FEWKES] AKCHEOLOGICAL OBJECTS 167 sugoest two highly conventionalized bodies, or the two sides of one

body

splitapartandextended,oneon eachsideofthecirclerepresent- ing the head. Inthisinterpretation theparallel

marks

near the head would represent thefingersandthe others thetoes.

The

figureisin asittingposture, theknees

drawn up

to the breast. There^isaclose similarity inthe panell)ordersofspecimens1>andc.eachhavingahead witheyesand mouth,with extensions representing ears,one on each side.

The

surfaces of the decorated panelsinthese

two

specimensare differentlyornamented,that of c having a likeness to that of plate Lxvii,hand^r.

The

object

shown

in «, platelxix,ishypothetical, representing a slenderovatecollarwitha stone headtiedto theundecoratedpanel, to illustratetheAcostatheory of the relationship of thesetwoobjects, but the

two

specimenschosen forthispurposewere foundin different localities inPortoRico, andthereisnoprobability thattheyeverbe- longedtogether.

The

collarhas certainminordifferencesincompari- sonwith tho edescribedintheprecedingpages,

more

especiallyinthe character of theknob,andtheintervalbetweenitandtheundecorated panel. It willbenoted that theband^isverj-obscurely indicatedand that thereisagrooveinthe

knob

thatextendsparallelwiththecollar.

Thisgroove

may

likewisebetracedtothelowerendoftheundecorated panelanditsborder. Thisdifferentiationofthe portion of thecollar betweentheband andthe panel,anexceptionalfeature, would appear to supportthetheory that thecollar represents the coiled bodj" of a snake.

THEORIES OF

THE

USE OF STONE COLLARS

The

following discussion of the purposeof thecollars isreprinted fromthe author'sarticleon Porto Kican stone collars:"

The

theories^*thathave been advancedinexplanation of the use of the Porto Ricanring stones are almostas

numerous

asthewi'itersonthe subject,but unfortunately not one of the theorists has carried his hypothesis far beyondasimule suggestion. ^It

may

beinteresting to mentionafewofthesetheories,limiting the referencestostonecollars foundinthe Antillesand waivingforthe present a discussion oftheir relationship to the stone yokes and collars of

Mexico

and Central America, concei'ningwhichthereisconsiderableliterature.

Mr

Josiah Cato^'' writesthus of oneof these collarsbrought

from

Porto Rico

by Mr

E. B.

Webb:

Withregardtotheprobable useorpurposeoftheserings,Ican givenoinforma- tion,butshallbe verymuch^{obligedforanysuggestion}or for hints as to anj-works likely tocontainsuchanaccountof the customsofthe nationsatthetimeofthe

a Smilfisonian MiscellaneousCollections.XLVii,175.Washington.1904.

6 Acosta'stheory that the three-pointed stonewasunitedtothe stonecollar,forming a serpentidol, isconsideredatthecloseof this section(page170 et.seq).

cProceedingsof theSocielj/ of'-Antiiiuiiries,2dser.,iv,no.5,215-210.

168 THE

ABORIGINES OF PORTO RICO Ieth.an'!<.25 Spanish invasionasmayaffordaclue tothe mystery. Suchelaboratepieces ofwork inhard stone could not have been intendedtoserveeitheratemporaryortrifling purpose. Theyareallfartooheavyforordinaryuse,yet notheavy enoughtokill oreventogreatly torturethe wearer,ifweregardthemas collars ofpunishment.

One

of the early references tothese collars occurs in

Dr

Daniel Wilson's

work

on

The

Archicology andPrehistoricAnnalsof Scotland (p. 15(vl5T):

Butperhaps themostsingularrelicsofthe Stone period ever discoveredin Scot- landaretwostonecollars,found near the celebratedParallelroadsofGlenroy,and nowpreservedatthemansionofTonley, Aberdeenshire. Theyare eachofthefull sizeofacollaradaptedtoa small highlandhorse; theoneformedof trap orwhin- stoneandtheotherofafine-grained redgranite. Theyare not,however,tobe regardedasthe primitivesubstitutes forthemoreconvenient materials^{of laterintro-} duction. On, thecontrary,aclose imitation ofthedetails ofa horsecollar ofcom- monmaterialsisattempted, including the folds ofthe leather,nails,buckles,and holesfortyingparticularparts together. Theyare finishedwithmuchcareanda high degreeof polish,andaredescribedasobviously theworkmanshipofaskillfulartist.

Mr

Skene,whofirstdrewattention tothese remarkable relics,suggeststhe proba- bility ofthepeculiarnaturalfeatures of Glenroyhavingled totheselection of this amphitheaterforthe sceneofancient public games; andthat thesestonecollai-smight commemoratethevictor inthechariot race, asthe tripods^stillexistingrecord the victor inthe ChoragicgamesofAthens. But nocircumstances attendingtheir dis- covery areknownwhichcouldaid conjecture either as tothe periodorpurposeof their construction.

