Jade “Spoon” Pendants

The term “spoon” is loosely applied to a variety of objects, with the term initially used by Stirling in 1943 in his National Geographic Magazine article announcing the finds at La Venta (Stirling Reference Stirling1943:323). However, the photo that accompanied Stirling's original article (Stirling Reference Stirling1943:Plate IV) shows items identical to one later described by Drucker in his reexamination of the objects found in the Mound A-2 tomb as a “clamshell-shaped jade pendant” (Drucker Reference Drucker1952:Plate 53). This piece was described as having a concave face with a “realistically shown” hinge (Drucker Reference Drucker1952:163, see also Plate 54a). The slightly asymmetrical oval shape with concave face and clear hinge corresponds with other objects also described as clamshell pendants (Andrews Reference Andrews and Andrews V1986:27, 29–30; Gann Reference Gann1918:91, Plate 16a; Graham Reference Graham and Jones1998:48; Hammond et al. Reference Hammond, Clarke and Belli1992:Figure 5; Snarskis Reference Snarskis1979; Zralka et al. Reference Zralka, Koszkul, Martin and Hermes2011).

While these concave clamshell-shaped objects can be connected directly to the Olmec through their discovery at La Venta, the same cannot be claimed for tri-lobed variants. An examination of the photographs and descriptions of La Venta artifacts (see Drucker Reference Drucker1952:170–171, and Plate 58; Drucker et al. Reference Drucker, Heizer and Squier1959) show that while the objects from La Venta are the same general shape as the tri-lobed objects under discussion, they differ in several significant ways. In fact, in his reexamination and cataloguing of artifacts from La Venta Drucker clearly distinguishes the clamshell from the tri-lobed objects, referring to the first as pendants and the latter as spangles (Drucker Reference Drucker1952:170–171). First, the La Venta spangles are much smaller, averaging 1–2 cm in length and less than 1 cm in thickness, in comparison to the tri-lobed “spoon” pendants that range in size from 7 to 18.5 cm in length. Second, although the tri-lobed “spoon” pendants and spangles may share a similar general T-shaped form, the three parts of the tri-lobed pendants vary in proportions with one side being longer, and in some cases tapering toward the tip (Figure 1). Third, the La Venta objects have multiple perforations drilled directly through the faces of the objects. The configuration of the holes in the “spangles” suggest they were “intended for attachment on some article of clothing” (Drucker et al. Reference Drucker, Heizer and Squier1959:149) and likely sewn directly on clothing as depicted on Monument 5 at Loma del Zapote (Figure 2). The tri-lobed objects from the Maya area all have L-shaped holes at the top and were clearly intended to be suspended like a pendant, making them more akin to the clamshell-shaped pendants than the spangles. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in his description Drucker describes the spangles as “an ellipse, or half ellipse, with a tab, usually rounded, on one side” (Drucker Reference Drucker1952:171), indicating that they lack the depression that characterizes the pendant pieces.

Figure 2.

Map showing locations of statues and spoons (illustrations by author and not to scale; adapted from Andrews Reference Andrews and Andrews V1986:Figure 1a; Cyphers Reference Cyphers2004:172; Castillo and Inomata Reference Castillo Aguilar and Inomata2011; Healy and Awe Reference Healy and Awe2001:Figure 2; Hodgson et al. Reference Hodgson, Clark and Murrieta2010:Figure 2; Proskouriakoff Reference Proskouriakoff1974; Shook and Heizer Reference Shook and Heizer1976; Zorich Reference Zorich2020).

The tri-lobed “spoon” pendants have at least one concavity, either in one of the lobes or encompassing all three lobes; variations on this theme are noted with some objects possessing three separate concavities (one on each lobe). The presence of a depression that may have served as a receptacle was a key component in classifying these objects as “spoons,” and this characteristic makes them closer in form, and possibly function, to their clamshell-shaped counterparts. Although the term “tri-lobed pendant” is probably more accurate for artifacts, the use of the term spoon to describe these objects is well-embedded in the literature.

