Cotzumalhuapa Vol. 10.1

In the Introduction fascicle of the Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions (CMHI Vol. 1, 1975), the founding director of the CMHI, Ian Graham, laid out the scope and design of the Maya Corpus series. It was a nod to August Boeckh’s great Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, one of the most important series for the publication of source material in Classical studies, still in production with 49 fascicles to date. Though times and technology have brought changes to the way we document and publish, the presentation of printed paper catalogs of photographs and line drawings continues to inform epigraphic and iconographic studies throughout the world. In the case of Maya studies, full-page reproductions following the CMHI guiding principles of accuracy, clarity, and comprehensiveness are essential for comparing and deciphering the details of complex monumental carvings.

Allowing for flexibility, Graham specifically did not establish geographical limits to the CMHI scope, and he set forth to publish material as it became available rather than in a particular sequence. He aimed for wide-ranging coverage of five sectors of the Maya area: Yucatan, Central Lowlands, Chiapas and Usumacinta River, Highlands and Pacific Coast, and Lower Motagua Drainage (CMHI, 1:9). With this fascicle on the famous Pacific Coast site of Cotzumalhuapa, Escuintla, Guatemala, we are pleased to renew publication of the series following Graham’s distinguished tenure as director. Many other sites with both internal CMHI and external authors are in the process of completion, and a nearly annual parade is envisioned to be forthcoming, with optimism for continued financial support.

Cotzumalhuapa is an ancient polity with an extensive sculptural inventory. This volume initiates coverage of the archaeological zone with Bilbao, one of the largest architectural complexes, matched only by the complexes of El Baúl and El Castillo, also within the precinct. In order to maintain consistency in the archaeological literature, the CMHI publication follows the spelling nomenclature set forth by earlier archaeological reports (Parsons 1967 Thompson 1948). For clarity of division it has been decided to hyphenate a new three-letter code for the intrasite complexes to the three-let-ter code Graham previously designated for the overall Cotzumalhuapa site. For example, Cotzumalhuapa, Bilbao, is COT-BLB. Shaft and boulder carvings at the site are designated by the general term “monument” rather than by stela or altar designations.

As a Junior Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Chinchilla Mazariegos completed his doctoral dissertation on the settlement patterns and sculptural art of Cotzumalhuapa, which later grew into a long-term research project. Following the format of the Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, he produced illustrations and photographs of the sculptured monuments, publishing them in various quantities and some-times combined with essays on the iconographic interpretation, such as in the recent Cotzumalguapa, la Ciudad Arqueológica: El Baúl-Bilbao-El Castillo (2012). With the body of work well advanced, it seemed timely for the CMHI to incorporate his work on the Pacific Coast region into the Corpus folio series.

Chinchilla Mazariegos’s work posits a distinct Cotzumalhuapan iconographic style, which developed its own concept of formal order, to support a specialized sociopolitical niche in Mesoamerican culture (Chinchilla 1998, 1). Though the spoken language of the ancient culture that produced the monuments cannot yet be determined, hieroglyphs are frequently integrated with sculptural compositions that most likely indicate the names of individuals or places with associated dates (Chinchilla 1996, 136). Scenes of flowery paradise coupled with ball game and cacao imagery are now familiar hallmarks of this regional style that reflects many cultural overlaps with the Central Lowland Maya.

Because we have advanced into the digital age, out of necessity all CMHI illustrations are now prepared digitally. In this instance, the Cotzumalhuapa drawings presented here are new digital versions with important changes and additions resulting from a discriminating review process that the CMHI has instituted for increased accuracy. The process engages two reviewers to provide feedback to the author on blurred and faint details resulting from eroded or otherwise damaged surfaces.

It can be argued that much research regarding the Cotzumalhuapa and contemporary styles of Late Classic Mesoamerica will be better served by improved drawings of the monuments and their systematic CMHI presentation. For many years, as decipherments and excavations revealed details of royal dynasties and sizable cities came to light, a bias naturally prevailed towards the lowland Maya and Classic Maya culture and inscriptions of the kingdoms of Petén, relegating the Pacific Coast cultures to peripheral discussions (Bove 1998). J. Eric S. Thompson, to whom Graham dedicated the CMHI, conducted investigations in 1942 in that region and saw its potential to inform about interchange and cultural overlaps with the lowland Maya region (Thompson 1948). As further regional investigations of the Pacific Coast proceeded, they began to fill major gaps in our knowledge of Mesoamerican archaeology and cultural history. Through Chinchilla Mazariegos’s work, Cotzumalhuapa is now recognized as one of the major Classic cities of Mesoamerica and a key to understanding the social and cultural processes that shaped the development of diverse Pre-Columbian societies.

The first twenty fascicles of the CMHI covered a range of geographic areas from Chiapas, the Petén, and the Yucatan Peninsula, but this one represents the first coverage of a cultural zone on the geographic margin of what is considered the core lowland Maya area. Though archaeology reveals the Pacific Coast as a major center of cacao cultivation, linked to long-distance networks of trade and exchange and inhabited by multilingual communities that created distinctive artistic styles, the region’s monuments remain poorly understood.

The hybrid style of Cotzumalhuapa sculpture developed by interweaving aspects of visual traditions of the cultures that came to constitute the Pacific Coast cities from Preclassic to Terminal Classic times, and as such it is vital to make this body of data available to scholars researching iconographic and epigraphic topics throughout Mesoamerica. Always in a race against the ravages of time and looting, we remain steadfastly dedicated to pre-serving the inscribed monuments of the Maya area for future generations.

Barbara W. Fash

Director, Maya Corpus Program

REFERENCES CITED

BOVE, FREDERICK J.

                   1998      “Prólogo,” in Taller Arqueología de la Región de la Costa Sur de Guatemala, edited by Christa Schieber de Lavarreda, pp. v–vii. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City.

CHINCHILLA MAZARIEGOS, OSWALDO

                   1996      Settlement Patterns and Monumental Art at a Major Pre-Columbian Polity: Cotzumalhuapa, Guatemala. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.

                   1998      “Escultura y Lingüistica,” in Taller Arqueología de la Región de la Costa Sur de Guatemala, edited by Christa Schieber de Lavarreda, pp. 1–10. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City.

                   2012      Cotzumalguapa, la ciudad arqueológica: El Baúl-Bilbao-El Castillo. F&G Editores, Guatemala City.

PARSONS, LEE A.

