of sacrifice, an act that may have been the natural model.¨147 Thus, the bird dance, would have been observed in part from nature.

Apart from, yet together with, the four corner panels, the central panels (Figures

28 and 29) feature an elaborate frame of ¨basal band of scrolls [that are a] slightly more ​ ​ ornate version of those seen on the corner panels, while the sides, four columns of repeating motifs, not seen in the corner panels, contain columns of zoomorphic heads alternating with columns of interlocking scrolls.¨148 Koontz recognizes both central panels share ¨three major features:... a temple filled with liquid and surmounted by stepped roof ornaments, a mountain covered in flowering plants, and a specific central protagonist¨ who is marked by the supraorbital plate (SOP) associated with El Tajín’s supernaturals.149

This figure also features a characteristically ¨curved fang set into the corner of the mouth¨ with a curled element at either end of the mouth. This deity has been interpreted as the Valley of Mexico's Tlaloc, the rain god, with related imagery across the

Teotihuacano and Mexica cultures. This curved fanged figure has also been interpreted as a wind deity from Central Mexico traditions, but the Principle Deity at Tajín lacks the duck bill and other diagnostic features of Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl. However, a localized embodiment of the wind god is represented by the duck-billed mask sharing figures in the top-most registers. As noted by Koontz, the distinction between human impersonators and supernatural figures remains rather blurred throughout Mesoamerican iconography with the exception of the Tajín public iconographic program, assessing the importance of

147 Ibid. 148 Ibid, 55-56. 149 Ibid.

66

these figures and their specific, designated rolls. Examining the effectivity of interpreting the Tajín iconographic complex through other Mesoamerican traditions, Koontz moves away from an interpretation of a god repeated throughout many pantheons and nominates the figure in the central South Ballcourt panels to be called the ¨Principal Tajín Deity¨ or

PTD.150 This distinction is crucial moving forward when considering the undeniable iconographic traditions carried throughout Mesoamerica but especially with the closer examination of palmate forms and iconography specific to Classic Veracruz and especially the urbn center of Tajín.

Both of these central panels also illustrate the Water Temple, Flowering

Mountain, and Principal Tajín Deity. Such imagery does not exist elsewhere in Tajín, suggesting they are to be read together.151 The south central panel is more legible- four figures shroud the Water Temple and Flowering Mountain; in descending order, an anthropomorphic rabbit with a supraorbital plate; two more anthropomorphic figures are below, one of which is barely legible, and a fourth figure, PTD, squats before the Water

Temple and ¨performs autosacrifice by perforating his penis and letting the blood flow into the Water Temple.¨152 The recipient of this offering is a human figure with a fish mask/maw that is floating inside the aqueous structure.

The Principal Tajín Deity appears atop the Water Temple with another deity in the final, central South Ballcourt Panel. The PTD offers the baton and cloth he carries, in addition to what has been interpreted as lightning, to the human before him. The man then ¨points to a bundled, reclining figure with a distinctive hank of hair, supraorbital

150 Ibid, 58. 151 Ibid, 56. ​ 152 Ibid.

67

plate, and an elongated upper lip¨ that has been identified as a sacrificial victim- but also a supernatural given the supraorbital plate.153 This imagery associated with this sacrifice can be seen two other times in the Mound of the Building Columns, to be discussed in the

Catalog in Chapter 4. Koontz further identifies the consistency of the baton and cloth ​ appearing in Tajín public iconography, occurring more prominently than the associated accoutrements. However, several palmas do feature the regalia. For instance, the

Coatépec Palma features similar imagery on the front, with the figure adorned in an ornate cape and brandishing a baton.154 This baton and cape are later seen in a Mound of the Building Column iconographic sequence that also features the PTD.

In addition to the extensive and fairly legible iconographic programs of the

Ballcourts of Tajín, the Mound of the Building Columns also provides additional insight into the role of palmas in ceremonial rites of the peoples who occupied the area. The

MBC is located at the northwestern portion of the Tajín compound, in Tajín Chico, at one point not even known to belong to the larger site. Walking up to this special, removed ceremonial precinct, one would encounter three massive columns, sculpted in the round with rolling narratives. While the intricacies of these narratives have now been properly ordered and assessed in relation to the accession of 13 Rabbit and other courtly rites, today we are interested in the limited scenes in which the palma object type is readily featured.

Like the sculptural program of the South Ballcourt, Koontz argues this series of carved images also chronicles an intricate narrative. In addition to this historicization, the

153 Ibid. ​ 154 Ibid, 52-53. ​

68

(albeit limited) references to the ballgame cannot be undermined and helps relate this iconographic scheme with those of the ballcourts. Koontz describes one such example of similar scenes present in both the SBC and the MBC as featuring ¨accession imagery¨ which includes the presentation of a baton and cloth as well as an ¨active presence of the

Principle Tajín Deity¨ which ¨strongly suggests that these are two instances of the same ceremony.¨155 The decapitated head of the PTD also appears later in a scene of scaffold sacrifice at the feet of the now seated ruler, next to a checkered rubber ball (Figure 32).

Interestingly enough, on the back of the Coatépec Palma, a figure holds a decapitated head by a hank of hair- not dissimilar to the decapitated head of the PTD In the scene described immediately before. More on this in the Catalog (Chapter 4). ​ ​ For our study, the presence of the palma in the very first scene from the Mound of the Building Columns program raises some interesting and specific questions (Figure 30).

The first three characters in the scene don yokes and what some have agreed upon to be palmas, while the fifth may be wearing an hacha or intermediate form (Figure 31). The first individual is 13 Rabbit, as indicated by the name glyph above his head, who wears a solid palma (in a style that I call ¨saddle,¨ See Chapter 3 for Typological Explorations) with a distinctly curved base and forward projecting talon of sorts. He gestures towards an individual wearing a similar headpiece and knee pads as himself, though a bifurcated palma projects from this person's waist, instead of the form more closely resembling the palmas from the SBC. The third character sports yet another type of palma, with a trifurcated fan or perchance a roughly rendered version of the style of palma that appears

155 Ibid, 76.

69

in the Aparicio panel of a decapitated ballplayer that sprays zoomorphic blood in the form of snakes. Once again, the persons wearing the palmas are not engaged in the actual game, but instead associated rites. The other figures also have name glyphs above their heads, but the corrosion of the stacked stone scenes have impeded interpretation of these symbols.

Chapter 2 Synthesis and Conclusions

Since the single most important association the palma has made is with the ballgame, and more specifically since palmas appear in the ballcourts of El Tajín, many scholars have suggested a specific relationship between the objects and the site. This has lead to more and more consideration of the public iconographic program of El Tajín as a whole. Ellen

Spinden was one of the first scholars to consider the dense public iconography programs at the Classic Veracruz site of El Tajín. Her interpretations drew largely upon Aztec and

Maya traditions and neglect to consider Tajín as its own entity among many other cultures. She did however encounter the site in a more authentic condition than it is now, allowing her to provide more archaeological context for the impressive amount of monumental sculpture.

Later Kampen discusses a more complete picture of Tajín's public sculptural program and provides extensive illustrations to substantiate his findings. He moved far away from Spinden's interpretations through other Mesoamerican cultures and instead looked more objectively at what each program projects. He looks at palmas for their appearance in the Tajín murals, but refuses to assert function given the profound lack of

70

archaeological data to substantiate any claim. Even more, Kampen reminds us it is nearly impossible to determine the material of the objects rendered in stone relief, therefore reconsiders whether the palmas in the ballcourt panels are the extant stone palmas or the palmas made of another material as Ekholm suggests.156

Finally, Koontz presents us with the most accurate and conclusive reading of the

Tajín iconographic program to date. He asserts these scenes refer more to a controlled manifestation of war and ritual sacrifice than they do to the ballgame itself, despite taking place on the ballcourt. Palmas do appear in the ballcourt during the formation of an alliance on the ballcourt and scene of sacrifice, but also in the ascension rites of 13

Rabbit at the Mound of the Building Columns. Even more, in some instances certain motifs and specific characters occur in both the public iconography and the portable sculptures known as palmas.157

Two major gaps occur in iconographic studies of the Tajín complex and palma imagery. First, the (inferior) North Ballcourt is rarely discussed in terms of iconographic content. This is largely due to the fact that the Tajín cosmovision has yet to be accurately and widespreadly interpreted. Many of the figures clearly represent deities and other supernaturals as indicated by their supraorbital plate. However, since they have not been identified and the condition of the panels obscures an accurate reading of this series of ceremonial rites (including a similar bird-dance as described above), it would be nearly impossible to explain the entire Tajín pantheon given the current archaeological record.

Landrón de Guevara provides the most comprehensive scholarly attempt at establishing

156 Kampen, El Tajín, 47. ​ ​ ​ 157 Koontz, Lightning Gods, 53. ​ ​ ​

71

just that, though she admittedly is unable to offer solutions for all characters present, nor has this treatise been adopted as canon.158

The other gap in palma related scholarship is the lack of discussion surrounding the difference in palma forms that appear in the scenes from the SBC and MBC described above. In the ballcourts, the same type of palma is seen in profile- one that seems to represent a saddle style palma in profile (See Chapter 3 for Typologies). This saddle form also appears in Structure 2 (Figure 29), which is the closest example to the actual ballgame being played at Tajín. At the Mound of the Building Columns, however, three different palmas are seen on three different individuals in the same scene. 13 Rabbit wears a palma in similar form as those from the ballcourts and Structure 2. The other two figures in the scene (whose names remain undeciphered though undoubtedly indicated) wear palmas with a bi- and trifurcation, respectively. It is possible the palma seen here with only two leaves was intended to have a third but went undetected in the drawing process, along with the name glyph above him. Or, the trifurcated palma is a rough rendering of an Aparicio style form. Nonetheless, it is curious to see multiple of the same object take on different forms in the same scene- an observation previously undiscussed.

So what, then, is the role of the palma? Is it indicative of status? Is it a heraldic mark?159 They were obviously worn, but those that are shown actually being worn are plain in nature. Why are the extant stone palmas, in many cases, so ornately carved?

Would the purported wooden, long-since-perished, palmas have been carved as finely as well? Spinden suggested, given the flamboyant ornamentation of the extant stone palmas,

158 Sara Ladrón de Guevara, Imagen y pensamiento en El Tajín. (Xalapa, Veracruz, México: Universidad ​ ​ Veracruzana, Dirección Editorial). 1999. 159 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 85. ​

72

that any wooden palma tradition would also have had an extensive history as well.160 Or would the designs on wooden palmas (if they indeed existed) have been painted, such as the case with the fugitive pigments found on several extant palmas? And since all palmas are related to the ballgame, and those wearing palmas are often interpreted as ballplayers, does this mean 13 Rabbit was a venerated champion ballplayer of Tajín? Many of these questions may never have an answer, at least not until other components of the iconographic program of Tajín (or any other Classic Veracruz site) come to light that can be further substantiated by the archaeological record. However, many of these questions can be further examined when we look at a significantly larger corpus than the original

47 Proskouriakoff had available to work with.

160 Spinden, “Place of Tajín,” 242. ​

73

Part Two: The Revised Palma Corpus

Chapter 3: Typological Explorations and Other Patterns to Consider

Simple logic indicates that any number of more accurate observations can be deduced from working with a much larger corpus than has possibly ever been examined before, regardless of the subject of study. Proskouriakoff had a relatively small corpus of palmas available to her, and she still convincingly defined an entire regional and cultural tradition, Classic Veracruz. My current database is more than six times more expansive than the group Proskouriakoff worked with, hovering somewhere just under 300 palmas and palma fragments. That said, Proskouriakoff was not wrong in her assertions of palma forms and any corresponding motifs and iconographies; however, the significantly larger corpus presents many patterns and elements that simply were not available to her.

Everyone since followed in Ekholm and Proskouriakoff's suites by categorizing these anomalous portable stone sculptures found throughout Classic Veracruz contexts, and almost ONLY Classic Veracruz, to be either hachas or palmas. No questions asked, apart from the pervasive problem of function. Proskouriakoff herself even identified an intermediary stage between the hacha and palma forms that should ¨probably have a designation of their own¨ but she also acknowledges the limited size of her survey and

74

offers little to no solution for the many objects that fall outside of her preliminary typology– half of her study.161

Since our only functional and situational evidence for these highly varied palma forms comes from several components of the public iconographic program at El Tajín (as discussed in Chapter 2), it would seem logical to me that a so-called ¨true palma form¨ for the portable sculptures themselves would in fact correspond with their pictographic representation– of which only three possible ¨types¨ appear in the narrative, monumental public sculptures; simple saddle, bi- and or trifurcated, and Aparicio styles from the SBC,

MBC, and Aparicio panels respectively. Interestingly, and frustratingly, not every collecting institution consistently distinguishes between hachas and palmas, or even intermediary forms, nor do they provide diagnostic characteristics for their nominations.