Ka'kabish and Its Tri-lobed Jade “Spoon” Pendant

Ka'kabish is located on a ridge in north-central Belize approximately 10 km to the northwest of the New River Lagoon (Figure 3), and 25 km east of the Rio Bravo Escarpment (Lohse Reference Lohse, Lohse and Valdez2004:121). This topographic feature is considered to represent a cultural, as well as physical, divide between the occupants of the Three Rivers Region (part of the Central Petén cultural sphere) and the Belizean coastal groups. The location of Ka'kabish on this ridge was likely strategic as well as practical. It not only placed the original settlement well above the rich dark alluvial soil that surrounds the site, and is known to suffer inundations during heavy rains, but it also provided a vantage point from where the occupants could watch the surrounding area. The site is clearly visible from both the Rio Bravo Escarpment and the top of the High Temple at Lamanai, as well as several other points across the region.

Figure 3.

Map showing location of Ka'kabish, Belize.

The site core consists of 32 structures arranged around two large plazas: Group D and Group F. The site is surrounded by several courtyard groups as well as several smaller residential clusters (Figure 4). Investigations in these areas revealed that Ka'kabish had a long history of occupation starting in the Middle Formative period ca. 800 BC and lasting until the contact period in the sixteenth century (Haines et al. Reference Haines, Sagebiel and McLellan2020). Material evidence from the site indicates that through its long history, its inhabitants participated in far reaching trade networks (Haines and Shugar Reference Haines and Shugar2017).

Figure 4.

Map of Ka'kabish showing core and immediately adjacent courtyard groups.

Excavations into the southeast plaza area of Group D revealed a wealth of items, including numerous pieces of jade associated with pits carved into the bedrock that date to the latter part of the Middle Formative period (ca. 800–400 BC). While the diameter of most of these pits was quite small (i.e., less than 30 cm; Lockett-Harris Reference Lockett-Harris2016), two large round pits at either end of a long, north-south oriented depression were discovered (Figure 5). The central cavity contained the bundled remains of an individual while the two pits at either end, as well as the area immediately around the remains, contained many long-distance trade goods, leading us to surmise that these three interconnected pits contained a founder burial and accompanying mortuary offerings (Haines Reference Haines2012).

Figure 5.

Map of Ka'kabish burial pit (spoon is Jade #4).

Mortuary offerings recovered from these three pits included a small Consejo Red-Striated bowl (Haines et al. Reference Haines, Gomer and Sagebiel2014; Sagebiel and Haines Reference Sagebiel and Haines2017), more than 515 marine shell beads of various sizes, likely manufactured from Strombidae species (Stanchly Reference Stanchly, Haines and Tremain2013), and 17 jade objects (Haines Reference Haines2012; Lockett-Harris Reference Lockett-Harris2016). The jade used ranged in color from deep greens to greenish-white flecked stone. Although these items are referred to as being jade, many may not be true jade but rather any one of a wide range of rocks of mineralogical compositions and quality. Hammond and colleagues have argued that the variety in the material used by the Maya to produce objects suggests that it was the color green rather than the material that made these sources significant and consequently they are perhaps better described as social jade (sensu Hammond et al. Reference Hammond, Aspinall, Feather, Hazelden, Gazard, Agrell, Earle and Ericson1977:61; see also Kovacevich and Callaghan Reference Kovacevich and Callaghan2019). Jade items recovered in association with the burial not only varied in terms of color and potential quality of material but also in type of object. The assemblage included one small tubular bead, two small round beads, three pendants, two plaques, eight chunks or semiworked pieces, and one tri-lobed “spoon” pendant (Locket-Harris Reference Lockett-Harris2016).

The jade “spoon” pendant found at Ka'kabish measures roughly 7.5 × 3 cm and is 0.7 cm thick. It is asymmetrical in form, with the right lobe being longer and narrower than the left lobe. The latter lobe is incised with a circle and line, giving it the impression of a bird (Figure 6). The object has two discrete depressions, the first in the larger central lobe and the second on the right lobe. The abrupt termination of the right depression at the end of the lobe suggests that the object may have originally been longer. Two L-shaped holes are carved in the piece running from the top edge to the back of the pendant. Recovered from the southern pit, the “spoon” pendant was found in clear association with a cluster of 150 marine shell beads. The arrangement of the “spoon” pendant in conjunction with the shell beads indicates that when deposited they likely were part of a single offering: a shell necklace with a suspended “spoon” pendant.

