41
III.  THE EL MESON MONUMENT AT ANGEL R. CABADA, VERACRUZ
Philip Drucker
The large, ornately carved monument at El Meson, Veracruz, Mexico, was
first reported by Covarrubias (1957:241,fig. 68) who published a drawing
of it. His drawing, however, contains numerous serious errors. For that
reason this description and photograph of the monument are presented here.
Since the time that Corarrubiasrobserved the monument and made his
sketch, the official name of the town in which it is located has been
changed from "El Meson" to "Angel R. Cabada."    (The community, it should
.be mentioned, is on the flat plain j4ist north of the Tuxtla Mountains.)
The monuments perhaps should be designated by the present name of the town
in which it is situated; however, since it has been referred to in publica-
tions as the "El Meson Monument" (or "Stela"), that nomenclature is retained
here.
At the present time the stone has been set up to adorn the town park at
the edge of the Veracruz- Coatzacoalcos highway. According to local infor-
mation, it was found in or near a small mound group situated "about a kilo-
meter" east or east-southeast of the present limits of the modern town. The
discovery apparently was made in connection with excavating fill for the
construction of the highway. Nearby, so it is reported, was another carved
stone, a basalt column with a very damaged carving which has been described
by Stirling (1943, pl.16a).
In all likelihood other students of Mesoamerican archaeology have seen
the El Meson monument, but as far as I know no photographs of it have been
published. The probable reason for this is that it is extremely difficult
to photograph. The relief is very low, and in addition the stone is set up
tilted back slightly and from side to side is placed on an E-W azimuth
that makes the sun, from mid-morning on, strike it directly enough as to
obliterate all shading. Only with early morning light, and probably very
late afternoon light, is it possible to get adequate photographs.
The monument (pl. 1) is made of El Vigia basalt of the type character-
ized by exceptionally coarse-grained olivine and augite phenocrysts
(Williams and Heizer 1965:4,fig. 4). The object measures about 2.6 m. tall;
its maximum width (which varies since one side curves convexly) is 1.7 mi.,
-and the thickness is 0.27 m. The top of the stone is irregular, not squared
or trimmed evenly. At the present time, the base is encased in a block of
concrete to sustain the monument in its position. My recollection, which
42
may or may not be worth much since it represents an attempt to conjure up
a memory from 1955 when I saw the monument before the modern concrete base
had been poured around it, is that the base is fairly square, side to side
and front to back, so that the stone sat reasonably firmly on top of the
ground, tilted back slightly against a couple of steel rails set in the
ground behind it as braces. (My photographs taken in 1955 should have
resolved this problem of the form of the base, but they were taken under
a mid-day sun so I threw them away; they showed only an apparently feature-
less slab of rock speckled with phenocrysts.) A rough computation of volume
(assuming a fairly square base) times the specific gravity of El Vigla      )
basalt figures out to a weight of a bit over 2.5 metric tons.
The face of the block of stone had been ground flat, then cut away
around the outlines of the figures to leave a low flat champleve relief.
This relief stands 2 to 4 mm. above the finished surface of the background.
Within the figures themselves most ornaments and details are indicated by
outlining with shallow incised lines; in a few places deeper, bolder carving
defines interior details. While a great deal of detail still can be seen on
the monument, some of it is lost or unclear, possibly through weathering or,
if the stone lay worked-face down, through action of soil acids and perhaps
of rootlets. The faces of the two figures appear to have been intentionally
destroyed. That of the larger figure has been ground away very neatly, so
that on looking at the monument one looks in vain for the features but at
the same time sees no obvious traces of battering or pounding. The features
of the smaller figure also seem to have been deliberately damaged; however,
the abrupt, jagged, irregular edge where the face should be suggests that
defacing may have been done by battering at the edge of the raised area.
The Decorative Field
On the face of the monument two figures are represented, one of which,
centrally situated, is the larger- with more complex ornaments -and obviously
the principal figure of the composition. It stands on a complex structure,
or platform. This central personage is designated "Fig. 1" in the following
description, and the feature on which it stands is referred to as the "Plat-
form."  The smaller figure, "Fig. 2", is to the (viewer's) right of Fig. 1
and appears to be seated just over an ornamental projection of the Platform.