Notably, a form that appears in a row dedicated as hachas by Proskouriakoff has been deemed a palma per several collections that have nearly identical objects. Regardless, I, like my predecessors, know the limitations of this study; no matter how many palmas I amass for my database, until more concrete evidence surfaces in relation to the palma's function, or role, in the ballgame and associated rites, in addition to any spatial distributions and evolutionary sequences in form and iconography as evidenced in the archaeological data, the arbitrary designations of hacha and palma shall be adhered to.

Below, I intend to do just that, but also illuminate other patterns only substantiated when looking at a significantly expanded corpus.

161 Proskouriakoff, ¨Classic Veracruz,¨ 67.

75

Apart from all of the considerations for a revised typology above, even without knowing anything of the public iconographic traditions of Tajín, the expanded corpus calls for a revised typology based on the larger sample. As mentioned many times before,

Proskouriakoff was acutely aware of the limitations of her study and stated multiple times throughout her essay that more palmas were needed in order to draw hard and fast conclusions. In fact, she was not as concerned with setting certain distinctions between forms to determine unknown regional and temporal sequences but instead observed that their similarities suggested the common origin and function as Spinden asserted.162 Even as early as 1907, before they were even named palmas, Fewkes recognized the need for more of these objects in order to understand their variations in size, form, and decorative motif.163

As I just stated above, I do not want to pretend to have all of the answers and I also recognize the limited nature of my own study, namely the profound lack of archaeological evidence available; nor was I able to consider other artistic media throughout Veracruz such as ceramic figurines that may feature palmate forms being worn in the ballgame or associated ascension rites. Though I am not trying to rewrite the history of Classic Veracruz portable sculpture and thereby eradicate the long established canonization of hacha and palma forms, I do think it is time to reconsider how we group these objects and I have worked to provide diagnostic characteristics as such.

Such an ambitious endeavor was made possible only by amassing the objects for the study myself and painstakingly documenting more attributes of each individual palma

162 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 68. ​ 163 Fewkes, “Certain Antiquities,” 262. ​

76

than has been previously attempted. To work with a more complete corpus, I have compiled a database of more than 275 palmas and fragments, as well as many related forms such as the crested heads and intermediate avian motifs.164 To the best of my ability, I have examined the following criteria for each stone sculpture: material assessment, iconography, basic overall shape, shape of the base, angle of concavity, amount of carving on back, and the depth of carving as well as documenting crests atop heads and wings or flanges, along with other distinguishable motifs and elements of my newly developed anatomy. Building off of Proskouriakoff's four palma types, my new

“Anatomy of a Palma” (Intro, page 10) allows for the following explorations and presents more than double the number of palma types through my own formal, stylistic, and iconographic relations.

I aim to reimagine these portable sculptures through more accurate typological explorations based on the above mentioned criteria. For instance, many of the below typologies exist in a graphic or simple form as well as a highly carved, sculptured form; characteristics which I deem worthy of distinction. The graphic traditions are rendered in more shallow carvings, most often double line scroll motifs with dismembered bodies of ballplayers or deities, like the carving of the ballcourts panels themselves. On the contrary, the sculptured palmas have a trunk that has been carved to take the three-dimensional form of an anthropomorphic or zoomorphic figure, usually standing or kneeling on a pedestal or altar of sorts. Sometimes, these carved figures are executed in

164 Crested heads that do not occur on a palmate base do not count towards that total, though many avian ​ forms considered hachas do. These avian forms have a basal concavity or construction more closely resembling the palma object type versus the L-shaped or stepped base diagnostic of hachas. See Figure 3 (Page 139) for hacha base example.

77

such a way that their extremities disengage from the larger sculpture body itself, creating negative spaces.

Why construct new object typologies, especially when most of the current scholarship is concerned with iconographic readings? Iconography rarely leads to an historicized retelling of the evolution of an object type, and it never does when objects are treated with little or no regard for historical or geographic patterns. It is my hope that the new light I shed on form and iconography here may even eventually assist in identifying geographical trends associated with these forms, but pertinent archaeological contexts must be established in order to determine areas of overlap and difference.

Please note, any use of a dedicated number comes from Proskouriakoff's classifications and only serve to illustrate the connections between our individual means of sorting. I personally keep away from any numbering system (apart from cataloging purposes) that would inadvertently imply a chronology or basis of evolution (or devolution) of style. Such a suggestion would be grounded solely in supposition as little archeological evidence has provided accurate means of dating the Tajín complex and corresponding cultural caches.

Nonetheless, my suggested typological explorations provide a working and functioning hypothesis; that is to say, nearly every new palma I encounter does in fact correspond with the diagnostic features provided for each typology. It is important to point out here that even with a greatly expanded corpus, these new types encompass nearly every example of the object, both new and old, but I also proffer previously undiscussed formal attributes that are not specific to type, but instead appear to function

78

iconographically, despite the exact meaning remaining unknown given the current data.

Below the reader will find the most important types fully described; limited examples of each featured in the Chapter 4’s Catalog. ​ ​

Saddle Forms

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, some of my typologies work within patterns already established by Proskouriakoff. The larger corpus of palmas I have amassed has allowed me to recognize patterns simply unforeseeable to her with such a comparably diminutive collection. Proskouriakoff's diagnostic qualifier for her Type 1 palmas is a projecting front with scrolls and other grotesque imagery. This style is what I consider to be an inverted, or tipped, saddle form that I simply call ¨saddle;¨ although ​ ​ like the palma's namesake, it has nothing to do with function or actual emulation, but simply a common visual metaphor for easy reference. These palmas tend to be of medium height, falling between that of the ¨tall¨ variety and a crested head, and are broader in width than the other forms. Of the palma corpus, the fans of this type tend to be the most pronounced and physically wide with an obvious forward tilt. The basal concavity varies between barely noticeable to a pronounced arch, most often with a squared-off ¨foot¨ (see page 10 for a discussion of palma anatomy).

Within this simpler saddle group, I have noticed two patterns regarding the frontal projecting mass. Type A Saddle (Catalog Number 1) has the characteristically ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ pronounced fan, T-shaped foot, concave base, and is defined by the three columnar grooves sculpted out of the projecting front of the form. Another smaller group Type B ​

79

Saddle (Cat. No. 2) palmas have the aforementioned diagnostics, but instead of three ​ columnar grooves, one or no central grooves exist. In the rare instances of the latter, the foot of the palma protrudes from the basic palma shape creating a plinth similar to the forward projection of the Sculpted Saddle type, which usually serves as a platform for the diagnostic figure to stand on. Observable for both types, some of these forms are completely unadorned, while others feature low relief scrollwork and other instances specifically related imagery from the larger Tajín region public iconographic program

(discussed in depth in Chapter 4).

Proskouriakoff designated a group of similar forms to be Type 2 palmas, which are here defined as a variation of the above described saddle forms, characterized as featuring a humanoid or zoomorphic figure in place of the columnar groves of the trunk. I have named this substyle a Sculpted Saddle form. I have expanded category to also ​ ​ include any sculptural form in the place of the columnar grooves of the simple saddle palmas described above, though there does appear to be some distinction within this category as well. The overall shape does differ somewhat from the more regularized simple saddle forms discussed above. There is more basic formal variation between the forms of this style, which is especially noticeable when viewed from behind. The basal concavity of these objects does range, but generally comprised of a more modest arch.

These sculpted saddle forms differ from the simple saddles in that the forward thrust of the former is highly sculptural, instead of the simple grooves, and much of the surrounding embellishments are much more pronouncedly carved versus the incised, graphic tradition of the former, which further links those objects to ballcourt relief

80

imagery.

Two distinct modes can be observed of the Sculpted Saddle forms as well. Type ​ A Sculpted Saddle (Catalog No. 3) palmas have the sculptured motif occupying the front ​ of the palma, but their forms are more conservative and remain full engaged with the main palma body. Type B Sculpted Saddle (Catalog No. 4) palmas, however, project ​ ​ much further out from the main form, so much so they sometimes disengage, as in the case with the Cleveland palma and others, creating negative space. This highly sculptured feature is only commonly articulated in these Sculpted Saddle and certain avian forms, as well as the majority from Shook and Marquis’ Southern Mesoamerican palma study (Cat.

Numbers 22-29).

Tall Palmas

My second category is comprised of Tall Palmas, which are significantly taller, and ​ ​ usually more slender than the previously described two Saddle forms. Proskouriakoff also identified this group, as described in my historiography section (Chapter 1). She noticed that taller palmas tend to have the most shallow of carving, but was ultimately unable to connect with ballcourt scenes. While it is certainly true that many tall palmas display shallow enough carving to erode even, as is the case with the Houston palma (Cat. No.

42), the depth of carving varies across the typological board which as you recall is what contributed to the need to recognize and consider a wider set of patterns. The Houston palma does in fact feature direct links to the ballcourt at Tajín and the graphic nature of the incised portable stone somewhat seems to amplify the graphic connection. At the very

81

least, the shallow nature of the carving in both portable and monumental sculpture makes the interpretation more accessible since they are executed in similar formats.. Therefore, recognizing the graphic versus sculptural traditions create divisions within this category, to; there are Tall Slender palmas as well as Tall Sculpted palmas.

The arches of most of the Tall Palma bases, regardless of subcategory, tend to be modest while the foot of the palma is sometimes squared, as in the case of the Houston palma (Catalog No. 40-42), or feature a toe like that of the Quiver of Arrows palma

(Figure 17, PP p) in Mexico City.165 For Tall Slender palmas (Catalog No. 5), their ​ ​ ​ ​ heights do somewhat differ but they are generally the tallest of all the palma forms and the overall shape and width mimic that of the Houston palma; a long and lean trunk topped with a modest fan that angles slightly forward, while the bases sometimes take the form of an angular arch with a distinct foot protruding, sometimes capped with the rounded toe.

On the other hand, a category of Tall Sculpted palmas (Catalog No. 6) can be ​ ​ made of palmate forms that feature rigorously carved and dimensional motifs on sculptures of medium-tall build (ranging between the Tall Slender and Saddle forms).

Like the Sculpted Saddle forms, Tall Sculpted palmas feature three dimensional, carvings in higher relief than the Tall Slender palmas. The combination of their somewhat diminutive size and the sculptural versus graphic treatment of the stone's incisions serve as diagnostics for these objects.

165 I have given many of the palmas in collections of many more descriptive or distinctively memorable ​ names. Most serve as mnemonic devices and in no way serve as scholarly representations of their possible titles, such as PP 24 (Figure 16), which I call the “Running Man” palma.

82

Laterally-Flattened/ Aparicio/ Bat-Wing Palmas

Before moving onto patterns I have sussed out without her help, Proskouriakoff's final type, Type 4, include what she considered to be a “laterally flattened form.”166 While her description is undoubtedly accurate, as I continue to compress and contort preexisting palma presumptions, I have considered renaming this type to be the Aparicio style ​ (Catalog No. 7, also Fig. 16: PP 25 and 27), gleaned from the panels that hail from the

Classic Veracruz site of the namesake. In these panels (Figure 20), a decapitated ballplayer sprays blood represented as serpents, while wearing a yoke, and a palma of this particular shape. The bases of these palmas are almost always elongated, obliquely carved arches with the front/foot portion being markedly squared (see discussion above for stylistic implications). This diagnostic characteristic has actually allowed me to determine the typology of several palma fragments, such as the enigmatic Twin palmas from Mexico City and Xalapa, respectively.167

There appear to be significant differences between these palma forms, though it is consistently a form that has been squashed (or flattened) with two or three distinct grooves (creating three or four points, respectively) which form a scalloped or stepped notch trimming a fan that projects frontward on a more vertical plane, with a modified but distinctly T-shaped axis that is visibly broader at the posterior when viewed head-on, and an hourglass bottom. These features are directly opposed to a forward-tilting trunk with a horizontally aligned fan like the aforementioned typologies, creating the altogether unique shape of these Aparicio palmas. By and large, the overall shape of these objects is

166 Proskouriakoff, ¨Classic Veracruz,¨ 70. ​ 167 See discussion of the enigmatic “Twin Palma” forms (Catalog Numbers 100 and 101), the only instance ​ of an exact duplicate palma form, in epilogue, page 132.

83

relatively tall and slender, though several miniature versions exist in the MAX bodega collection.