Figure 6.

Photo of Ka'kabish jade spoon.

An Overview of Other Identified Tri-lobed “Spoon” Pendants

A total of 41 objects identified as jade “spoon” pendants were identified during this study (Table 1). All pendants correspond to the general description in that they are manufactured of jade and tri-lobed with at least one depression, although this may in some cases encompass all three lobes of the objects in a single depression. Nineteen of the “spoon” pendants identified for this study are currently in museum collections; 16 of these are in the United States and three are in the Jade Museum, Costa Rica (Basler Reference Basler1974:20; see Table 1). Of the artifacts held in American institutions, 14 are identified as Olmec, despite the fact that they possess no secure provenance; all but one of the pieces are listed as either being purchased directly by the museum or donated, and as such likely were purchased through the art market prior to being given to the museums by patrons. The means of acquisition for the three pieces in the Museo de Jade in Costa Rica are not specified (Basler Reference Basler1974:20; Graham Reference Graham and Jones1998), although these pieces also are attributed to being Olmec. Additionally, three tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendants may be found in the FAMSI Kerr Collection (K8274, K6112, and K4115), where, despite the lack of provenance, they, too, are described as Olmec.

Table 1.

Summary of Tri-lobed Jade “Spoon” Pendants.

Of the remaining 19 tri-lobed “spoon” pendants identified, nine could be categorized as having come from insecure archaeological contexts; that is, while their reporters were informed as to the original location of items, the objects were not recovered in situ during archaeological investigations. One of these was found on the backfill from a looters’ trench at Uxbenka by the site caretaker (Healy and Awe Reference Healy and Awe2001). Another tri-lobed “spoon” pendant that falls into a similar gray area was discovered between 1904 and 1912 as part of the formal investigations by Edward H. Thompson at Chichen Itza. While the object can be securely documented to Chichen Itza, it was dredged from the Sacred Cenote, rendering it impossible to ascertain an exact date for the piece (Proskouriakoff Reference Proskouriakoff1974:ix). Seven tri-lobed “spoon” pendants came from a collection originating at Chacsinkin (Andrews Reference Andrews and Andrews V1986, Reference Andrews1987). Their existence was noticed when pieces from the collection went for sale on the New Orleans art market. An investigation by Andrews tracked the objects back to the site of Chacsinkin where the locals reported having found them in a trench in one of the buildings (Andrews Reference Andrews and Andrews V1986, Reference Andrews1987). Despite being found at Maya sites, all eight objects originally were reported as being Olmec (Andrews Reference Andrews and Andrews V1986), “Olmec in design” (Proskouriakoff Reference Proskouriakoff1974:36), or “most likely of Olmec origin” (Healy and Awe Reference Healy and Awe2001:61). While Andrews, in a subsequent article (Andrews Reference Andrews1987) revises his opinion and clearly states that the pieces were “not from the Olmec Gulf Coast,” he does not state directly where the tri-lobed “spoon” pendants originate. Rather, Andrews ambiguously describes the artifacts as reflecting a “diversity of regional styles” (Reference Andrews1987:79).

In the past two decades, 10 tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendants were recovered from secure archaeological investigations. One of these from Ka'kabish, has already been discussed (see Haines Reference Haines2012; Haines et al. Reference Haines, Gomer and Sagebiel2014; Locket-Harris Reference Lockett-Harris2016). The remaining pieces include two from Ceibal, Guatemala (Castillo and Inomata Reference Castillo Aguilar and Inomata2011; Inomata et al. Reference Inomata, Pinzón, Palomo, Sharpe, Ortíz, Méndez and Román2017:211, 219, 225, Figure 31; Inomata and Triadan Reference Inomata and Triadan2015:79–80; Ortiz et al. Reference Ortiz, Pinzon, Méndez, Arroyo, Paiz and Mejia2012), one from Tipikal (Peraza Lope et al. Reference Peraza Lope, Delgado and Escamilla2002:265, Photo 17), and most recently six from Paso del Macho (Parker et al. Reference Parker, Bey and Negrón2020). What is of significance here is that all 10 “spoon” pendants from securely excavated contexts, as well as all eight objects from unsecure archaeological contexts, were recovered from sites in the Maya area (Figure 2).

