Modeling Mesoamerica

Origins and Originality in a Teaching Collection

Stanford University Archaeology Collections

Modeling Mesoamerica: Origins and Originality in a Teaching Collection

Introduction

What happens when we consider models of Central American antiquities not as more or less authentic copies of something else but as cultural artifacts in their own right? We discover that their meaning depends as much on why they were made and collected as on the ancient originals they interpret.

Thumbnails of SUAC's Mesoamerican models collection taken from our online database.

Thumbnails of SUAC's Mesoamerican models collection taken from our  online database. 

Stanford University Archaeology Collections has several models of well-known artifacts from Mexico and Central America that were acquired for research and teaching. Seven plaster pieces depict archaeological finds and monuments at size or in miniature, and two full-scale ink rubbings on paper show details of carved stone monuments. The works represent ancient people and periods from "Mesoamerica," a diverse region spanning central Mexico to northern Costa Rica.

Map of the region known as Mesoamerica, which spans central Mexico through northern Costa Rica. Left: imposed geopolitical boundaries and names. Right: Overlay of Indigenous territories. Courtesy  Native Land .

Student curators and museum staff researched this collection in 2020. We present our findings here in an "inquiry driven" virtual exhibition. With little to no information in our records, we began with simple questions: what is it? who made it? where did it come from? Answers led to fascinating stories of exploration and artistry, as well as debates about authenticity, creativity, and popular conceptions of Indigenous cultures.

We decided to call these objects “models” because they are not straightforward copies. When documenting the skill and creativity of ancient creators, the three 20th-century archaeological artists who made these things displayed skill and creativity of their own. In doing so, they also assumed the power to represent other people and cultures. To find the origin of an artifact model, we had to investigate both the model and the original that inspired it.

Meet the Models

Meeting the Models

Stanford University Archaeology Collections reintroduced the Stanford community to our Mesoamerican models in February 2020 on World Anthropology Day. Here, Academic Curator Christina Hodge shows Libraries staff (and project partners) Tony Calavano and Regina Roberts the collection. SUAC Collections Technician Suzy Huizinga passes behind, scoping out Tony's 3D model-making in progress.

Photograph of SUAC's World Anthropology Day Open House, 20 February 2020. Photograph by Veronica Jacobs-Edmondson, Stanford University Archaeology Collections.

01 / 09

Model of the carved Piedra de Tízoc (Stone of Tizoc)

The Stone of Tizoc is a massive monument to a fifteenth-century Aztec ruler in what is now Mexico City. Our ceramic model is one fifth its size but painted to resemble the original stone. The top features a sun diagram, central bowl-shaped depression, and grooved channel radiating over the edge. The sides carry a frieze—a horizontal band of relief carvings—with 15 nearly identical scenes of conquest: a warrior in a headdress stands grasping the hair of a stooped opponent in a gesture of dominance. The figure in the largest feathered headdress is Tizoc himself. Artist Francisco Cornejo created this model before 1921, possibly in his Estudio Azteca (Aztec Studio) in San Francisco, where he displayed ancient originals, reproductions, and modern art in Mesoamerican styles.

Ceramic, paint (49 x 18 cm) Modern (ca. 1921 CE) Francisco Cornejo, European Mexican Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Purchased by Stanford University from Francisco Cornejo in 1921 with Jane L. Stanford funds. Object ID 14075

left to right: piece of the mold of the model; model; original

Click to explore the 3D model:

  • Rotate to find the figure with the largest headdress, opposite the groove. This is the only instance where Tizoc is identified by his name glyph.
  • Cornejo included some of the wear suffered by the original monument. Rotate clockwise from the groove and you will see an indent along the bottom edge, matching a chip in the original monument. Why do you think Cornejo reproduced this damage?
  • It is not a perfect replica of the original’s imperfections. The top edge is smooth on the model but weathered on the original. Cornejo may have fixed it for aesthetics. The differences may also reflect materials: wet clay is easily inscribed, while lines in stone require expert tooling.
  • The model is hollow. You can flip the digital model over and peer into the hole. The original monument is solid stone and weighs 24 tons. This version is easier to transport and study. Given these differences, would you call the model a replica?

Set of six molds of the model of the carved Stone of Tizoc

Six fragments make up a complete plaster negative of the reliefs on our ceramic Stone of Tizoc model. Fragments connect by mortise and tenon joints, while breaks match like puzzle pieces, suggesting they were to be displayed as a single object. The unpainted plaster shows dark gray discolorations, probably paint transfer. We believe these molds were created by Francisco Cornejo directly from his Stone of Tizoc model. The figures match precisely, making these plaster pieces a model of a model. Cornejo was interested in the aesthetics of Mesoamerican art. It is possible he created these molds to study the images on the Stone of Tizoc or used them to create more replicas.

Plaster mold fragment (right-most in digitally assembled composite image; 16 x 20 x 4 cm) Object ID T2016.45.3 lll lll

Plaster mold (191 x 22 x 4 cm assembled) Modern (ca. 1921 CE) Francisco Cornejo, European Mexican Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016 and 2018. Likely acquired by Stanford University from Francisco Cornejo in or around 1921. Object ID's T2016.45.3; T2016.45.1, T2016.45.2, T2018.5.2, T2018.5.3, T2018.5.4

left to right: piece of the mold of the model; model; original

Drag and zoom to explore the composite image:

  • Navigate to the right edge of the image. Note the direction that Tizoc (the figure with the biggest headdress) is facing. Compare it with the cylindrical model above. It is in reverse! Cornejo or his studio assistants probably created these molds by rolling the cylindrical model over a long rectangular frame filled with damp plaster.
  • Zoom out to see the entire composite. Pieced together, the mold fragments present a novel way to look at the conquest scenes ringing the Stone of Tizoc model (and original). Their linearity more clearly creates an order to the scenes, beginning with the figure of Tizoc (far right).

Model of the carved Piedra del Sol (Sun Stone)

This model replicates the Aztec Sun Stone from Mexico City. The famous monument is adorned with iconography featuring calendrical, animal, solar, and divine imagery. The plaster model is painted to emphasize this intricate design. The model-maker chose to include the original’s unfinished edges, which were never knocked away. But the cracks you see are unique. The model was damaged during a 2013 collections move and is now too fragile to remove from its packing box. Based on its fine workmanship and size, we believe Francisco Cornejo made this model for study or display around 1921.

Plaster, paint (60 x 24 cm) Modern (ca. 1921 CE) Francisco Cornejo, European Mexican Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Likely acquired by Stanford University from Francisco Cornejo in or around 1921. Object ID T2016.114.1

left to right: model plaque; model; original

Look closely at this digital photograph:

  • Cornejo’s skillful molding and painting combines fidelity to the original with artistic improvements all his own. A 1921 publication about his studio notes that he “reproduced [the Sun Stone] for the first time in its original colors” (it could be this very model).
  • Cornejo included unfinished edges and filled in losses to recreate objects as they would’ve looked when first made, before any damage. This work was part of a larger goal: to inspire artists and designers and shape the development of new school of Mesoamerican revival art.

Model (plaque) of the carved Piedra del Sol (Sun Stone)

This plaster model of the Aztec Sun Stone features a metal loop and is meant to be hung as a decorative piece. This model prioritized aesthetics over faithful replication of the original monument. Museum records are missing, but this wall plaque was most likely created by Francisco Cornejo before 1921 and acquired by Stanford around the same time as Cornejo’s Stone of Tizoc model. In it, we see more evidence of artistic choice, which transforms replication into interpretation.

Plaster, paint, metal (28 x 2 cm) Modern (ca. 1921 CE)? Francisco Cornejo?, European Mexican? Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Possibly acquired by Stanford University from Francisco Cornejo in or around 1921. Object ID T2016.41.1

left to right: model plaque; model; original

Click to explore the 3D model:

  • Zoom in on the center of the object. The ancient Sun Stone’s center was chipped or worn away in antiquity. The model maker enhanced details of its central face, fixing the sun god Tōnatiuh’s nose (as was done on the larger table-top model, above). Why? It was done imaginatively to show how the Sun Stone’s central disc originally looked, rather than showing the artifact in its current state.
  • Zoom out and rotate the piece. Its circular face presents the same iconography as the original Sun Stone, but it is thin and the original's thick, unfinished stone edges are missing.

Front view of the Piedra del Sol, ca. 1885. Courtesy of the National Photo Library, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History), Mexico (MID 77_20140827-134500: 674418; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Model of a carved stone vase

This molded plaster vase by M. Louise Baker replicates an ancient carved white marble vase now held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Both stand close to 10 inches tall, with animal-shaped lug handles. The exterior is covered with sacred iconography of scrolls (representing breath and winds) and stylized animal-like faces (referencing mountains). The top and bottom feature geometric patterns. The original is one of several similar stone vases from the lower Ulúa Valley of Honduras. These ancient luxury items became popular with art collectors in the 1940s. This model was created for study and preservation before then, reflecting competing attitudes toward Mesoamerican antiquities.

Plaster, paint (24 x 26 x 16 cm) Modern (mold 1914–1936 CE; cast post-1914 CE) M. (Mary) Louise Baker, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Acquired by Stanford University on an unknown date. Object ID T2016.40.1

left to right: model; original

Click to explore the 3D model:

  • Zoom in on a handle. The handles display a large feline holding a smaller animal, perhaps a chameleon, in its claws. Their elaborate form makes it clear that the original piece was not meant for everyday use but was decorative or ceremonial.
  • Pan down to the base. A geometric pattern near the base is made of deep Z-shaped indentations. On the original, they are carved holes. Why didn’t the maker include these piercings? Perhaps they would make the plaster too fragile, showing a compromise between accuracy and necessity.
  • Rotate the model. There are several large chips and cracks: some are damage suffered by the fragile model, others mimic damage on the original. Can you tell the difference?
  • Zoom inside. This vase interior has a zigzag edge, but the physical model is smooth all the way down. The 3D scanner could only "see" part of the vase when "looking" inside this narrow object.

Model of a carved stone face

This plaster cast is a model of a green stone face from the ancient Mesoamerican city known as Teotihuacan. Its maker, M. Louise Baker, was meticulous in her attention to detail and faithful remodeling. Incredibly accurate in terms of scale and facial proportions—although not material or color—Baker even replicated damage to the upper left corner of the back of the carving. The model was created during her tenure as a museum artist at the University of Pennsylvania from 1908 until 1936, where she was responsible for restoration work, as well as making models and replicas like this one.

Plaster, paint (15 x 16 x 8 cm) Modern (mold 1926–1936 CE; cast post-1926 CE) M. (Mary) Louise Baker, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Acquired by Stanford University on an unknown date. Object ID T2016.39.1

left to right: model; original

Click to explore the 3D model:

  • Rotate the model. Baker’s meticulous attention to detail is seen in the damage visible in the upper left-hand corner of its back, which replicates damage present on the original object.
  • The original carved face sports holes in its ears that once held jewelry. Baker carefully recreated these, including the tell-tale tapered profile of holes drilled by hand. Zoom and pan to look closely at the ears and zoom inside to see the conical holes better.