Interestingly, exclusively for Aparicio palmas the main body is often demarcated from the top, scalloped portion, about ⅔ of the way up on the palma. Within this demarcation, the edges are often doubly traced, in the style of the Classic Veracruz double-lined spiral, leaving the rest of the space blank or filled with additional incised coils and carvings. The scalloped tops, too, appear to be webbed (and thusly solid) in some cases, while others are rounded (created by U-shaped indentions). The most barque of these forms have even more ornately stepped grooves along the top rim of these flattened palma forms' fans, creating layer upon layer of detail and precision. While all of these differentiations exist, their numbers are much less significant than those of the other types described here and require further study (and maybe more palmas) to determine any diagnostic distinctions between Aparicio forms.

In relation to their new name, bat-wing could also possibly accurately reflect the larger iconographic motif of palmas of this standard shape. It could be argued that these

Aparicio style palmas contain specific references to the cult of the vampire bat that

Kampen mentions in his 1978 article on ¨Classic Veracruz Grotesques and Sacrificial

Iconography,¨ or some otherwise connected reverence to the nocturnal creature that was undoubtedly drawn to blood strewn sites of sacrifice, the ballcourts. When examined, the top half to many of these palmas do not contain much if any carving beyond simple vertical linear motifs (Figure 17: PP 25). When viewed in comparison to the vampire bat costumed figures, such as or the vampire bats themselves (Cat. No 57), their wings mimic

84

these webbed forms. Even more, the top portions seem to correspond with certain headdress adornments as seen on Cat. No. 44 and 99-101. More on bat-wing imagery and headdresses in the Catalog. ​

Original Typologies and Patterns

While Proskouriakoff’s typology has served us well for more than half a century, it is far from exhaustive, especially given the much enlarged corpus of objects I have assembled.

Well more than half of the palmas I have amassed simply do not fit within

Proskouriakoff's typologies. In fact, half of the palmas she sorted did not fit into her ​ ​ typologies. While it is true, she does qualify her preliminary typology by acknowledging that those sorted are the ¨more baroque forms,¨ the simple fact remains that another 23 palmas (in addition to the 24 she sorted) were so mysterious and confounding, she grouped them together on a page simply called ¨Varieties of Palma Forms¨ (Figure 17) or included them on the page (Figure 16) with her ¨laterally flattened forms,¨ labeling them as ¨miscellaneous¨ and ¨short,¨ with nary a mention in the essay's text. With these unsorted groups, she does not offer the same stylistic or iconographic diagnostics as she does the baroque forms. And yet another page features the intermediate and other specialized forms surrounding these portable sculptures, including crested heads on palma bases and avian sculptures with sharply oblique bases. Though Proskouriakoff does not discuss either of these two distinguishable categories in depth, I believe that both these sets are ripe for incorporation into a revised typology based on my larger sample, particularly the avian forms. For the handful that appear in her preliminary work

85

(including those labeled as hachas), dozens more appear in my database.

By and large, the palmas Proskouriakoff struggles to categorically identify are often half to one-third the height of the categories discussed above. Strong numbers of avian motifs occupy the squat palma category, though some take the form of a flanged and crested heads, though not like the ¨crested heads” presented in the intermediary forms of Proskouriakoff's study; instead they are a humanoid head on a palma base, most often featuring a crest (Figure 17, PP b, d, f, and i). Like every other style identified thus far, ​ ​ ​ ​ there are significant distinctions within each of these types, especially among the various avian forms. The differences, however, are entirely formal– but here, the sculptural form itself becomes iconographic.

Avian forms

A striking percentage of the previously unsorted palmas often take the form of a harpy eagle or possibly Kampen's ghoulish vulture ballcourt figure, a character that appears in ritual scenes depicted on the back of other palmas (Cat. No. 57).168 The avian forms tend to be one of three basic styles; there is a laterally flattened bird (Cat. No. 8) form like that of an elongated hacha, of medium stature, with a basic incised wing on each side, this style looked to Proskouriakoff to be more of an intermediary avian tradition between the hacha and palma; another (Cat. No. 9) takes the shape of a squatty fowl, which has a broad flat back, often with a distinctly thick band between the end of the avian form and the back so when placed backside down, the form resembles an old-fashioned iron; the

168 Kampen, ¨Grotesques and Sacrificial Iconography,¨ 1.

86

third style of forms (Cat. No. 10) maintain these basic characteristics but also feature a central notch in the fan, known as a bifurcation, to create wings and more a elaborately incised surface creates feathers and legs that protrude forward, in some case disengaging with the major palma form. The bifurcated fan will be discussed further below.

With the exception of fragmented avian palmas in the study and those whose base is clearly the flattened stylistic continuity pointed out by Shook and Marquis, the entire group's bases tend to be an oblique angle. However, some cruder versions are unevenly arched, sometimes due to the presence of a heel and or toe on the foot of the form, and therefore do not rest properly on a flat surface like the majority of these squatter forms with lower centers of gravity do. That said, since palmas are not mirror images of each other (with the exception of a pair of enigmatic twin palmas discussed in the Epilogue), all of these stylistic and categorical suggestions instead circulate around general characteristics that can be applied to several within the majority. For instance, in the case of the second group of avian palmas, some incline forward while others project backward at an angle from the base, instead of the slight curve forward as seen in the taller palmas that culminate in a more obvious fan. There are, however, intriguing discrepancies and tensions within each of the groups which have allowed me to suss out particular patterns that can be directly linked to ballcourt and associated rites at El Tajín as well as beginning to establish individualized, yet linked traditions at a very basic level. The same goes for these avian forms.

Not surprisingly, each bird palma has a beak. The shapes of these beaks, however, are very different. Very few bird palmas have beaks that project forward (Cat. No. 9),

87

straight, and fully engaged with the larger sculptural body. In the case of many laterally flattened avian forms (Cat. No. 8), this beak is significantly larger and creates negative space between itself the major bird form. The combination of the larger beak and the craning neck seem to indicate these are waterfowl, opposed to the raptorial birds of prey.

Other beaks are short and stubby (Cat. No. 10), like the forms in which they come from.

Most commonly, these smaller beaks have a noticeably hooked, downward pointing top beak (Cat. No. 11). In some instances, like the laterally flattened birds, the downward projection closes the form to create negative space between the beak and the distended, full belly of the predatory fowl (Cat. No 12). Others still feature a beak so markedly hooked (Cat. No. 51, 53, 55), it must represent a specific figure in public iconography, though I have yet to identify the reference. However, strikingly similar figures can be found incised on the back of a fan fragment of a Simple Saddle palma (Cat. No. 54) as well as etched into the trunk of an Aparicio form (Cat. No. 52). What unites the unknown avian form in all of those instances is the presence of the supraorbital plate. More on

Hidden Supernaturals in the Catalog. ​ ​

Other Patterns to Consider: Bifurcation and Crests

In addition to the diagnostically distinguishable typologies discussed above, other patterns emerged among the enlarged corpus. Many of these patterns function formally, though closer consideration would indicate these serial forms also function iconographically. Before moving onto the catalog of related palma imagery, it is important to discuss two of these lesser understood, though equally present, patterns.

88

Many palmas feature a notch, or bifurcation, in the fan in addition to or as well as a prominent longitudinal crest donning the central sculptural figure. Neither of these features are diagnostically exclusive to a particular style, though they are seen most often in conjunction with avian forms, as described above; in the case of avian palmas, it is more uncommon to see one without the other than the two features combined, although the three avian types discussed do not exclusively feature both or either a bifurcated fan or crested figure.

The bifurcation of a palma fan is most easily understood as the split wings of a bird shaped palma, especially since these are the majority of the notched forms (Cat. No.

10). As stated above, this bifurcation is not exclusive to avian forms, though the presence of a notched fan is less clearly signified in these other instances (Cat. No. 13). As discussed in Chapter 2, Proskouriakoff even went as far as to say that a true palma has a notched fan, but failed to offer any other definitive characteristics for the ¨true palmate form.¨169 She too realized the notched feature is not specific to one style of palma. More fans still can be trifurcated (Cat. No. 14), that is appearing to have three leaves, while others have five or more leaves (Cat. No. 15), creating a radially splayed form that

Fewkes recognized in 1907.170 This latter group of radial fanned palmas can take one of a couple forms, including the appearance of a hand in a padded glove (Cat. No. 16). The majority of the remaining fans I describe being paddle-shaped, also after Fewkes. This observation is true of all nearly all saddle and tall forms, as the fan begins to bow outward and widen until rounding at the top, like a boat oar, with a slight pitch forward.

169 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 81. ​ 170 Fewkes, “Certain Antiquities,” 261. ​

89

Discussing the possible significance of a non-avian palma with a bifurcated fan requires a close case-study of the few that are not from this tradition. One of the oldest iconographic, yet formal, attributes given to Mesoamerican sculpture can be found in the cleaved notch of an Olmec Maize god's head.171 Proskouriakoff, too, noticed the formal and possibly iconographic convention of the notch between Gulf coast cultures, but “by no means is it clear that the two are related.”172 Though, this connection is loose at best given the current data, one palma in particular indicates that this may not be entirely unfounded. Hidden on a top shelf in the immense open storage space of the Denver Art

Museum rest a palma unlike any other I have seen (Cat. No. 80). Sort of medium in stature with a nearly flat base, how else would one recognize to be a definitive palma?

The basic overall shape and overwhelming allusion to a sacrificial platform, like those purported by Proskouriakoff and myself (see Sculpted Saddle types). Oh and of course, the double-lined coiling forms occupying the squared foot that indicated it is clearly from

Classic Veracruz. The imagery of this palma is simple, and yet complex. The altar-like platform projects outwardly like the sculpted thrust of certain saddle forms (and especially Cat. No. 90, a fragment of an Aparicio palma). Two ears of maize occupy the fan of the palma, with vertically aligned rows of kernels, as indicated by the central dimple. The ears are separated by a central cleave, which both bifurcates the fan and establishes the distinct ears.

Karl Taube and others have suggested that the Olmec Maize God diagnostically

171 Miller, Art of Mesoamerica, 78. ​ ​ ​ 172 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 81. ​

90

featured a similar cleave in the head as seen in many jade celts and masks.173 This divot represented the dimple of a maize grain. The act of picking corn functioned symbolically as the decapitation of the Maize god himself; as we have seen at the Mound of the

Building Columns and Ballcourts of Tajín, it was not uncommon for a sacrificial victim to be decapitated, even if the victim is supernatural (Figure 32). While that narrative maybe works for the Denver palma, the majority of the iconographic content incised or carved into the entire palma corpus does not generally contain such overt maize imagery, including the many other bifurcated palmas.

Three bifurcated palmas in particular create a conversation of borrowed forms and iconographic content among palmas, and most resemble one another due to the distinctive shape of their bottoms (Cat. Numbers 81-83). The bottom features a perfect

T-shape axis, with a nearly flat base that balances the weight forward on its own. The foot of the form is truncated; it is not curved so as to create a slope or toe. In one instance, the same knotted carvings that occupy the surface of the palma also twist together on said edge. Two of the palmas have sustained injuries to the furcations around the edge of the fan, but none such that the iconography is rendered illegible. Interestingly, the coils carved into the right fork of Cat. No. 81’s fan seem to respond to the uneven form, opposed to the usual wear and tear seen in many forms like Cat. No. 83. On this palma, a braided motif trims the larger mess of knots, along the bottom and outside edges as well as along the center, creating a true division of the bifurcated palm. This trim occupies the top edge of a socked foot of third palma (Cat. No. 82), while single line coils

173 Karl Taube, "The Olmec Maize God: The Face of Corn in Formative Mesoamerica." RES: Anthropology ​ ​ and Aesthetics, no. 29/30 (1996): 39-81. ​

91

carved into the the trunk and fan hide a primate that form bursts out along the forward thrust; the figure’s limbs are especially disguised within the carving. A very similar central figure, with large sunken eyes, is seen descending or diving on Cat. No. 81.

