Provenance Investigations: Colima Dwarf Ceramic Figures.

Mesoamerican artifacts, especially those that have distinct characteristics, like the dwarf ceramics associated with the Colima culture are susceptible to being forged for mass profit. Not only are the Colima horned dwarf figures attractive, but their believed provenance gives them high value in the antiquities market. Depending on source, the medium from which they are made is known as redware, terracotta, ceramic and earthenware. All of which are easily reproduced, and despite technologies like thermoluminescence, particular clay removed from the area of provenance can be used to create a sculptural piece that will pass such authentication processes. This essay will discuss the historical context of the Colima culture, examine two popular horned dwarf figures and one hunchback dwarf from the culture and discuss how one of the three is slightly varied from the others and a possible forgery.

Little is known about the history of the west Mexican cultures, the Colima, the Jalisco and the Nayarit, but the three regions are synonymous with each other. Colima is the smallest of the three western Mesoamerican regions. All three regions are known for their pottery and sculptural figurines, but perhaps the Colima culture produced the most interesting forms of their kind.

The art of the Colima introduce unusual subjects. There are effigies shaped like hunchbacks, dwarfs and animals, as well as bowls modeled to indicate certain types of fruits and vegetables, especially the tuna fruit. Unlike more linear shaped images representing ancient Mexican warriors and gods, the Colima figures are rounded, plump and smooth. They are burnished and often exhibit a dark red or crimson color. They may now have manganese deposits rendering black speckles all over, which were not deliberately incorporated as pigmentation but instead happened as a result of being buried for a prolonged period of time.

Of Colima’s history, the most known comes from the sixteenth century Spanish conquest invasion of Mexico in which Gonzalo de Sandoval established San Sebastian de Colima. He named it after a native local leader, Coliman. It was from Colima that Spanish control was expanded upward into Jalisco and Nayarit. Later, Francisco Cortez would exploit Colima’s coast. Even during this Spanish conquest and into the colonial era, Colima’s Manzahillo coastal region became an important seaport, which served ship repair. (Coerver 103) With Colima’s seaport attraction, it could be presumed that stolen and looted artifacts from Colima’s ancient culture have been taken and shipped off over the last five hundred years.

Today, the scarcity of ancient Colima artifacts results in big collector payouts for vessels, pottery and sculptural art. A number of fakes have been created in an attempt to nab collector money putting the entire canon of true Colima artifacts at risk. Although, many reputable museums and galleries maintain Colima artifacts in their collections it is believed that the fakes were sold in the market, and they are being shown as ancient Colima pieces despite their lack of precise provenance.

An ancient Colima figure that has noted provenance in its cultural origins are the dwarf figures typically found in shaft burial tombs. The figures are petite, at an upwards of 10 inches. The figures do not depict anatomy, but they are considered to be male figures. They are called dwarfs for the sake of describing them, but it is unknown if they actually revered little people. Although dwarfs with and without horns, including hunchbacks, have been found attributed to the Colima culture, the horned dwarf is most peculiar. The horned dwarf sits with its head contorted in a turned position and above the forehead there is what appears to be a small horn shape, which may be a stylized conch shell. The horn has a carved strap that surrounds the horn in a half eight loop that comes from up around the chin then continues back around the head. This indicates that the horn was not pierced through the skin as many of the other Mesoamerican cultures did to areas of the face and ears. Historians and anthropologists have debated the significance of the horn but without any contextual information there is no explanation entirely conclusive.