Model of the carved stone Stela 12 from Piedras Negras

This small scale model of Piedras Negras Stela 12 is one of the last models M. Louise Baker created. It celebrates the power of Ruler 7, K’inich Yak, and depicts the victory of his polity, Piedras Negras, against Pomona. The figures suggest a hierarchy of strength: Ruler 7 sits upright on his throne, flanked by lords, and the eight Pomona war captives huddle beneath him. Despite its miniature stature, each crack and detail is identical to the original. The model even includes glyphs (textual symbols) on its edges. Baker’s models reflect scholarly interest in the ways ancient Maya people broadcast their identities inside and outside their communities.

Plaster, paint (31 x 12 x 8 cm) Modern (mold 1934 CE; cast post-1934 CE) M. (Mary) Louise Baker, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Acquired by Stanford University on an unknown date. Object ID T2016.46.1

left to right: model; original

Click to explore the 3D model:

  • Right click and drag to view the top of the model. A Maya creator carved the ornate headpiece, resembling an eagle, to show Ruler 7’s authority. Eagles represented strength, power, and courage in ancient Maya beliefs.
  • Drag to the bottom and zoom in. Each captive wears civilian hairstyles and ornaments marking their low status. The depictions, specifically the hollow eyes and posture, show them cowering at the mercy of Ruler 7.
  • Move to the right side. The uniform rectangular carvings across the standing lord’s wrists are beaded bracelets. Elaborate bracelets and necklaces symbolized wealth and status and suggest the standing lord’s high rank.

Rubbing of the carved stone Stela 2 from Dos Pilas

This rubbing was created by Merle Greene Robertson from Stela 2 at Dos Pilas, a Late Classic Period (600–900 CE) Maya site located in what is now Petén, Guatemala. Stelae are carved freestanding monuments and are common at Classic Maya sites. They commemorate important events and were commissioned by rulers. This one depicts Ucha'an K'in B'alam (called Ruler 3 by scholars). Stela 2 marks his defeat of rival ruler Yich'aak B'alam of Seibal in 735 CE. Robertson made this model by pressing organic ink onto rice paper using a technique she adapted from an ancient Chinese method. This piece was donated to Stanford University by Robertson's daughter, Barbara Metzler, supporting public education and preservation of ancient Maya culture. 

Rubbing of the carved stone Stela 2, Dos Pilas Ink, Paper (94 x 183 cm) Modern (1971 CE) Merle Greene Robertson, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Donated to Stanford University by Barbara Metzler in 1984. Object ID 84.434/T2018.5.106

left to right: model; original

Whoever created Stela 2 made sure every item of Ruler 3’s elaborate regalia emphasized his power and martial prowess. Click on the button below to zoom to, and in the shapes to learn more about, his accessories or drag and use the +/- buttons to navigate.

Set of 3 rubbings of the carved stone Stela 15 from Nim li Punit

This set of rubbings is of Stela 15 from Nim li Punit, a Maya site in southern Belize. The monument depicts a scattering ceremony, which involves the ritual burning of offerings. The ceremony is presided over by a central figure, the ruler of Nim li Punit when the stela was dedicated in 721 CE. He wears a pendant similar to one excavated from the site in 2015.

Photographs of front and back of a jade wind pendant from Nim li Punit excavation. Taken in 2015 by Geoffrey E. Braswell during the Toledo Regional Interaction Project in Belize (Braswell 2017:Fig. 9B).

Robertson made these rubbings directly from the original using rice paper and organic ink. According to her autobiography, Never in Fear, she visited Nim li Punit in 1983 to record its monuments. Rubbings like these replicate carvings without removing them. This technique avoids the moral ambiguity of taking important artifacts from their place of origin to incorporate into institutional collections.

Set of three rubbings of the carved stone Stela 15, Nim li Punit Ink, paper (95 cm x 185 cm assembled) Modern (1983–1984 CE) Merle Greene Robertson, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2018. Likely donated to Stanford University by Merle Greene Robertson or her son, David Greene, in the 1980s. Object ID T2018.5.107

left to right: model; original

Stela 15 commemorates a ritual event through a detailed scene and descriptive hieroglyphic text. Click on the button below to zoom to, and in the shapes to learn more about, the scene or drag and use the +/- buttons to navigate.

Makers/Motives

Atlas Geografico de la Republica Mexicana

This fantastical pastiche from 1921 uses ancient Mesoamerican symbolism to legitimize the then-new Mexican Republic. A scribe kneels in front of an inventive architectural façade, inking a map that combines aspects of Indigenous and European cartographies. His task references the atlas's purpose, while empty pages nearby suggest a vast territory yet to be documented. Incense smoke permeates the scene. It performs an ancient function by connecting this world (the titular Republica Mexicana) and the sacred ancestral world beyond. Perhaps, the scene suggests, it is those who came before who truly created—and sanctioned—the modern Mexican Republic.

Title page of Atlas Geografico de la Republica Mexicana, Direccion de Estudion Geograficos y Climatologicos, Mexico (1921). Courtesy of David Rumsey Map Center, Stanford University (6735.001).

Introduction

When we encounter a reproduction, we tend to ignore it and focus instead on the artifact it represents. We lose sight of artifact models as objects in their own right, created by individuals for particular reasons. In this section, we focus on our models' makers and their motives to explore the ways Mesoamerica was imagined during the twentieth century.

Francisco Cornejo (1892–1963)

Photograph of artist Francisco Cornejo (in white) with an unidentified soldier and children in folk costumes during a party at his ranch in Mexico, ca. 1945. Courtesy Casasola Archive Collection, National Photo Library, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History), Mexico (MID 77_20140827-134500:13250; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

José Francisco "Pancho“ Candelario Cornejo was an artist, architect, designer, and educator known for his revitalization of Aztec and Maya art and architecture. He advocated for the adaptation of ancient "Pre-Columbian" Mesoamerican styles in modern art and often used these motifs in his own work. He also created models of ancient monuments to promote Mesoamerican artisty, including Aztec models in Stanford’s collection: definitely the Stone of Tizoc and probably its cast, as well as one or both versions of the Sun Stone.

Cornejo had access to public and private collections when living in Mexico City, where he likely saw the models that he later replicated with such care. He moved to Los Angeles in 1911, where he created sculptures for the Mayan Theater, bringing his aesthetic vision to America.

Photograph of the Mayan Theater in Los Angeles, California. Francisco Cornejo designed this decorative facade in “Mayan Revival” style by combining Maya and Aztec motifs. Taken by Carol M. Highsmith in 2005. Courtesy Library of Congress (LC-DIG-pplot-13725; public domain).

While living in San Francisco from 1919 to 1924, Cornejo established “Estudio Azteca” (Aztec Studio) at 573 California Street, a space dedicated to displaying Aztec and Maya art. He also taught a course on "Applied Aztec Design" at the California School of Fine Arts and exhibited his models at various institutions, including Stanford University.

Illustration from the Catalogue of Summer Session The California School of Fine Arts San Francisco, 1921. Francisco Cornejo taught there and organized public “Aztec Evening Programs” at his Aztec Studio. He doubtlessly designed this image of Aztec motifs: the cactus on a rock in water (symbol of the capital city Tenochtitlan); sacred mountain; eagles; and a sun with calendrical markings like those on the Sun Stone and Stone of Tizoc.

Cornejo devoted his practice to representing and promoting Mesoamerican art. Whether that meant faithful replication or creative appropriation of ancient aesthetics differed from piece to piece. Stanford's models illustrate these competing goals.

Mary Louise Baker (1872–1962)

Photograph of artist M. Louise Baker sitting by her model of Stela 12 at her home or nursing home in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Taken or printed by Ned Good on 3 December 1959. It may be the original model or a plaster cast like Stanford’s. Courtesy of the Penn Museum (Image 5604). 

Mary Louise Baker was the Museum Artist at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology during the early twentieth century. She was renowned for her paintings and drawings of Maya pottery, as well as her artifact models. She traveled widely in the United States, Europe, and Central America documenting collections.

Photograph of artist M. Louise Baker creating a painting of a Maya vase in Guatemala City. Taken in 1931. Courtesy of the Penn Museum (Image 176327).

While she repaired original antiquities as a conservator, her models captured the artifacts in their current condition. All three of her plaster models in Stanford’s collection—a vase, a face, and a miniature stela—show the same damage as the originals. They were created as a three-dimensional record and to provide study objects to scholars without access to the museum’s collections.

Baker continued sculpting, illustrating, and restoring artifacts until she retired from the Penn Museum in 1936. She focused her life's work on iconic pieces from past cultures, reflecting interests of the day. Early twentieth-century archaeologists generally paid more attention to elaborate monumental and ritual finds than the everyday artifacts of common people.

Merle Greene Robertson (1913–2011)

Photograph of Merle Greene Robertson with her rubbing of Stela 1 at Bonampak, Mexico. Taken by Doris Jason in 1964. Courtesy of The Latin American Library, Tulane University (Merle Greene Robertson Collection 133, Manuscripts Collection).

In the 1960s, archaeologists were racing against time to find and record ancient Maya monuments. Looting for survival or profit was common, and tropical locations contributed to rapid weathering of the stone. Merle Greene Robertson’s background in art and archaeology made her ideally suited to document these creations. She made it her mission to record the engravings of Maya monuments in new detail for study and posterity.

When Robertson made Stanfords' Stela 15 rubbings around 1983, she was in her early 70s yet still in the midst of a long and distinguished career. She was a celebrated woman in a male-dominated field and paved the way for future generations of female archaeologists. Besides innovating this rubbing technique, notable achievements include establishing the Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute and the Round Tables at Palenque, which greatly advanced Mesoamerican archaeology and epigraphy.

Photograph of unidentified men drying rubbings from Altar de Sacrificios, Guatemala. Taken by Merle Greene Robertson in 1969. Courtesy of The Latin American Library, Tulane University (Merle Greene Robertson Collection 133, Manuscripts Collection).

Robertson and her field team were supported by local communities during each expedition. Her writings and photographs tell how local people housed, fed, guided, guarded, assisted, and collaborated with the visiting researchers.

Photograph of a group of unidentified (but smiling!) people photographing the enormous El Palmar altar stone rubbing at Robertson's friend's tennis court in Mérida, Mexico. Taken in 1978. We believe Robertson is crouching at the lower right. Courtesy of The Latin American Library, Tulane University (Merle Greene Robertson Collection 133, Manuscripts Collection).

These photos show some of the unnamed people who were vital to the creation of Stanford's rubbings. We celebrate the work and passion that Robertson put into her distinguished career. While our exhibit honors her and other influential artist-scholars, we also honor the contributions of the Indigenous experts and local communities and wish we knew more about them.

Ancient Originals

The Acropolis at Piedras Negras Restored View

Visual recreations are also models. This one combines archaeological research and artistic vision. The pristine setting is dominated by the temples, plazas, and stelae of Piedras Negras. Common thatched structures are visible where this white city meets the forest. Proskouriakoff excavated at Piedras Negras and was known for her insights into ancient aesthetic styles. She led the way for later Mayanists, including Merle Greene Robertson.

Watercolor by Tatiana Proskouriakoff, 1939. Courtesy Penn Museum (Image 150206).

Introduction

Stanford’s Mesoamerican teaching models prove that model making is a creative act as much as a documentary one. They helped us realize that the originals our models interpret are also models. Through them, ancient makers represented time, the cosmos, sacred landscapes, divine beings, people, and historical events. To understand what these artifacts mean, we need to pay attention to the contexts of their creation and the choices of ancient creators.