Althoiioh these collars

may

have been found at Glenroy and are ascribedby Doctor Wilson totheStone ageofScotland, they areevi- dently Porto Rican in origin, havingbeen carried to Scotland

from

over the seas. Stevens, in FlintChips, includes these specimens with other

West

Indiancollars in Englishcollection.**.

Mason

seemstohave adopted no theory regarding- the use of the ringsorcollars,saying:

"Whether

theywerethe regalia ofsacrificial victims,"of military heroes, ofecclesiasticalworthies,or of

members

of

some

privilegedcast

who marched

indoublefilethroughthestreets ofPorto Rican villageslong sincedecayedwillperhapsforeverremain amystery."

Dr

A.Stahl considers thecollars, "toisondepiedra,'" as insignia of rank

worn

bychiefs or caciquesinimportant festivals or assemblies.

This explanationheapplies

more

especiallytothe slender specimens, for themassive forms he regards as possible implementsof torture.

Itshouldbe bornein

mind

that there is a general similarityin

form

of themassiveovalandthe oblique ovate typeswhichwould implya likeuse for both. DoctorStahl declares that they 'never iiavc the

form

of serpents,as

some

have supposed."*

Senor Agustin Navaretteconsiders that these rings were ^neither idols nor parts thereof.

He

^supposesthat the massive forms were intendedpurely for the adornmentofthe cabins of the caciques,com-

a ProfessorMason hadalreadysaidtliatthereisno meiuioiiofhumansacrificehythe natives.

bLos IndiesBorinqueiios,p.151-152.

fewkk:1

AECHEOLOGICAL

OBJECTS

169

parablewith ci'ownswbich were

worn

^l)ythem. Itisquiteimprohable, however, that objects which cost so

much

time and la))or were designedtobe purelyornamental; evenwereitgrantedthattheywere symbolsof thiskind, the question would still remain,

What

^{is the}

meaning

oftheir superficialdecorationi

SenorE.Neuoiann"regardsitascertainthattheentire lifetimeof a

human

being wouldbe required for the polishingand ornamentation of acompleted stonecollar.

He

ascribes toaCatholicpriest,whose

name

isnot given, the opinion thateverycacique

made

acollar,tobe depositedoverhisgrave onthedayofhisintermentinordertodrive

oti'thedevil,butno proofisgiventosupportthisspeculation. Seiior

Neumann

regards theidea,which he attributesto SeiTorPiy^{^Nlargal,} that thetailof a serpent

was

cuton thesurface of thecjoUar,as a graveerror, and seemsnottohaveappreciated the truerelationofthe two ^parts which Acosta supposes were united toform theserpent image.

Regardingtheuse of these^collars, Ober*says:

Justwhatthatui^ewas,noone cantell,theliistoriansbeingsilentonthesubject;

butI was? told,wheninPuertoRico,by anoldpriest,thattheIndiansmadethemto be buried withthemin their graves. One wouldspenda lifetime laboriously carv- ingoutthis solidstonecollar,thatwhenhedieditmight beplacedoverhis head, thus securelyfastening himtohis lastrestingplaceand defying theeffortsofthe devil toremovehim.

The

various interpretations of stone ^collarsreferred ^tt)inthe pre- ceding pagesresolve themselves into two groups,oneofwhich lays emphasis on the use of the.se objects as insignia or ornaments,the other on their .sj'mbolism. Those

who

have pointed out what they I'egard as their u.se have overlooked the factthat the decoration of thecollar^ishighly conventionalized,anexplanation of the significance ofwhichtheydonot offer. "\Ae

may

accept thetheorythat

some

of

them

were

worn

on the bodyor around the neck,but the

more

im- portant question ofwhatthej'representremainsunanswered.

But

there^isaveryserious objectiontotheacceptance of thetheory that certain of thesecollarswere

worn

as insignia,for

some

of theui are too small,and the heaviest could be transported only a short^dis- tance, even

by

a strong man.'' Evidenth' the}^

were

not

worn

by chiefs as ornaments.

The

theory that theywere worn,in

some

in- .stances,

bv

victims of sacrificial ritesisweak,forthereisevidencein historical records that sacrificial ceremonies, except certain ones of vervharmless character,werenot practised

by

the Antilleans.

It

may

besaid in reply that here

we

have survivals of insignia or symbols nolonger usedbut preserving the

form

of thosewhich were

aBenefactores yHombresNotablesde PuertoRico, n,p.li.