Peter Furst, an author and anthropologist of Latin America, called for reconsideration of the horn in 1965. Experts were inclined to believe that the strapped horn was an accessory of a warrior. Furthermore, typically the horned dwarf has his arms raised and his right fist clinched or holding something easily presumed to be a weapon. Instead, Furst believed that the horn indicated that the dwarf was a Shaman, a type of healer and spiritual cleric.
“He based his hypothesis on iconography of the figures often termed as being “‘warlike attitudes,’” and suggested that the ‘“warlike”’ postures are far from being in conflict with traits of shamans, since they are expected to combat supernatural evil and other malevolent shamans to protect the community’s spiritual well-being from its enemies. An added feature to his interpretation was the fact that most of the horned figures face in the left direction-an orientation quite commonly associated with dead, sorcery, and a host of other supernatural dangers. Furst also brought up the important notions that these shamanic figures, placed in tombs, were meant to represent pyschopomps for the deceased; guardians of the dead and their souls.” (Ripinsky-Naxon 45)
Presently, most written dialogue for the horned dwarfs mirror Furst’s explanation citing that the horned dwarfs are shamans instead of warriors.



The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has a Colima horned dwarf figure, which is a part of The Michael C. Rockefeller Memorial Collection (shown above). This figure is dated between the 2nd century BCE and 2nd century CE. The figure is actually a vessel with a spout opening in the back of the head. It is burnished, appears dark red with lots of manganese deposits covering the torso and face. The seated figure reaches nearly 14 inches in height. Its face is modeled to show naturalistic eye sockets with a brow profile between the lower face and the forehead. Its eyes are almond shaped and constructed outward. The nose, which is more naturally depicted, is also constructed outward from the head. The lips are pressed with no expression. The ears each have holes above the lobe. The upper forehead has the horn and its carved head strap. Its short stubby legs are jutted outward with its feet in a relaxed open position, like an infants posture, if one were sitting up. The figure’s left foot has been partially broken off. The torso of the figure is plump and round, but the weight is not naturally constructed. Instead of the weight being placed with the heaviness slightly downward in a more natural way considering gravity, the figure’s heaviness is conveyed all over the body. The arms and legs are thick and the chest, neck and back are thick and rounded. The torso also has a decorative motif, like a carved mantle, and at the base of the neck there is a modeled collar. As mentioned earlier, this horned dwarf figure has a raised right arm with carved digits indicating the clenched fist. The left arm is down. The head of the figure is contorted facing the left, matching Furst’s assertion that the horned dwarfed figure serves shamanistic purpose. (www.metmuseum.org)

The next Colima dwarf that will be discussed can be accessed HERE. This image is secured and not available for showing outside of its online gallery.

The Colima dwarf figure known as a "hunchback" from the Barakat Gallery in Beverly Hills, California has a form and features that almost exactly resemble the horned dwarf figure from the MET. The figure is dated from 3rd century BCE to 3rd century CE. This figure is just over 11 inches in height. It is not a vessel. While the figure does not sport a horn or carved strap, the seated position, open feet, weight and thickness of the figure are matching. Additionally, the outward almond shaped eyes, nose and pressed mouth is identical. The difference can be noted in the eye socket and brow regions, which are not formed. In place of the horn motif, this hunchback figure has a Mohawk style stretching from the upper forehead to the back of the head. Also, there is a defined line, which extends from ear over the forehead to the other ear as though it were a hairline or a head cap. This figure also has ears with holes above the lobe. The right arm on this figure is raised with its fist clenched holding what could be musical instruments or peyote. The digits of the hand are like those of the MET horned dwarf. The left arm and hand are to the mouth suggesting that the figure is partaking in hallucinogenic ritual. This can be presumed because the figure is also wearing a peyote button on its chest. There is also a decorative mantel carved on the torso of the figure. Though there are a few notable differences between this figure and the MET horned dwarf figure. They are mostly attributed to differences in subject (hunchback v. horned dwarf). The similarities in the overall composition make this piece a believable artifact relative to the Colima culture. (www.barakatgallery.com)