01 / 07

Stone of Tizoc

Photograph of the Piedra de Tizoc (Stone of Tizoc) carved by an unidentified Mexica (Aztec) creator(s), Late Postclassic (1481–1486 CE). Courtesy Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico.

The Piedra de Tizoc (Stone of Tizoc) is a monumental stone platform made for the Aztec ruler Tizoc between 1481 and 1485 CE. Its carvings situate victories over foreign nations in a larger cosmological order.

Carvers depicted scenes of conquest in relief around the cylinder’s sides. Paired figures show Tizoc or his warriors grasping the hair of 15 different foreign leaders in a gesture of domination. Linear bands represent the earth below and the heavens above his triumphs. On top is a common Aztec depiction of the sun as a radiant ring with directional pointers. 

Lithograph of the sides of the Stone of Tizoc carved by an unidentified Mexica (Aztec) creator(s), Late Postclassic (1481–1486 CE). Tizoc is the figure in the top left with the largest headdress and also may be the victor in every scene. Drawn by architect Carlos Nebel in or around 1836 (Nebel 1840:[52]).

Many believe the stone was a stage for ritual combat. Pointing to its carved bowl and channel, others say it was a receptacle for human organs taken in sacrificial ceremonies. But these carvings may be later vandalisms perpetuating bloodthirsty stereotypes about Aztec culture. Either way, the monument was propaganda for emperor Tizoc’s vision of himself and his role in Aztec history.

Detail from the manuscript Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España (General History of the Things of New Spain), known as the Florentine Codex, showing ritualized combat on a monumental round stone similar to the Stone of Tizoc. Created between 1545 and 1577 by Nahua (Aztec) men working for and with Bernardino de Sahagún, a Spanish Franciscan friar. Courtesy Florence, The Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, ms. .Med. Palat 219, f. 315r. Reproduced with permission of MiBACT. Further reproduction by any means is prohibited (Palat. 218-220, Book IX, p. 17).

Photograph of the Stone of Tizoc carved by an unidentified Mexica (Aztec) creator(s), Late Postclassic (1481–1486 CE). Taken by Abel Briquet, 1883 to 1895. Courtesy Getty Digital Collections (ID Number gri_mexico_96_r_142_35).

Sun Stone

Photograph of the Piedra del Sol (Sun Stone) carved by an unidentified Mexica (Aztec) creator(s), Late Postclassic (1502–1520 CE). Courtesy Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico.

The massive Piedra del Sol (Sun Stone), carved in the Aztec capital city Tenochtitlan between 1502 and 1520 CE, depicts the cosmological lens through which Aztec peoples perceived space and time.

This monument honors the circular motions of the solar system and the cyclical ritual calendar it defined. Central carvings represent suns that ruled sequential creations of the world, shown by framed symbols of (counterclockwise from upper right) a jaguar, wind (god Ehecatl), rain (god Tlaloc), and water (goddess Chalchiuhtlicue). The central fifth sun—the face of the sun god Tōnatiuh himself—was the world when the monument was created, a final world Aztecs believed was threatened by a new cycle of destruction. 

Engraving of the Sun Stone carved by an unidentified Mexica (Aztec) creator(s), Late Postclassic (1502–1520 CE). Illustration for Antonio León y Gama’s book Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790 (Historical and Chronological Description of the Two Stones Which were Discovered in 1790 During the Rebuilding of the Main Plaza in Mexico) (1792:pl. II).

The Sun Stone simultaneously represents the Aztec ruler, Moctezuma II, who commissioned it just before the Spanish arrived in 1521. It embodies this violent transformation, too: buried by Catholic authorities within decades of conquest; rediscovered and incorporated into a cathedral in 1791; and, in 1855, moved into a museum. As an exhibit, the Sun Stone inspired modern artist Francisco Cornejo to incorporate Mesoamerican aesthetics into his own creativity.

Detail, illustration of the Aztec ruler Moctezuma II, who commissioned the Sun Stone. Created ca. 1541 by Nahua (Aztec) men working for and with a Spanish Franciscan friars. From the manuscript known as the Codex Mendoza. Copyright Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford (MS. Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol.15v; CC-BY-NC 4.0).

Front view of the Piedra del Sol, ca. 1885. Courtesy of the National Photo Library, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History), Mexico (MID 77_20140827-134500: 674418; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Stone face

Photograph of a stone face carved by an unidentified Teotihuacano creator(s), Terminal Classic/Late Preclassic (ca. 300–600 CE). Courtesy Penn Museum (Object Number NA10799).

This face is carved from a light green, translucent, soft stone called travertine. There is no record of where it was found, but it is in the distinctive style of others excavated at Teotihuacan, a vast archaeological complex northeast of Mexico City.

Teotihuacan was a multicultural city founded as early as 400 BCE. Its creative traditions influenced contemporary Maya and later Aztec peoples. Although often recorded as masks by museums, objects like this one were not made to be worn by living people. They were displayed or offered in religious settings.

Photograph of a stone face by an unidentified Teotiuacano creator, Terminal Classic/Late Preclassic (ca. 300–600 CE). This 1944 image is from Manuel Touissant’s Arte Precolombino de México y de la Américan Central (1944:296). Baker modeled this face between 1926 and 1936. Her work likely helped raise its prominence, seen by its inclusion in this landmark publication.

Teotihuacan faces always show skilled workmanship and were often made of precious stone. These qualities, bestowed by an ancient maker, likely inspired Baker to make this model. Through it, she helped foster Teotihuacán’s reputation as one of the greatest artistic metropolises in ancient Mesoamerica.

Photograph of a stone face by an unidentified Teotiuacano creator, Classic (ca. 200–600 CE). It was found at Teotihuacan and is in the same distinctive style as the University of Pennsylvania mask modeled by Baker. The use of green stone, proportions of the face, and flatness of the features support this association. Courtesy Conde de Penasco Collection, National Museum of the American Indian (Object Number 2/6607).

Stone vase

Photograph of a marble vase by an unidentified Ulúan creator, Late Classic (ca. 600–850 CE). Courtesy Penn Museum (Object Number NA5526).

This vase dates from the Late Classic Period (550–830 AD). It is almost ten inches tall and distinguished by intricate carvings on the body and handles. The piece would have been highly valued for its material, workmanship, form, and symbolism.

It was made and found in the Ulúa River Valley of Honduras, but vases of this style were widely distributed in Central America, including at sites of the neighboring Maya people and as far away as Costa Rica. The dissemination of this rare, unique luxury good demonstrates the widespread connections shaping ancient Mesoamerica.

Photograph of a marble vase carved by an unidentified Ulúan creator, Late Classic (ca. 600–850 CE). Likely taken by George Byron Gordon in or around 1916 (Gordon 1916:pl. I).

Ulúa vases were prestige goods in the 20th century, too. This example was excavated by local workmen for George Byron Gordon sometime between 1894 and 1897. The University of Pennsylvania Museum acquired it in 1914. As an object of study and display, it doubtlessly fueled the popularity of this object type among private collectors in the 1940s.

Detail of a photograph of two local workers excavating the banks of the Ulúa River in Honduras for George Byron Gordon’s archaeological explorations in 1896 or 1897 (Byron 1898:pl. VI).

Stela 12

Photograph of Stela 12 from Piedras Negras carved by Maya sculptors Juun Nat Omootz,[?] Chahk, K’in Lakam Chahk, Ch’ok [?], Yajaw Kaloomte’, Chat Kuch[?] U Ko’om, Chan Chiwoj, and [?], Late Classic (795 CE). Taken in 2007 by Benjamin Chan at the Museo Nacional de Arqueologia y Etnologia (National Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology), Guatemala. Courtesy Benjamin Chan (CC BY-SA 2.0).

Stelae are tall, limestone slabs that document the history of the Maya elite. Their hieroglyphic inscriptions help scholars trace people and events to exact dates centuries ago. This one, Stela 12 from the city of Piedras Negras in Guatemala, stands nearly 10 feet tall. The stela was commissioned by the ruler K'inich Yat Ahk II: K’inich meaning “red-faced” and Yat Ahk honoring an earlier ruler named “turtle tooth.” 

K'inich Yat Ahk II intended the stela to demonstrate his power and prestige. The monument was finished in 795 CE. Glyphs on its sides and back record the dates of a violent war K'inich Yat Ahk II waged against rival Pomona. His victory is depicted on the front of the slab, where several Pomona captives cower beneath the victorious ruler.

Photograph of Piedras Negras Stela 12 carved by Maya sculptors Juun Nat Omootz, [?] Chahk, K’in Lakam Chahk, Ch’ok [?], Yajaw Kaloomte’, Chat Kuch[?] U Ko’om, Chan Chiwoj, and [?], Late Classic (795 CE). Taken by Teobert Maler, 1895–1899 (Maler 1901:pl. XXI).

The monument was originally displayed on top of a pyramid. It was in pieces when documented by a University of Pennsylvania Museum archaeological expedition in 1931. It was then brought to Philadelphia, where Baker modeled it in miniature in 1934. The museum returned Stela 12 to Guatemala in 1947, and it is now on display in their national museum.

Photograph of a stela from Piedras Negras being moved into the University of Pennsylvania Museum in 1933. Courtesy Penn Museum (Image 175936).

Stela 2

Photograph of Stela 2 from Dos Pilas carved by an unidentified Maya creator(s), Late Classic (736 CE) (under the thatched structure) and a contemporary full-scale model (standing). Photograph by Realy Easy Star 2005. © Alamy.

Stela 2 commemorates the Maya kingdom of Dos Pilas’s victory over the nearby kingdom of Seibal in 736 CE. It shows ruler Ucha'an K'in B'alam in full battle regalia, an elaborate costume emphasizing his role as a divine warrior and king. 

The jaguar and owl, prominently featured at his legs and waist, are powerful other-than-human beings in Maya culture. Ucha'an K'in B'alam carries a rectangular shield and a spear to show his skill as a warrior. He stands atop his prisoner, the king of Seibal. Surrounding glyphs indicate that this scene is a sacrificial ceremony. 

Drawing of Stela 2 from Dos Pilas carved by an unidentified Maya creator(s), Late Classic (736 CE). Drawn by Linda Schele, late 20th century. Courtesy The Linda Schele Photograph Collection, Ancient Americas at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (Schele Number 7317).

Dos Pilas is one of the largest and most important classical Maya sites, and Stela 2 commemorates a pivotal event in its complex history. Stela 2 is important as the only stela at Dos Pilas depicting the person responsible, Ucha'an K'in B'alam. The stone is also in poor condition, which likely inspired Robertson to record it through rubbing in 1971.

Photographs of Stela 2 from Dos Pilas carved by an unidentified Maya creator(s), Late Classic (736 CE). Taken by Linda Schele, late 20th century. It remains in fragments, and these photographs show only the middle (left, which is the portion in SUAC's rubbing) and bottom (right). Courtesy The Linda Schele Photograph Collection, Ancient Americas at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (Schele Numbers 89087, 89090).

Stela 15

Photograph of Stela 15 from Nim li Punit carved by an unidentified Maya creator(s), Late Preclassic/Late Classic (ca. 150–800 CE). Taken in 2018 by Kaldari at the Nim li Punit Visitor’s Center, Belize. Courtesy Kaldari (CC0 1.0).