Another significant pattern of note lies within the overwhelming presence of crested figures. The designation of ¨crested heads¨ has long been used to refer to hacha-like stones (that is, portable stone sculptures that take the form of a head with a stepped, L-shaped base, Fig. 3b), but there are also many heads with crests that rest on a base most closely resembling a palma (Cat. Numbers 84-87). Proskouriakoff even featured several of these curious forms on her ¨Varieties of Palmas¨ page (Fig. 17: PP b, ​ d, i, and maybe f ) and she makes reference to the other more commonly established ​ ​ ​ group of crested heads, but ultimately does not recognize the significance of their resemblance. She does however indicate the crests on the traditionally recognized

¨crested head¨ forms feature an altogether different crest than those of the palmas as ¨it is made up of several vertical elements” which she says ¨recalls the crest of Aztec god

Macuil Xochitl.174 Scott referred to these attributes as ¨longitudinal crests¨ and recognized their presence on hachas and palmas alike.175 Interestingly, Scott inappropriately suggests that the laterally flattened Aparicio palmas may actually feature an abstracted crest- instead of the direct reference to bat-wing imagery that I argued earlier.176

More often than not, these heads have a rope motif carved around their necks with mouths agape and sunken eyes. In fact, one such head was found in the Quelepa group

(not pictured). Even more, some of these crests appear to be laterally flattened and then

174 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 81. ​ 175 Scott, “Dressed to Kill,” 62. ​ 176 Ibid. ​

92

smashed and divided in the middle of the top, creating a sort of bifurcation in the crest itself (Cat. No. 86). In an incredibly bizarre example, a crest like the one just described and a bifurcated palm exist on a palma with nearly no basal concavity nor recognizable iconography beyond crude double-lined scrolls. The form itself is almost like a miniature laterally flattened palma attached to a wing (Cat. No. 88).

Though it is still unclear what this crest signifies in this moment, the overwhelming presence of them indicates clear importance within both the Classic

Veracruz and Quelepa traditions of palmas. In some cases, the crest is divided through divots, creating peaks and valleys resembling a spiny mohawk hairstyle. In many other instances, the crest is solid, though it is demarcated and divided through sculptural lines into three or four distinct chunks, sometimes featuring a thin division between each of those larger pieces (Cat. Nos. 37-39). More on crests in the Catalog. ​ ​

Missing Links between Classic Veracruz and Southern Mesoamerican Palmas

Continuing the discussion from Chapter 1, there is one other well documented wealth of palmas outside of the Classic Veracruz tradition. While these palmas are found more than a thousand kilometers from the north-central Veracruz home of the palma form in Tajín, a handful of these objects may be related to other cached objects found not far from

Quelepa, El Salvador.177 I am interested in looking closely at these outlying palma forms and defining formal differences that may allow us to define a Pacific Coast style variant of the form as well as consider them in relation to their northern counterparts.

177 Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 221. ​ ​ ​

93

As you may have picked up on from the two previous conversations of bifurcated fans and crests on heads, there is an overwhelming presence of both features within the

Quelepa group. I argue that the major diagnostic features of the Quelepa group are the lack of basal concavity, bifurcated wing, the divided crest, as well as the relatively diminutive stature of the sculptures. Shook and Marquis discuss all of these elements as being present within the group, but never establish them as fully diagnostic of the

Southern Mesoamerican palma tradition. These palmas generally take the form of a truncated mass projecting forward, creating an oft triangular (or other geometric) bottom.

From this base, sculptural forms ascend upward to the bifurcated fan of the palma. Most often, these notched backs create wings for the zoomorphs and anthropomorphs (Catalog

Numbers 22-29).

As a reminder, unlike the Classic Veracruz palmas which are grouped together solely on by their basal concavity, Shook and Marquis noticed this feature was mostly missing from the Quelepa palmas. The authors also argue that by adopting basal concavity as the sole diagnostic feature of this southern tradition as well, complications arise when addressing the true functional purpose of these palmas. Though theses bases are nearly flat, the weight distribution is similar to the squatter palmate forms from

Classic Veracruz. The bases of Classic Veracruz palmas provide potential for hypothesized functional uses, from wearability to architectural adornment; the lack thereof among those from Quelepa further complicate any interpretation of function within the group. Further, because the only function we do know of the Classic Veracruz tradition comes from the public iconography present in Tajín and suggests their use in

94

accessional and sacrificial rites, we could assume in Southern Mesoamerica the affiliation would be with the ballgame. However, despite the proximity of Cache 24 to a ballcourt, no major iconographic program can be identified to further link the El Salvador palma tradition with the North-Central Gulf Coast.178

The avian tradition described above resonates with this rare Southern

Mesoamerican group of palmas as well. With bilateral symmetry and a prominent crest, the (undamaged) squat bird forms balance on their own. Due to the lack of basal concavity, the Quelepa avian palmas do not require (nor indicate a requirement for) a means of binding or stability, versus the perfect symmetry over an oblique arch of the northern Gulf Coast avian traditions. Instead, they rest perfectly on their squared and flattened bases. Further, the weight distribution of avian palmas is also matched by forward tilt of the fans of palmas of taller proportions, an attribute Proskouriakoff noted about Veracruz palmas.179

What challenged me most to begin with when considering the two traditions is that Proskouriakoff was unsure of how to treat similar objects in her preliminary study.

She included several like examples on her ¨Varieties of Palmas¨ page (Figure 17 and other on another page of “intermediary forms” not included), but again these remaining forms did not include the tidy typology like those of taller or more standard proportions.

For example, PP j (Fig. 17) features a downwardly careening lizard creature which are ​ ​ not entirely unlike the forms of SM Palmas 11, 19, 20, and 22. In fact, SM 20 (Cat. No.

36) is a rare (if not the only) example of a radial fan palma with an iconographic motif

178 One ballcourt exists at Quelepa dating to the Lepa-phase of construction at the site during the Late ​ Classic: Andrews, Quelepa, 41 and 183-4. ​ ​ 179 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 68. ​

95

incised upon the front as though combining these the forms of the diving caiman palmas

(Cat. Nos. 66-69) as well as a radial or padded glove fan (Cat. No. 16).

The ability to discern such patterns previously unseen undoubtedly comes from the significantly expanded corpus of this study. For instance, the sculptural projections of the SM palmas begin to disengaged slightly from the stone forms in a few cases. This is usually presented in the form of negative space between the beak and chest as well as the legs and larger body (Cat. No. 26). This disengagement of form is also seen in other avian forms from the Classic Veracruz traditions as well as in the sculptural trust of several Sculpted Saddle palmas.

Just as no two palmas are the same in the Classic Veracruz tradition, no two are the same in Southern Mesoamerica. However, many iconographic motifs coupled with the formal attributes of some of these sculptural forms seem to converse with one another. Most recently, I found three palmas that provide more definitive proof of creative exchange between these two separate palma traditions, Cat. Nos. 37- 39.

Geometric forms dominate the sculptures; a large, single coil capped with a serpentine snout, a blocky crest atop each form. Cat. No. 39 appears to have the thick band like those of the iron-style avians, though the back curves forward more pronouncedly, and a slightly concave base with a rounded toe capping the foot. Cat. No. 38. has no distinctive basal concavity, not even attempted, though the crest resembles some of the marcated forms from Quelepa. When I saw these two, I knew no doubt that these were in conversation with several from discussed by Shook and Marquis. SM Palmas 2, 7, and 10 each feature a similar treatment of the face- a simple coil for a head with a sort of equine

96

looking snout- laterally flattened in form with a negatively carved eye. In Quelepa, they are also topped with crests, including a demarcated trifurcation, with minimally arched bases and backs with a noticeable incline forward. These features seem to also be in dialog with SM Palmas 19 and 22; a diving serpentine body with a deer-like head, topped with crests, set against a bifurcated back, viewed in laterally flattened profile. Even further, another palma (Cat. No. 37) that has been identified by Sotheby’s as Classic

Veracruz adopts the exact form and motifs of the latter two SM Palmas.

The Basics of Bases

The original identification of the palma form was originally founded on the basal form, and the analysis of this part of the palma is still critical for productive typologies. As noticed by Proskouriakoff, (ironically) the palma corpus as we know it isn't named for the characteristic/s that truly define/s them (namely the fan of the sculptures that resemble a

Mexican palm frond) but instead for the shape of their bases. More specifically, not the true shape but instead the degree of concavity carved out of the base. As we discussed in the section on the history of palma studies in Chapter 1, Shook and Marquis note that some Pacific Coast palmas have a significantly flatter base. These flat bases appear over the course of a long time frame, implying that the flatness is ornamental rather than functional. While the researchers based their work on a much smaller group of palmas from an entirely different cultural region, this observation holds absolutely true of some of the palmas identified as Classic Veracruz, too. And though scholars have noticed some loose continuities of forms and iconographies, throughout the highly varied corpus, basal

97

trends do actually merge with formal ones when considering the typologies presented above (especially in the case of the Aparicio style).

Through careful observation of the amassed corpus of palmas for this study, I have come to consider the varying degrees of their bases' concavity to be nearly flat, a modest arch, an angular arch, an oblique arch, or Aparicio, as the consistency of the bases within this latter typology arguably provides a diagnostic characteristic of style (Cat. Nos.

17-21). This will be discussed in depth below. Nevertheless, palmas have all been singularly united on a loose correlation of their basal concavity, while I actually feel that a reconsideration of their basic base shapes may help to define what is and what is NOT a true palma; at least, the existence or allusion to what may or may not be the unifying characteristic shared between all types of palmas from a seemingly disparate corpus when examined in large quantity, such as this study.

In addition to the presence of or nod to concavity, I have noticed two other trends associated with basic basal forms not previously discussed elsewhere. First, above all else, what nearly every single palma has in common with the other is the T-shape axis along the true bottom of the object- as in the area that makes contact with what is underneath (revisit Figures 10-15 and Anatomy of the Palma, page 11). Proskouriakoff lists this attribute nearly immediately in her discussion of palmas, though no other scholar has even so much as recognized the observation until now, let alone assert it as a pivotal one.180 No doubt though, based on her smaller sample, that she was unaware at how true

180 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 81. ​

98

and significant of an observation it was at the time, like many of her preliminary ideas I expand upon in this thesis with a more substantial corpus.

This T-shaped axis in basal form carries consistently through nearly the entire corpus. The sample of five palmas from the Cleveland Museum of Art's online collection provides excellent comparative photographs of the objects' undersides which help to illustrate this point. Figures 8 and 9 (Page 14) show two of these bases, each belonging to ​ ​ a different formal category of palma and feature varied degrees of concavity. Despite their major differences up top in their upwardly ascending fans, at the very bottom they are all oriented on the relatively same T-shape axis; the flat back of the trunk and fan provides the horizontal plane, while the arched projection of the thrust and upward through the trunk forms the perpendicular cross.

The degree of basal concavity then instead determines the shape of the true bottom as well. In some cases, the degree of concavity is minimal creating a more solid bottom and therefore more closely resembles a cockel hat (pilgrim), providing even more stability to the stone forms. Even in the instance of the Aparicio form (which is arguably one of the most individualized palma types and does not correspond formally, and thus visually, with the other major typologies purported by Proskouriakoff), the flat back side provides a horizontal plane that intersects perpendicularly with the base and upward thrust, trunk, and fan (albeit lateral). This is readily apparent when viewed from any other angle, as is the case with the saddle forms, the winged heads, and avian motifs. All of this to say- the commonality of base shape also helps to establish an overall basic form of a

¨true¨ palma, applicable across the corpus; an upright portable stone sculpture with a back

99

that ascends upward into some form of fan that is wider than the frontal projecting mass, all balancing upon a T-shaped base with some degree of concavity.

Another, lesser, observation of base shapes overlooked by Proskouriakoff and other palma scholars relates to the shape of what I have named the “toe” of the palma, imagining as though the the basal concavity is the arch of the foot and this toe then caps the projecting portion at the base of the trunk's thrust; the furthest thing from the fan. This projection helps to form part of the vertical axis to the T-shape mentioned above, which balances the weight of the top-heavy, forward tipping stone sculptures. Many more of the palmas throughout the corpus have a squared off, almost truncated, frontal foot area while the select few that have a rounded toe on what has been traditionally interpreted as the front of the palma, in that it faces away from the wearer. Diagnostically, the Aparicio style feature almost exclusively squared off foot projections with no toes. This creates a flat surface that is then often incised with double-lined coil motifs or other decoration.

Similarly, tall and saddle form palmas often feature feet without toes, such as the Palma with a Waterbird in Houston or nearly any of the palmas found at the Museo Nacional in

Mexico City with the exception of the Quiver of Arrows, which features the remarkably rounded toe.