Another horned dwarf figure comes from the Anthropos Gallery in Laguna Beach, California (shown above). The figure is dated from 1st century BCE to 2nd century CE. This is also a vessel with a spout opening in the back of its head. It stands over 14 inches in height making it the largest of the three discussed here. There are a number of differences noteworthy between this figure and the two previous Colima dwarfs discussed. Most of these differences can be described from the head of the figure. The eyes are outward almond shaped but instead of being rounded, they appear to be raised and flat as though they were added on instead of modeled out from the material. While the eye socket’s and brow regions are modeled, they are much more stylized and less naturalistic compared to the MET horned dwarf. The nose is also much bigger. The lips are pressed and curled upward on each side giving a “happy savage” grin. This perhaps is a feature that appeals more to contemporary western ideas about ancient Colima dwarfs instead of their noted lack of expression in typical form. The horn on the upper forehead is bigger and the carved head strap is clumsily carved. The ears are drastically different because they are not modeled out from the material in three-dimension, as are the two previous Colima dwarfs. Instead, the ears are carved on the figure with projectile point-looking decorations coming out from each lobe of the ear. Perhaps, these are the lobes of the figure or a type of decorative ear spool. Either way, they are unknown to Colima dwarf figures. The neck of the figure does not show a distinctive separation between the torso and the head of the figure. The head is not turned in any direction. The hands of this figure are positioned on the legs and not raised or exhibiting clenched fists. While the weight of the figure is similar to the other dwarf figures, the heaviness is most realized in the torso, the shoulder and the upper legs. The weight appears to be concentrated toward the body and becomes slimmer closer to the hands and feet. There isn’t a balance of weight overall as seen in the two previous Colima dwarfs. Because this vessel has the same features but appears to be modeled quite differently in a number of areas, it is possible that this dwarf is a fake. It is possible that a forgery artist took conventions known to the horned dwarf and recreated them in a way that was easy enough to convince a buyer of its provenance while taking for granted its lack of precision. This piece, which is listed as “SOLD”, belonged to a gallery whose sole purpose is to obtain and sell ancient and tribal art. (www.anthroposgallery.com)

The ancient Colima culture is an attractive Mesoamerican culture for creating fraudulent works of art. This is in part attributed to its lacks of contextual history paired with its easily reproduced artifacts. Not much can be argued outside of the formative details. The stories of how artifacts came to be unearthed are just as important to artifacts authenticity as are the consistent physical characteristics. Due to corruption artifacts often have no properly documented excavation and their stories are often obscured.

Works Cited:
Coerver, Don M. Mexico : An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Culture and History. Danbury: ABC-CLIO, Incorporated. 2004. 621.

"Colima Dwarf Shaman." Anthropos Gallery. 28 Oct. 2008 .

"Colima Sculpture of a Seated Hunchback with Peyote Bottons." The Barakat Gallery. 2000. 28 Oct. 2008 .

“Horned Figure Vessel [Mexico, Colima] (1979.206.478)”. In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2000-. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/05/cam/ho_1979.206.478.htm (October 2008)
Ripinsky-Naxon, Michael. The Nature of Shamanism: Substance and Function of a Religious Metaphor. New York: SUNY P, 1993. 289.

Ahoy Matey! The First People of the Americas Crossed the Sea?

This is an essay that examines the first peopling of the Americas. Though you are likely familiar with the Bering Land Bridge theory, this essay collects recent findings that contrast the idea that they came by foot. If the appropriate artifacts are found art history will help substantiate these claims if/when they come into play:

Scientists have long theorized that the first people native to the Americas moved onto the western landmass via a land bridge which adjoined Siberian and Alaskan coastlines. The theory popularly known as “Bering Land Bridge” faces the challenge of being debunked after recent finds. The discovery of human artifacts in Oregon and other regions predating those found in Clovis, New Mexico (“The Clovis Theory” namesake) cause the theories for historical inhabitation of the Americas to be carefully reconsidered. This process must be mindful in at least three areas of inquiry to support new theorization: are said discoveries made by credible individuals, does the premise for new theorization include logical and factual evidence and how does the new theorization hold up against other long standing theories?