Nim li Punit is an ancient Maya site known for its enormous stelae. Standing almost nine feet tall and six feet wide, Stela 15 is among the largest. Stelae represent important events, engraving history into stone. This one depicts an incense scattering ceremony that took place in 721 CE.

The glyphs above the central scene identify the figure on the left as a noblewoman who has performed a bloodletting ritual and, by dropping blood into an incense burner, conjured the image of the Teotihuacan War Serpent. The round nodules dropped by the central ruler and right lord may be blood or pom, a tree resin, another common offering.

Drawing of Stela 15 from Nim li Punit carved by an unidentified Maya creator(s), Late Classic (721 CE). Drawn by John Montgomery, 1992. Courtesy Ancient Americas at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (JM00450; © John Montgomery).

When offerings burned, smoke rose sky-ward, acting as a bridge between the people of Nim li Punit and their gods. The ritual event shown was likely connected to wind, life, and agriculture. It may even have helped to dedicate Stela 15 itself.

Photograph of a ceramic incense burner from Chiapas, Mexico, by an unidentified Maya creator, Late Classic (ca. 600–900 CE). Courtesy Walters Art Museum (Object Number 48.2770; CC0 1.0).

Reflection

Sun Stone(s)

Left: Photograph of the Piedra del Sol (Sun Stone), courtesy Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico. Center: Photograph of the model of the Sun Stone, Stanford University Archaeology Collections (Object ID T2016.114.1). Right: 3D model of the model plaque of the Sun Stone at Stanford University Archaeology Collections (Object ID T2016.41.1), Stanford University Libraries.

There is only one ancient, “original” Sun Stone. But we have learned that every version of the Sun Stone also has its own originality: its own creation story, its own unique physical attributes, its own history of interpretation and display. The Sun Stones give meaning to each other. This is true of all of our Mesoamerican models and of artifact reproductions in general. They teach us that recreation is an act of interpretation.

The 3D models and digital photographs featured in this virtual exhibition are the newest examples of this process. Creations of plaster, paper, and paint never quite reproduce the original carved stone. Our digital surrogates don’t look or act exactly like our Mesoamerican models. We can do things with these virtual objects that we can’t do with the originals. Yet they “are” the ancient artifacts they represent.

Whether virtual or physical, artifact models challenge our expectations. They inspire us to look differently at ancient originals and to think differently about what originality is.

Team Cornejo

By simultaneously engaging with ancient contexts and the 1920s cultural environment in which Cornejo made these models, we challenged our preconceived notions about authenticity within museum collections.

We have come to understand authenticity as complex and multifaceted. These models are detailed replicas of authentic Aztec monuments. They are also authentic artifacts of a period of revived interest in ancient Mesoamerican culture driven by artists like Francisco Cornejo. 

At the same time, these models are not perfect copies. We find they reflect a variety of intentions: academic study, teaching/creating a perceived “style” of Aztec art, increasing representation of Mexican culture within the United States, and promoting the aesthetic value of Aztec culture by transforming it into popular decor. 

Ultimately, these models are a lens through which we examine ancient monuments and modern models alongside contemporary perceptions of Mesoamerica.

Glass plate negative of a young child with a replica of the Aztec Sun Stone. Taken ca. 1922 by the studio of Harris & Ewing (George W. Harris and Martha Ewing). Courtesy Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division (Call Number LC-H27-A-4969).

Team Baker

M. Louise Baker’s three models inform our understanding of status symbols and the diffusion of artistic practices in ancient Mesoamerica. They also offer insight into the influential role of artists within twentieth-century American museums.

Through these models, we learn what Baker and the University of Pennsylvania deemed worthy of replication: artifacts that exhibit intricate carvings and acted as powerful status symbols in their original settings. It is uncommon to see plain, everyday artifacts reproduced in this way, giving museum audiences an incomplete picture of life in ancient Mesoamerica. 

We believe it is imperative that we, as patrons of museums and exhibit curators, acknowledge that the objects presented to us do not represent the totality of past experiences.

Photograph of M. Louise Baker applying finishing touches to the reconstruction of the bull-headed gold lyre from the Sumerian city-state of Ur, in present-day Iraq. Taken in 1930. Courtesy Penn Museum (Image 8274).

Team Robertson

These models are authentic because they are true to their source material. The original stelae and Merle Greene Robertson’s rubbings of them successfully capture moments in time. The pieces also represent the cultural values that led to their creation.

Stelae were material embodiments of important events, preserving history for future generations. Similarly, Robertson was motivated by the need to document monuments for the future. We carry that intention forward with digital reproductions of her rubbings.

Despite her dedication to accuracy, Robertson inevitably changed what she reproduced. She prioritized where to devote time and attention. She expressed her own artistic vision by emphasizing certain features over others, partially as a result of the time constraints associated with inking. 

However, these decisions did not make the rubbings less authentic. Instead, we believe they are defined by the intentions of their maker, becoming new tools for research and a means for preservation.

Poster for the 1968 exhibit Rubbings of Mayan Reliefs by Merle Greene at the Stanford Art Gallery. Courtesy Stanford University Libraries Department of Special Collections and University Archives (SC1030 #203-11).

End Matter

Curatorial Statements

01 / 09

Curatorial Statements

Click through (right arrow) for students' personal insights into the making of this exhibit.

Mireille Vargas, Digital Production

Modeling Mesoamerica is a digital exhibit that explores nine objects of Mesoamerican origin and emphasizes the importance of their origins and originality. Being involved in creating the structure of the online exhibit meant that my relation to Modeling Mesoamerica was different than the student curators, who are the content creators. As opposed to focusing on a set of models and diving deep into their history, motivations, and makers, as a technical developer I looked at the overall picture. How does each model relate to each other? How should the models and content be organized in the online exhibit?

Structure and relationships are just as important as the interpretive content being communicated. For example, a major component, the base map, conveys four stages of each model’s story: its current location at Stanford, its fabrication by a 20th-century artist, the current location of the original that inspired it, and where the original itself was created. In considering how to design this complex interactive, the distance between these locations stood out to me. That these models traversed the continent leaves a sense of wonder at their origins. When it came to grouping the models, we arranged them by model maker. This decision emphasizes the models’ creations. A different choice, like organizing them by ancient culture or country of origin, would have emphasized the ancient originals instead. But this exhibit is about the models, and so that’s where our focus stayed.

Spending the last few months thinking about structure, geography, and distance left these thoughts in mind. As you explore this interactive exhibit, you may consider different questions and come to different conclusions. What do you see when you explore the base map? What thoughts come to mind as you navigate the exhibit’s structure? What does the exhibit highlight for you? Was it successful? I think that’s the beauty of the individual. What you think will be different than my thoughts, and I am excited to learn what you think.

Daniel Guillen, Team Cornejo

In this exhibit, we examine a unique class of objects, that is, the works on display aren’t original, ancient objects from Mesoamerica but modern objects from the 1920s that replicate and try to “revitalize” the Mesoamerican originals on which they are based. By focusing on a unique class of artifacts and the artist that constructed them, our exhibit presents a unique perspective on questions of authenticity in replica objects. We offer a lens between two different worlds based in the classical Mesoamerican period and the modern era.

In the 1920s, architects and artists like Francisco Cornejo began to draw inspiration from the architecture and iconography of ancient Mesoamerican cultures, eventually forming what would be known as the Mayan Revival movement (Delpar 1996). In his studio in San Francisco, and later in Mexico, Cornejo was a passionate figure in the artistic fusion and promotion of Mesoamerican iconography. He incorporate the aesthetic elements into architecture designs such as the interiors and facade of the Mayan Theater in Los Angeles, developing replicas of original artifacts (like those that make up our exhibit), and even promoting other artist's documentaries and films on the subject (Cartuel 1921, Agrasánchez 2010). 

Our exhibit presents some of the replica models that Cornejo produced during this period and eventually sold to Stanford collections. We compare them with the Mesoamerican originals they were based on while highlighting aspects that are emblematic of Cornejo’s motivation in the context of the 1920s Mayan Revival. You’ll find four key pieces––a replica plaster model and series of plaster molds of the Stone of Tizoc, a 15th-century stone monument from the Aztec culture; and two plaster models of the Aztec Sun Stone, a monolithic 16th-century Aztec stone sculpture. 

Despite only having four pieces, constructing the exhibit has still been an intensive process, especially in regards to compiling and evaluating the available research around Cornejo. Because Cornejo lived and operated during the 1920s, largely in Mexico, it was a challenge to assemble different perspectives on Cornejo’s driving artistic motivation behind his use of Mesoamerican aesthetic and iconography. However, we were able to form a cohesive understanding through Cornejo’s reported actions (like his replica-making, teaching, and artistic celebrations in his San Francisco studio). We evaluate the artistic choices that Cornejo made and why he deviated from the original artifacts.

We worked to convey the multifaceted history of our objects, capturing both the era of the Maya Revival and Cornejo’s artistic touches while recognizing these models as a unique lens through which to consider the iconography and construction of the original Mesoamerican artifacts. Through examining objects that are closer to us in time than they are to their original artifacts, we gain a deeper insight into the culture of the era's past by uncovering how people viewed and interacted with ancient objects.

Caelin Marum, Team Cornejo

The exhibit's premise is that models of ancient objects from Mesoamerica are important in their dual representation: they are artifacts in their own rights, as well as documentation of original objects that exist elsewhere. We encourage you to reflect upon the unique provenance of the models in conversation with their relationships to the original artifacts and the source communities from which they derive. 

My team examined works likely created by the Mexican artist Francisco Cornejo in the 1920s. Cornejo was interested in ancient art history and practice (Several 2000). We studied his replica of the Stone of Tizoc, a scale cylindrical plaster model of the original monumental stone now displayed in Mexico City. The model features the same complex iconography glorifying the Aztec Tizoc, likely patron of the original stone (Townsend 1979). Cornejo reproduced imperfections of the original, which suggests that his interests extended beyond the purely artistic to the preservative. Accompanying that work are off-white plaster molds of the plaster model, which may have been used in the process of making that model itself or as molds for yet another replica.

The most interesting models we examined were replicas of the Aztec Sun Stone, an enormous basalt carving used to demonstrate the Aztec understanding of cosmological events (Klein 1976). One of Cornejo’s models replicates the original sunstone in miniature, including its unfinished base. It is too large and fragile to move easily and was probably for study or teaching. The second tells a more interesting tale. It is at first glance an equally faithful scaled-down version, but, upon closer inspection, it shows tweaks such as darkening of key features and efforts to exaggerate faces in the carving. Tellingly, it also has a hook to hang it on display. All these changes likely reflect an effort to make the piece less accurate but more aesthetically pleasing. 

What interests me about the contrast of Cornejo's replication between these objects is the way we can create a field of four different points in the colonial experience and gauge the progress which has been made between them in reconciling our relationship to that colonial status. The original pieces are deeply embedded within a colonial experience for Aztec peoples (the Sun Stone is even believed by some scholars to have been buried to ward off the destruction wrought by colonial violence, because it was immense enough to potentially be a sign of a coming apocalypse) (Mavrakis 2017). In sixteenth-century Mexico, Indigenous voices lacked authority even over their own creations. Cornejo's pieces reflect a colonialism that we are beginning to recognize, if not yet reckon with. We see Cornejo revitalizing Indigenous motifs and themes devalued in other artistic circles (Several 2000). At the same time he was appropriating, decontextualizing, and manipulating them.