                   1967      Bilbao, Guatemala: An Archaeological Study of the Pacific Coast Cotzumalhuapa Region, vol. 1. Publications in Anthropology, 11. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee.

THOMPSON, J. ERIC S.

                   1948      An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Cotzumalhuapa Region, Escuintla, Guatemala. Contributions to American Anthropology and History 44. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Cotzumalguapa. The names El Baúl, Bilbao, and El Castillo designate architectural compounds within the site.

The ancient city of Cotzumalhuapa extends north of the modern city of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, in the department of Escuintla, Guatemala. It occupies an estimated ten square kilometers of gently sloping land, with elevations ranging from 400 to 600 m above sea level. It includes the architectural compounds of El Baúl, Bilbao, and El Castillo, which were formerly considered as separate sites but are now understood as components of the Late Classic city. The proposed delimitation of the archaeological zone is still tentative, and there are indications that it extends further, especially to the north and northeast.

The archaeological zone can be easily reached from the outskirts of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, and the expansion of the modern city poses strong threats for the site’s preservation. Sugarcane plantations occupy extensive sectors, while urban developments are encroaching on the archaeological zone. The Bilbao acropolis lies next to the streets of the modern city, and a dirt road used by sugarcane trucks cuts across the Group C platform. El Castillo is accessible through a road that runs north of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa to the modern colonias Vista Linda and Cañaveral, or through Río Santiago, a hamlet that has become progressively integrated with the urban area. The El Baúl acropolis is easily reached through the paved road to Los Tarros, or through the streets of colonia Maya, a development that destroyed a major portion of the site’s monumental core.

The Cotzumalhuapa sculptures first came to public attention in the 1860s as a result of agricultural activities around Santa Lucía. After reaching near-total depopulation in the eighteenth century (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1998a, 158–160), the region was gradually resettled and the land around Santa Lucía was subdivided. The town became integrated with the national economy by the introduction of coffee and sugarcane. In the early 1860s, Pedro de Anda, the local militia captain at Santa Lucía, found an impres-sive heap of fallen sculptures at Peor es Nada, a property that comprised the southern half of the Bilbao acropolis. He reported the discoveries to the Guatemalan government and assembled a collection of sculptures from both Bilbao and El Baúl at his house in Santa Lucía.

The government sent a commission to the site in 1865 led by captain Miguel Urrutia, whose report is presently lost. The historian Juan Gavarrete, librarian at the Sociedad Económica in Guatemala City, published the first report on Cotzumalhuapa archaeology in 1866 (Gavarrete 1929). Gavarrete visited the site and took Bilbao Monument 24 to the museum of the Sociedad Económica in Guatemala City. The sculpture is probably the oldest extant acquisition in the country’s national archaeological collections and is now housed at the Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2016, 63).

Many visitors were attracted by Anda’s spectacular finds, but only a few described their observations. The most important work came from the Austrian physician Simeon Habel, who visited Bilbao in 1863. Unpublished until 1878, his report contains useful descriptions and drawings of 23 sculp-tures, including five that are now lost. Less detailed, but especially evoc-ative, are Caroline Maitland Salvin’s 1874 watercolors that show fallen sculptures of Bilbao in situ (Salvin 2000). Soon thereafter, they would be split into pieces and removed to the Ethnologischen Abtheilung, Königliche Museen zu Berlin (Ethnology Department of the Royal Museums of Berlin, Germany) (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996a, 318).

The Ethnologisches Museum, Staaliche Museen zu Berlin (Museum of Ethnology, State Museums, Berlin), still preserves more than 30 sculp-tures from Cotzumalhuapa that were exported between 1876 and 1886. The process began with the arrival of Adolf Bastian, director of the Ethnology Department of the Berlin museums, in 1876. Bastian collected two sculp-tures—known as Bilbao Monuments 30 and 32—and arranged for the extrac-tion of the rest (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996b, 13–15). He hired the noted linguist Carl Hermann Berendt to supervise the project. During his brief stay in the area in 1877, Berendt made a thorough survey of the archaeolog-ical sites and prepared the first regional archaeological map, but his efforts were cut short by an illness that led to his death within a year. Bastian pub-lished a book that included extracts from Berendt’s letters to his wife (1882), but the bulk of Berendt’s notes and drawings were lost. The Berlin museum also recovered an important collection of Berendt’s sketches, most of which remained unpublished until recently (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996a).

During Berendt’s illness, German engineer Albert Napp supervised the extraction of the monuments, and it appears that other people were also involved for some time. Monuments 1–8, originally two feet thick, were thinned and cut in pieces for easier transportation (Habel 1878), obliterating important iconographic details in the process. Considering their original thickness and shape, they may have served as columns in a building or portico, although the rounded shape of Monument 3 belies that possibility. No records were kept for the extraction project, with the exception of a plan of Bilbao prepared by Napp in 1886. By then, many sculptures were already in Berlin, but Napp was able to indicate the location of important monu-ments, making the plan a valuable source for Cotzumalhuapa archaeology. Though the plan is accurate (as expected from an engineer), its usefulness is impaired by vague accompanying descriptions, so that some sculptures remain sketchy and unrecognizable (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996a).

The work of restorers concealed most of the breaks and filled in missing sections in the sculptures sent to Berlin to the extent that they were largely unnoticed by Lee A. Parsons (1969), curator of anthropology at the Milwaukee Public Museum, who only commented on the damage caused by masons that were quarrying the monuments for building stones. As early as 1863, Habel reported that he found the masons at work and pre-vented them from doing further damage—at least during his visit (1878, 66). However, a comparison of Habel’s drawings and descriptions with the 1874 watercolors of Caroline Maitland Salvin and with Berendt’s 1877 drawings shows that the sculptures did not suffer extensively before that date. Most of the present damage resulted from the rough methods used to thin and break them in preparation for their transport to Berlin. Additional damage and subsequent repeated repairs may have occurred as a result of their removal from exhibition for safekeeping during World War II.

A series of plaster casts were produced from the monuments and sent to institutions in the United States, including casts of Monuments 1–3 to the Smithsonian Institution of Washington (Strebel 1901). Copies of Monuments 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 15 (PM 95-42-20/C2688–2691) remain at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, and these were helpful in verifying details during the review of the digital drawings. The Museo de Calcos y Escultura Comparada “Ernesto de la Cárcova” in Buenos Aires, Argentina, preserves casts of Monuments 13, 14, and 21 (the latter from Cæcilie Seler’s mold of the in situ sculpture). The Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología in Guatemala City has a cast of Monument 3.