100

Chapter 4: Catalog of Illustrated Typology ​ and Palma Related Iconography

The greatly expanded corpus of palmas treated in this thesis deserves closer attention to the wide range of formal and iconographic patterns that emerged throughout this study, but were well beyond the scope of this project. In the course of compiling the

275 plus examples of palma (and otherwise related) forms, patterns apart from the more evident typologies discussed in Chapter 3 began to emerge. In fact, some of these patterns seem to transcend typological constraint and relate to the carved images in Tajín public sculpture as well as to similar iconographies presented in previous discussions. The three-dimensional forms of the palmas also come into better focus through some of this patterning and may provide iconographic links and continuities themselves. As evident in their very ornate formal attributes and baroque decorative embellishments, no aspect of many palmas was underthought in relation to its larger significance, whatever that significance may be.181

Instead of making grand but premature formal and typological arguments about the palma object type and its typologies especially in relation to iconographic traditions, I offer below an annotated catalog of key palmas with discussions of each piece or major trend. Some palmas, such as the Cleveland palma (Cat No. 56-58) have been discussed for decades, while the majority of the others featured in this catalog will now receive attention for the first time. Interestingly enough, many of these unknown palmas feature

181 I say “many” here as a handful of palmas in my study are mostly, if not entirely plain. Further, in the ​ unpublished typology utilized by Sanchez (Chapter 1), of the 183 palmas he examined, more than 30 were plain. Of my expanded corpus, no more than 10 are completely unadorned, sculpturally or graphically.

101

recognizable characters and important references to the ballcourts and Mound of the

Building Columns reliefs in Tajín. Others still have unknown iconographic weight though they are clearly linked to one another, as I will demonstrate. It is my hope that after presenting some of these preliminary iconographic trends that we may look at the public iconographic traditions alongside the portable sculptural programs of Classic Veracruz and consider how they may have functioned both together and apart from one another. As with many aspects of this study, definitive proof and connections determining narrative and sequentiality have yet to be firmly established, as what remains of the archaeological record only provides us so much.

This catalog will also serve as a large portion of the images provided alongside my text, providing examples of the typologies purported along with specific formal and iconographic trends (Cat. Nos. 1-21). Though I can describe these objects in convincing detail, the best way to suss patterns is through careful looking, an argument I make throughout my thesis in regard to the expanded corpus. You as a reader can determine the effectivity of my argument with this additional visual proof. While going through the catalog, do keep in mind that the Illustrated Typology section provides just one example of many forms that in fact fit the diagnostic typological profile of the highly varied ​ ​ corpus.

102

*Please note, the vast majority of these forms are not correctly to physical scale when viewing among typology. The saddle, tall, and Aparicio palmas largely dominate the corpus in height, though many of the saddle forms would be almost a foot shorter than the tall palmas. Meanwhile the other half of the corpus is diminutive in size. There are some that look to and do actually assume the approximate scale of a human head on a pedestal (aka palma foot); many of the avian forms are comparably squat. Others fit somewhere in between. We are interested here in the formal type and iconographic content more than scale.

Do keep in mind, as I mentioned in the introduction, some of these are unprovenanced web images and are cited to the best of my ability. These citations can be found in the Catalog Image List, page 135. In order to better see the palmas, they have been extracted from their backgrounds.

103

104

105

106

107

108

Houston Palma with A Waterbird and Other Hidden Supernaturals

Catalog Numbers 40- 42: Palma with a Waterbird, Museum of Fine Arts Houston, online.

The Palma with a Waterbird found at the MFAH (Cat. Nos. 40-42) takes the form of a Tall Slender palma (See Chapter 3 for Typologies), while the imagery reveals a larger pattern of iconographic references through a sophisticated treatment of the fragile basalt stone. Standing at nearly three feet tall and eight inches wide throughout the fan, the slender Houston palma maintains a more delicate appearance than that of other prototypical palmas from Classic Veracruz. The thrust of the trunk protrudes outward almost three inches and nearly six inches throughout the foot. In contrast, though it is designed with low-relief carving, the backside (again, to the presumed wearer) of the

109

palma retains a particularly flattened quality, with a just a slight forward bend of the fan.

The incised motif on the posterior remains largely indecipherable due to an eroded, yet finely carved surface. The thin edges of the palma’s fan appear razor sharp, further likening the object to an hacha, though the overall forms could not be more distinctly different.

The incised body of the waterbird occupies a majority of the scene. Craned around the curved top of the palma, the waterbird’s neck arches from the right to left; its long, thin beak nearly closes the composition by touching the bird’s chest. In its beak, the waterbird carries a fish in its mouth as indicated by undulating organic lines in a contained space. This observation is confirmed by the fish’s head appearing on the opposite, less legible, side of the palma (see Details of Cat. Numbers 40 and 42 on page

110) . Curvilinear carvings coil in the constricted confines below the bird’s neck on both sides of the relief with a distinct eye in the very center of the front. Leading gracefully into a low-relief body and an abstracted, a linear wing continues on the back of the stone; the opposite perspective of the bird can be found careening around the palma’s form from the posterior side as well. A clearly decipherable leg of the bird juts through the bottom segment of scrolls, linking the scenes together.

The scene the aquatic bird stands upon is difficult to read; zoomorphs and anthropomorphic abstractions combined with more double-lined coils and curls occupy the bottom half of the palma. Roose relates yokes to the underworld (death) and palmas to the upperworld (sacrifice), while paradoxically, throughout the trajectory of

Pre-Columbian culture, images of the waterbird carry strong connections to the aqueous

110

underworld, which carries strong ties to the cosmological function of the ballgame.182 The ​ forms of other animals whose natural habitats occupy celestial (sky), underworld (water), and or other earthy realms simultaneously, such as the caiman (Cat. Numbers 76-79), serpents, and jaguars (Cat. No. 89), appear on many other palmas.183 In addition to sharing the yoke form, the Maya also used waterbird imagery. Though Classic Veracruz and Classic Maya were contemporaries, it is unclear where this iconography originated.

In the Maya tradition, “waterbirds are [often] shown holding their catch and surrounded ​ ​ by water symbols indicative of the underworld.”184 This trend is observable without ambiguity on the Houston palma.

Moving away from the more recognizable incised form, upon closer examination of the Houston palma imagery specific to a reclining deity from the central relief panels in the South Ballcourt at El Tajín emerges from the ambiguous, almost aqueous, amalgam contained beneath the waterbird’s neck in a distorted and dismembered fashion.

Visible to an acute observer, carved into the tender, porous rock of the sculpture in the area below the waterbird’s neck one can detect a distinguishable eye. This anatomical feature is joined by an abstracted nose, a hank of hair, and most importantly a supraorbital plate (or stylized eyebrow feature, recognized immediately below the eye in ​ ​ this case) that directly relates to the South Ballcourt. Koontz explains that “the central actor in both [of the SBC’s central panel] scenes is marked by the supraorbital plate

182 Ninon Roose and Éric Taladoire L e complexe jougs-haches-palmes en mésoamerique. (Lille: Atelier ​ national de Reproduction des Thèses, 2008), 251. 183 Uriarte, “Unity and Duality,” 45. ​ 184 Jeanette Favrot Peterson and Judith Strupp Green. PreColumbian Flora and Fauna: Continuity of Plant ​ ​ and Animal Themes in Mesoamerican Art (San Diego, Calif: Mingei International Museum of World Folk ​ Art, 1990), 76.

111

indicative of Tajín supernaturals.”185 This can be observed in the central characters in

Figures 26 and 27.

Moreover, the specific iconography presented on the Houston palma appears to be the sacrificed god in a reclined position from the north central panel, again indicated by the supraorbital plate (Figure 27). Though it is difficult to infer the sacrifice in this particular panel, in other locations in the Tajín complex this same deity is shown decapitated; his head rests at the feet of 13 Rabbit in his ascension throne (Figure 32). By observing the supraorbital plate, and here most indicatively the hank of hair on the right, we can infer that this dismembered figure on the palma is plausibly the same sacrificed deity present on the north-central panel of the SBC. Though the back of the palma

(below) is nearly illegible, it is quite possible that more supraorbital plates and related

Details of Catalog Numbers 40 and 42. supernatural forms or other dismembered deities are hidden within the swirling composition. Finally, the extremely shallow carving featured on the Palma with a

Waterbird highlights the truly graphic nature of this object, further relating it to El Tajín ballcourt relief panel icons, however unknown they are given our current data.

185 Koontz, Lightning Gods, 56. ​ ​ ​

112

Since I have worked closely with the Houston palma since September of 2015, this early understanding of the complex nature between the figures in the ballcourt imagery and various iconographies present on the palmas allowed me to continue to look for hidden deities while looking for other distinguishable iconographic features. These supraorbital plates can be seen in several different manifestations from the ballcourt panels (Figures 24-29, most readily display the SOP, recognizable as the large eyebrow feature on the skeletal and descending supernatural forms) as well as several different palmas, including avian forms, not just dismembered deities woven into what would appear to the untrained eye as simply baroque ornamentation along ballcourt friezes.

More recently, a pattern of hidden noses was revealed. As seen above, they are not specific to typology or style, and can face in various directions and most often include other aspects of anatomy and or a supraorbital plate, but also exist on their own as seen pointed out on the Proskouriakoff palmas below.

113

Drawings above from Proskouriakoff’s 1954 “Varieties of Classic Central Veracruz Sculpture.”

These hidden deity patterns are only some among many that will be presented momentarily, but will likely contribute more effectively to further analysis of palma and

Tajín iconography done at another time. Though these iconographic trends are slowly but surely becoming more evident, their exact significance is still largely unknown. As discussed in Chapter 2, the majority of the Tajín cosmovision still remains undeciphered by even the most experienced scholars in Classic Veracruz, which is unlike other

Mesoamerican cultures whose pantheons are fairly well studied as they come from cultures with deciphered written languages, and therefore have readily available diagnostics for the many representations of deities and supernaturals. What is evident ​ ​ however is the strong presence of the deities represented on these palmas– mostly indicated by the supraorbital plates as they are in the public iconography. Humans too were associated with these Tajín supernaturals as they appear in scenes together,

114

sometimes wearing palmas. The presence of the deities on the palmas indicates the close relationship and deep involvement between these forms and the supernaturals. Further, many of the figures are presented in a bipedal, upright position along with hands and limbs, and therefore are likely human impersonators of zoomorphic deities, which complicates an accurate reading of the narrative even more.

More Hidden Supernaturals

The next two palmas feature a face strikingly similar to a deity figure from the MBC. On these palmas, however, the figure is seen diving, indicated by the extremities pushed backward at his side and the split in the hank of hair. Cat. No. 46 especially corresponds given the presence of the marked teeth on the edges of the figure’s mouth. Catalog

Number 81 also features a flying or diving figure, with more simian features.

​

115

A few palmas feature a goggled figure, very similar to the Aztec Tlaloc. They can also be situated in the Classic Veracruz pantheon as a deity given the presence of the supraorbital plate. Where this figure corresponds to Tajín public iconography is unknown.

Left: Cat. No. 49- Note the crest and marked nose, goggle eyes and supraorbital plate, however awkwardly positioned.

Right: Cat. No. 50- Round eyes and fan textured like maize(?).

Long-Beak Supernatural

Note the supraorbital plates, large eyes. Cat. No. 51 and 52 more closely resemble one another, while the others feature the curved and elongated beak, like a macaw.

116

The ¨Cleveland Palma¨

Catalog Numbers 56-58: Ballgame Palma, Cleveland Museum of Art, online images.

Another distinguished palma is one from the Cleveland Museum of Art. As one ​ of the most studied palmas, this Type B Sculptured Saddle palma features one of the most three-dimensional, sculpturally carved thrusts that projects through the meticulously carved trunk and typologically broad fan with a delicate tilt; also treated with medium relief, tightly wound double-lined scrolls. The foot is squared with little carving on the toe, with the exception of the establishment of a platform upon which the central figure stands, with an inset of a nose and supraorbital plate (discussed above).

This palma is also one of very few that have curious thin approximately inch-long slits that pierce directly through the entire form, as though a ribbon or cord of sorts could be strung through; I refer to as lattice in my database. These slits are difficult to detect ​ ​ through the baroque ornamentation of scroll forms and dismembered faces, but readily

117

visible as going through the entire sculpture by looking at the back. Here, they begin about two inches from the base, close to where the foot separates from the trunk. Just above the bottommost slits on the back of the palma, an elaborate scene of sacrifice is incised in gripping detail.

Instead of focusing on Kampen’s 1978 discussion of “Classic Veracruz

Grotesques and Sacrificial Iconography,” and subsequent syntheses of this fairly well-known palma, the form instead serve as a demonstration of the intricate iconographic continuities among the highly varied palma corpus, albeit largely of unknown origin or significance.186 First, several palmas (Cat. Nos. 59-61) feature a coyote-like anthropomorph. Also note the deer imagery, which occurs in the rare instance of an SM palma but also on PP c (Figure 17) and ​ ​

186 In his 1978 “Classic Veracruz Grotesques and Sacrificial Iconography,” Kampen identifies the vampire ​ bat, ghoulish vulture, and pulque-rabbit as central gods in the Tajín cosmovision due to their repeated appearances in the public iconographic programs and asserts that they are most significant to “post sacrificial ceremonies” and are also present on this palma. This interpretation appears to have been largely overlooked and the masked figure on the front is often referred to as a coyote or coyote-man. See also: Henry Hawley, “Classic Veracruz Sculptures.” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 61, no. 10 ​ ​ (1974): 321–30.

