Skip to Content

Dumbarton Oaks Microsite

PC.B.020, Jade Mask

Jade Mask

 
Accession numberPC.B.020
Attribution and Date
Middle Formative, 900–300 BCE
Measurements

H. 20.6 cm; W. 17.8 cm; D. 10.8 cm; Wt. 1,796.1 g

Technique and Material

Jadeite

Acquisition history

Purchased by Robert Woods Bliss from Robert Stolper, 1960

According to Samuel K. Lothrop (1963:93), this magnificent jade mask was taken to Italy in the 1530s, making it one of the first Olmec objects collected by Europeans. Elizabeth P. Benson cites a claim made in a letter from the art dealer Robert Stolper to Robert Woods Bliss: “There is some evidence that it had been there since the 16th century. It was published some time ago by a Hungarian professor as a ‘Tang’ mask; was sold by one collector to another as a Chinese piece and later returned because it was American and not Chinese” (Benson 1981:102).

Although neither Benson nor I have been able to document the sixteenth-century provenience or the purported publication, this object was clearly obtained before the discovery of similar masks from Arroyo Pesquero in the late 1960s (Joralemon 1988:40; Medellín Zenil 1971:18–19, pls. 59–65, 68–69). Benson provides a detailed description of the overall appearance and condition of the piece and notes the proper left brow region is restored.In the description of the mask, the accompanying photograph was reversed (Benson 1981:fig. 6). According to Stolper, the missing piece may have been lost relatively recently, quite possibly in the 1930s. Moreover, the upper right quarter of the mask was broken off and reattached, with some stone loss to the cheek region (Benson 1981:102–103, fig. 6). There is also a crack extending from the right cheek across the lip to the right tooth, and the right ear has suffered some loss, evidently by a blow from the front.

Although some of the damage may have occurred recently, portions of the mask were intentionally removed in antiquity. Most of the back-encircling rim of the mask was detached by sawing and breakage. The only portions of the original rim that remain are by the temples and the chin. The scar of a particularly long saw cut—virtually the whole length of the mask—can be seen behind the right ear. Rather than constituting a finished re-carving of the piece, this cut seems to have been primarily designed to obtain portions of the precious translucent jade. There is no evidence of subsequent grinding or polishing on this removal, and the cutting and breakage scars are evident, but it is noteworthy that none of this substantial removal is visible from the front, so it in no way detracts from the appearance of the face. A similar treatment of jade sculpture can be observed in the massive Kunz Axe in the American Museum of Natural History in New York, where a large portion of jade has been removed from the rear cranial region of the anthropomorphic axe (30 / 7552; Saville 1929:fig. 99). As with PC.B.020, none of this removal can be detected from the front. According to Charlotte Thomson (1975:93), the back of the Kunz Axe was cut in antiquity to remove a vein of emerald-green jade.

In contrast to PC.B.127, this large mask was carved to be worn (Benson 1981:102; see Stuart 1993:115). Holes cut through the partly hollowed eyes allow sight through the pupils, a convention also found among stone masks attributed to Arroyo Pesquero (see Berjonneau, Deletaille, and Sonnery 1985:pl. 1; Medellín Zenil 1971:nos. 59, 60, 68). The nostrils also pierce the mask, allowing for easy breathing, and the interior nasal area is carefully hollowed out to accommodate the nose of the wearer. Although interior nasal depressions also occur in masks attributed to Arroyo Pesquero (Medellín Zenil 1971:nos. 65, 69; Princeton University Art Museum 1995:no. 192), this feature is especially developed in PC.B.020, and penetrates well into the bulbous nasal area on the front of the mask. Two pairs of lateral holes just above and below the ears provide for suspension; as with many Olmec stone masks (e.g., PC.B.127 and PC.B.151), an additional central hole may have vertically pierced the top of the mask. Due to the removal of much of the backing, however, it is impossible to determine whether a hole was originally present. With a cord suspended from the upper crown of the head, such a hole would have provided a great deal of support for this weighty stone object.