!>AboriginesoftheWestIndies. Pmcealingsof the AimriniiiAnliijiniriaii Sorirlii, p.^2i<.Worcester,

Mass., 1894.

cThis objectiontothe theorythattliestonecollar.swei-eworn^Viymenin drngpiiiKheavyobjects, as logsorcanoes,^isavalid one.

170 THE

ABORKiTXES OF PORTO RICO [eth. ANN. 25 onceemployed; and^itma}'al.'^obeurgedthattlieheavy,massivecollars wereuntinished,orthatthemassiveandtheslender

form

haddifferent uses. Whileallthesesuggestions raaj'haveweight,itisremarkal)le thatnoneof the early writers mention havingseen thecollarson the bodies of Indians. Iftheywere usedⁱⁿthetimeofLasCasas,

Ramon

Pane. Benzoni,and other early writers, this

must

have been doneⁱⁿ secret,showingthat theywereceremonialobjects. Itisimportantto note that

we

have noearly descriptions of theceremoniesof thePorto Rican aborigines from those

among whom

these collarswould have beenbestknown.

No

devotedCatholic priestobserved and specially described theBorinquenosas

Ramon

Pane, ^Morales,and Benzonidid the Haitians.

What we know

^{of the} Porto Ricansof the sixteenth andseventeenth centuriesisderived

from

the briefestpossiblerefer- ences ofOviedo,

Gomara,

andothers,

who

say thatin theirtimethey weresimilartothe inhabitants of Hispaniola.

The

Porto Ricans

may

have used thesecollars in bothsecretand publicexercises, butasno one is

known

specially to have desci'ibed their ceremonies, thereis

norecordofthepurposeoruse of theseobjects.

All the availablefactsextantinregardtothesecollarspointto their religious, or, rather,ceremonialnature.

We

^{naturallyregardobjects}

made

withso

much

^careandso highlysymbolicintheir decorationas idols or as connectedwith worship. It is therefore rather as such than assecularimplementsorornamentsthat

we

canhopetodecipher theirmeaning.

As

theirstrangeformpresents enigmatical possibil- ities,

we

naturally associate

them

with that other enigma in Porto Ricanarcheology, the three-pointedstones.

The

most suggestive interpretation yet offered ^is

by

SeiiorJ. J.

Acosta in his notes on liiigo's great work, that these stone collars were united with the three-pointed stones, and^tiiat both together

form

a serpentidol.

The

authorhas reserved consideration of thistheoryuntilthe end, because it differs radicallyfromallothei's,andbecause consideration ofit

demands

aknowledgeoftheformsofthethreegroupsof objects hereindealtwith

—

^{stonecollars,}three-])ointedidols,andelbowstones.

SeiiorAcosta

was

familiarwith theLatimercollection before it

came

to thiscountry,andalsowith another,

now

scattered, which formerly existedinthe

Museo

deArtilleria atSan Juan.P.R.

He

writes thus ofthe stone ringsandthree-pointedfigures:"

Todosestos I'dolos,aunquevan'an en eltamaiio yenla clase depiedra en que estanlabrados,puesunason ouarzosas yotrascalizas,ofrecen generalmentelaniisina dispoficiony^figura. Constacadauno dedospartes distintasy^{separadas,pero}que seadaptan perfectamente entresi.

—

^1".

Un

anillo elipsoidal,encuyasuperficieexterna aparecetallada la ooladeunaserpiente.

—

^2".I'napieza macizacuyabase,pordonde seadaptaalanillo, esplanaydefigura elipsoidal,y cuya^{partesuperior}terminaen

"Notein Historia Geogrfifira, Civil y Natural,ilehiIslade SanJuanBautistade PuertoRiro.by Fray Imt^nAbbadyLasierra,p..'SI,PuertoRico,isti6.

FEWKES]

ARCHEOLOGICAL

OBJECTS 17 1

formade cono; haciaun extremodel ejemayordelabasehayvariasmolduraseap- richosas,yenelextremoopuestounacarahumana. UnidaslasJosjiartesdel fdolo, semejaeltodounaserpienteenroseada eonfisononifahumana.

[Translatjnn]

Alltheseidols,although they varyin sizeandinthekindofstoneofwhichthey aremade,forsomeare ofquartz"andothersoflimestone,^''havethesamegeneral proportionsandform. Earh one iscomposedoftwo distinctandseparatejjarts,

whichfitperfectly together:1st,anellipsoidal ring,onthe externalsurface ofwhich

iscutaserpent'stail;2d,a massivepiece,the baseofwhich,whenitfitsthering, is flatandof ellipsoidalshape,while theupperpartterminatesina cone; toward the endofthe greateraxis ofthe base there are variouscapriciousmoldings,andatthe oppositeendahuman^face.

When

thetwocomjionentparts oftheidol are united, thewholeresemblesa coiledserpentwithhumanpliysiognomy.