118

especially Cat. No. 61, a figure that also has its tongue hanging out and something long extending from the anthropomorphic hand and an antler nearby (on the far left of the fan), not dissimilar to the figure to the right of the sacrifice on the Cleveland palma.

Next, the central figure wielding the sacrificial blade (on the back of the

Cleveland palma) appears to have a particular fringe or flange around his head, not entirely dissimilar to Cat. Nos. 62-65, as well as Proskouriakoff Palmas f, d (Fig. 17) and ​ ​ especially PP 10 and 12 (Fig. 14) while the action and accoutrements correspond with the

NW and NE Panels of the SBC (Figures 22 and 24).

The canine-like figures below the sacrificial scene also feature crests, a motif discussed in

Chapter 3 and can be seen on several palmas throughout the catalog, especially later, including Cat. No. 65 immediately above. More on crests in a moment.

119

In relation to the physical icons present, the sculptural thrust on the front serves as a platform in which the central figure stands- a formal attribute of Cat. Nos. 4, 53, and

57 and clearly visible on PP 5, 9, and 10, though she would argue several more (Figure

14), as well as Cat. No. 88. Note: This platform served as a diagnostic feature for

Proskouriakoff’s type 2 palmas, though I have reincorporated the formation into my revised examination to include any significant sculptured feature.

Drawings above from Proskouriakoff’s ​ “Classic Veracruz

Finally, in addition to the hidden noses and other iconographic connections indicated above, the headdresses adorning the central figure on the front of the Cleveland palma, as well as the feather-like projections above the figure wielding the sacrificial knife and the two zoomorphs below the sacrificial altar, appear to correspond with ​ ​

120

ballcourt imagery. Spinden also noticed this feathery trend, but interpreted them all as feathered serpents (in the friezes above) from the Maya tradition and the pulque god (in the cauldron).187

While this pattern may be one of the most preliminary of my working theories, there seems to be some sort of consistency and marked discrepancy between headdresses.

In most cases, they directly to relate in design to scenes and decorative friezes in the monumental public sculpture. These feathered headdresses featured on palmas take one of a few forms. First, there are headdresses of 3-5 (mostly 5) feather-like projections sticking straight up, most often layered with three plumes in the foreground of the headdress and two peaking up behind (Fig. 14, PP 10, Fig. 15, PP 19 and 20). In many cases, the two outermost plumes curl downward and to the side (See headdress on front

“coyote” figure as well as Cat. No. 44, 60). Another distinct pattern is a tall feathered crown of 4 or 5 plumes, with just one of these being slightly bent and askew (See SBC

NE Panel Details above and PP 14, Fig 15), a feature most often seen in the public iconography.

What's even more curious about these headdresses are their occurrences- sometimes over the top of another distinguishing feature like that of the flanged-headed man wielding the knife in the sacrificial scene on the back of the Cleveland palma. Here, long tubular projections burst upward into the chaotic scene of severed body parts and descending gods- one of which is bent. Even more– the unknown semi-canine characters below the altar also feature similar headdresses; three feathers in one direction, the last

187 Spinden, “Place of Tajín,” 241. ​

121

markedly bent away. Nonetheless, these differences seem to directly correspond with ballcourt iconography! Many of the baroque embellishments feature hidden eyes and supraorbital plates; once those elements are recognized, it is easier to see the tube-like projections for what they are– headdresses and feathers, at the very least. Even further, if the potential for headdress related symbolism is there, does that mean the crests could be interpreted as corresponding deity figures from the public sculptural program of Tajín, too? Many of these similarly, vertically oriented supernaturals also feature what could be interpreted as a crest, given more substantiation of their significance.

Inverted details from NW Panel at the SBC: Note the stylized crest-like formation, along with eyes, supraorbital plates, a plume-like projections. Spinden identified R figure as a feathered serpent.188

Furthermore, when observed closely, the two human figures in the Southwest Panel of the SBC wear headdresses or headgear of some sort that features nearly identical stylizations to the crest and feather formations seen here (Figure 25). They also have the same SOP markings as the PTD and reclining figure in the South Central Panel (Figure

27), implying these participants are also deities or perhaps deity impersonators (see

Detail on right side, page 118). How specifically these headdress and crested formations serve to distinguish participants, be them human or supernatural, in these ballcourt scenes

188 Spinden, “Place of Tajín,” 241-242. ​

122

is much less evident and will remain unclear until the Tajín pantheon is deciphered on a much greater scale than the current understanding.

Patterns of Position

The following palmas groups feature similar motifs, especially in regard to the central figure’s position, despite the highly varied execution of their icons and forms. Many of these remain completely unknown in relation to the larger iconographic program of Tajín and Classic Veracruz culture, though in many cases sacrificial implications can be assumed, further likening the palmas to the ballcourts and associated ceremonial rites in

Tajín. Nonetheless, the strong presence of deity or supernatural related imagery still strongly outweighs any other readily available icons from Classic Veracruz iconographic conventions, as observable through the supraorbital plate, including many of the forms featured below, and throughout the palma corpus.

-Diving Caimans

123

-Splayed Legs/ Kneeling

124

More Bifurcated Forms- Note the similar simian form of 81 and 82. Like figures can ​ also be seen on Catalog Numbers 70, 72, 77, and 91

Crested Heads- Note: gaping mouth, bifurcations, and otherwise broad fans behind head. ​

125

Finally, the Other Palmas section below presents palmas grouped not on a basis of ​ ​ iconographic or formal continuities, but also to illustrate earlier arguments. Others are included for their sophisticated and sometimes unique artistic execution. Do observe instances of similar inexplicable icons discussed above, such as the diving gesture of the simian faced figure of Cat. No. 91 and hidden supernaturals on Cat. No. 95 and 96.

Lastly, Cat. No. 100 and 101 are the “twin palmas” discussed in the Epilogue (page 132).

126

Cat. No. 100 Cat. No. 101

127

Conclusion

In an effort to expand upon and refine the pre-established conventions surrounding the palma object-type, I embarked upon a two-fold journey. First, I spent days, weeks, and months gathering data for each and every palma object I could get my hands on. Through this process, I created a database that documents provenance, location, material and assessment, iconography, depth of carving, general typology including degree of basal concavity, shape of the bottom, shape of the fan, existence of a toe, and other features of the anatomy I presented in my Introduction. Through slowing down the looking process, patterns began emerge. From these patterns, seriality became more than evident. From these serial patterns, typologies became diagnostically determinable, including but not limited to the differentiation between graphic and sculptured palma forms and structures and how they correspond with public iconography of El Tajín.

Secondly, and simultaneously, I poured over the existing scholarship on the palma object type and examined the language in which the palma was described by various authors. Fewkes was one of the first to examine the Pre-Columbian art and artifact collection of Governor Dehesa that included many ¨paddle-shaped stones.¨189 Looking at the base as a means of unification, Fewkes noticed despite the relatively low number of the objects, the degree of variability in form and motif seems to both relate them and differentiate them from one another. Nearly every scholar after considered objects with like bases to be palmas including Gordon Ekholm, who determined their finely carved

189 Fewkes, “Certain Antiquities,” 261. ​

128

material indicated their status as ceremonial effigies, and Tatiana Proskouriakoff who gathered and prescribed diagnostic characteristics for the ¨baroque palmas,¨ calling for the expansion of a corpus to provide a revised typology inclusive of all palmate forms.190

While there is now a long (if restricted) general study of the palma, the iconographic connections between the palma motifs and forms along with the public iconographic program have been little discussed until now. Spinden first recognized the presence of what appears to be a palma in profile resting on the yoke-like waistband of ballplayers at the ceremonial site of the South Ballcourt at El Tajín. Koontz has been ultimately the most successful in deciphering the dense and complex iconographic program of the Classic Veracruz apogee, determining the South Ballcourt and Mound of the Building columns point more towards a ceremonial, controlled manifestation of war and the ascension rites of 13 Rabbit, respectively. In several scenes, participants are clad in impedimenta that have long since been agreed upon to be yokes and palmas. Just how these objects functioned, however, is less known especially given their formal, and therefore typological, variation in these representations. This thesis hopes to contribute to a better understanding of palma typologies, with the realization that it will be later studies that will delve deeper into the function of the palma.

Though this study is comprehensive, it is not yet exhaustive. Many new hypotheses outside the scope of this project have emerged along the way. Primarily, the iconographic continuities between palma imagery and the public iconographic program have barely been touched upon, in spite of the patterns established out in the Catalog. ​ ​

190 Proskouriakoff, “Classic Veracruz,” 68. ​

129

This is largely due to the fact that it takes a lot of time and careful, slow looking to see such visual traditions emerge when each object is highly individualized, such as the palma corpus at hand. Further, we do not have the same knowledge of an entire cosmovision and pantheon of Tajín traditions as we do with other Late

Classic/Post-Classic cultures such as the Maya and Aztec. While some syncretism is expected, as is common throughout ancient Mesoamerican cultures, the palma emerges from distinct (if related) religious and political contexts. In addition to obscuring an accurate read of the many characters and participants, this lack of archaeological record also prevents us from knowing how palmas (those that appear in the monumental public sculpture) truly functioned in the ballgame and surrounding ascension rites.

In a final discussion, when I say the phrase ¨palma object-type¨ throughout this thesis, it is in relation to the extant stone versions that we have today; those that exist in my database. In all likelihood, these stone versions had no actual function other than to be a ceremonial effigy used as an altarpiece or trophy replicating a palma made of wood

(or other perishable material(s)) that did have an actual function in the ballgame and or associated rites as indicated in the public iconographic programs, however unknown that function remains. In essence, while I was initially concerned with defining the function of palmas and how to define a ¨true palma¨– by now I know, none of these stone palmas are the real deal; that is, if we are concerned solely with defining the function of palmas as seen in the public iconography at Taín. These stone palmas could not have possibly functioned in the ballgame as they are too fragile, too heavy, too ornate, and too undamaged to have been used in gameplay. This is unlike the stone yokes and hachas that

130

Ekholm makes a fairly convincing argument for having actually functioned in the game itself.191

Many factors contribute to this assertion of function, or rather the lack thereof.

Primarily, the highly varied degree yet retention of iconographic and formal continuities in which these palmas are sculptured indicates their importance to either their function or owner, or both. Further, the individualization of these objects seems to indicate something about their ownership or importance to the owner, such as being a trophy associated with a particular site, ballcourt, religious cult, ethnic or familial group, etc.

This argument is bolstered by the curious presence of specific icons such as hidden deities and dismembered body parts woven into the baroque scroll forms- clearly there is some meaning behind these symbols, however mysterious they are as of now. In order to determine such significance, more archaeological data must be uncovered including the possibility of other large scale iconographic programs such as Tajín.

As mentioned before, Tajín is the only site in Classic Veracruz to have such an extensive public sculpture program and for that reason it is of central importance to this study. This does not consider the very real possibility of more icons and other rites being represented elsewhere throughout the site and region rendered in fugitive paint on plaster; we do, after all, have several examples of palmas themselves with blue and red pigment residues. Meanwhile more of the Edificio de los Murales at Tajín is currently being excavated (at the time of my visit in 2016), which indeed features paintings on plastered walls. Nonetheless, by working with a significantly expanded corpus, this thesis has

191 Ekholm, “Eastern Gulf Coast,” 47. ​

131

provided a foray into a larger discussion surrounding the iconographic programs in relation to portable sculptures in Classic Veracruz while the typologies I have created will provide a solid foundation for reconsidering the fascinating and anomalous corpus of portable stone sculptures known as the palma.