The effect is clearly that the figure is not actually meant to be shown as
sitting on the Platform but somewhere beyond or behind it.
In studying the design, it was found that the photographic print, placed
over a frosted glass and a fairly strong light, revealed some ornamental
details that had not been noted in the unilluminated print. Tracings were
made showing certain of these details (figs a through d). Both photograph
and tracings should be observed during the following description and discus-
sion.
43
Fig. 1 is presented standing, facing to the viewer's right. The posture
is a non-perspective one (see fig. a): face (prior to destruction) apparently
was in profile (since the headdress is in side view); shoulders full front
view, hips three-quarters view; legs and feet in profile; feet pointing to the
right (Posture I-A-1, Proskouriakoff 1950:19 ff.). The figure's right arm
slopes downward and rearward (to viewer's left), the hand with fingers ex-
tended (not shown grasping realistically) holds an object with one end bifur-
cated and the other end obviously decorated. Just to the right of the hand
an object which may be a tassel or possibly a blade seems to descend from the
rod.  A blade would of course indicate a weapon, in fact a hatchet-like one,
but if we assume even a moderate amount of realism, the blade-like object
seems to be at too great an angle from the "handle" to be an effective fight-
ing tool. There is a suggestion of a row of small objects pendant from the
lower margin of the object which, if certainly identified, would mean it is
a tassel and not a blade. The left arm extends outward (to the viewer's
right) in an awkward posture, holding in a cursorily represented hand a short
baton from which dangles an unidentified object. This object is being
pointed toward or offered to Fig. 2. The depiction of the human figure is
done in a stiff, rigid manner, representative but without touches of realism:
for example, the backs of the lower legs are shown by straight lines, not
curves suggesting musculature.
As previously noted, the face of Fig. 1 has been destroyed, albeit in a
neat, painstaking way, for traces of battering were removed presumably by
careful grinding and/or hammer-dressing. The face must have been framed in
the jaws of an open jaguar-saurian's mouth which forms the lower body of the
headdress. An ear-spool is sharply defined in the proper place for a profile
head so placed, and a chin-strap from the headdress is similarly placed.
From the area where the face was, or should have been, projects a form,
defined by shallow incising, consisting of two double curved lines whose
outer ends join to form a downward curving point. The form suggests a mon-
strous tongue, or even a flame, but without relief. The curves seem to be
drawn much too regularly to be accidental. There is no recognizable simi-
larity to the "speech scrolls" of Highland Mexican mural painting.
This figure was originally arrayed in an ornate dress and headdress.
Unfortunately, much of the ornamental detail was in very fine line incising
which has been damaged by weathering or action of soil and/or rootlet acids,
so that in many places only remnants of lines that no longer join to form
coherent patterns remain. Trying to trace the vestigial patterns was an
exercise in frustration.
Of the various items of dress, the headdress is the best preserved. The
basic portion is a version of the common Mesoamerican theme of the open-
44
mouthed animal or monster whose jaws frame the face of the wearer.     However,
this mask is double: a monstrous profile head that suggests a saurian holds
in its jaws the space presumedly once occupied by the face of Fig. 1; the
saurian in turn is combined with, or possibly protrudes from, the mouth of
a very stylized jaguar (fig. b). In front of the jaguar's snout and above
the saurian an object with serrated lower margin protrudes, in front of
which a bunch of plumes extends horizontally. A rank of plumes is attached
as well to the back of the jaguar head.
Surmounting the forehead of the jaguar is a tall element that curves
forward and contains abundant traces of minute elaborate design in which one
can almost "see" a series of faces and the like, which cannot really be made
out (pi. 1). The leading edge of this element is irregular and adorned with
various projections, including one simple scroll. The rear edge sweeps up-
ward in a clean curve to an attachment near the top: an elongate object,
rounded at the rear, with ten (or eleven?) small round objects - four (or
five?) above, four below, and two at the rear -which project beyond the
silhouette. The interior space contains a series of rectangular figures
that suggest very strongly twilled checkerwork basketry, but which are not
well enough preserved for certainty. At the very top of the forward-curving
element, a set of six long plumes in three pairs- or three forked plumes -
swirl forward in elegant curves. From behind the basketry-like element
descends a long trailer of feathers- depicted in segments sloping at differ-
ing angles- which hangs to just below the figure's waist. The variation in
the slant and length of the segments of the feathers gives this element a
very realistic appearance.