Some of Berendt’s drawings were rescued and published by Gustav Eisen (1888), who visited the area in 1882. Eisen published an important report describing sculptures from various places around Cotzumalhuapa and related monuments from sites in the Antigua Guatemala valley. Brief reports resulted from the visits of John F. Bransford and Charles E. Vreeland in 1882 and 1884 (Bransford 1884, Vreeland and Bransford 1885). They described a collection of sculptures assembled at the nearby Finca Pantaleón, which grew to include monuments that originated from El Baúl, Bilbao, and the peripheral site of Pantaleón-El Ídolo (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996b).

The early period of intense attention to Cotzumalhuapa ended with the visit of Cæcilie Seler-Sachs in 1895. In her travel book about Mexico and Guatemala, Seler-Sachs (1900) first reported the extraordinary Monument 21 from Bilbao and the outstanding collection of sculptures from the periph-eral site of Palo Verde.

Attention to Cotzumalhuapa diminished markedly in the early twenti-eth century, as the great lowland Maya sites and sculptures gained renown. Yet, this did not quell the pace of discoveries, frequently made during agri-cultural activities. Collections of sculptures and other objects were assem-bled at the El Baúl sugar mill and at the coffee estate of Las Ilusiones, which now comprised the site of Bilbao. In 1924, T. T. Waterman first reported El Baúl Stela 1 and Monument 4 (Waterman 1924). However, it was the noted linguist Walter Lehmann who first read the Initial Series date on Stela 1, noting that it fell much earlier than any dated monument from the northern Maya lowlands. His presentation at the 1925 International Congress of Americanists in New York sparked renewed controversy about Cotzumalhuapa and the dating of early stelae on the Pacific Coast (Lehmann 2000, Rodríguez Beteta 1929).

A participant in the controversy was the noted Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson, who conducted the first modern archaeological project at Cotzumalhuapa in 1942. His work concentrated on El Baúl and resulted in a thorough ethnohistorical survey, a ceramic chronology for the Classic period, and an updated inventory of sculptures. Thompson cataloged 34 sculptures from Bilbao, 25 from El Baúl, and 7 from El Castillo. He also inventoried 13 sculptures in the Pantaleón collection, 5 from the periph-eral site of Aguná, and 6 from Palo Verde. Thompson first documented the architectural context of sculptures, including El Baúl Monument 3 and a group of sculptures that he discovered while excavating the stairway of Structure 6, the tallest building at El Baúl. His ceramic chronology allowed Thompson to propose a Classic period dating for the Cotzumalhuapa style, which was previously supposed to be Postclassic (1948).

The site received little attention in the following decades, although anthropologist Suzanne W. Miles briefly mentioned an excavation around El Baúl Stela 1 in the report about her important ethnographic and lin-guistic studies in the region before her untimely death in 1966 (1965, 261). Twenty years after Thompson, Stephen F. Borhegyi and Lee A. Parsons, with collaboration from Robert Ritzenthaler and Peter S. Jensen, conducted a new project at Bilbao (Parsons 1967, 1969). They excavated around some of the largest sculptures at the site and identified the Group A Monument Plaza as the original location of the famous sculptures that were exported to Berlin in the nineteenth century. Importantly, Parsons extended the culture-historical record back to the Middle Preclassic period and up to the Late Postclassic. With numerous discoveries made during the course of his team’s excavations, the inventory of Cotzumalhuapa monuments expanded: Bilbao’s sculptures grew to 76 monuments, with an additional 5 new sculptures cataloged from El Baúl, one from El Castillo, and several from neighboring sites.

While important, Parsons’s team’s work failed to attract sustained atten-tion to Cotzumalhuapa. Beginning in the 1970s, an intensification of sugar-cane cultivation revealed an increasing number of sculptures. Alain Ichon and Jacques Cassier (1975) reported a trove of new monuments found at Bilbao in 1974 when the coffee trees were removed to plant sugarcane. Fortunately, the owner of Las Ilusiones, Ricardo Muñoz Gálvez—who supported Parsons’s work in the 1960s—took note of the provenience of these and other sculptures that appeared through the years, including an important group from Golón, another location on his property. In 1996, Mr. Muñoz accomplished the long-cherished project of building a museum to house the sculptures at Las Ilusiones.

Marion P. Hatch made restricted excavations near El Baúl in 1982–83, and Frederick J. Bove conducted rescue work at El Castillo in 1991 when an urban development was built next to the site (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996a, 142–151). In recent decades, the urban expansion of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa has put much pressure on the archaeological zone, causing dire consequences in 1996 when urban growth obliterated much of the El Baúl monumental core. Looting has also affected the archaeological record, and a number of sculptures have been transferred to various collections without proper archaeological documentation.

Recording the sculptures has been a major goal of the Cotzumalhuapa Archaeological Project, conducted by the author since 1994. The project has also investigated aspects of the site’s culture history, urbanism, settlement patterns, architecture, and production and exchange of lithics and pottery (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996c, 1998a, 1998b, 2011a, 2011b, 2012). Despite previous efforts by Thompson, Parsons, and others, the published record of the sculptural corpus remained extremely uneven and scattered. Many sculptures that were gathered over the years at El Baúl, Las Ilusiones, and other locations were unpublished, and there was no information about their provenience. Some of the missing information has been rescued through bibliographic and archival research and complemented by interviews with local residents. The corpus continues to grow as new sculptures are peri-odically uncovered during agricultural work, urbanization, and in some cases, archaeological excavations. 

Watercolors of fallen stelae at the Bilbao Monument Plaza by Caroline Maitland Salvin, 1874. Courtesy of Sybil Rampen, Joshua Creek Art Centre. Photographs by Ian Graham.

As revealed by recent research, Cotzumalhuapa was an extensive and well-integrated city (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2011a, 2012). During the Late Classic period (a.d. 650–950) the city centered around El Baúl and El Castillo. Reconnaissance, excavations, and geophysical prospecting revealed dense settlements between and around both compounds. Judging by its spatial layout, El Castillo probably functioned as the main plaza. However, El Baúl was the largest architectural compound and the major node of the causeway system, probably serving as an administrative center and perhaps as a royal residence. The presence of a large obsidian workshop near the El Baúl acropolis suggests that productive activities were also concentrated in this area and may have been centrally controlled (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2011b). Surface concentrations of obsidian debris at several locations in the sur-rounding settlement area suggest that there were other minor workshops, probably functioning at the household level.