132

Epilogue

This project began in September of 2015, my first semester of grad school, when I was selecting an object of focus for my Pre-Columbian Art History term paper, a “niche” concentration (as some have referred to my interests) I was considering for my thesis topic. Dr. Koontz suggested that I might take a look at a handful of objects at the

Museum of Fine Arts in Houston that had potentially a lot to work with. I immediately looked through the online collection and was struck by one in particular– the Palma with a Waterbird. Though I was admittedly (and still am in many regards) a Pre-Columbian art novice, I had never seen anything like it; a curious stone sculpture, fairly tall and slender, delicately incised, yet sturdy and commanding in presence. A few months and many exhausting hours of research later, I was presenting my preliminary take on the palma object-type at the South Central Conference on Mesoamerica in San Antonio. To this day, this Houston palma remains near and dear to my heart; the first palma in which I established a true iconographic link to the public sculpture program at Tajín, truly exemplary in form and execution. The palma that started it all. Many of my friends, family, and colleagues know, I even refer to it covetously affectionately as “my palma.” ​ ​ (See discussion of Palma with a Waterbird in Chapter 4’s Catalog on page 107). ​ ​ By the time I had taken the palma paper to conference, I was hooked. I wanted to figure it all out. For most scholars, figuring out these enigmatic objects meant defining how they were used. Why was everyone, myself included, hung up on the function of these objects? Why were there so many types of palmas but so little said about the

133

variation within the group? Are all of these objects truly related in function, or were they more representational of particular cults or tribes? These are questions that require particular data to answer properly, and part of the job of this thesis is to evaluate our ability to answer them. That is not to say I don't address some of the above, but I actively fought against not letting my work become burdened by questions that require more data than we have; even without clear answers to all the problems above, there is still much that can be gleaned from these intricate, fascinating objects. In fact, moving away from the role of function has allowed me to really examine the early scholarship surrounding the palma object type and consider it in relation to the palma corpus at large as well as the patterns that have emerged from significantly expanding the known corpus.

Another confounding aspect of this project has been the process of forming the larger corpus. When I first began the rampant search, I encountered what I began to refer to as “twin palmas.” I was so incredibly intrigued and absolutely sure I was onto something both a) good and b) completely ignored by anyone fairly literate in palma studies– of which, as you know by now, there aren’t very many of us– because they didn’t have enough palmas to see this trend. The more I dug (and actually began translating the German websites), the more I realized nearly all of these repeats were actually just plaster or ceramic casts– what trickery! But going through that process allowed me to determine without a doubt that all of these palmas are incredibly individualized. And though they are not mirror images of one another, many of them share features, be them formal or iconographic, which is what allowed for my newly created palma anatomy and revised typologies to be formed.

134

That is with the exception of the only two palmas I cannot figure out, Catalog

Numbers 100 and 101. As one of Proskouriakoff’s original 47, the form is fairly recognizable in Classic Veracruz art history. A mere fragment of what I believe is an

Aparicio palma (given the shape of the trunk’s thrust, the foot, and base), broken before the demarcated “bat-wing” top; a loin-clothed man stands on an architectural projection, scroll forms occupy the remaining surface of the trunk, oriented laterally along the base’s axis. When I was creating the database with the preliminary images from Dr. Koontz’ trove, I realized the same palma was at the Museo Nacional in Mexico City but also in the MAX collection in Xalapa. The distinction between the museums is clear as day– the former has warmer lighting while the latter is much cooler. To make sure I was seeing this phenomenon correctly, I looked at the image data for their dates; nearly 7 years had passed between snapshots. I tested my hypothesis further when I looked at my own ​ images of the palmas from these two institutions. Sure enough, not even two weeks apart last June, the same palma appeared in both collections. I am still not sure what to make of this, except for recognizing the impossibly thin probability of a true set of twin palmas- and an ever increasing general curiosity if the collections themselves are aware of this uncanny similarity.

135

Appendix

Catalog Images

Catalog Number 1: Saddle Type A- Museo de Antropologia Xalapa (MAX), online. ​ ​ ​ Cat. No. 2: Saddle Type B- Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (SMB), online collection. ​ ​ Cat. No. 3: Sculpted Saddle A- Unprovenanced image. ​ ​ Cat. No. 4: Sculpted Saddle B- MAX, Xalapa, online. ​ ​ Cat. No. 5: Tall Slender- Fewkes, “Certain Antiquities,” Pl.CXVI, a. ​ ​ ​ Cat. No. 6: Tall Sculpted- SMB, online. ​ ​ Cat. No. 7: Aparicio- St. Louis Museum of Art (SLAM), online collection. ​ ​ Cat. No. 8: Avian: Laterally Flattened- encountered at the Museo Nacional de ​ ​ Antropología e Historia (MNAH), in Mexico City. Photo by author (June 2016). Cat. No. 9: Avian: Iron Back- Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C., online collection. ​ ​ Cat. No. 10: Avian: Bifurcated Wing- MAX, Xalapa, online. ​ ​ Cat. No. 11: Avian: Hook Beak- MAX bodega, Xalapa, photo by Dr. Rex Koontz (2009). ​ ​ Cat. No. 12: Avian: Closed Hook Beak- “Santa Luisa Palma,” MAX, Xalapa, online. ​ ​ Cat. No. 13: Bifurcated Fan- SMB, Berlin, online. ​ ​ Cat. No. 14: Trifurcated Fan- MAX, Xalapa, online. ​ ​ Cat. No. 15: Radial Fan- Fewkes, “Certain Antiquities,” Pl. CXIX, a. ​ ​ ​ Cat. No. 16: Padded-Glove Fan- MAX, Xalapa, online. ​ ​ Cat. No. 17: Base: Oblique Arch- Detail of Cat. No. 12. ​ ​ Cat. No. 18: Base: Angular Arch- Close- up of Cat. No. 41. ​ ​ Cat. No. 19: Base: Modest Arch- Detail of Cat. No. 4. ​ ​ Cat. No. 20: Base: Nearly Flat- Detail of Cat. No. 10. ​ ​ Cat. No. 21: Base: Aparicio- “Twin Palma” base, Detail of Cat. No. 100 91. ​ ​ Cat. No. 22: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 225. Palma 1. ​ ​ Cat. No. 23: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 225. Palma 2. ​ ​ Cat. No. 24: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 228. Palma 10. ​ ​ Cat. No. 25: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 228. Palma 7. ​ ​ Cat. No. 26: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 226. Palma 4. ​ ​ Cat. No. 27: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 232. Palma 20. ​ ​ Cat. No. 28: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 226. Palma 3. ​ ​ Cat. No. 29: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 229. Palma 11. ​ ​ Cat. No. 30: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 228. Palma 8. ​ ​ Cat. No. 31: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 230. Palma 15. ​ ​ Cat. No. 32: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 230. Palma 14. ​ ​

136

Cat. No. 33: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 231. Palma 16. ​ ​ Cat. No. 34: After Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 232. Palma 17. ​ ​ Cat. No. 35: Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 233. Palma 21. ​ ​ Cat. No. 36: Shook and Marquis, Secrets in Stone, 232. Palma 20. ​ ​ Cat. No. 37: [Sotheby’s, New York] June 2, 1999: Lot 135. Cat. No. 38: Barbara and Justin Kerr, mayavase.com. K7073. Cat. No. 39: Barbara and Justin Kerr, mayavase.com. K7072. Cat. No. 40: Palma with a Waterbird (Front), Museum of Fine Arts Houston (MFAH), online collection. Cat. No. 41: Palma with a Waterbird (Side), MFAH, online. Cat. No. 42: Palma with a Waterbird (Back), MFAH, online. Cat. No. 43: Palma encountered at Musée du Cinquantenaire- Musées royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Brussels. Photo owned by author, March 2017. ​ ​ Cat. No. 44: Fragment, MAX, Xalapa, online. Cat. No. 45: SLAM, St. Louis, online.. Cat. No. 46: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (UPENN), online collection (and Detail). Cat. No. 47: Detail of Central column Mound of the Building Columns, El Tajín. After Ladrón de Guevara, Imagen y pensamiento en El Tajín, 77. ​ ​ Cat. No. 48: MAX, Xalapa, online, and Detail. Cat. No. 49: American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), New York, online collection. Cat. No. 50: [Sotheby’s Parke- Bernet, Inc. New York] May 19, 1973: Lot 57. Cat. No. 51: MAX bodega, Xalapa, photo by Koontz (2009). Cat. No. 52: [Sotheby’s, New York] November 18, 1991: Lot 177. (Now in Museo de América, Madrid). Cat. No. 53: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, California, online collection. Cat. No. 54: MAX bodega, Xalapa, photo by Koontz (2009). Cat. No. 55: MAX bodega, Xalapa, photo by Koontz (2009). Cat. No. 56: Cleveland Museum of Art (CAM), Ohio, online collection. Cat. No. 57: CAM, Ohio, online. Cat. No. 58: CAM, Ohio, online. Cat. No. 59: AMNH, New York, online. Cat. No. 60: [Sotheby’s, New York] May 17, 1993: Lot 177. Cat. No. 61: MAX, Xalapa, online. Cat. No. 62: MAX, Xalapa, online. Cat. No. 63: Princeton University Art Museum, New Jersey, online collection. Cat. No. 64: Unprovenanced web image.

137

Cat. No. 65: Barakat Gallery online store. barakatgallery.com,“Veracruz Painted Stone Palma Depicting a Head.” Cat. No. 66: Stone Sculpture from Mexico: Museum of Primitive Art, Summer 1959. This ​ ​ image may be backward, as it is seen in reverse in another, later, catalog. (Cäsar Menz, Mexique: terre des dieux : trésors de l'art précolombien, Musée Rath, 8 octobre 1998 - 24 janvier 1999. Genève: Musées d'art et d'histoire, 1998.) ​ Cat. No. 67: CAM, Ohio, online. Cat. No. 68: Unknown National Museum of Anthropology publication. Cat. No. 69: Encountered at MNAH, Mexico City. Photo by author (June 2016). Cat. No. 70: MAX bodega, Xalapa, online. Cat. No. 71: Unprovenanced web image. Cat. No. 72: MAX, Xalapa, online. Cat. No. 73: Barbara and Justin Kerr, mayavase.com. K6585. Cat. No. 74: MAX bodega, Xalapa. Photo by Koontz (2009). Cat. No. 75: MAX bodega, Xalapa, online. Cat. No. 76: MAX bodega, Xalapa. Photo by Koontz (2009). Cat. No. 77: Douglas E. Bradley, “Life, Death and Duality: A Handbook of The Rev. Edmund P. Joyce, C.S.C. Collection of Ritual Ballgame Sculpture” in The Snite Museum ​ of Art Bulletin (University of Notre Dame Press: Indiana, 2009), 72. No. 27. ​ Cat. No. 78: CAM, Ohio, online. Cat. No. 79: Logan Museum of Anthropology at Beloit College, Wisconsin. Cat. No. 80: Denver Art Museum, Colorado. Photo by author (March 2015). Cat. No. 81: MAX, Xalapa, online. Cat. No. 82: Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET), New York, online collection. Cat. No. 83: MET, New York, online. Cat. No. 84: Bonham’s Auction House, bonhams.com. Cat. No. 85: CAM, Ohio, online. Cat. No. 86: Unprovenanced image. Cat. No. 87: [Sotheby’s, New York] May 27, 1998: Lot 426. Cat. No. 88: SMB, Berlin, online. Cat. No. 89: National Museum of the American Indian, Washington, D.C., online collection Cat. No. 90: LACMA, Los Angeles, online. Cat. No. 91: SMB, Berlin, online. Cat. No. 92: [Sotheby’s, New York] November 17, 2006: Lot 409. Cat. No. 93: Front of Cat. No. 46. Cat. No. 94: Unprovenanced web image.

138

Cat. No. 95: André Emmerich and Lee Boltin. Art Before Columbus: The Art of Ancient Mexico, from the Archaic Villages of the Second Millennium B.C. to the Splendor of the Aztecs (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983). ​ Cat. No. 96: [Sotheby’s, New York], May 10, 1995: Lot 131. Cat. No. 97: Palma encountered at Musée du Cinquantenaire- Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Brussels. Photo owned by author, March 2017. ​ ​ Cat. No. 98: LACMA, Los Angeles, online. Cat. No. 99: SMB, Berlin, online. Cat No. 100: MNAH, Mexico City. Photo by author (June 2016). Cat. No. 101: MAX, Xalapa. Photo by author (June 2016).