The torso of the figure seems to be covered with a short cape, possibly
of slipover type. On the figure's chest, overlying the cape, is a vertical
column of elements that suggests a string of pendants suspended from the
figure's neck. Slightly overlapping the lower edge of the cape is a hori-
zontally elongate hexagon, within which tantalizing remnants of lines hint
at a former complex pattern. The hexagon may have been the bottom element
of the vertical string of pendants, but is not certainly so.
Seemingly from the left (viewer's right) shoulder dangles an object con-
sisting, from top downward, of a round form, three narrow vertical elements,
a round form, another round form, and three vertical elements (tassels?
jinglers?). Vestiges of an identical series of elements appear to depend
from the ear-spool behind the chin-strap of the headgear. It seems likely
that a pair of ear-spool pendants was intended; if this is correct, consid-
erable liberty was taken with the real position of the right-hand one in
order to display it prominently. From the right (viewer's) lower edge of
the cape hangs a tassel-like form: a round object with three danglers (or
45
feathers?). Over the figure's right thigh (left side to viewer) a vertical
and a slanting bar and vestiges of a round form indicate a matching pendant
or tassel.
A trapezoidal breechclout apron hangs from under the cape. Its lower
edge is adorned with a row of six (five?) round forms (a string of beads?).
At about the middle of the lower edge of the apron is an oval form; it can-
not be determined whether this represents a pendant from the apron or is an
ornament on the garter on the figure's left leg.    Behind the figure, an
unornamented strip, the rear trailer of the breechclout, dangles almost to
the figure's heel. The figure's right upper leg (the one on the viewer's
left) seems to be covered with a short kilt whose lower edge slopes upward
toward the front, like the breechclout bordered on its lower margin by small
round elements, with vestiges of fine lines that perhaps once formed a
design.
Just below the kilt each of the angular legs wears a garter with a
projecting ornament. The feet are shod in elaborate guaraches. On the
right (rearward) foot a maze of lines seems to have once connected the sole
to an ankle-band in a complicated lashing. Vestiges of lines on the forward
(figure's left) foot suggest a similar lashing, but the eroded design is
unclear. Flowing tassels, presumably of plumes, are attached over the toes
of the footgear.
The Platform
The platform on which Fig. 1 stands consists of two vertical members
capped by a double-headed Serpent (or Monster) bar (cf. Parsons 1967). The
patterns interpreted as "Serpent (or Monster) heads" seem to contain the
element termed by Parsons the "scroll eye." Above, and slightly to the rear,
in each case is a long narrow channel that seems better positioned to repre-
sent an "eye." Both of these upper "eyes" seem to have been lengthened rear-
wards after the original design had been laid out. Elements that can be
interpreted as plumed eyebrows are positioned directly over the original
segments of these slit-like "eyes."   At first glance the two Serpent (or
Monster) heads give the impression of being mirror images of each other,
but actually they are not: for example, the top of the central portion of
the left-hand (viewer's) head is enclosed by two sharply defined angular
scrolls whose upper edges level off to an almost straight line, while the
right-hand element has only a "nose-scroll" which extends out beyond the
line of the rest of the element. Details of small components of the two
heads differ when compared closely (fig. c).
The vertical "supports" consist of two large decorated rectangles, each
46
flanked by a plain narrow bar. The decorated panels contain at their tops
small matching figures, each terminating in a simple scroll. These figures
vaguely suggest stylized Dragon or Serpent heads, but cannot be identified
with certainty because of deterioration of detail; they may or may not have
been precise mirror images.   On the inner side of each figure, in a small
area enclosed by narrow borders, is a boss or raised dot. Above, and appar-
tently connecting the two small head-like figures, is an inverted U-shape
formed by a strip of stone set off by both carving and incising, which
Covarrubias (1957) interpreted as an Olmecan rendering of the frontal view
of the upper jaw of a jaguar's (or Jaguar Monster's) open mouth. The angu-
lar hook or scroll breaking the continuity of the lower step of this sug-
gested mouth symbol on the left, and the remnants of incised lines indicat-
ing a similar hook or scroll on the right, make this interpretation dubious.