The Issue with Origins

It is not the intention of this article to resolve the issue of function for these objects, nor is it to cast into question the acquisitions practices of museums; rather, it is to argue that the origin of the tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendant form should not be assumed to be Olmec. A subsequent and interrelated intention stemming from this argument is to highlight the automatic and unquestioning attribution of all jade “spoon” pendants to the Olmec, either directly in terms of implying where and by whom they were manufactured or through the more nebulous use of the term “Olmec-style.”

The first tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendant was reported on by Covarrubias who called it a “cucharita” (Reference Covarrubias1946:172, Figure 24). Covarrubias was, according to Pohorilenko (Reference Pohorilenko2006:17–18), not only a friend of Stirling who likely knew about the contents of the stone cache but also “a great connoisseur and enthusiast of Olmec art.” It is highly probable that he adopted Stirling's term for the objects. While the Guerrero object described by Covarrubias does fit the overall description of tri-lobed “spoon” pendants, its lack of provenance is troublesome. Although the item is described as coming from Las Balsas, Guerrero, it was in a private collection when Covarrubias inspected the object, and as such it did not have clear context (Covarrubias Reference Covarrubias1946). While the basin of the “spoon” pendant and tail are crudely carved with Olmec-like imagery, the insecure nature and unclear history of the piece make the automatic and unquestioning assumption of an Olmec origin problematic.

While the presumed and widely cited Olmec origin of tri-lobed “spoon” pendants is tenuously supported by several examples with Olmec imagery, it should be stressed that none of these carved objects are from secure archaeological contexts. Consequently, it is unclear if the imagery is original to the objects or added recently to enhance the value of genuine artifacts. Kelker and Bruhns (Reference Kelker and Bruhns2010:167–168) document two examples where Mesoamerican jades were recarved before appearing on the art market. This practice of enhancing genuine objects to increase their value is not limited to jade objects or even Mesoamerica (Brent Reference Brent2001; MacLaren Walsh Reference MacLaren Walsh2005; Sease Reference Sease2007:156; Taylor Reference Taylor, Benson and Boone1982:109). The apparently widespread nature of faking objects in general, coupled with the general lack of provenience overall for the clear majority of these “spoon” pendants, calls into question the aftermarket provenance attached to these objects and the financial implications for providing a provenance (see Marrone and Betrametti Reference Marrone and Beltrametti2020).

Perhaps nowhere is the assumption of an Olmec origin for these objects in the face of contrary evidence more apparent than in the assessment of a tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendant in the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, San José, Costa Rica. Despite the presence of Maya writing on the reverse, Graham (Reference Graham and Jones1998:52, Plate 28) considered this piece to be Olmec in origin, claiming that the piece was “appropriated by a Maya ruler of the late Formative period (100 BC–AD 100)” and that once carved, the “Olmec spoon, newly inscribed, entered the regalia set of the ruler.” Snarskis (Reference Snarkis, Quilter and Hoopes2003) also suggests that “the Maya inherited, appropriated, or looted some older Olmec jades and modified them” rather than considering a possible non-Olmec origin for these objects (Snarskis Reference Snarkis, Quilter and Hoopes2003:164–165; see also Ortiz et al. Reference Ortiz, Pinzon, Méndez, Arroyo, Paiz and Mejia2012:913).