Although the perforated pupils and nostrils, hollowed nose, and suspension holes all suggest that this is a functional mask, it was—as a large, solid piece of jade—not an item that could be worn for long periods of time or in performances requiring a great deal of movement. It may have functioned in rites involving deity impersonation, but considerable rust-like staining around the eyes suggests that it may have had another function. Present in the eye region on both the interior and exterior of the mask, this discoloration strongly suggests the staining that occurs from the oxidation of iron pyrite or other iron ores. As with the serpentine transformation figures (PC.B.008 and PC.B.009), the pupils may have been inlaid with iron pyrite that would have blocked any vision through the mask. For an inlay, however, it would not be necessary to entirely pierce the pupils—pyrite disks could simply have been placed atop a jade surface rather than inserted as plugs into the pupil holes. It is impossible to determine, moreover, whether a pyrite inlay would have been an original part of the mask or added at the time of burial.

The face is exceptionally well carved; it portrays a supernatural being with eyes slanted up at the outer corners and a sharp, outwardly projecting upper lip. The Olmec used such snarling mouths to designate divine beings. The interior of the mouth contains a prominent pair of upper incisors; although the general form of these two curving teeth closely resembles the so-called gumlines of Olmec divinities, the central vertical line shows they are teeth. Quite probably the gumlines are simply less elaborate, un-incised forms of similar teeth. The mouth is plainly open, with the tongue visible below the upper incisors. In fact, the contours of the lower lip closely match the bracket-like form of the upper mouth, as if the two are intended to fit snugly together in a closed mouth. Although most of the facial surface is smoothly polished, the upper lips, lower lips, and the ears are marked with incision. At the base of the better-preserved right ear is a lobe-like form marked with a pair of horizontal incised lines, quite probably an ear pendant. As on PC.B.127, only the inner portion of the upper eyelids is delineated by incision.

The expression of this face varies considerably according to the angle of perspective, a common trait of Olmec objects. When viewed frontally from slightly below, the face has an extremely tense and fierce appearance. Seen straight on, however, it is far more serene. In view of the slanted eyes, curving upper lip, and prominent pair of incisors, this face may well represent the Olmec maize god, God II in the Joralemon (1971) system of deity classification. To the Olmec, this mask may have been a vivid portrayal of the living face of corn.

Fig. 30.1
Figure 30.1. Color profile painting of Maya maize god from North Wall mural, San Bartolo. Detail of painting by Heather Hurst.

My identification of PC.B.020 as a portrayal of the Olmec maize god finds considerable support in the discovery of the Late Preclassic Maya mural chamber in Sub-1A at San Bartolo, Guatemala (see Saturno, Taube, and Stuart 2005; Taube and Saturno 2008; Taube et al. 2010). Discovered by William A. Saturno in 2001, the murals feature detailed scenes of Maya creation mythology dating to roughly the first century BCE (Figure 30.1). No fewer than seven images of the Maya maize god appear in the mural chamber, and with his snarling mouth, sharply upturned upper lip, and slanted eyes, this being is remarkably similar to PC.B.020. In addition, excavations directed by Francisco Estrada-Belli (2011:figs. 5.22–24) at the roughly coeval site of Cival, Guatemala, uncovered more early images of the Maya deity, again with strongly Olmec facial characteristics. At San Bartolo, a still earlier mural program dating to roughly the fourth century BCE was discovered below the Sub-1A mural chamber. Not only does this earlier program feature the earliest known Maya writing, it also has an explicit depiction of the Maya maize god strongly similar to both the later examples at the site and to Olmec depictions of their god of maize, including PC.B.020. At this point, there is essentially no “black hole” or “missing link” between Middle Formative Olmec portrayals of the maize deity and the earliest examples known for the ancient Maya.