Our team wrestled with questions of how Indigenous iconography ought to be interpreted when the ancient source community is impossible to contact, whether artistic license in the replication of objects should be seen as revitalization or disrespect, and what responsibility we have in admitting that literature widely believed to be definitive knowledge about those objects may be baseless. There is uncertainty in our understanding of these objects and it's important to allow ourselves to sit with that.

As we move forward in our understanding of these objects, there becomes a fourth plane in their relationship with colonialism. While at the present uncertainty runs deep, we can hope to work out understandings that decolonize, rather than remain embedded in colonial tradition. We can uplift indigenous perspectives, increase accessibility and understanding to broader audiences, and integrate the understandings of descendant source communities, rather than those of assumptions made by colonial scholars in centuries past.

Noah Bennett, Team Baker

Modeling Mesoamerica is unique in my experience as an exhibit that focuses on models of ancient artifacts. The pieces we put on display were all either plaster recreations or impressions of actual artifacts stemming from ancient Mesoamerica. But our goal was not to inform the public solely about those artifacts. Rather, the models themselves, created by three twentieth-century artists, were the primary focus of our study.

My team curated the collection of plaster models created by Museum Artist Mary Louise Baker: two at-scale replicas, of a vase from the Ulúa River Valley in Honduras and of a mask from the site of Teotihuacán in Mexico, and a scaled down table-top model of a stone stela from the Guatemalan site of Piedras Negras. All of these models are of artifacts that were art pieces in their own right, created by expert craftsmen as symbols of cultural wealth and prosperity. One of them, the Stela, was carved to tell stories of the ruler who ordered its creation. The others, although intricately decorated and utterly unique, have an ironic anonymity to them; some ancient family purchased them to distinguish themselves, yet now there is nothing that indicates to whom they belonged.

The challenge of creating an exhibit for models is deciding the amount of focus given to their originals. Baker’s models were painstakingly detailed and intended to capture the original pieces precisely as they were, including blemishes and damage. As a Museum Artist, our best assumption as to why she made them is that her models served the same purpose that photogrammetry and other 3D modeling serves today: to create a backup log of artifacts, and to allow people without access to the original pieces to still study them. It stands to reason that studying these models really means studying the original pieces they represent. However, our museum chose to study museums themselves. 

In these works we see not only the care that went into their creation, but also the value that museums ascribed to preservation through duplication. In their individual incongruous and at times neglectful history we see how, with more technologically advanced conservation techniques, the valuation of these models began to fade. In the selection of artifacts that were replicated we see hints to the priorities of both the model maker and the museum collection. We see which artifacts they chose to collect, which they decided should be sent elsewhere, and with which they decided they were unwilling to part.

Of course, as a modern institution handling Mesoamerican replicas, we grapple with questions of decolonization—exposing and shifting the power relationships of colonialism. The nature of the objects we put on display can be troubling. Baker’s models were not colonized. But Baker, a white American artist, produced these pieces from a culture, place, and time that was not her own. A key thing I learned through this process is that, in order to “decolonize,” one must have a detailed understanding of how a piece has participated in colonialism to begin with. 

We do know that when each one arrived in her museum’s collection, Mary Louise Baker worked diligently to recreate exactly what she saw, without allowing her preconceptions of the context of their creation to influence what she saw before her. Though she was an artist, in these models she traded in facts and concrete measurement, with an objective eye for the artifacts she saw before her. I believe that may be an admirable move to resist the inherent bias of her industry.

Kaylee Nok, Team Robertson

In Modeling Mesoamerica, we remodel the way that we look at Mesoamerica and our relationship to exhibition and representation of its culture. Stanford University Archeology Collections (SUAC) has worked together with students to examine models made of Mesoamerican artifacts by three different artists. Through our research and gradually increasing understanding of these models, we have learned more about the cultures and circumstances surrounding both the models and their original artifacts. 

My team worked closely with Merle Green Robertson’s ink rubbings of two Classic Maya stelae. As a student guide at the Cantor Center for Visual Arts, I have spent a lot of time in museums, thinking about museums, and questioning museums this past year. The museum is an institution with a history of colonialism and misrepresentation. The study of archaeology has similar faults, but examining the way that Robertson conducted her research has been enlightening in beginning to find ways to reform the practices previously used. 

Robertson’s method of rubbing was less abrasive on the objects themselves, allowed her to work without displacing objects, and the medium and practice left little room for her to add her own interpretations to the artifacts she worked on. Additionally, she received a great amount of help from locals and seemed to communicate well with them during her field seasons. So Robertson’s practice seems to be inclusive, but questions of invisible labor and how to authentically display our findings still linger. Is it enough that Robertson’s practice minimally affected the objects themselves? Should locals be more involved in the research of their own histories and cultures? How do we determine for ourselves what “authentic” is? 

Creating this exhibition has helped raise these questions for myself and my team, but the conversation doesn’t end with Modeling Mesoamerica. Our work may not provide answers to these questions, but it does begin to examine how we have previously modeled Mesoamerica, and how we might be able to properly represent such complex and beautiful histories in the future.

Aneri Patel, Team Robertson

My team delved into ink-on-paper rubbings of two ancient Maya stela, carved monuments created to commemorate important events. One rubing depicts part of Stela 2 from the site of Dos Pilas (now Petén, Guatemala),which marks Ucha'an K'in B'alam’s defeat of rival ruler Yich'aak B'alam of Seibal. The other, on three pieces of paper, shows Stela 15 from Nim li Punit (now southern Belize). It depicts a scattering ceremony. Merle Green Robertson made these rubbings by pressing dampened Japanese rice paper directly onto the carvings then daubing, by hand, with custom ink. She paved the way for future generations of female archeologists and is well known for this innovative non-destructive technique, which was adapted from an ancient Chinese rubbing method.

Robertson’s goal was to preserve cultural history and provide opportunities for research. She raced against the clock of vandalism, looting, and erosion. These models expose wide audiences to Maya creations and disseminate knowledge that would otherwise have been lost to natural degradation or looting. Without the need to remove the original artifact, rubbings provide a way to accomplish this without disturbing the site of origin and the wishes of its original creator and locals.

At the same time, the ways these models were made, and how they are experienced by different viewers, emphasize the need to consider authenticity critically. The rubbings were created directly from originals, and thus are accurate to a certain degree. They are also independent originals in their own right, as they incorporate the artistic choices of the model maker. For example, the rubbing of Stela 2 only represents a center portion of the entire monument. 

Deciding what details to rub and how to rub them was Robertson’s personal vision, which played a crucial role shaping all later interpretations (both of the rubing and of teh originals they represent). This is notable because the tools with which I have approached the analysis of models can be extrapolated to numerous other aspects of life. The beauty is the realization that the history captured in these artifacts is able to provide for audiences even beyond their limited physical existence. Thanks to model makers like Merle Green Robertson, the world that exists within these carvings will in some shape or form survive the test of time.

Our goal in curating this exhibit was to honor Robertson’s legacy by producing a platform for her rubbings and by digitizing this content, we now add an additional layer of complexity to the legacy of Maya creators. I began with very little understanding of the ways in which a model can take on a life of its own. I developed an appreciation for the care that goes into the production of every piece we encounter. I was surprised by the depth of thought required to scratch the surface of all that these models represent and provide.

In consuming these pieces, I hope audiences are thoughtful about assessing the underlying bias that may be present in reproductions and approach the consumption of knowledge with careful consideration. Audiences may strive to constantly ask themselves why the creator made certain choices, how this is meant to shape the views of consumers, and subsequently use this process to embark on their own journey of discovery.

Amy Schoch, Team Robertson

This exhibit of Mesoamerican models is unique not only in how it displays models of other artifacts, but also in the way it lends itself to an online format. I hope that our audience will take a fresh look at how models are made and used by the archaeology community. They hold a unique position as both replicas of artifacts and also artifacts in themselves, and there is much to be learned from these rubbings and plaster models. In this era of ethical unease about museum artifacts, models are a great tool for studying and presenting artifacts without removing them from their original locations and cultures. It is also important, however, that we give proper acknowledgement to those who created these models, imparting their vision of what the original looked like.

Team Robertson investigated two rubbings done by Merle Greene Robertson. My work focused on the three overlapping rubbings that comprise the Stela 15 model. The relatively two-dimensional nature of the rubbings lended themselves well to online study—they are too big to display in person and collaging them together would cause damage. Because the rubbings were made in the later 20th century, we were able to dive deeply into Robertson’s own life, including her autobiography, to learn as much as we could.

I valued that we learned not only about the models and originals, but also about the life and experience of the artist who created them. It allowed us to step into Robertson’s shoes to think about why and how these rubbings were made and what value they have to our community. Because of this exhibit, I’ve also developed a curiosity about humanity’s obsession with stone monuments. They are found in many ancient cultures, and the ritual depicted in Stela 15 was clearly important to be painstakingly carved into stone. Yet here we are nearly 2000 years later, still making replicas of it and learning from it.

Aside from the physical objects, the process of creating this exhibit taught me a lot about archaeological processes. Our exhibit highlights those who help Robertson make her models behind the scenes. It is important to acknowledge the local and descendant communities who supported her and whose work has often been forgotten. We bring a decolonizing view to how archaeological work is done and how artifacts are shown.  

Researching Robtertson, we learned that she didn’t start her career as an archaeologist until later in life. As a rising senior who is close to starting down a foreign path, this led to lots of introspection about how life can take you in many different directions; we can always learn new skills and try new jobs. This is just one of the many lessons I have explored in making this exhibit. I hope that this selection of artifacts fills you with adventurous spirit, as it did for me, and also gives you cause to think about why we as humanity make models, from stone depictions of life events, to paper rubbings, to photographs and online exhibits.

Maria Viteri, Team Robertson

Archaeological exhibits center physical artifacts. Our exhibit challenges this traditional design in two ways: 1) through its virtual medium, and 2) through displaying and discussing models of artifacts rather than their originals. In this exhibit, there are multiple steps between the original artifact and you, the viewer—although it’s easy to forget. Some models are more faithful to their originals than others, demonstrating that there is artistic license even in recreation.

You might look at a small plaster version of the Aztec Sun Stone but find yourself thinking only of the massive ancient monument it represents. We ask you to refocus on the model itself and explore how both model and original relate to themes of authenticity and originality. In this way, the models have two “auras”: that of the original artifact and that of the model itself (Cameron 2007). And when you interact with the digital 3D rendering of that plaster model, perhaps you’ll experience its virtual aura, too. 

My team analyzed rubbings made by Merle Green Robertson of two Maya stelae from what is now Belize and Guatemala. Stelae often include scenes and language glyphs that immortalize important ceremonies, historic events, and people. The monuments may even have been viewed as stone embodiments of both the moments and the people engraved on their surfaces (Stuart 1996). Stela 2 from Dos Pilas, Guatemala, and Stela 15 from Nim li Punit, Belize, both document Maya rulers engaged in symbolically important actions. These people and events were preserved for future generations first in the sandstone of the stelae and later by the rice paper and ink used by Robertson.