When confronted with the question of how the peopling of the Americas happened, it is important to acknowledge whom these first people were. This information provides a “go-to” point for deciding where they came from in order to consider plausible situations for how and from where they migrated. In 1929, James Ridgley Whiteman discovered remnants of man in the Burnet Cave of the Clovis site, it was the site’s first professional excavation and the oldest known example of human remains in America. Whiteman, led by Edgar Billings Howard, and his team from the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences at University of Pennsylvania proceeded via the academic forum granting them credible expert testimony to evidence of the Clovis people.

Again, the players in these new archeological discoveries, namely those made in Paisley, Oregon since the turn of the century, involve academic and research driven individuals. Senior research associate Dennis Jenkins from the University of Oregon teamed up with other academic professionals from around the world to begin using modern technology to extract DNA information from coprolites (i.e. petrified fecal matter) found at the excavation site, known as the Paisley caves. (Barnard) Jenkins’s research was published in the Science journal as “News of the Week” in April of this year claiming that his is “what some experts consider the strongest evidence yet for an earlier peopling of the Americas.” (Balter) With both professional credibility and an acclaimed publication making Jenkins’s findings newsworthy, it can be assumed that it will not take long for his discovery to spawn further transformations of universal concepts in archeological theory, including how people first migrated to the Americas.

The information concluded from Jenkins’s method includes archeological dating, the peoples’ race and diet. One of the most important conclusions from testing the coprolites is that they predate the Clovis findings by 1,000 years, which make the human remains of Jenkins’s discovery now the oldest known in North America. (Barnard) However, perhaps the most intriguing conclusion involves the race and diet of these people, which indicates where these early people migrated from and the agricultural products and animal proteins provided by their present-day environment. Jenkins gave Eske Willerslev, professor at Center for Ancient Genetics at the University of Copenhagen, some coprolites, which he handed off to a grad student to use in a project for extracting DNA. The grad student, whose name was not provided by the source “found DNA from two of the five Native American genetic groups, both have links to Asia.”(Barnard) In other studies tasking the genetic conundrum, they have similarly linked the possibility that they are related to haplogroups of DNA found in present day Mongolians and Siberians, but studies are on going. (www.pbs.org)

As mentioned, not only do we now have a more precise indication of where these people came from, but we also know what they ate. Given that the radiocarbon evidence from the coprolites suggests that these remains are 14,000 years old, a date that is just 500 years after the presumed end of the last ice-age, it is remarkable that Jenkins found “The coprolites contain pollen, seeds, chipmunk bones, sage grouse feathers, trout scales, things that ancient people would have been eating.”(Barnard) Accordingly, all of this information provides theorists’ new perspectives and new factors to consider when reconstructing the history of the Americas ancient culture.

Not only has the academic community shed new light on the earliest people of the Americas, they have also begun to shed new light on how they migrated. The “Bering Land Bridge” has long been accepted as the most convincing theory for migration to the Americas, but with more recent evidence concerning the geological environment of its time, the concept that people traveled by sea is being examined closely as a real possibility. Ted Goebel, anthropologist and anthropology team leader of Texas A&M, suggests that:
“If this is the time of colonization [13,000 BC or earlier], geological data from Western Canada suggests that humans dispersed along the recently de-glaciated Pacific coastline. The first Americans used boats, and the coastal corridor would have been the likely route of passage, since the interior corridor appears to have remained closed for at least another 1,000 years. Once humans reached the Pacific Northwest, they could have continued their spread southward along the coast to Chile, as well as eastward along the southern margin of the continental ice sheets, possibly following traces of mammoth and mastodon to Wisconsin.” (Boswell)
Goebel says this theory is consistent with the existence of humans in the Americas predating the originally assumed 12,000 to 10,000 BC year bracket. (Boswell) Goebel is not alone in considering this theory, as many publications have surfaced alluding to the possibility of boat migration. Including, a book published in 2000 called The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory by Tom Dillehay, which also mentions the theory of the first migrants coming from Asia to Tierra de Fuego by skin covered boats. Dillehay also explains in his book that the corridor in northwest Canada would have been covered by ice, making this alternative theory conceivable. (Dillehay p.282-283) Although people like Goebel and Dillehay are reputable in their area of expertise and endorse the boat crossing theory, the theory lacks serious evidential support.