One

ortwootherauthorsspoakof thesecollars as'•snake stones."

butas no additional grounds for this identification are given,they apparentlyaccepted Acosta\sconclu.sion.

Severalsignificant factsappeartosupport the theory that another objectwas onceattached totheundecoratedpanel of the stonecollar

:

1. Thispanelisleftrough andisneverdecorated; ^itsplane of con- vexit}'^isapproximatelythe .sameastheconcave curvatureofthe base of the three-pointedstones. Ithas apit or depression initscenter, andthe base of the three-pointed stone sometimeshas a similarpit in the

same

relative position.

On

the theoryunder consideration the object of thesepitswouldl)etoinsurea firmerattachment of the

two

objects.

The

useandfunction ofbothcollarsandthree-pointed stones are enigmatical,buttheirgeographical distributionisidentical.

2.

Some

of theelbowstonesappear feeblyto support theAcosta theoryin thisway:

The

elbowstone of theLatimercollectionresem- bles closelj'thatpart of acollarwhichincludes thebossand onepanel.

An

examinationof thispanelshowsthat itconformsin relative posi- tiontotheundecoratedpanel of acollar.

A human

faceiscarved in reliefonthispanelinthe placeatwhichthethree-pointed stonewould have been cementedtothecollar.

The

ell)0w stone figuredbyPinart has a similar face cutonitspanel.

On

the supposition that thereisa Iflienessin

form

between stonecollarsand elbowstonesthisfactjuay besignificant.

It

may

bementionedthatsinceAcosta wrotethelinesabove quoted a larger

number

ofthese three-pointed stones thanhesaw have been examined, andthat

from

increased knowledgeof

them

minor correc- tionsofhisaccount arepossible.

For

instiince,

what

hecalls'"capri- cious moldings"'toward theendof the greater axis areundoubtedly legsorappendages,while the

"human

face"atthe otherend ofthe greater axis ^is

now known

sometimestobereplaced

by

theheadof a bird, lizard,or other animal. Acostaapparently

was

familiarwithbut

172 THE

ABORIGINES OF PORTO RICO ^[kth.ann.25 one kind of three-pointed stone

—

^thatculled in this articlethe'"tirst type."'

As

objectionstoAcosta'stheoryof theformer unionofstonecollars andthree-pointedstones,the followinif

may

be urged:

1. Thatinthe available accounts of the religion of the natives of the

West

Indiesno mention is

made

ofaserpentcultand norecord con- temporaiywiththe aborigines hasgiventhesnakeaprominentplacein

myth

orritual. (It isrecorded, however, thattwo

wooden

imagesof serpents stood ^atthe entrancetoahouse on oneof theislands visited by the Spaniards,andtheauthorhasalreadv referredtoa

wooden

ser- pentidol inPuertoPlata,which isoneof thebest-known examplesof aboriginal

West

Indian

wood

carving. These

show

conclusively that the Antilleanscarvedimagesof snakesin wood, hencethe implication

isthatthese imageswere used asidolsand played aconspicuousrole intheirworship.)

•2. That nothree-pointed stone has yet beenfound totitcloselythe undecorated panel of any collar, nor have these objects ever l)een foundunited orinclose proximity.

3. That

some

of these three-pointed stones bear birds' heads and representations of wings; others have snouts like reptiles; and,'in

many,

grotesque

human

faces appeartohave been represented, but not a single three-pointed stoneresemblesa serpent's head. (To

meet

thisobjection it

may

be urged that primitive art is rarelyrealistic, but

more

often^ishighly conventionalized.)

-1-.

The

presence oflegsona majority of the three-pointed stones of alltypes ^isfatalto the theorv that these images represent headsof serpents. If

we

avoidthis objection

by

limitingthetheoryofthose three-pointed stoneswhich have no^legscarvedin reliefor otherwise,

we

are obliged todiscriminate, whereas

what

is true ofone should hold

good

for theothers.

i>. That representations of heads, realistic, symbolic, or both, are

cutonthedecoratedpanel borders of severalcollars. Althoughthese carvings aresometimeshighly conventionalized, their presencewould imply

two

headstothe

same

bodj'ifa three-pointed stonealso repre- senting ahead

were

attachedtotheundecoratedpanel.

The

weightof evidence thusseems^to be against theAcosta theorj^

thatthe three-pointed stones wereattached to stone collars for the purposeof completing idolsof which he supposed the

two

objects formedthe

component

parts.

Elbow

Stones"

There^isanother

group

of stoneobjects, alsofound inPortoRico, which,likethosealready considered, are problematical,j'etwhich

may

aThereare .several fineelbowstones intheStahl rollectionpurchasedby theAmericanMuseumof Natural HistoryinNe>v York,andsincewritingthis articlea good specimen has beensent tothe author from Ponce,P.R.