Bilbao was second to El Baúl in terms of size, and it occupied a peripheral location in the Late Classic city. Survey and excavations around the Bilbao acropolis show a much lower density of settlements compared with the El Baúl and El Castillo sectors. Yet, Bilbao had elaborate architecture and an impressive array of monumental sculptures. The site’s layout and the con-centration of sculptured monuments related to ceremonial life, sacrifice, the afterworld, and the evocation of ancestors suggest that Bilbao served important ritual functions. Parsons’s excavations showed that Bilbao was the main locus of Preclassic activity in Cotzumalhuapa, although recent work has shown Preclassic constructional stages deeply buried in the El Baúl acropolis.

The major compounds and settlement areas of the Late Classic city were linked together by an extensive system of causeways and bridges. The causeways were typically 10–14 m wide and paved with cobblestones of various sizes. Some are short; the Lehmann Causeway linked the El Baúl acropolis with a ball court located only 300 m west. However, the Gavarrete Causeway extended 2.5 km between El Baúl and El Castillo, while the Habel Causeway extended 0.7 km and the Seler-Sachs Causeway reached

1.04 km. The Eisen Causeway is only 180 m long, but it reaches 40 m wide and connects the El Baúl acropolis with the North Group. Conversely, the Thompson Causeway is only 4 m wide, connecting the North Group with extensive settlements in the northern part of the city.

The presence of bridges is an outstanding feature in Cotzumalhuapa archaeology. The foundation walls of two large bridges have been identi-fied along the Santiago River, while the remains of other, smaller bridges are known throughout the area. The best preserved, the Thompson Bridge, fell during Tropical Storm Agatha in 2010, debilitated by deforestation and intensive agriculture that eroded the riverbanks (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2011a, 69).

The major concentrations of sculptural art were found at Bilbao and El Baúl. However, research has shown that the ceremonial precincts of El Baúl were much more extensive than previously thought, and there were major sculptures associated with many buildings and features outside the acropolis itself. Moreover, sculptures were also placed along the causeways, and it is now clear that many smaller compounds throughout the city had sculptures of various sizes. Important concentrations have been identified at peripheral locations such as Golón and Vista Linda. In the absence of exact provenience information, many sculptures listed in the inventories of Bilbao, El Baúl, or El Castillo may well have originated from the surround-ing settlement areas around the major compounds.

The numbering system followed in this publication builds on the previous work of Thompson (1948) and Parsons (1969), utilizing the all-encompassing and neutral term “monument” over “stela” since many carvings cannot be securely defined as freestanding and may have served as architectural components such as lintels or columns. However, both authors introduced important biases that should be noted. Considering Bilbao, El Baúl, and El Castillo as separate sites, Thompson introduced separate numbering sequences for each. However, he lacked precise provenience data for many sculptures that he documented at the finca (farm) headquarters of El Baúl, Las Ilusiones, El Castillo, and Pantaleón. Thus, his catalog from El Baúl includes the sculptures that he saw at the acropolis and at the El Baúl sugar mill, some of which may in fact have come from various locations throughout the extensive properties of El Baúl. Except for Monument 1, the sculptures that he listed under El Castillo were likely collected from various locations and brought together at a now abandoned finca house built in the 1920s. Thompson named the archaeological compound after the finca and associated the sculptures with the name of El Castillo, without locating the precise places where they were originally found. Recent work has revealed sculptures at several locations in the area of El Castillo.

Thompson’s catalog of Bilbao sculptures included those that were originally seen by Habel and other early observers at Bilbao, plus other sculptures that are part of the collection of the Ethnologisches Museum in Berlin—some taken from illustrations in a museum guidebook. He added a small number of sculptures that were collected at Las Ilusiones, presuming that all came from Bilbao. However, there is no assurance that all the sculptures in either collection came from the Bilbao acropolis. Documentary research has shown that some sculptures from El Baúl and other places also found their way to Berlin. Therefore, the Bilbao catalog includes monuments that are now known to have originated elsewhere.

In his report, Thompson included a listing for the collection of sculptures assembled in the late nineteenth century at Finca Pantaleón. Documentary and archaeological research has shown that this collection included items from El Baúl, Bilbao, and the small site of Pantaleón-El Ídolo (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996b, 1997).

Parsons followed Thompson’s procedures, making little effort to ascertain the precise provenience of every sculpture and assuming that each collection came from a single source. He considerably expanded the Bilbao inventory with his own finds at the site, but he also included additional sculptures at the museum in Berlin that were unknown to Thompson. These include three sculptures that originally came from Concepción, a finca near the departmental capital of Escuintla about 25 km east of Cotzumalhuapa (Chinchilla Mazariegos and Fauvet-Berthelot, no date). The provenience of many sculptures in the Berlin collection remains unknown, and therefore, they may be wrongly assigned to Bilbao in Parsons’s list.

Despite these problems, this publication follows Thompson’s and Parsons’s numbering, instead of introducing a new system that might add confusion. The numbers should be understood as convenient labels that designate each sculpture but provide no reliable information about its provenience. Available information about the provenience of each sculpture is provided case by case.

Additional names are used to designate other sectors of the Late Classic city. Considering their distance from El Baúl, Bilbao, or El Castillo, it would be misleading to assign the sculptures found at these locations to any of the three major compounds. The author introduced separate numerations (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996c) for Vista Linda, La Gloria, and Golón. Following Parsons (1969), all sculptures are labeled as “monuments,” although the words “stela” and “altar” are also commonly employed to designate specific sculptures based on their shape. 

Plan of Bilbao, Cotzumalhuapa, by Albert Napp, 1866, with detail showing the Monument Plaza and adjacent mounds. Courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Museum of Ethnology, State Museums, Berlin). Photographs by Dietrich Graf.

Vintage archaeological map of the Cotzumalhuapa region by Carl Hermann Berendt, 1877. Courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Museum of Ethnology, State Museums, Berlin). Photograph by Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos.

Bilbao Monuments 1–93: The following sculptures in the Bilbao register are known to originate from other sites: Monument 30 (most probably from Pantaleón-El Ídolo), Monument 32 (from El Baúl), and Monuments 46, 47, and 68 (from Concepción, Escuintla).