 

Notes

Accession numberPC.B.020
Attribution and Date
Middle Formative, 900–300 BCE
Measurements

H. 20.6 cm; W. 17.8 cm; D. 10.8 cm; Wt. 1,796.1 g

Technique and Material

Jadeite

Acquisition history

Purchased by Robert Woods Bliss from Robert Stolper, 1960

Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1996

Golden Kingdoms: Luxury and Legacy in the Ancient Americas, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, California, September 2017–January 2018, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, February–May 2018

Accession numberPC.B.020
Attribution and Date
Middle Formative, 900–300 BCE
Measurements

H. 20.6 cm; W. 17.8 cm; D. 10.8 cm; Wt. 1,796.1 g

Technique and Material

Jadeite

Acquisition history

Purchased by Robert Woods Bliss from Robert Stolper, 1960

Benson, Elizabeth P. 1963. Handbook of the Robert Woods Bliss Collection of Pre-Columbian Art. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. P. 7, no. 31.

Lothrop, Samuel K. 1963. Robert Woods Bliss, 1875–1962. American Antiquity 29(1):92–93. P. 93.

Palmer, J. P. 1967. Jade. London: Spring Books. Pl. 49. 

Joralemon, Peter David. 1971. A Study of Olmec Iconography. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Fig. 24.

Joralemon, Peter David. 1976. The Olmec Dragon: A Study in Pre-Columbian Iconography. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica, edited by Henry B. Nicholson, pp. 27–71. Los Angeles: University of California, Latin American Center Publications. Pp. 31, 35, figs. 2c, 5a. 

Benson, Elizabeth P. 1981. Some Olmec Objects in the Robert Woods Bliss Collection at Dumbarton Oaks. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory of Matthew W. Stirling, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 95–108. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Pp. 102–103, fig. 6.

Davies, Nigel. 1983. The Ancient Kingdoms of Mexico. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Fig. 1. 

Niederberger, Christine. 1987. Paléopaysages et archéologie pré-urbaine du bassin de Mexico. 2 vols. Mexico City: Centre d’études mexicaines et centramericaines. Fig. 88.

González Calderón, O. L. 1991. The Jade Lords. Coatzacoalcos, Mexico: O. L. González Calderón. Pl. 344.

Stuart, George E. 1993. New Light on the Olmec. National Geographic 184(5):88–115. P. 115.

Dunlap, Carol. 1994. The Culture Vulture: A Guide to Style, Period, and Ism. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation. P. 192.

Benson, Elizabeth P., and Beatriz de la Fuente, editors. 1996. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art. P. 241, no. 82. 

Pasztory, Esther. 1998. Pre-Columbian Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 23, 33–35, fig. 20.

Pasztory, Esther. 2000. The Portrait and the Mask: Invention and Translation. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 264–275. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art. Fig. 6. 

Stuart, George E. 2003. Die Olmeken in Neuem Licht. National Geographic Spezial, Deutschland. P. 165. 

Diehl, Richard A. 2004. The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson. P. 123, fig. 83.

Taube, Karl A. 2004. Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Pp. 147–150, pl. 30, fig. 30a–c. 

Pasztory, Esther. 2005. Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of Art. Austin: University of Texas Press. P. 183. 

Bühl, Gudrun, editor. 2008. Dumbarton Oaks: The Collections. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Pp. 234–235. 

Tate, Carolyn. 2012. Reconsidering Olmec Visual Culture: The Unborn, Women, and Creation. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pp. 57–58, fig. 3.30. 

Millett-Gallant, Ann, and Elizabeth Howie, editors. 2016. Disability and Art History. London and New York: Routledge. P. 71, fig. 4.7.

Pillsbury, Joanne, Alex Potts, and Kim Richter, editors. 2017. Golden Kingdoms: Luxury Arts in the Ancient Americas. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum and Getty Research Institute. P. 210, no. 125.

Accession numberPC.B.020
Attribution and Date
Middle Formative, 900–300 BCE
Measurements

H. 20.6 cm; W. 17.8 cm; D. 10.8 cm; Wt. 1,796.1 g

Technique and Material

Jadeite

Acquisition history

Purchased by Robert Woods Bliss from Robert Stolper, 1960