Similarly, weighing against the reading of the line as a Jaguar Monster's
mouth is the fact that in purist Olmec depictions, and even in epigonal
Olmec ones (e.g. the Tres Zapotes Stela 3 representation), the corners of
the mouth do not carry extraneous appendages. A possible supporting factor
for the reading of this melange of forms as a Jaguar Monster mouth consists
in the irregularly sawed slits on either side of the inverted-U which perhaps
might be considered the "eyes" of the Monster.
Under the preceding designs in the vertical supports of the Platform
are two deeply engraved bands forming rectilinear six-sided scrolls, in
approximate mirror relationship to each other.
Expecially noteworthy as referent to the Platform is the inferior
craftsmanship of its carving- it was done carelessly or ineptly. This is
most conspicuous when contrasted to the delicate, rigidly controlled work-
manship of Fig. 1. The slits mentioned on either side of the inverted-U
are a case in point: examination shows they were scratchily sawed out, are
not the same size, nor are they quite level with each other. Also, the
somewhat irregular line marking the under side of the inverted-U is an
asymmetric obtuse angle; that is, the left side is at a lesser inclination
from the horizontal than the right. The scrolls at the bases of the "sup-
ports" also show dissimilar handling. That on the left is sharply and
cleanly cut, with nearly square corners; the right-hand figure has some
sharp and some rounded-off edges, and the inner corners of the scroll are
rounded off, not trimly squared. Asymmetry abounds in the presentation of
the Platform, although areal patterns indicate mirror symmetry was the
ideal for this sort of design. The differences between the upper portions
of two Serpent (or Monster) profiles have been noted; these are not the
result of damage for the outlines of the figures are clearly defined. The
fang element on the underside of the left-hand head overlaps half the
width of the plain vertical bar under it; that on the right just barely
47
intrudes on the corner of its bar. The raised bands surrounding the scrolls
each include, on the outer vertical edge, a small, vertically oriented rect-
angle excavated into the raised border. These two small rectangles are not
symmetrically placed but are at different levels. Finally, among the more
obvious asymmetries, the right vertical support slopes inward notably as it
ascends, so that the entire base of the Platform is quite out of square,
being wider at the bottom than at the top.1
There is, of course, the possibility that some of these details, partic-
ularly those referred to as "scratchy" etc. may have been added to the carv-
ing at a later date- later, that is, than the completion of the original
design. In such case, however, it would seem remarkable that such embellish-
ments should have been restricted to the Platform, if they indeed represent a
later reinterpretation of the design. It is assumed that if these techno-
logically different treatments were made after completion of the first design,
they had nothing to do with the demolition of the faces of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
To associate modifications of design with destruction would suggest purpose-
less vandalism, not clarification of meaning and deliberate destruction.
Characterization of the handling of the representation of the Platform
as a result of "carelessness" or "ineptitude" involves, of course, a value
judgment. This evaluation derives from standards demonstrated in formal
Mesoamerican sculpture, where cleanly defined straight or evenly curved
lines, rather than irregular scratchy ones, were used for depiction, square
corners were normal (even when corners were deliberately rounded the sides
of the angles normally were at or very near to 90 degrees).2   Precise mirror
symmetry was usual in Mesoamerican sculpture in the representation of plat-
forms, pedestals, framing devices, and other secondary patterns associated
with the principal figure or figures of the monument.
1 Note that the slope of the outer right components of the Platform
supports in the photograph are not due to illusory photographic effects from
the slight tilt of the stone in its present position; the angle of these
components with any assumed vertical differs from the angle of the lines
defining the components on the left.
2 Right angles were used so commonly in Mesoamerican architecture, in
facing stones, cornices, doorways, etc., as well as in sculpture, that one is
justified in wondering whether some simple formula for erecting 90 degree
angles (like our 3-4-5 rule) may not have been known and used for making try-
squares for stone cutters, masons, and sculptors. The earliest Mesoamerican
use of right angles known to me is to be seen in the neat three-dimensionally
squared basalt blocks inset as ornamentation in the clay structures at La
Venta (Drucker, Heizer and Squier 1959,pls.12-17), that cannot fail to sug-
gest an attempt, in a region where all building stone had to be imported, to
copy an effect of true masonry construction.