El Baúl Monuments 1–82: The following sculptures in other sites’ inventories are known to come from El Baúl: Bilbao Monument 32 and Pantaleón Monuments 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

El Castillo Monuments 1–16 Vista Linda Monuments 1–2 La Gloria Monuments 1–2 Golón Monuments 1–6

All of the monument drawings were digitally edited for this volume with the assistance of Erika Gómez. The final versions incorporate intensive reviews by Barbara Fash, Alexandre Tokovinine, and Nicholas Carter. The process included corrections to previously published versions and the preparation of entirely new drawings of Bilbao Monuments 11, 18, and 20 and the lower part of Monument 16. The map of the Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa region at 1:125,000 scale (p. 10:7) was digitally prepared by Nicholas Carter (© President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. PM 2004.15.7.37). The archaeological map of Cotzumalhuapa on page 10:18, with a dotted line indicating the approximate limits of the Late Classic city, was digitally prepared by Barbara Fash after Chinchilla Mazariegos 2012, 14, fig. 2 (© President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. PM 2004.15.7.38). The site map of the ruins of Bilbao, Escuintla, Guatemala (p. 10:19), with detail of sculptures in the Monument Plaza was digitally prepared by Barbara Fash after Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996a, 329–332 (© President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. PM 2004.15.7.39). On that map, labels “Napp 8,” “Napp 11,” “Napp 17,” and “Napp 18” correspond to unidentified sculptures in Albert Napp’s 1886 site plan on page 10:14.

BASTIAN, ADOLF

1882         Steinsculpturen aus Guatemala. Königliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin.

BRANSFORD, J. F.

1884         “Report on Explorations in Central America in 1881.” Miscellaneous Papers Relating to Anthropology 535: 803–813.

BOVE, FREDERICK J.

1998         “Prólogo,” in Taller Arqueología de la Región de la Costa Sur de Guatemala, edited by Christa Schieber de Lavarreda, pp. v–vii. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City.

CHINCHILLA MAZARIEGOS, OSWALDO

1996a       “‘Peor es Nada’: El origen de las esculturas de Cotzumalguapa en el Museum für Völkerkunde, Berlin.” Baessler-Archiv, Neue Folge, 44: 295–357.

1996b       “Las Esculturas de Pantaleón, Escuintla.” U Tz’ib (Asociación Tikal, Guatemala) 1, no. 10: 1–23.

1996c       “Settlement Patterns and Monumental Art at a Major Pre-Columbian Polity: Cotzumalhuapa, Guatemala.” Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.

1997         El sitio de Pantaleón-El Idolo, Escuintla. U Tz’ib (Asociación Tikal, Guatemala) 2, no. 2: 24–28.

1998a       “Pipiles y Cakchiqueles en Cotzumalguapa: La Evidencia Etnohistórica y Arqueológica.” Anales de la Academia de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala 73: 143–184.

1998b       “Escultura y Lingüistica,” in Taller Arqueología de la Región de la Costa Sur de Guatemala, edited by Christa Schieber de Lavarreda, pp. 1–10. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala City.

2011a   “Calzadas, acrópolis y plazas: Forma y función de los espacios públicos en Cotzumalguapa y Los Cerritos Norte, Escuintla,” in Representaciones y espacios públicos en el Área Maya: Un estudio interdisciplinario, edited by Rodrigo Liendo Stuardo and Francisca Zalaquett Rock, pp. 37–76. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

2011b       “The Obsidian Workshop of El Baúl, Cotzumalhuapa,” in The Technology of Maya Civilization: Political Economy and Beyond in Lithic Studies, edited by Zachary X. Hruby, Geoffrey E. Braswell, and Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos, pp. 102–118. Equinox Press, London.

2012         Cotzumalguapa, la ciudad arqueológica: El Baúl-Bilbao-El Castillo. F&G Editores, Guatemala City.

2016         “Just and Patriotic: Creating a National Museum in Guatemala, 1831–1930. Museum History Journal 9: 60–76.

CHINCHILLA MAZARIEGOS, OSWALDO, AND MARIE-FRANCE FAUVET-BERTHELOT

n.d.           “De barones y barrigones: El periplo de las esculturas de Concepción, Escuintla,” Forthcoming in Estudios Cultura Maya.

EISEN, GUSTAV

1888         “On Some Ancient Sculptures from the Pacific Slope of Guatemala.” Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 2, no. 2: 9–20.

GAVARRETE, JUAN

1929         “Antigüedades de Cotzumalguapa.” Anales de la Sociedad de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala 5: 308–311 (originally published in La Semana, no. 60, 20 de febrero de 1866).

HABEL, SIMEON

1878         The Sculptures of Santa Lucia Cosumalwhuapa in Guatemala. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 23, no. 3: 1–90 (Contribution 269). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

ICHON, ALAIN, AND JACQUES CASSIER

1975         “Découvertes récentes à Bilbao, Escuintla (Guatemala).” Bulletin de la Societé Suisse des Américanistes 39: 13–25.

LEHMANN, WALTER

2000         “Letter from Puerto Mexico,” in Early Scholars’ Visits to Central America, edited by Marilyn Beaudry-Corbett and Ellen T. Hardy, pp. 103–111. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. (Originally published in Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesselschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, Jahrgang 1926, pp. 171–177. Appended to Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 58 [1926]).

MILES, SUZANNE W.

1965         “Sculpture of the Guatemala-Chiapas Highlands and Pacific Slopes, and Associated Hieroglyphs,” in Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 237–275. Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 2. University of Texas Press, Austin.

OSPINA, PASTOR

1984         “Ruinas de Cotzumalguapa.” Antropología e Historia de Guatemala, Segunda Epoca, 6, 95–103. (Originally published in La Semana, no. 85, January 6, 1869, p. 2.)

PARSONS, LEE A.

1967         Bilbao, Guatemala: An Archaeological Study of the Pacific Coast Cotzumalhuapa Region, vol. 1. Publications in Anthropology, 11. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee.

1969         Bilbao, Guatemala: An Archaeological Study of the Pacific Coast Cotzumalhuapa Region, vol. 2. Publications in Anthropology, 12. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee.

RODRÍGUEZ BETETA, VIRGILIO

1929         Lo que sostiene el Profesor Lehmann, acerca de los monolitos de Guatemala. Anales de la Sociedad de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala 5: 253–258.

SALVIN, CAROLINE MAITLAND

2000         Un paraíso: Diarios guatemaltecos 1873–1874 (A Pocket Eden: Guatemalan Journals 1873–1874). Plumsock Mesoamerican Studies, South Woodstock, Vermont.