Models are typically viewed as reflections or imitations of original objects. I believe they are not only artifacts in their own right (Born 2002), but also invaluable tools in decolonizing museum collections. Museum collections are composed of objects taken from their places of origin, largely without the consent of descendent communities (Sermeño 2017). Many museums work to decolonize their exhibits by discussing this legacy. Models such as those presented here may offer an interesting partial-solution. The rubbings made by Robertson reproduced the stories and engravings of Maya stelae for display and study but did not require the removal of the artifacts from their places of origin. Both Stela 2 and Stela 15 remain at their original sites today. So while Robertson’s rubbings allow us to closely study the engravings of these ancient works, the community surrounding Nim li Punit care for the original monument in their own local museum.

There is also invisible labor in the creation of these models. Pictures and stories in Robertson’s autobiography, Never in Fear, show the significant involvement of Indigenous people in making these rubbings. We highlight some of their roles in our text, however, there are many more people involved in the creation of these models whose labor remains invisible. While you admire the work of the model makers included in this exhibit, I hope you also think about the people behind the scenes whose stories aren’t being told.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoy the exhibit! 

Acknowledgements

This virtual exhibit features artifacts from the  Stanford University Archaeology Collections  and was developed during the spring 2020 course Museum Cultures: Material Representation in the Past and Present, Christina J. Hodge, Instructor. Digital production support was provided by the  Center for Spatial and Textual Analysis (CESTA)  with financial support from the  Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education . Digitization was undertaken by the  Stanford Libraries Digital Production Group .

STUDENTS

Curators
  • Noah Bennett
  • Sophia Chen
  • Clementine Chou
  • Daniel Guillen
  • Tyler Johnson
  • Caelin Marum
  • Shayna Naranjo
  • Kaylee Nok
  • Aneri Patel
  • Neil Patel
  • Amy Shoch
  • Elizabeth Spaeth
  • Charles Tsao
  • Maria Viteri
Digital production
  • Mireille Vargas
Research assistant
  • Medora Rorick

INSTITUTIONS

Stanford University Archaeology Collections
  • Sara Godin, Christina J. Hodge, Suzy Huizinga, Veronica Jacobs-Edmondson
Stanford University
  • Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections: Andria Olson
  • Cantor Arts Center: Peg Brady, Kate Holohan
  • Center for Interdisciplinary Digital Research (CIDR): Peter Broadwell, Claudia Engel
  • Center for Spatial and Textual Analysis (CESTA): Amanda Bergado, Giovanna Ceserani, GP Lebourdais
  • Rumsey Map Center: Salim Mohammed, Andrea Renner, Rueiyun Wang
  • Stanford Archaeology Center: Olivia Bethel, Emily Bishop, Ian Hodder, Jessica Lopez, Van-Anh Nguyen
  • Stanford Geospatial Center: David Medeiros
  • Stanford University Libraries: Tony Calavano, Dinah Handel, Michael Olson, Regina Roberts, Astrid Smith, Wayne Vanderkuil
Off-campus
  • Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco: Christina Hellmich, Hillary Olcott
  • Fowler Museum at UCLA: Matthew H. Robb
  • El Pueblo de Los Ángeles Historical Monument: Emily Wooten 
  • National Museum of Natural History: Jane Walsh
  • Okinawa Institute of Science & Technology: Anya Dani
  • University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology: Alessandro Pezzati and students