48
The remarkable contrast in craftsmanship between the treatment of Fig.
1, with its dynamic symmetry (discussed below), and the lopsided Platform,
with its mixture of clean-cut and irregular lines, may be accounted for by
one of the following hypotheses:
(1) The contrast was deliberately planned as an integral part of the
design, with a specific symbolic significance.
Comment: The iconography of such a design would be completely
beyond modern interpretation, the more so since it appears to be unique in
Mesoamerican sculpture.
(2) The two parts of the sculpture were accomplished at different
times or epochs, separated by a period during which esthetic standards
changed.
Comment: While it is just possible that what I have called the
scratchily-sawed components of the design may represent post-completion
modifications or reworking, the basic design almost certainly represents
a single unit temporally speaking. The uniform surface height of both
Fig. 1 and the Platform above the cutaway surface of the monument indicates
this, and the placing of the feet of Fig. 1, with their elaborate tassels,
into the upper surface line of the Platform makes a separate history for
each component of the final layout unlikely, if not impossible.
(3) The differential handling may indicate that two or more individ-
uals or groups of individuals were encharged with the carving of different
portions of the total design, and that in the case of this monument the
competence of the carvers or groups of carvers differed.
Comment: One can but guess at the time factor involved in the
carving of large monuments in tough basalts and andesites (probable and
possible techniques utilized in sculpturing the Olmec colossal heads are
given in Clewlow et al. (1967:63 ff.).   It must have been a fearfully slow
and laborious process. Given, however, the Mesoamerican achievement in
organizing cooperative effort manifested in major constructions, moving of
heavy weights, and the like, it does not seem unreasonable that the work
of sculpture might have been parceled out, especially in the case of large
monuments where there would be physical space enough for several artisans
to work simultaneously. Heizer (1967:38) has discussed this possibility
in connection with stylistic analysis of two La Venta monuments.
Fig. 2, the small figure on the (viewer's) right appears to be seated
facing Fig. 1, holding up its right hand in a gesture that suggests rejec-
tion. The figure may, on the other hand, be offering some small object to
49
Wig. 1; the fingers in the Covarrubias sketch (1957) that emphasize "rejec-
tion" cannot be discerned on the stone or in the photograph.    This figure
Uas suffered a good deal of damage-in part as a result of natural processes,
in part from ancient mutilation- so that one can see but vestiges of what
seems to have been originally rather elaborate detail. As previously noted,
this figure's facial features have been obliterated, apparently intention-
lly, in part by battering, then by grinding or hammer-dressing. The rear
portion of the face remains, in distinction to Fig. 1. With only a moderate
exercise of the imagaination, a jaguar headskin may be seen serving as a
headdress, with a fleshless mandible (the Jaguar's?) protruding below the
figure's face, and with the rest of the skin hanging cloak-like down the
figure's back at the very edge of the pictorial field (simultaneously the
edge of the stone). What seems to be a large square knot is incised on the
lower portion of the figure. It cannot be determined whether this represents
the tie of a wide belt or whether the figure is supposed to be lashed up
(representing a captive).  A three element (or fold) sash passes through a
sort of grommet, or is tied slip-knot fashion, at the level of and to the
rear of the square knot, its ends curving forward.
The first impression produced by Fig. 2 is that it is much simpler and
more crudely drawn than Fig. 1. This may not be correct; it may be more
damaged, with consequent loss of detail.
Composition
Implicit in any discussion of application of laws of esthetics to an
art object is the assumption that specific application of such laws was
accomplished deliberately, not accidentally. Whether done "intuitively,"
as some modern artists would have us believe is their method, or through
painstaking planning, cannot be determined and is not significant for our
purposes. What is important is that utilization of esthetic standards
(whether more or less "successfully" in modern art jargon) denotes the
existence of a value system in art; in other words, a cultural pattern.
Heizer (1967) has verified the application of esthetic laws to two Olmec
sculptures of unusually complex design for that period.