While the boat crossing theory seems like the only other logical explanation for how people migrated from Asia to the Americas, the theory has one flaw. Presently, there are no archeological finds suggesting the construction of boats or floating vessels indicating that they sailed across the Bering Strait or any other coastal region or that their boats were skin covered. Canadian scientists have been mindful of the British Columbia coastline to find evidence to support the boat crossing theory. In fact, according to The Vancouver Sun scientists have been watching and waiting for an opportunity to explore exposed sea caves on Vancouver Island and elsewhere in hopes of discovering evidence to substantiate this migration theory. (Boswell) So far, there is nothing to report. So why then argue that the earliest people of the Americas came by boat? Researchers know two things: the earliest people have DNA resembling Asian genetic haplogroups, and they migrated around the time of a warming climate indicating the probability of elevated sea levels. With these two elements considered in this new migration theory, how feasible would it be to have traveled by boat approximately 14,000 years ago?

The Bering Land Bridge theory suggests that either a glacier conjoined the space between the Siberian and Alaskan landmasses between the spaces of the Bering Strait or that the warming trend caused the sea floor to be exposed between the two landmasses after drying up. All things considered, it seems less likely that the sea floor would become exposed with a 98 to 160 foot depth, especially after the melting of an Ice Age that would cause sea levels to rise. The Bering Strait is 53 miles wide from the Siberian to Alaskan coastline, which in the last 100 years has been kayaked, canoed and even skied across. So it should seem at least possible that an ancient people would be able to make the same journey, if they had boats. In fact, Jeff Barnard of the Associated Press made this suggestion in his article “When Did the First People Come to America?”
“The Paisley coprolites indicate people had found another way, perhaps crossing the land bridge but then walking down the coast, or even crossing the ocean by boat, the way people went from New Guinea to Australia thousands of years earlier.”
If an earlier culture from the east is known to have traveled by boat, then it seems likely that another could employ the same method for travel. Theorists acknowledge “strength in numbers.” New Guinea is comprised of 600 islands that are situated 100 miles north of Australia making it 47 miles farther than the journey across the Bering Strait. Additionally, the movement of ocean water would permit a migration from Asia to the Americas. The ocean current moves upward away from the Equator along the Asia coastline and then turns downward along the North American coastline. Therefore, people could have launched their boats from the northeastern part of Asia or Siberia and been guided by the North Pacific current to North America.

The academic and research fields are proving to be persistent, breaking new ground in archeology, anthropology and genetics. With so much information available and becoming available, the boat migration theory could become the next theory to be adopted by primary schools, signifying continual progress in science history. One intricate find could corroborate a new history, but for now, not all of the academic community views these new discoveries with eternal optimism. Barnard wrote this about Vance Haynes, professor emeritus of geoarchaeology at the University of Arizona:
“He would like to see dates further confirmed by another radiocarbon dating because if it is accurate, the find offers important evidence that early people traveled down the coast as they spread through the continent, and then moved east, and did not need the ice-free corridor.”
Only as time and technology move forward will the accuracy of the boat migration theory be revealed.

Works Cited
Alda, Alan, comp. "Coming Into America: Tracing the Genes." Alan Alda: Scientific American Frontiers. Public Broadcast Systems. 28 Sept. 2008 .
Balter, Michael. "DNA From Fossil Feces Breaks Clovis Barrier." 4 Apr. 2008. Science AAAS. 28 Sept. 2008 .
Barnard, Jeff. "When Did People First Come to America." Technology &
Science/Science. 22 Sept. 2008. MSNBC. 23 Sept. 2008 .

Boswell, Randy. "First people came here by boat, researchers say." The
Vancouver Sun. 15 Mar. 2008. Canada.com. 24 Mar. 2008 .

Dillehay, Thomas D. Settlement of the Americas : A New Prehistory. New York: Basic Books, 2001.