More recently, Zralka and colleagues (Reference Zralka, Koszkul, Hermes and Martin2012) fell into the same line of thought with a recently discovered clamshell pendant at Nakum. Although the piece was found at a site located in the Central Petén and decorated with Early Classic Maya imagery and hieroglyphs, they assumed that, as the form was similar to pieces found at La Venta, the “pectoral is an Olmec piece that was subsequently reused by the Maya” (Zralka et al. Reference Zralka, Koszkul, Hermes and Martin2012:5). Their explanation of the history of this object has it crafted by the Olmec and transported to the Central Petén during the Early Classic where it is incised before being deposited in the early Late Classic burial. While the interment of heirloom artifacts is documented at Maya sites, the argument that the Nakum piece originated in the Middle Preclassic with the Olmec hinges solely on its form being “analogous to several Olmec spoons or clamshell pendants” (Zralka et al. Reference Zralka, Koszkul, Hermes and Martin2012:5).

It should be reiterated that while jade clamshell-shaped “spoon” pendants can be documented to the Olmec area, jade tri-lobed forms cannot. Moreover, while the two forms may have served a similar function, the physical expression of the object used—single ovate dish versus tri-lobed form with variable depressions—are clearly regionally distinct. The conflation of the two objects and the uncritical attributing of any jade “spoon” to a non-Maya point of origin highlight Estrada-Belli's criticism (Reference Estrada-Belli, Traxler and Sharer2016:225) that scholars have “a preference for searching for cultural innovation outside of the Maya Region.” Moreover, the historic and enduring use of the term Olmec in reference to these objects has perpetuated a long-standing problem of creating “implications of ‘source’ and ‘influence’” for objects where none may actually have existed (Grove Reference Grove and Sharer1989:14).

Arguments that rely on the portability of these jade pendants and the two pieces of imagery from Loma del Zapote and the Pacific coast to support the idea that tri-lobed “spoon” pendants owe their genesis to or were manufactured by the Olmec and exported into the Maya area can be countered using a similar argument. Dress and adornment have been long recognized as a way to encode identity (Aizpurúa and McAnany Reference Aizpurúa and McAnany1999; Kerr Reference Kerr2003; McCafferty and McCafferty Reference McCafferty and McCafferty2012; McCafferty and McCafferty Reference McCafferty, McCafferty and Mattson2021; Roach-Higgins and Eicher Reference Roach-Higgens and Eicher1992; Schevill Reference Schevill1986; see also Barnes and Eicher Reference Barnes and Eicher1992; Carter et al. Reference Carter, Houston and Rossi2020; Orr and Looper Reference Orr and Looper2014). Building on this theme, Mollenhauer (Reference Mollenhauer2014:17) argued that the clothing and adornments seen on Olmec monuments could represent “dynastic, religious, and/or political affiliations or even the territories they governed.” Given the idea that the regalia conveyed cultural affiliation, coupled with the lack of physical tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendants and limited appearance of imagery showing individuals wearing these pendants, it can be argued that the sculptures depicted individuals of nonlocal origin (i.e., people from the Maya region). Moreover, as the imagery depicting tri-lobed pendants are largely contemporaneous with the physical examples of tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendants found in the Maya region, it can be argued that the objects, or the knowledge of them, could just as easily have been imported into the Olmec area as outward from it. Grove, in his early assessment of Olmec artistic canons, cautioned that regarding some elements “one must consider the probability that Olmec style first appeared in Pacific Guatemala” before being transferred to the Olmec heartland (Grove Reference Grove, Sharer and Grove1981:238–239), a caveat that appears warranted in considerations of tri-lobed “spoon” pendants.

It is the opinion of this author that the attribution of these items to the Olmec, whether to them directly or to their influence as denoted by the use of the term “Olmec-style,” derives from a misunderstanding of what Stirling originally identified as a “spoon” (Reference Stirling1943:Plate IV), and that his term was conflated with what he termed “spangles.” As such, the continued misattribution of these tri-lobed items as Olmec, or even Olmec-style, particularly where there is no extant evidence to do so or more problematically where the archaeological and epigraphic evidence places them firmly within the context of Maya culture, not only precludes a more in-depth examination of the origin of these items but diminishes our understanding of the early development of rulership and the items used to manifest it among the ancient Maya.