A minute analysis of the El Meson monument is not attempted here;
rather, certain of its more obvious features are discussed. One of these
is the skillfully devised unequivocal direction of attention to the center
of interest: the area enclosed by the outstretched hands of the two figures,
specifically, the unidentifiable object(s) attached to the baton held out by
Fig. 1, and perhaps the hand of Fig. 2 (fig. d). The outstretched arms of
the two figures have this directional significance, of course; before the
facial features were demolished they doubtless directed toward, though not
at, the same area. A vector of the angle of the jaws of the saurian(?) mask
50
passes directly through the objects attached to the baton, although before
the face of Fig. 1 was destroyed the direction of this line might have
been slightly different. In addition, the swirl of the plumes at the top
of the headdress produces a line of force that transects the focus of
interest and is reinforced by the downward-pointing lower tip of the bunch
of feathers at the front of the headdress. The tongue-like (or flame-like)
projection from the mouth of the saurian(?) mask, if it was prominent when
the design was new and clear, points to Fig. 2's hand rather than to the
baton.  Below, the conspicuous tassel on Fig. l's leading foot produces an
upward-pointing vector. Incidentally, all these directional devices also
enclose a space to the (viewer's) right of Fig. 1 that balances the heavy
mass of headdress and feather trailer behind (left of) the figure.
The Doubleheaded Serpent bar of the Platform, despite its asymmetric
defects, produces the impression of symmetry and in treatment is compatible
with the two figures.   The vertical supports, with their bold angular design
elements, are not compatible. They constitute bad composition: the heavy
angular lines strongly distract the viewer's gaze from what was intended as
the important area of the total pattern. That they do not completely dis-
rupt the design's coherence seems to be due in part to the strength of the
directional lines just discussed, plus an interest factor -the fact that
representational forms tend to attract the viewer's interest more than
simple geometric figures.
Comparative Materials
The first impression one receives of the El Meson monument is that,
stylistically, it is unique in Mesoamerican art. The relatively large open
spaces of the background augment this impression.    True enough, certain
design units known from elsewhere in the area are included. The obtrusive
angular scrolls of the platform in (more or less) mirror image are very
like a pair forming a platform for a figure on a monument from Kaminaljuyu,
as Miles (1965,fig. 14a, passim) has noted. The conventional Serpent (or
Monster) profile masks are of long duration in Mesoamerican art, as Parsons
(1967) has shown, whether or not they are all of the lineage of the Olmec
Jaguar Monster representations. The persistence of the slightly more real-
istic jaguar motif, as in the headdress, over the millenia, is too well
known to require documentation.
The principal human figure (Fig. 1), regarded without its confusion of
ornaments, is the most useful portion of the design for comparative purposes.
The posture- shoulders in front view, hips in three-quarters view, legs in
profile- is similar to that designated by Proskouriakoff (1950:19 ff.) as
I-A-l, and noted by her as frequently used on early Early Classic Mayan
monuments.
51
However, distinguishing this figure from those of the Early Classic
Maya tradition, and as well from Proto-Maya according to Parson's (1967:
184) classification, is the treatment of the figure:   a notable rigidity,
and departure from realism- lower legs indicated by straight lines, with-
out curves suggesting musculature of the calves; left arm (on viewer's
right) indicated in forced, unnatural position; hands diagrammatically
rather than realistically depicted. This treatment is manifestly closely
related to that of the human figures- out of proportion, neckless, angu-
lar- of the Initial Series stelae at Cerro de las Mesas (stelae 6,8,3;
Stirling 1943). These in turn are closely related to the large figures of
Teotihuacan murals (except that in the murals an attempt has been made to
show shoulders in perspective). We have to do here with a very significant
factor in the definition of an art style:   what the artist's intent was,
what he was trying to depict. Within certain limits this can be discerned
objectively. The Mayan artists were attempting realistic presentations of
the human figure, though with only moderate success until later in the
development of their sculptural art- this despite additional interest in
depiction of symbolic items, glyphs, and ornaments that fill so much of
the space of Mayan pictorial fields. Similarly, the earlier Olmec artists
stressed realism in representations of human beings.   On the other hand,
the designer of the El Meson monument, like those of the Cerro de las Mesas
stelae and the Teotihuacan murals, was interested in the human figure only
as a sort of mannequin on which the symbolic elements could be displayed in
the form of masks, headgear, articles of apparel, and accouterments. The
most realistically carved portion of Fig. 1, in fact the only realistically
depicted portion, is not the human form at all, but is rather the elegant
feather trailer of the headdress with its changing curves and dip of sec-
tions of plumes coordinated with the varied outer edge to create a handsome
rippling effect.