Bibliography

  • Adams, Richard E.W. 2005. Prehistoric Mesoamerica. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Agrasánchez, Rogelio. 2010. Guillermo Calles: A Biography of the Actor and Mexican Cinema Pioneer. Jefferson: McFarland & Co.
  • American Philosophical Society. 1830. “Mexican Antiquities.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series 3: 510–511. 
  • Andrews, E. Wyllys. 2011. “A Celebration of the Life of Merle Greene Robertson.” The PARI Journal 12(1): 1–8.
  • Atanassova, Vassia. 2015. “Tizoc Stone, National Anthropology Museum, Mexico City-2.” Filmed July 21, 2015 at the National Anthropology Museum, Mexico City, Mexico. Wikimedia Commons. Video, 1:28. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tizoc_Stone,_National_Anthropology_Museum,_Mexico_City-2.webm.
  • Azarova, Mayya. 2016. “Maya Jade T-shape Pendants Within Mesoamerican Wind-Jewel Tradition.” MA thesis, University of California, San Diego.
  • Barker, Alex W. 2010. “Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums.” Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 293–308.
  • Barnes, William. 2017. “Aztec Art, Time and Cosmovisión.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Berlo, Janet Catherine. 1982. Artistic Specialization at Teotihuacan: The Ceramic Incense Burner. Palo Alto: Peek Pub.
  • Berryman, Carrie Anne. 2007. “Captive Sacrifice and Trophy Taking Among the Ancient Maya.” In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, edited by Richard J. Chacon and David H. Dye, 377–399. Boston: Springer. 
  • Born, Pamela. 2002. “The Canon Is Cast: Plaster Casts in American Museum and University Collections.” Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 21, no. 2 (Fall): 8–13. 
  • Braswell, Geoffrey E. 2017. “Recent Discoveries in the Classic Maya Palace Complex of Nim li Punit, Belize.” Journal of Field Archaeology 42, no. 2: 69–81.
  • British Museum. “The Ancient Maya at the British Museum: A Brief History of the British Museum’s Fascinating Collections.” Google Arts & Culture. Accessed May 29, 2020. https://g.co/arts/dLxJd67N7PoTGBtm6.
  • Bruchac, Margaret. 2014. “Decolonization in Archaeological Theory.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, 2069–2077. New York: Springer. 
  • Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 2009. “Mesoamerica.” In The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology, edited by Chris Gosden, Barry Cunliffe, and Rosemary A. Joyce, 1–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cameron, Fiona. 2007. “Beyond the Cult of the Replicant: Museums and Historical Digital Objects - Traditional Concerns, New Discourses.” In Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse, edited by Fiona Cameron and Sarah Kenderdine, 49–75. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Cameron, Fiona. 2010. “Museum Collections, Documentation, and Shifting Knowledge Paradigms.” In Museums in a Digital Age, edited by Ross Parry, 80–95. London & New York: Routledge. 
  • Cartwright, Mark. 2013. “Sun Stone.” Ancient History Encyclopedia, September 4, 2013. https://www.ancient.eu/Sun_Stone.
  • Cartwright, Mark, 2013. “The Tizoc Stone.” Ancient History Encyclopedia, September 28, 2013. https://www.ancient.eu/article/609/the-tizoc-stone.
  • Cartuel, D. 1921. “The Aztec Studio, San Francisco.” Art and Archaeology: An Illustrated Monthly Magazine 12: 40, published by The Archaeological Society of Washington. July-December 1921.
  • Christie, Jessica Joyce. 2005. “The Stela as a Cultural Symbol in Classic and Contemporary Maya Societies.” Ancient Mesoamerica 16, no. 2: 277–289.
  • Cowgill, George L. 2015. Ancient Teotihuacan: Early Urbanism in Central Mexico (Case Studies in Early Societies). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Danien, Elin C. 2006. “Paintings of Maya Pottery: The Art and Career of M. Louise Baker.” The Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. http://www.famsi.org/reports/03029/03029Danien01.pdf.
  • Darlington, H S. 1931. “The “Fire-Snakes” of the Aztec Calendar Stone.” Anthropos 26, no. 5/6 (December): 637–646.
  • Delpar, Helen. 1992. The Enormous Vogue of Things Mexican: Cultural Relations Between the United States and Mexico, 1920-1935. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  • Dudley, Sandra. 2012. “Materiality Matters: Experiencing the Displayed Object.” University of Michigan Working Papers in Museum Studies 8: 1–9.
  • Escobedo, Héctor L. “Arroyo de Piedra: Sociopolitical Dynamics of a Secondary Center in the Petexbatun Region.” Ancient Mesoamerica 8, no. 2: 307–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Evans, Susan Toby, and David L. Webster, eds. 2013. Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology and Culture History (3rd Ed.). London: Thames & Hudson.
  • Fahsen, Federico. 2002. “Rescuing the Origins of Dos Pilas Dynasty: A Salvage of Hieroglyphic Stairway #2, Structure L5-49.” The Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. http://www.famsi.org/reports/01098/01098Fahsen01.pdf.
  • Fash, Barbara W. 2004. “Cast Aside: Revisiting the Plaster Cast Collections from Mesoamerica.” Visual Resources 20, no.1: 3–17.
  • Fauvelle, Mikael D.H., Megan R. Pitcavage, and Geoffrey E. Braswell. 2012. “Dynastic Capital, Minor Center, or Both? Recent Investigations at Nim li Punit, Toledo District, Belize.” Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 9: 51–59.
  • Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. “In Memoriam: Merle Greene Robertson, 1913-2011.” Accessed May 12, 2020. https://www.famsf.org/blog/memoriam-merle-greene-robertson-1913–2011.
  • Getty Museum, “The Aztec Calendar Stone.” The Getty Research Institute, accessed 4 May 2020. https://www.getty.edu/research/exhibitions_events/exhibitions/obsidian_mirror/aztec_calendar_stone.html.
  • Google. 2020. “Yaxchilan Lintel 24, London, United Kingdom.” Google Arts & Culture. https://artsandculture.google.com/streetview/nwGUv6jWUJzDhQ.
  • Gordon, B. Belisa. 2007. “Celebrating Dr. Merle Greene Robertson.” Yucatan Adventure Geo-Travel Guide. Last modified August 2016. http://www.yucatanadventure.com.mx/merle.htm.
  • Gordon, George Byron. 1898. Researches in the Uloa Valley, Honduras: Report on Explorations by the Museum, 1896–97 4 no. 1, Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.
  • Gordon, George Byron. 1916. “A Contribution to the Archaeology of Middle America.” In Holmes Anniversary Volume: Anthropological Essays Presented to William Henry Holmes in Honor of his Seventieth Birthday, December 1, 1916, edited by Frederick Webb Hodge, 137–141. Washington, DC: J. W. Bryan Press.
  • Gordon, George Byron. 1920. “A Marble Vase from the Ulua River Valley.” Art and Archaeology 9: 141–145.
  • Gordon, George Byron. 1921. "The Ulua Marble Vases.” The Museum Journal 12, no. 1: 53–74. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, University Museum.
  • Greene, Merle. 1966. “Classic Maya Rubbings.” Expedition Magazine 9, no. 1, 29–39. Philadelphia: Penn Museum.
  • Graulick, Michel. 1992. “The Stone of the Sun.” In The Aztec Calendar Stone, edited by Khristaan D. Villela and Mary Ellen Miller. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2010. 
  • Guenter, Stanley Paul. 2003. “The Inscriptions of Dos Pilas Associated with B’ajlaj Chan K’awill.” Mesoweb. www.mesoweb.com/features/guenter/DosPilas.html. 
  • Gunckel, Colin, Jan C. Horak, and Lisa Jarvinen, eds. 1969. Cinema Between Latin America and Los Angeles: Origins to 1960. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
  • Gunckel, Lewis W. 1897. “Analysis of the Deities of Mayan Inscriptions.” American Anthropologist 10, no. 12: 397–412.
  • Hammond, Norman, Sheena Howarth, and Richard R. Wilk. 1999. The Discovery, Exploration, and Monuments of Nim Li Punit, Belize. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research.
  • Hassig, Ross. 2001. “Reinterpreting Aztec Perspectives.” Time, History, and Belief in Aztec and Colonial Mexico, 48–69. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Hogan, C. Michael. 2007. “Nim Li Punit Stela.” Photographed January 2007 in Belize. Wikimedia Commons. Image. Accessed 5 May, 2020. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nim_Li_Punit_stela.jpg.
  • Houston, Stephen D. 1993. Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas: Dynastic Politics of the Classic Maya. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Hull, Kerry, and Rob Fergus. 2009. “Eagles in Mesoamerican Thought and Mythology.” Reitaku Review 15: 83–134.
  • Jones, Carolyn. 2011. "Merle Greene Robertson, key Mayan researcher, dies." SFGate, May 28, 2011. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Merle-Greene-Robertson-key-Mayan-researcher-dies-2370287.php.
  • Joyce, Rosemary A. 2011. “Recognizing Religion In Mesoamerican Archaeology: Maya.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, edited by Timothy Insoll, 1–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
  • Joyce, Rosemary. 2013. “When Is Authentic? Situating Authenticity in the Itineraries of Objects.” In Creating Authenticity: Authentication Processes in Ethnographic Museums, edited by Alexander Geurds and Laura Van Broekhoven, 39–57. Leiden: Sidestone Press. 
  • Juárez, Sara Isabel García. 2016. El señorío de Piedras Negras hacia finales del Clásico Tardío: guerras y conflictos de poder. Ponencia presentada durante el X Congreso Internacional de Mayistas y ganadora del primer lugar del Premio Alberto Ruz Lhuillier, 27 de Junio de 2016, Izamal, Yucatán, México.
  • Kelly, Joye. 1996. An Archaeological Guide of Northern Central America: Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Klein, Cecelia F. 1976. “The Identity of the Central Deity on the Aztec Calendar Stone.” The Art Bulletin 58, no. 1 (March): 1–12. 
  • Koontz, Rex. 2012. “Art of the Classic Period.” In The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology, edited by Deborah L. Nichols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kurjack, Edward. "In Memoriam: Merle Greene Robertson." Institute of Maya Studies. Accessed May 22, 2020. https://www.instituteofmayastudies.org/index.php/features/archaeologists/merle-greene-robertson.
  • Landry-Montes, Khristin Nicole, and Jeff Karl Kowalski. 2016. “On Practices of Inclusion and Exclusion: Exhibiting Native American, Maya, and African Objects at the Field Museum and Art Institute of Chicago.” The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum 10, no. 2: 11–36.
  • López Luján, Leonardo. 2006. “El adiós y triste queja del gran Calendario Azteca.” In Arqueología Mexicana, edited by López Luján, Leonardo, 78–83. México City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Editorial Raíces, 2017.
  • Luke, Christina. 2011. “Materiality and Sacred Landscapes: Ulúa Style Marble Vases in Honduras.” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 21, no.1: 114–129.
  • Luke, Christina, and Robert H. Tykot. 2007. “Celebrating Place Through Luxury Craft Production: Travesia and Ulua Style Marble Vases.” Ancient Mesoamerica 18, no. 2 (Fall): 315–328. 
  • MacCurdy, George Grant. 1910. “An Aztec “Calendar Stone” in Yale University Museum.” Ancient Archaeology 12, no. 4 (October-December): 481–496.
  • Maiquez, Anna Marie A. 2007. “The Iconography of Power: A Study of Portrayals of Classic Maya Rulers.” MA Thesis, California State University, Dominguez Hills.
  • Maler, Teobert. 1901 and 1903. Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley: Report of Explorations for the Museum, 1898–1900. 2 vols, Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology.
  • Markman, Peter T., and Robert H. Markman. 1989. Masks of the Spirit: Image and Metaphor in Mesoamerica. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Mata, Juan Carlos Fonseca. 2019. “Piedra del Sol en MNA.” Photographed June 28, 2019 at the National Anthropology Museum, Mexico City, Mexico. Wikimedia Commons. Image. Accessed May 29, 2020. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Piedra_del_Sol_en_MNA.jpg.
  • Mavrakis, Emily. 2017. “Ominosa interpretación de la piedra del calendario Azteca.” Florida Museum. Last modified March 27, 2017. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/ominosa-interpretacion-de-la-piedra-del-calendario-azteca/.
  • Millon, Rene. 1960. “The Beginnings of Teotihuacan.” American Antiquity 26, no. 1 (July): 1–10.
  • Miller, Mary. 2012. “Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Pre-Columbian Art in the American Museum...and in the Academy.” Journal of Art Historiography 7 (December): 6–13.
  • Miller, Mary Ellen, and Megan E. O’Neil. 2014. Maya Art and Architecture (2nd Ed.). London: Thames & Hudson.
  • Miller, Mary. 2017. “When Art Dies, Art Lives.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27, no. 4: 671–677. 
  • Montgomery, John. 2000. Montgomery Drawings Collection. http://research.famsi.org/montgomery.html. 
  • Morton, Shawn, and Meaghan Peuramaki-Brown. 2019. Seeking Conflict in Mesoamerica: Operational, Cognitive, and Experiential Approaches. Louisville: University Press of Colorado.
  • Museo Nacional de Antropología. Colección online. https://mna.inah.gob.mx/salas.php?sala=6.
  • Museo Nacional de México. 1877. Anales del Museo Nacional de México. México: El Museo.
  • National Museum of the American Indian. “Teotihuacán Mask.” Infinity of Nations: Art and History in the Collections of the National Museum of the American Indian. Online exhibit. Accessed May 27, 2020. https://americanindian.si.edu/static/exhibitions/infinityofnations/meso-carib/026607.html. 
  • Nebel, Carlos. 1840. Spanish language edition. Viaje Pintoresco y Arqueolójico sobre la Parte Más Interesante de la República Mejicana, en los Años Transcurridos desde 1829 hasta 1834. Mexico.
  • Ocampo Aurora M. et al. 1997. Diccionario De Escritores Mexicanos: Siglo XX: Desde Las Generaciones Del Ateneo y Novelistas De La Revolución Hasta Nuestros Día. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
  • O’Neil, Megan E. 2012. Engaging Ancient Maya Sculpture at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Orozco, Leticia López. 2011. “Salvador Almaraz y su epopeya mural.” Crónicas. El Muralismo, Producto de la Revolución Mexicana, en América, no 14. https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/46740. 
  • Orozco y Berra, Manuel. 1877. “El cuauhxicalli de Tizoc.” Anales del Museo Nacional de México 1: 3–38.
  • Palka, Joel Wade. 1995. “Classic Maya Social Inequality and the Collapse at Dos Pilas, Peten, Guatemala.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University.
  • “Piedra del Sol.” 1915. Photographed in 1915 at the National Anthropology Museum, Mexico City. Russian Empire Nature and People. Image. Accessed June 1, 2020.
  • Pitman, Bonnie, ed. 2012. "Mask, possibly of Tlaloc (1979.2)." In Dallas Museum of Art: A Guide to the Collection, 50. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Pitts, Mark. 2011. “A Brief History of Piedras Negras as Told by the Ancient Maya: History Revealed in Maya Glyphs.” The Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. http://www.famsi.org/research/pitts/pitts_piedras_negras_history.
  • Prager, Christian M., and Geoffrey E. Braswell. 2016. “Maya Politics and Ritual: An Important New Hieroglyphic Text on a Carved Jade from Belize.” Ancient Mesoamerica 27, no. 2: 267–278.
  • Rice, Prudence M. 1999. “Rethinking Classic Lowland Maya Pottery Censers.” Ancient Mesoamerica 10, no. 1: 25–50.
  • Robb, Matthew, ed. 2017. Teotihuacan: City of Water, City of Fire. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Robb, Mathew H. 2019. “The 500 Faces of Teotihuacan: Masks and the Formation of Mesoamerican Canons.” In Canons and Values: Ancient to Modern (Issues & Debates), edited by Larry Silver and Kevin Terraciano, 114–137. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. 
  • Robertson, Merle Greene. 2003. “Periodic Interview Series: Merle Greene-Robertson.” Interview by Ed Barnhart. Maya Exploration Center, December 2003. https://www.mayaexploration.org/pdf/interview_q2_merle.pdf.
  • Robertson, Merle Greene, and Peter R. Mathews. 2006. Never in Fear. San Francisco: The Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.
  • Rose, Timothy R., and Jane MacLaren Walsh. 2018. “The Stone Faces of Teotihuacan: Insights Into Their Use, Manufacture and Sources.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 22: 299–312.
  • Schele, Linda, and Nikolai G. Valladolid. 1994. “Notes on the Chronology of Piedras Negras.” Texas Notes on Precolumbian Art, Writing, and Culture 70, no. 1 (August): 1-4.
  • Schele, Linda. 2000. “The Linda Schele Drawings Collection.” Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. http://ancientamericas.org/collection/browse/29.
  • Schwartz, David A. 2017. “John Alden Mason: Life of a Renaissance Anthropologist.” Expedition 59, no. 1 (Spring): 40–47.
  • Several, Michael. 2000. “Francisco Cornejo Biographical Information.” Public Art in Los Angeles. January, 2000. http://www.publicartinla.com/art_buildings/cornejo_bio.html.
  • Sharer, Robert J., and Loa P. Traxler. 2006. The Ancient Maya. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Smith, Michael E. 2012. The Aztecs. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Solis, Felipe. 2005. The Aztec Empire. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications.
  • Soustelle, Jacques. 1970. Daily Life of the Aztecs, on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest. Translated by Patrick O’Brian. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Stanford University Archaeology Collections. Stanford University Archaeology Collections Online. Accessed May 26, 2020. https://stanford.pastperfectonline.com.
  • Stanford University Libraries. Stanford Digital Repository. Accessed May 27, 2020. purl.stanford.edu.
  • Stuart, David Strickland. 1995. A Study of Maya Inscriptions. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.
  • Stuart, David. 1996. "Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelae in Ancient Maya Ritual and Representation." RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 29/30 (Spring-Autumn): 148–171.
  • Stuart, David, and Nikolai Grube. 2000. A New Inscription from Nim Li Punit, Belize (Una nueva Inscripción de Nim Li Punit, Belize). Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research.
  • The Belize Collection. “Nim Li Punit and Lamanai: Maya Ruins off the Beaten Path: Marta's Adventures in Belize - Part 10.” The Belize Collection Blog. Accessed May 27, 2020.
  • Toscano, Salvador. 1944. Arte Precolombino de México y de la América Central. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
  • Townsend, Richard. 1979. “State and Cosmos in the Art of Tenochtitlan.” Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no. 20: 1–78.
  • Umberger, Emily. 1981. “The Structure of Aztec History.” Archaeoastronomy: The Bulletin of the Center for Archaeoastronomy 4, no. 4 (Oct–Dec): 10–18.
  • University of Pennsylvania Libraries. “M. Louise Baker Papers.” Penn Museum Archives, call no. 1107. Accessed May 29, 2020. http://hdl.library.upenn.edu/1017/d/ead/upenn_museum_PUMu1107
  • University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Penn Museum Collections Online. Accessed May 26, 2020. https://www.penn.museum/collections.
  • Urcid, Javier. 2010. “Valued Possessions: Materiality and Aesthetics in Western and Southern Mesoamerica.” In Ancient Mexican Art at Dumbarton Oaks: Central Highlands, Southwestern Highlands, Gulf Lowlands, edited by Susan Toby, 127-220. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 
  • Villasana, Carlos, and Ruth Gómez. 2019. “El rancho de los artistas de la Colonia del Valle.” El Universal, August 21, 2019.
  • Walsh, Jane M. 2003. “Máscaras teotihuacanas. De Teotihuacan a Filadelfia en 1830.” Arqueología Mexicana 64: 62–64.
  • Wanyerka, Phillip J. 2003. “The Southern Belize Epigraphic Project: The Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Southern Belize.” The Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. http://www.famsi.org/reports/00077/wanyerka_full.pdf. 
  • Wright, Mark Alan. 2011. “A Study of Classic Maya Rulership.” PhD diss., University of California, Riverside.