SELER-SACHS, CæCILIE

1900         Auf Alten Wegen in Mexiko und Guatemala: Reiseerinnerung und Eindrücke aus den Jahren 1895–1897. Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen), Berlin.

SKINNER-KLEE, JORGE

1996         “La estela en el mar.” Anales de la Academia de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala 71: 29–35.

STREBEL, HERMAN

1901         “The Sculptures of Santa Lucia Cozumalhuapa, Guatemala in the Hamburg Ethnological Museum,” Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Year ending June 30, 1899, vol. 1: 549–561. Washington, D.C.

THOMPSON, J. ERIC S.

1948         An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Cotzumalhuapa Region, Escuintla, Guatemala. Contributions to American Anthropology and History 44. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

VREELAND, CHARLES E., AND JOHN F. BRANSFORD

1885         “Antiquities at Pantaleón, Guatemala.” Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year 1884, 719–730. Washington, D.C.

WATERMAN, T. T.

1924         “On Certain Antiquities in Western Guatemala.” Bulletin of the Pan-American Union 58: 341–361.

LOCATION 

First reported on by Habel who found it among a heap of stelae on who found it among a heap of stelae on the eastern side of the Monument Plaza. Removed before 1882 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7163).

CONDITION 

Broken horizontally at the level of the main character’s legs at the time of Habel’s visit in 1863. The back was trimmed in preparation for shipment to Berlin.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Vertical shaft with rectangular shape.

DIMENSIONS 

Originally 12 feet long

(3.65 m) × 3 feet wide (0.91 m) × 2 feet thick

(0.61 m) (Habel 1878, 66). Present dimensions:

HT         2.93 M

MW       0.93 M

MTH      0.23 M

REL        2.0 CM

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Dietrich Graf, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.1, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument and the plaster casts at the Peabody Museum.

REVIEW 

Fash, Tokovinine, and Carter, based on inspection of the plaster casts (PM 95-42-20/C2688.1, C2688.2, C2688 at the Peabody Museum

LOCATION 

First reported on by Habel who found it among a heap of stelae on the eastern side of the Monument Plaza.

Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7164).

CONDITION 

Complete at the time of Habel’s visit in 1863. It was badly broken, probably in preparation for transport to Berlin.

Initially, there was a plan to split it ver-tically in half, as evidenced by a row of eighteen chiseled scars. Instead, it was broken diagonally in several sections. Major breaks are visible running along the left side and upper right side of the stela.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Vertical shaft with rectangular shape.

DIMENSIONS 

Originally 12 feet long

(3.65 m) × 3 feet wide (0.91 m × 2 feet thick

(0.61 m) (Habel 1878, 67). Present dimensions:

HT         2.85 M

MW       0.915 M

MTH      0.25 M

REL        3.0 CM

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.2, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument and the plaster casts at the Peabody Museum.

REVIEW 

Fash, Tokovinine, and Carter, based on inspection of the plaster casts (PM 95-42-20/C2685.1, C2685.2, C2685.3) at

the Peabody Museum.

LOCATION 

First reported on by Habel who found it among a heap of stelae on the eastern side of the Monument Plaza. Removed before 1882 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7162).

CONDITION 

Complete at the time of Habel’s visit in 1863. It was cut horizontally in two sections, probably for transportation to Berlin. The cut destroyed the upper part of the glyphs and the forehead of the severed head.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Vertical shaft with rounded top.

DIMENSIONS 

Originally 12 feet long

(3.65 m) × 3 feet wide (0.91 m × 2 feet thick

(0.61 m) (Habel 1878, 68). Present dimensions:

HT         2.89 M

MW       0.90 M

MTH      0.23 M

REL        1.5 CM

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Dietrich Graf, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.3, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument and the plaster casts at the Peabody Museum.

REVIEW 

Fash, Tokovinine, and Carter, based on inspection of the plaster casts (PM 95-42-20/C2687.1, C2687.2, C2687.3) at

the Peabody Museum.

LOCATION 

First reported on by Habel who found it among a heap of stelae on the eastern side of the Monument Plaza.

Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7165).

CONDITION 

Complete at the time of Habel’s visit in 1863. It was cut horizontally in three sections, probably for transport to Berlin, and the central left section was also cut in smaller sections. The large flake that is now missing on the left side may have been lost in the process. A smaller section of the top left corner is also missing.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE Vertical shaft with rectangular shape.

DIMENSIONS 

Originally 12 feet long

(3.65 m) × 3 feet wide (0.91 m) × 2 feet thick

(0.61 m) (Habel 1878, 70). Present dimensions:

HT         2.88 M

MW       0.84 M

MTH      0.22 M

REL        1.5 CM

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.4, based on photographs and inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW 

Fash and Carter, based on inspection of photographs.

LOCATION 

First reported on by Habel who found it among a heap of stelae on the eastern side of the Monument Plaza.

Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7166).

CONDITION 

Almost complete at the time of Habel’s visit in 1863, except for a section on the upper edge. It was cut in multiple pieces, probably for transport to Berlin. A large diagonal break destroyed the face of the main character. Additional breaks join it on either side. Other large breaks appear in the upper register.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Vertical shaft with rectangular shape.

DIMENSIONS 

Originally 12 feet long

(3.65 m) × 3 feet wide (0.91 m) × 2 feet thick

(0.61 m) (Habel 1878, 70). Present dimensions:

HT         2.90 M

MW       0.925 M

MTH      0.24 M

REL        1.5 CM

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.5, based on photograph and inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW 

Fash and Carter, based on inspection of photographs.

LOCATION 

First reported on by Habel who found it among a heap of stelae on the eastern side of the Monument Plaza.

Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7169).

CONDITION 

Complete at the time of Habel’s visit in 1863, except for a hori-zontal fracture with no loss of the carved surface (Habel 1878, 72). Berendt’s 1877 drawing shows it in the same condition. It was cut horizontally in three sections, and the upper section was also split vertically, probably in preparation for transport to Berlin.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Vertical shaft with rectangular shape.

DIMENSIONS 

Originally 12 feet long

(3.65 m) × 3 feet wide (0.91 m) × 2 feet thick

(0.61 m) (Habel 1878, 72). Present dimensions:

HT         2.85 M

MW       0.94 M

MTH      0.25 M

REL        1.5 CM

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.6, based on photographs and inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW 

Fash and Carter, based on inspection of photographs.

LOCATION 

First reported on by Habel who found it among a heap of stelae on the eastern side of the Monument Plaza.

Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7195).

CONDITION 

Fragment corresponding to the upper half of the monument, with missing sections on the left side, is in the same shape as observed in 1863 by Habel (1878, 73). This was the only stela that was not thinned for transport to Berlin and so retains its original thickness. MATERIAL Basalt.

SHAPE 

Vertical shaft with rectangular shape.

DIMENSIONS 

Ht          1.55 m

MW       0.85 m

MTh      0.70 m

Rel         2.0 cm

CARVED AREAS Front. 

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.7, based on photographs and inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW 

Fash, based on inspection of photographs.

NOTE 

Monument 7 was still at Bilbao in 1882, as reported by Bransford (1884, 811).

LOCATION 

First reported on by Habel who found it among a heap of stelae on the eastern side of the Monument Plaza.

Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7167).

CONDITION

The lower half was a single block at the time of Habel’s visit in 1863, although the orthogonal shape of the cuts suggests that it may have been quarried for building blocks (Habel 1878, plate IV). He did not see the upper half, which was later sent to Berlin. The sculpture was badly broken, contrary to Parsons’s comment that “the relief is in excellent condition” except for scars probably resulting from the attempt to cut it for building blocks (1969, 108). In addition to the horizontal scars on the upper right side, noted by Parsons, the monument was split vertically along its entire height and horizontally along multiple lines. There are important missing portions of the carved surface, both on the right and left central sections. A rectangular block is completely missing from the upper right corner.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Vertical shaft with rounded top.

DIMENSIONS 

Original dimensions unre-corded. Present dimensions:

HT         2.85 M

MW       0.93 M

MTH      0.23 M

REL        2.0 CM

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.8, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument and the plaster casts at the Peabody Museum.

REVIEW 

Fash, Tokovinine, and Carter, based on inspection of the plaster casts (PM 95-42-20/C2686.1, C2686.2.1, C2686.2.2, C2686.3) at the Peabody Museum.

LOCATION 

Both Habel (1878, 75) and Pastor Ospina (1984), who visited Bilbao in 1868, saw Monument 9 in the Monument Plaza of Bilbao, at some distance from the heap that contained Monuments 1–8. Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7185).

CONDITION 

Habel’s drawing shows an unbroken slab, although the irregular shape of the top suggests that this section may have been damaged already. It was cut horizontally in two approximate halves, probably in preparation for trans-port to Berlin. It is also missing the lower left corner, which appeared in Habel’s drawing.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Flat slab with vertical edges. The upper and lower edges are irregular.

DIMENSIONS     

Ht          2.44 m

MW       1.22 m

MTh      0.22 m

Rel         1.0 cm

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.9, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument and the plaster casts at the Peabody Museum.

REVIEW 

Fash, Tokovinine, Carter, based on inspection of the plaster casts (PM 95-42-20/C2689.1, C2689.2) at the Peabody Museum.

LOCATION 

Monument 10 was found near Monument 11 on Bilbao Structure A-1, an elongated platform that delimits the west side of the Monument Plaza, as reported by Habel (1878, 75–76). It is currently lost, and therefore Habel’s dimensions are unconfirmed.

CONDITION 

Habel’s drawing shows significant portions missing from the left and lower sides of the monument. 

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Rectangular block.

DIMENSIONS 

According to Habel (1878, 75): 9.5 feet long × 4 feet 9 inches wide. Metric conversions based on Habel:

2.9 m × 1.45 m, depth unknown.

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

None.

DRAWING 

Habel, 1866 (Habel 1878, plate V). Courtesy of Tozzer Library, Harvard University.

NOTES 

Bilbao Monuments 10 and 11 were found near to each other and may have formed a pair, although not all parts of the designs are continuous. The split glyphs on the edges of both monuments indicate that the designs extended to other blocks that have not been identified.

LOCATION 

Monument 11 was originally found on Bilbao Structure A-1 near

Monument 9. It was removed in 1996 to the Museo de la Cultura de Cotzumalguapa, Finca Las Ilusiones, Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa.

CONDITION 

The surface shows deep fissures that may have been part of the original block. The carving shows no significant damage compared with Habel’s drawing (1878, plate V).

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Rectangular block.

DIMENSIONS 

Ht                                            1.08 m

MW                                        1.98 m

MTh                                        0.59 m

Rel                                           0.2 cm

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, 2013, and reproduced courtesy of Chinchilla Mazariegos.

DRAWING Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.10, based on photographs and inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW 

Fash, based on inspection of photographs.

NOTE 

See note for Monument 10.

LOCATION 

Monument 12 was found in the vicinity of Monuments 10 and 11 on Bilbao Structure A-1, according to Habel (1878, 77). It is currently lost, and therefore Habel’s dimensions are unconfirmed.

CONDITION 

Unknown.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Rectangular block.

DIMENSIONS 

According to Habel (1878, 77):

4.5 feet × 5 feet. Metric conversions based on Habel: 1.37 m × 1.52 m, depth unknown.

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

None.

DRAWING 

Habel, 1866 (Habel 1878, plate V). Courtesy of Tozzer Library, Harvard University.

NOTE 

The measurements provided by Habel do not correspond well with the pro-portions of the sculpture as shown in his drawing.

LOCATION 

According to Habel (1878, 77), Monuments 13 and 14 were found at the side of the heap that also included Monuments 1–8. Removed before 1882 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7172).

CONDITION 

Well preserved, with no significant damage in comparison with Habel’s drawing (1878, plate VI).

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Rectangular slab.

DIMENSIONS 

Ht                                   0.88 m

MW                                1.61 m

MTh                               0.26 m

Rel                                  1.0 cm

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.11, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument and the plaster casts at the Peabody Museum.

REVIEW 

Fash, Tokovinine, and Carter, based on inspection of the plaster casts (PM 95-42-20/C2692, C2692) at the Peabody Museum.

LOCATION 

According to Habel (1878, 78), Monuments 13 and 14 were found at the side of the heap that also included Monuments 1–8. Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7173).

CONDITION 

The slab shows a vertical split in the middle, and the right side has two diagonal breaks that were likely made for transport to Berlin.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Rectangular slab.

DIMENSIONS 

Ht                                               0.92 m

MW                                           1.56 m

MTh                                           0.23 m

Rel                                              1.0 cm

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.12, based on photograph and on inspection of the original monument and the plaster casts at the Peabody Museum.