Similarly, what can still be seen of Fig. 2 suggests no particular
interest in human anatomy. I have interpreted the figure as seated, mainly
because no feet and legs are to be seen; the bottom of the figure is the
widest part, as though it were supposedto have its legs tucked under, or
perhaps was seated cross-legged. The carver patently had no interest in
depicting the position of the legs.   Nevertheless, the knot of the belt (or
lashing?) and the pendant strips (or folds) of clothing are precisely shown.
Comparison to the Central Veracruz site of Cerro de las Mesas3 suggests
3 Cerro de las Mesas presents a basically Central Veracruz pattern
affected by extremely strong Highland influences from Early Classic times.
It is incorrectly referred to as Olmec in some comparative discussions by
persons who do not bother to read the reports; they assume it was Olmec
because Stirling investigated it. Actually, both Stirling and the present
52
further Central Veracruz comparisons. However, the most casual inspection
suggests complete conceptual and stylistic difference between the composi-
tion treated here and the characteristic Central Veracruz art which
Proskouriakoff (1954:65) characterizes as "marked by a rich interplay of
ornament and theme, with no concentrated areas of design or voids in the
compositions."   The contrast, in the El Meson specimen, between the elabo-
rately decorated figures and the blank unadorned background area (at a
rough estimate, more than a quarter but less than a third of the pictorial
area) creates an effect poles apart from the busy, heavily loaded "baroque"
Central Veracruz design.
Apart from stylistic considerations, a detail of material culture de-
picted on the monument and common in Central Veracruz sculpture can be
noted: the combination of breechclout and short skirt or kilt. This seems,
on consideration, to be a rather unusual dress style. 4   The combination, with
kilts whose lower edge slopes upward to the front just as on the El Meson
stone, can be seen on a number of "palmas" (Proskouriakoff 1954, palmas 3,4,
6,7,9; numbers 5 and 10 show kilts combined with breechclouts with straight
lower edges), in the Tajfn panel reproduced by Proskouriakoff (op.cit. fig.
9-b, in which one personage wears a kilt with sloping, another with straight,
edge, and two wear only breechclouts), as well as on the figure on the monu-
ment buried in Str. 5, Tajfn (op.cit. fig. 9-a) and the Cerro de Moreno,
Ver., stone (op.cit. fig. 9-f). A few clay figurines from La Venta also
suggest such garb, though with straight, not sloping, edged kilts.
A number of the human figures on the palmas wear huge, apparently elabo-
rate, feather headgear, but there is nothing reasonably like Fig. l's head-
dress. As a matter of fact, I can find nothing comparable to the feathered
trailer closer in time and space than the trailers of the late horse-culture
Plains area- a comparison that manifestly can have no culture-historical
significance whatsoever.
Slipover capes (strange garb for the hot coast plain; were they rain-
capes? or slavish copies of dress of the chill Highland?) are duplicated in
clay figurines from Remojadas and Cerro de las Mesas (Medellin Z. 1960, pls.
38,39).
3 writer have stressed its non-Olmec character, although noting traces
of Olmec influence that filtered across the vast swampland between the lower
Papaloapam and the Rio   Blanco, or were transmitted by routes flanking this
barrier.
4 By exercise of great restraint, I have desisted from making captious
comparison to simultaneous use of belt and suspenders in our modern wearing
apparel complex.
53
Temporal Position
Bereft of archaeological context, content and stylistic features offer
the only means for relating the monument to a specific time horizon. Both
Miles (1965:255) and Parsons (1967:182) refer the specimen to Pre-Classic
epochs, but it must be remembered that they had only Covarrubias' sketch on
which to base their opinions; a sketch that gives the design an Olmec or
Olmecoid flavor quite lacking in the actual design. Although the monument
was found not far from the northern slopes of the Tuxtla Mountains, within
what was once the Olmec heartland, and although it is made of the same
material as many of the Olmec and Olmecoid monuments of Tres Zapotes and
Nestepe, it is completely lacking in Olmec stylistic traits.