139

Figure Images*

Figure 1: Map of Classic Era sites in Mesoamerica, especially Classic Veracruz (141) ​ Figure 2: Author’s photo of El Tajín (141) ​ Figure 3: Yoke, hacha, palma (142) ​ Figure 4: Author’s photo of Southwest relief panel, South Ballcourt, El Tajín (142) ​ Figure 5: Author’s photo of South Ballcourt at Tajín, facing east (143) ​ Figure 6: Author’s photo of Minor ballcourt, Tajín (143) ​ Figure 7: Map of Tajín after Kampen (143) ​ Figure 8: “Cleveland palma” bottom with axis (Introduction, 15) ​ Figure 9: “Cleveland palma” bottom with axis (15) ​ Figure 10: Palma Anatomy diagram, palma after Proskouriakoff (15) ​ Figure 11: Palma Anatomy diagram, palma after Proskouriakoff (15) ​ Figure 12: Palma Anatomy diagram, palma from Yale University Art Gallery, online(16) ​ Figure 13: Palma Anatomy diagram, palma from Museé du Quai Branly, online (16) ​ Figure 14: Proskouriakoff’s “Palmas of Standard Proportion” (146) ​ Figure 15: Proskouriakoff’s “Tall Palmas” (147) ​ Figure 16: Proskouriakoff’s ¨Miscellaneous, Laterally Flattened, and Short Palmas¨ (148) ​ Figure 17: Proskouriakoff’s “Varieties of Palma Forms” (149) ​ Figure 18: Author’s photo of Pyramid of the Niches, Tajín (150) ​ Figure 19: Author’s photo of scroll form niches, Tajín (150) ​ Figure 20: Author’s photo of Aparicio Panel, Museo Antropología de Xalapa (151) ​ Figure 21: Skeletal form, South Ballcourt panel, Tajín, after Kampen (151) ​ Figure 22: NW South Ballcourt Panel, after Kampen (152) ​ Figure 23: SE South Ballcourt Panel, after Kampen (152) ​ Figure 24: NE South Ballcourt Panel, after Kampen (153) ​ Figure 25: SW South Ballcourt Panel, after Kampen (153) ​ Figure 26: South Central Panel, South Ballcourt, Tajín, after Kampen (154) ​ Figure 27: North Central Panel, South Ballcourt, Tajín, after Kampen (154) ​ Figure 28: Structure 5 Panel, Pyramid of the Niches, Tajín, after Koontz (155) ​ Figure 29: Structure 2 Panel, Tajín, after Kampen (155) ​ Figure 30: Mound of the Building Columns, North, after Ladrón de Guevera (156) ​ ​ ​ Figure 31: Detail of MBC North, Scene A, after Ladrón de Guevera (157) ​ Figure 32: Detail of of MBC scenes, after Koontz (157) ​ Figure 33: MBC, Central Column, scene e, after Ladrón de Guevera (158) ​ ​ ​ Figure 34: Detail of MBC, Central Column, scene e, after Koontz (158) ​ ​ ​ *Arranged by currently understood iconographic reading order. Image provenance information and commentary largely with image.

140

Figure 1: Classic Era Map of Mesoamerica with some significant sites around Veracruz, ​ with El Tajín farthest north. The green shaded area designated “Classic Veracruz culture” is roughly the same distribution radius of the palma form. Wikicommons Feb 18, 2012.

Figure 2: Photo of the site of Tajín, standing in Tajín Chico. To the left in the ​ foreground, the minor (North) ballcourt can be seen. To the far right, the Pyramid of the Niches towers above the ceremonial corridor obstructed from view. Photo by author, June 2016.

141

Figure 3: a: yoke, b: hacha, c:palma. Unprovenanced images. ​

Figure 4: Photograph of the Southwest panel of the South Ballcourt at El Tajín. ​ Photo by author, June 2016.

142

Figure 5: South Ballcourt at Tajín, facing east. Photo by author, June 2016. ​

Figure 6: Minor ballcourt at Tajín, notice the I-shaped boundary. ​ Photo by author, June 2016.

143

Figure 7: Map of Tajín, including major ceremonial centers. ​ After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Page 5: Figure 2. ​ ​

144

Figure 14: After Proskouriakoff,“Classic Veracruz” (1954), ​ Appendix: Figure 6, ¨Palmas of Standard Proportion.¨

145

Figure 15: After Proskouriakoff,“Classic Veracruz” (1954), ​ Appendix: Figure 7, ¨Tall Palmas.¨

146

Figure 16: After Proskouriakoff,“Classic Veracruz” (1954), ​ Appendix: Figure 8, ¨Miscellaneous, Laterally Flattened, and Short Palmas.¨

147

Figure 17: After Proskouriakoff,“Classic Veracruz” (1954), ​ Appendix: Figure 12, ¨Varieties of Palma Forms.¨

148

Figure 18: Pyramid of the Niches, El Tajín. ​ Photo by author, June 2016.

Figure 19: Scroll form niches, Tajín Chico, El Tajín. Photo by author, June 2016. ​

149

Figure 20: Aparicio Panel, MAX, Xalapa. Note the palma like projection coming from ​ what has been traditionally interpreted as a yoke. Photo taken by author, June 2016.

Figure 21: Detail Skeletal form, SBC, Tajín. After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Figure 20. ​ ​ ​

150

Figure 22: Northwest panel of the South Ballcourt at Tajín. ​ After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Figure 22. ​ ​

Figure 23: Southeast panel of the South Ballcourt at Tajín. ​ After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Figure 20. ​ ​

151

Figure 24: Northeast panel of the South Ballcourt at Tajín. ​ After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Figure 23. ​ ​

Figure 25: Southwest panel of the South Ballcourt at Tajín. ​ After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Figure 21. ​ ​

152

Figure 26: South Central panel of the South Ballcourt at Tajín. ​ After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Figure 24. ​ ​

Figure 27: North Central panel of the South Ballcourt at Tajín. ​ After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Figure 25. ​ ​

153

Figure 28: Structure 5, Pyramid of the Niches. ​ After Koontz, Lightning Gods (2009), Figure 3.4. ​ ​

Figure 29: Structure 2 Panel, El Tajín. After Kampen, El Tajín (1972), Figure 19a. ​ ​ ​

154

Figure 30: Mound of the Building Columns, North Column, Tajín. ​ After Ladrón de Guevara, Imagen y Pensamiento en Tajín (1999), Page 76. ​ ​

155

Figure 31: Detail of Figure 30: A. Note: each figure wears a different type of palma. ​

Figure 32: Mound of the Building Columns. Top: North Column, Bottom: South ​ Column. Note hanks of hair and SOP. After Koontz, Lightning Gods (2009), ​ ​ Figure 3.18 a and b.

156

Figure 33: Mound of the Building Columns. Central Column, Scene e. ​ ​ After Ladrón de Guevara, Imagen y Pensamiento en Tajín (1999), Page 77. ​ ​ ​

Figure 34: Detail of Figure 33. After Koontz, Lightning Gods (2009), Figure 4.6. ​ ​ ​

157

Bibliography

Andrews, E. Wyllys. The archaeology of Quelepa, El Salvador. New Orleans: Middle ​ ​ American Research Institute, Tulane University, 1976.

Bradley, Douglas E. “Life, Death and Duality: A Handbook of The Rev. Edmund P. Joyce, C.S.C. Collection of Ritual Ballgame Sculpture,” in The Snite Museum of Art ​ Bulletin. University of Notre Dame Press: Indiana, 2009. ​

Daneels, Annick. “Collapse and Regeneration: Developmental Cycles in the Gulf Lowlands,” in Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology, eds. Deborah L. Nichols ​ ​ and Christopher A. Pool. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Ekholm, Gordon F. “Palmate Stones and Thin Stone Heads: Suggestions on Their Possible Use.” American Antiquity 15, no. 1 (July 1, 1949). 1–9. ​ ​

Ekholm, Gordon F. “The Eastern Gulf Coast” in The Iconography of Middle American ​ Sculpture, ed. Ignacio Bernal. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1973, 40-51. ​

Emmerich, André, and Lee Boltin. Art Before Columbus: The Art of Ancient Mexico, from the Archaic Villages of the Second Millennium B.C. to the Splendor of the Aztecs. ​ New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

Hawley, Henry. “Classic Veracruz Sculptures.” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of ​ Art 61, no. 10 (1974): 321–30. ​

Kampen, Michael E. The Sculptures of El Tajín, Veracruz, Mexico. Gainesville: ​ ​ University of Florida Press, 1972.

158

Kampen, Michael E. "Classic Veracruz Grotesques and Sacrificial Iconography." Man, ​ ​ New Series, 13, no. 1 (1978): 116-26. doi:10.2307/2801069.

Koontz, Rex. Lightning Gods and Feathered Serpents: The Public Sculpture of El Tajín. ​ ​ Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009.

Kurosaki Maekawa, Mitsuru. "Estudio sobre los yugos: Análisis comparativo de los yugos y sus contextos en Mesoamérica, en especial, los yugos de la Costa del Golfo de México." Unpublished Master's thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 2006.

Ladrón de Guevara, Sara. Imagen y pensamiento en El Tajín. Xalapa, Veracruz, México: Universidad Veracruzana, Dirección Editorial. 1999.

Menz, Cäsar. Mexique: terre des dieux : trésors de l'art précolombien, Musée Rath, 8 octobre 1998 - 24 janvier 1999. Genève: Musées d'art et d'histoire, 1998. ​

Miller, Mary Ellen. The Art of Mesoamerica: from Olmec to Aztec, 4th ed. London: ​ ​ Thames & Hudson, 2006.

Miller, Mary Ellen, and Karl A. Taube. The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the ​ Maya: an Illustrated Dictionary of Mesoamerican Religion. New York: Thames and ​ Hudson, 1993.

Nicholson, H.B. ¨Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico¨ in Handbook of Middle ​ American Indians Vol. 10: Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part 1. ed. Robert ​ ​ ​ Wauchope. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1964.

159

Peterson, Jeanette Favrot, and Judith Strupp Green. Precolumbian Flora and Fauna: ​ Continuity of Plant and Animal Themes in Mesoamerican Art. San Diego: Mingei ​ International Museum of World Folk Art, 1990.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana. “Varieties of Classic Central Veracruz Sculpture.” Contributions ​ to American Anthropology & History, No. 58. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of ​ Washington, 1954. 61-94.

Roose, Ninon, Le complexe jougs-haches-palmes en Mésoamerique . Thèse de doctorat en ​ Préhistoire, Ethnologie et Anthropologie. Université de París: Panthéon Sorbonne. 2006.

Sanchez Olvera, Luis Ignacio. La Palma: Un Estudio Temático-Estilístico de ​ Microrregiones en Veracruz Central. Unpublished Master's thesis, Universidad ​ Veracruzana, Xalapa, México: 1978.

Sahagún, Bernardino de. Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. ​ Edited by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. O. Anderson. Vol. 10: The People. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2012.

Schele, Linda and David A. Freidel. “The Courts of Creations: Ballcourts, Ballgames, and Portals to the Maya Underworld” in The Mesoamerican Ballgame, eds. Vernon L. ​ ​ Scarborough and David Wilcox. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1991. 289- 315

Scott, John F. “Dressed to Kill: Stone Regalia of the Mesoamerican Ballgame.” In The ​ Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. E. Michael Whittington. ​ London: Thames and Hudson, 2001. 50-63.

160

Scott, John F. "Human Sacrifice in the Iconography of Veracruz." In Blood and Beauty: ​ Organized Violence in the Art and Archaeology of Mesoamerica and Central America, edited by Heather Orr and Rex Koontz. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2009. 99- 115.

Shook, Edwin M. and Elayne Marquis. Secrets in Stone: Yokes, Hachas and Palmas from ​ Southern Mesoamerica. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1996. ​

Spinden, Ellen S. “The Place of Tajín in Totonac Archaeology.” American ​ Anthropologist, New Series, 35, no. 2 (April 1, 1933): 225–70. ​

Tarkanian, Michael J. and Dorothy Hosler. "AMERICA'S FIRST POLYMER SCIENTISTS: RUBBER PROCESSING, USE AND TRANSPORT IN MESOAMERICA." Latin American Antiquity 22, no. 4 (2011): 469-86. ​ ​ http://www.jstor.org/stable/23072570.

Taube, Karl. Aztec and Maya Myths. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993. ​ ​

Taube, Karl. "The Olmec Maize God: The Face of Corn in Formative Mesoamerica." RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, no. 29/30 (1996): 39-81. ​ http://www.jstor.org/stable/20166943

Townsend, Richard F. The Aztecs. London: Thames & Hudson, 2000. ​ ​

Uriarte, María Teresa. “Unity and Duality: The Practice and Symbols of the Mesoamerican Ballgame” in In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican ​ Ballgame, ed. E. Michael Whittington. London: Thames and Hudson, 2001. 40-51. ​

161

Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K. “And Then They Were Sacrificed: The Ritual Ballgame of Northeastern Mesoamerica” in The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. Vernon L. Scarborough ​ ​ and David Wilcox. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1991. 45-72.

Wyllie, Cherra."Continuity and Change in Late Classic Southern Veracruz Art, Hieroglyphs, and Religion" in Classic Period Cultural Currents in Southern and Central ​ Veracruz. eds. Philip Arnold III and Christopher Pool. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton ​ Oaks Research Library & Collection, 2008.