REVIEW 

Fash, Tokovinine, and Carter, based on inspection of the plaster casts (PM 95-42-20/C2691, C2691.1) at the Peabody Museum.

LOCATION 

According to an annotation in Berendt’s 1877 drawing, it was originally found in the stream that runs east of Bilbao. Pedro de Anda took it to his house in Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa and used it as a stepping-stone. Removed in 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7199).

CONDITION 

The surface shows consider-able abrasion, perhaps largely caused by its use as a stepping-stone in Pedro de Anda’s house.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Rectangular slab.

DIMENSIONS 

Ht                                            1.47 m

MW                                        0.69 m

MTh                                        0.15 m

Rel                                           1.0 cm

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.13, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument and the plaster cast at the Peabody Museum.

REVIEW 

Fash, Tokovinine, and Carter, based on inspection of the plaster cast (PM 95-42-20/C2690) at the Peabody Museum.

LOCATION 

The two blocks that form Monument 16 were originally found on Bilbao Structure A-1, an elongated platform on the west side of the Monument Plaza.

In 2007, both were taken to the Museo de la Cultura de Cotzumalguapa, Finca Las Ilusiones, Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa.

CONDITION 

The sculpture was originally carved in two separate blocks. The larger block has several fissures and missing areas that were apparently part of the original surface. Some of them appear in Habel’s 1863 drawing (1878, plate VII). The surface of the smaller block is more even.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

The larger block is roughly rectangular, with uniform thickness. The smaller block has a rounded side, and its thickness varies considerably. Most likely, the carved surfaces were originally placed face up, next to one another.

DIMENSIONS: 

Block 1:

Ht          2.59 m

MW       1.86 m

MTh      0.54 m

Rel         0.2 cm

Block 2:

Ht          1.16 m

MW       1.83 m

MTh      0.53 m

Rel         0.3 cm

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPHS

By Chinchilla Mazariegos, and reproduced courtesy of Chinchilla Mazariegos.

DRAWINGS 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.14, based on photographs and inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW 

Fash and Carter, based on inspection of photographs.

LOCATION 

Monument 17 was originally found on Bilbao Structure A-1, near Monument 16. It was sent to Berlin in 1886, but it was lost at sea at Puerto de San José while being loaded on board the steamship that would carry it (Skinner-Klee 1996; Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996a). A fragment showing the tip of the bird’s wing reached its destination and is preserved in the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7200).

CONDITION 

Habel’s and Berendt’s drawings show a single block (Habel 1878, plate VI). However, the upper part was cut and thinned in preparation for shipment to Berlin. The fragment in the Berlin Museum is well preserved.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Trapezoidal block.

DIMENSIONS 

Originally 9 feet 6 inches long (2.90 m) × 5 feet wide (1.52 m) (Habel 1878:80). Present dimensions of extant fragment:

HT          0.73 M

MW       0.625 M

MTH      0.25 M

REL         2.0 CM

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Extant fragment: Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWINGS 

Top: Sketches of Monuments 17, 16, and 15 (left to right) by Carl Hermann Berendt, 1877, photographed by Chinchilla Mazariegos, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

Bottom right: Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.15, based on photograph and inspection of the original fragment.

REVIEW 

Fash, based on inspection of photographs.

LOCATION 

Monument 18 was originally found on the west side of Bilbao Structure B-4 by Berendt (Eisen 1888, plate VIII).

It was removed in 1996 to the Museo de la Cultura de Cotzumalguapa, Finca Las Ilusiones, Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa.

CONDITION 

Well preserved, except for mild erosion of the carved surface.

MATERIAL 

Basalt.

SHAPE 

Stela with rounded base, vertical sides, and irregular upper edge.

DIMENSIONS 

Ht          3.87 m

MW       2.34 m

MTh      0.57 m

Rel         5.6 cm

CARVED AREAS 

Front.

PHOTOGRAPH 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, 2013, and reproduced courtesy of Chinchilla Mazariegos.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.16, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW 

Fash, based on inspection of photographs.

LOCATION 

Monument 19 is in situ about 35 meters south of Bilbao Group A.

CONDITION 

The relief shows no noticeable changes in comparison with Berendt’s drawing, except for a horizontal row of seven holes that resulted from an attempt to split the carving in the mid-twentieth century (Parsons 1969, 100).

MATERIAL 

Basalt

SHAPE 

Unmodified boulder with a relatively flat surface on the eastern side.

DIMENSIONS 

Ht          1.70m

MW              2.35 m

MTh              1.22 m

Rel         1.2 cm

CARVED AREAS 

Front

PHOTOGRAPH 

Roberto Quesada, 2013, reproduced courtesy of Roberto Quesada.

DRAWING 

Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.17, based on photographs and inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW 

Fash, based on inspection of photographs.

LOCATION 

Monument 20 was originally from Bilbao Structure D-1, according to Napp’s 1886 site plan (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996a, 349). Removed between 1877 and 1886 and now at the Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin (Ident.Nr. IV Ca 7170).

CONDITION Berendt’s 1877 drawing shows that the sculpture was complete (Eisen 1888, plate IX). It was thinned for transportation to Berlin and broken into several pieces. Additional damage happened during an installation at the Berlin museum (personal communication, Bruno Timm, museum conservator, 1995).

MATERIAL Basalt.

SHAPE Round disk.

DIMENSIONS 

Max. Dia 1.30 m

MTh     0.11 m

Rel       1.3 cm

CARVED AREAS Front.

PHOTOGRAPH Martin Franken, 2013, courtesy of Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

DRAWING Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.18, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW Fash and Carter, based on inspection of photographs.

LOCATION  Monument 21 is in situ on the eastern side of Bilbao Structure B-2.

CONDITION  Despite continued neglect, the carving remains well preserved, except for scratching with machetes or other metal tools that is especially noticeable on the face of the central character. In 1998 it was covered with painted graffiti, and some parts have been stained with candle wax.

MATERIAL  Basalt.

SHAPE Unmodified boulder with a relatively flat carved surface.

DIMENSIONS 

Ht                                                   4.02 m

MW                                               3.38 m

MTh                                              Undetermined because the boulder is partly buried.

Rel                                                 2.0 cm

CARVED AREAS Front.

PHOTOGRAPH Chinchilla Mazariegos, 2009, and reproduced courtesy of Chinchilla Mazariegos.

DRAWING Chinchilla Mazariegos, PM 2016.23.1.19, based on photographs and on inspection of the original monument.

REVIEW Fash and Carter, based on inspection of photographs.