If we accept the hypothesis that the "Serpent or Dragon heads' are
properly identified, and further, that this motif is, as Parsons, Covarru-
bias and others have proposed, a lineal descendant of the Olmec Jaguar
Monster wherever found, and in addition, if we assume that the so-called
scroll eyes" and the rectangular slits above them are properly read as
"eyes" and are parts of the original layout, we have a clean-cut indication
of conceptual change.   (This is, of course, piling an Ossa of hypothesis on
a Pelion of conjecture to squeeze out a wisp of chronology, but the fact is
we have little precise data to work with.) Making all the foregoing assump-
tions leads to the conclusion that the symbolism of the scroll eyes as eyes
had been lost by the time this monument was designed. (Interestingly, the
Serpent or Dragon head on the Bilbao monument [Parsons 1967] seems to have
two scroll eyes; reading the upper one as right, the head "faces" to the
right, and vice versa.)
Nor do items of content help us much. The somewhat unique breechclout-
kilt combination is interesting but seems to have little precise time
significance. Proskouriakoff argues convincingly for a Late Classic (and
late Late Classic at that) date for the palmas and for the Tajfn ball court
panels. She judges the figure similarly garbed on the buried Tajfn monument
to be earlier on stylistic grounds, an appraisal substantiated by its
stratigraphically earlier origin. Hence we have a time span that includes
both Early and Late Classic. If the La Venta figurines really represent a
comparable dress style, we have to do with a tremendous time span. Just
because we are accustomed to thinking of dress styles in our culture as
subject to constant and rapid change does not mean those of other cultures
may not be stable.
The slipover cape associated with the handmade plus applique figurines
with triangular Teotihuacanoid faces are surely of Early Classic date and
may provide a somewhat better time marker. However, it is not certain that
this trait did not persist into later periods.
54
Of all the recognizably distinctive characters of the El Meson monu-
ment, that relating to the treatment of the human figure in relation to the
presumably symbolic appurtenances is probably the surest guide to temporal
placing: it plainly points to strong Teotihuacan influence of Early
Classic date. Consequently, an Early Classic origin of the monument seems
most likely.
References
Clewlow, C. W., Jr., R. A. Cowan, J. F. O'Connell and C. Benemann
1967   Colossal Heads of the Olmec Culture.   Univ. Calif. Archaeol. Res.
Facility, Contributions, No. 4, Berkeley.
Covarrubias, M.
1957   Indian Art of Mexico and Central America.    New York:  A. Knopf.
Drucker, P., R. F. Heizer and R. J. Squier
1959   Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955.    Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull.
170, Washington, D.C.
Heizer, R. F.
1967   Analysis of Two Low Relief Sculptures from La Venta.    Univ. Calif.
Archaeol. Res. Facility, Contributions, No. 3:25-56, Berkeley.
Medellfn Zenil, Alfonso
1960   Ceramicas del Totonacapan.   Xalapa, Ver.
Miles, S. W.
1965   Sculpture of the Guatemala-Chiapas Highlands....    Handbook Middle
American Indians 2:237-275.   Univ. Texas Press, Austin.
Parsons, L. A.
1967   An Early Maya Stela on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala.    Estudios
de Cultura Maya 6:171-198, Mexico City.
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana
1950   A Study of Maya Sculpture.   Carnegie Institute of Washington,
Publication 595, Washington, D.C.
1954   Varieties of Classic Central Veracruz Sculpture.    Ibid., Contrib.
to Amer. Anthro. and Hist., XII: 58.   Washington, D.C.
Stirling, M. W.
1943   Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico.   Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull.
138, Washington, D.C.
Williams, H. and R. F. Heizer
1965   Sources of Stones Used in Prehistoric Mesoamerican Sites.    Univ.
Calif. Archaeol. Res. Facility, Contributions, No. 1:1-40,
Berkeley.
55
Plate 1
56
Fig. a. Human figure portion of Fig. 1
Fig. b. Jaguar-Saurian (?) portion
of Fig. 1 headdress
Fig. c. Detail of Platform
1z1i7    I
Fig. d. Directional lines to area of interest
57
j