Credits

Stanford University Archaeology Collections. Originally published 23 October 2020. © Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305. All images are by the  Stanford University Archaeology Collections  of the Stanford Archaeology Center unless otherwise noted and are intended for educational purposes only. All student work is used with permission.

Tribal Land Acknowledgement: The Stanford University community recognizes that the present-day  Muwekma Ohlone Tribe , with an enrolled Bureau of Indian Affairs documented membership of over 550, is comprised of all of the known surviving American Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Dolores, during the advent of the Hispano-European empire into Alta California; and who are the successors and living members of the sovereign, historic, previously Federally Recognized Verona Band of Alameda County. Furthermore, the Stanford University community recognizes that the university is established within the Puichon Thámien Ohlone-speaking tribal ethnohistoric territory, which based upon the unratified federal treaties of 1851–1852, includes the unceded ancestral lands of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of the enrolled Muwekma lineages are descended from direct ancestors from the Thámien Ohlone tribal territory whose ancestors were baptized and had affiliation with Missions Dolores and Santa Clara. The Stanford University community also recognizes the importance of this land to the indigenous Muwekma Ohlone people of this region, and consistent with our principles of community and diversity strives to be good stewards on behalf of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe whose land we occupy.

Thumbnails of SUAC's Mesoamerican models collection taken from our  online database. 

Map of the region known as Mesoamerica, which spans central Mexico through northern Costa Rica. Left: imposed geopolitical boundaries and names. Right: Overlay of Indigenous territories. Courtesy  Native Land .

Ceramic, paint (49 x 18 cm) Modern (ca. 1921 CE) Francisco Cornejo, European Mexican Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Purchased by Stanford University from Francisco Cornejo in 1921 with Jane L. Stanford funds. Object ID 14075

left to right: piece of the mold of the model; model; original

Plaster mold fragment (right-most in digitally assembled composite image; 16 x 20 x 4 cm) Object ID T2016.45.3 lll lll

Plaster mold (191 x 22 x 4 cm assembled) Modern (ca. 1921 CE) Francisco Cornejo, European Mexican Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016 and 2018. Likely acquired by Stanford University from Francisco Cornejo in or around 1921. Object ID's T2016.45.3; T2016.45.1, T2016.45.2, T2018.5.2, T2018.5.3, T2018.5.4

left to right: piece of the mold of the model; model; original

Plaster, paint (60 x 24 cm) Modern (ca. 1921 CE) Francisco Cornejo, European Mexican Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Likely acquired by Stanford University from Francisco Cornejo in or around 1921. Object ID T2016.114.1

left to right: model plaque; model; original

Plaster, paint, metal (28 x 2 cm) Modern (ca. 1921 CE)? Francisco Cornejo?, European Mexican? Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Possibly acquired by Stanford University from Francisco Cornejo in or around 1921. Object ID T2016.41.1

left to right: model plaque; model; original

Front view of the Piedra del Sol, ca. 1885. Courtesy of the National Photo Library, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History), Mexico (MID 77_20140827-134500: 674418; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Plaster, paint (24 x 26 x 16 cm) Modern (mold 1914–1936 CE; cast post-1914 CE) M. (Mary) Louise Baker, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Acquired by Stanford University on an unknown date. Object ID T2016.40.1

left to right: model; original

Plaster, paint (15 x 16 x 8 cm) Modern (mold 1926–1936 CE; cast post-1926 CE) M. (Mary) Louise Baker, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Acquired by Stanford University on an unknown date. Object ID T2016.39.1

left to right: model; original

Plaster, paint (31 x 12 x 8 cm) Modern (mold 1934 CE; cast post-1934 CE) M. (Mary) Louise Baker, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2016. Acquired by Stanford University on an unknown date. Object ID T2016.46.1

left to right: model; original

Rubbing of the carved stone Stela 2, Dos Pilas Ink, Paper (94 x 183 cm) Modern (1971 CE) Merle Greene Robertson, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Donated to Stanford University by Barbara Metzler in 1984. Object ID 84.434/T2018.5.106

left to right: model; original

Photographs of front and back of a jade wind pendant from Nim li Punit excavation. Taken in 2015 by Geoffrey E. Braswell during the Toledo Regional Interaction Project in Belize (Braswell 2017:Fig. 9B).

Set of three rubbings of the carved stone Stela 15, Nim li Punit Ink, paper (95 cm x 185 cm assembled) Modern (1983–1984 CE) Merle Greene Robertson, European American Stanford University Archaeology Collections, Stanford, California, USA Found in collections in 2018. Likely donated to Stanford University by Merle Greene Robertson or her son, David Greene, in the 1980s. Object ID T2018.5.107

left to right: model; original

Photograph of the Mayan Theater in Los Angeles, California. Francisco Cornejo designed this decorative facade in “Mayan Revival” style by combining Maya and Aztec motifs. Taken by Carol M. Highsmith in 2005. Courtesy Library of Congress (LC-DIG-pplot-13725; public domain).

Illustration from the Catalogue of Summer Session The California School of Fine Arts San Francisco, 1921. Francisco Cornejo taught there and organized public “Aztec Evening Programs” at his Aztec Studio. He doubtlessly designed this image of Aztec motifs: the cactus on a rock in water (symbol of the capital city Tenochtitlan); sacred mountain; eagles; and a sun with calendrical markings like those on the Sun Stone and Stone of Tizoc.

Photograph of artist M. Louise Baker creating a painting of a Maya vase in Guatemala City. Taken in 1931. Courtesy of the Penn Museum (Image 176327).

Photograph of unidentified men drying rubbings from Altar de Sacrificios, Guatemala. Taken by Merle Greene Robertson in 1969. Courtesy of The Latin American Library, Tulane University (Merle Greene Robertson Collection 133, Manuscripts Collection).

Photograph of a group of unidentified (but smiling!) people photographing the enormous El Palmar altar stone rubbing at Robertson's friend's tennis court in Mérida, Mexico. Taken in 1978. We believe Robertson is crouching at the lower right. Courtesy of The Latin American Library, Tulane University (Merle Greene Robertson Collection 133, Manuscripts Collection).

Lithograph of the sides of the Stone of Tizoc carved by an unidentified Mexica (Aztec) creator(s), Late Postclassic (1481–1486 CE). Tizoc is the figure in the top left with the largest headdress and also may be the victor in every scene. Drawn by architect Carlos Nebel in or around 1836 (Nebel 1840:[52]).

Detail from the manuscript Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España (General History of the Things of New Spain), known as the Florentine Codex, showing ritualized combat on a monumental round stone similar to the Stone of Tizoc. Created between 1545 and 1577 by Nahua (Aztec) men working for and with Bernardino de Sahagún, a Spanish Franciscan friar. Courtesy Florence, The Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, ms. .Med. Palat 219, f. 315r. Reproduced with permission of MiBACT. Further reproduction by any means is prohibited (Palat. 218-220, Book IX, p. 17).

Photograph of the Stone of Tizoc carved by an unidentified Mexica (Aztec) creator(s), Late Postclassic (1481–1486 CE). Taken by Abel Briquet, 1883 to 1895. Courtesy Getty Digital Collections (ID Number gri_mexico_96_r_142_35).

Engraving of the Sun Stone carved by an unidentified Mexica (Aztec) creator(s), Late Postclassic (1502–1520 CE). Illustration for Antonio León y Gama’s book Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790 (Historical and Chronological Description of the Two Stones Which were Discovered in 1790 During the Rebuilding of the Main Plaza in Mexico) (1792:pl. II).

Detail, illustration of the Aztec ruler Moctezuma II, who commissioned the Sun Stone. Created ca. 1541 by Nahua (Aztec) men working for and with a Spanish Franciscan friars. From the manuscript known as the Codex Mendoza. Copyright Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford (MS. Arch. Selden. A. 1, fol.15v; CC-BY-NC 4.0).

Front view of the Piedra del Sol, ca. 1885. Courtesy of the National Photo Library, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History), Mexico (MID 77_20140827-134500: 674418; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Photograph of a stone face by an unidentified Teotiuacano creator, Terminal Classic/Late Preclassic (ca. 300–600 CE). This 1944 image is from Manuel Touissant’s Arte Precolombino de México y de la Américan Central (1944:296). Baker modeled this face between 1926 and 1936. Her work likely helped raise its prominence, seen by its inclusion in this landmark publication.

Photograph of a stone face by an unidentified Teotiuacano creator, Classic (ca. 200–600 CE). It was found at Teotihuacan and is in the same distinctive style as the University of Pennsylvania mask modeled by Baker. The use of green stone, proportions of the face, and flatness of the features support this association. Courtesy Conde de Penasco Collection, National Museum of the American Indian (Object Number 2/6607).

Photograph of a marble vase carved by an unidentified Ulúan creator, Late Classic (ca. 600–850 CE). Likely taken by George Byron Gordon in or around 1916 (Gordon 1916:pl. I).

Detail of a photograph of two local workers excavating the banks of the Ulúa River in Honduras for George Byron Gordon’s archaeological explorations in 1896 or 1897 (Byron 1898:pl. VI).

Photograph of Piedras Negras Stela 12 carved by Maya sculptors Juun Nat Omootz, [?] Chahk, K’in Lakam Chahk, Ch’ok [?], Yajaw Kaloomte’, Chat Kuch[?] U Ko’om, Chan Chiwoj, and [?], Late Classic (795 CE). Taken by Teobert Maler, 1895–1899 (Maler 1901:pl. XXI).

Photograph of a stela from Piedras Negras being moved into the University of Pennsylvania Museum in 1933. Courtesy Penn Museum (Image 175936).

Drawing of Stela 2 from Dos Pilas carved by an unidentified Maya creator(s), Late Classic (736 CE). Drawn by Linda Schele, late 20th century. Courtesy The Linda Schele Photograph Collection, Ancient Americas at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (Schele Number 7317).

Photographs of Stela 2 from Dos Pilas carved by an unidentified Maya creator(s), Late Classic (736 CE). Taken by Linda Schele, late 20th century. It remains in fragments, and these photographs show only the middle (left, which is the portion in SUAC's rubbing) and bottom (right). Courtesy The Linda Schele Photograph Collection, Ancient Americas at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (Schele Numbers 89087, 89090).

Drawing of Stela 15 from Nim li Punit carved by an unidentified Maya creator(s), Late Classic (721 CE). Drawn by John Montgomery, 1992. Courtesy Ancient Americas at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (JM00450; © John Montgomery).

Photograph of a ceramic incense burner from Chiapas, Mexico, by an unidentified Maya creator, Late Classic (ca. 600–900 CE). Courtesy Walters Art Museum (Object Number 48.2770; CC0 1.0).