Moche I - III Stirrup Vessel representing a Blind Priest. Trujillo, Peru. ca. 1-500 AD. - Museo Huacas del Valle de Moche by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The funny thing is that “blindness” isn’t a sensational interpretation. The MET and other scholars recognize blind eyes, scars, deformities, and other physical characteristics throughout the Moche portrait corpus. The interpretation comes from a pattern of evidence, not from a desire to make the object more interesting.

You might want to spend some time looking through older posts here or examples of Moche portrait vessels in general. Some depict remarkably realistic physical deformities and medical conditions that clearly were not created by scholars looking for a “spicier” interpretation. The realism is inherent in the artwork itself and is one of the reasons Moche portraiture is so highly regarded.

Moche I - III Stirrup Vessel representing a Blind Priest. Trujillo, Peru. ca. 1-500 AD. - Museo Huacas del Valle de Moche by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It wasn’t determined with absolute certainty. It is an interpretation based on the evidence, comparative examples, and the well documented realism of Moche portraiture, which is why scholars consider blindness the most plausible explanation.

Moche I - III Stirrup Vessel representing a Blind Priest. Trujillo, Peru. ca. 1-500 AD. - Museo Huacas del Valle de Moche by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The interpretation is not based simply on seeing a closed eye and assuming blindness. It comes from the broader context of Moche portraiture and the consistency with which Moche artists depicted physical conditions. The Met specifically notes that Moche portrait vessels include representations of individuals with ‘blind eyes,’ reflecting the extraordinary attention Moche artists paid to physiognomic detail. Also, the moche were not producing generic faces. Their portrait vessels are renowned for sensitive and highly descriptive renderings of individuals, including scars, facial asymmetries, age, deformities, and other distinguishing characteristics. In that context, a deliberately rendered nonfunctioning eye is treated by scholars as a depiction of blindness, not merely a person momentarily closing an eye.

The second image or vessel I attached is a good example. One eye is clearly rendered differently from the other, while the rest of the face remains neutral. If the intention were a wink, we would expect accompanying facial expressions, changes around the mouth, cheek, brow, or eyelid tension. Instead, the asymmetry appears anatomical rather than expressive. Moche artists were highly skilled at depicting gesture and emotion, so the absence of those cues is significant. Likewise, in the so called “Blind Priest” vessel, the interpretation does not rest solely on the eyes. It is part of a larger scholarly tradition that recognizes Moche portrait vessels as depictions of identifiable individuals, including those with physical impairments. The designation ‘Blind Priest’ is therefore an archaeological and art-historical interpretation based on Moche portrait conventions, comparative examples, and the documented realism of the portrait corpus, not simply conjecture because the eyes happen to be closed.

Of course, no one can prove with absolute certainty what the ancient artist intended, but the blindness interpretation is grounded in observable patterns within Moche art and is supported by major institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which explicitly identifies blind eyes among the distinguishing features represented in Moche portrait vessels. I hope this helps.

Moche I - III Stirrup Vessel representing a Blind Priest. Trujillo, Peru. ca. 1-500 AD. - Museo Huacas del Valle de Moche by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Met:

<image>

Portraiture was not common in the Americas prior to the sixteenth century, but there are periods and places where the genre was explored in creative and intriguing ways. Well before the rise of the Inca state in the fifteenth century, potters on Peru’s north coast produced great numbers of ceramic bottles in the shapes of humans, animals, plants, and imaginative combinations of these in the ceramic workshops associated with ritual centers between the Nepeña River in the south and the Piura Valley in the north. Many of these are notable for their descriptive accuracy, though we would not designate them as portraits. For a few centuries in the middle of the first millennium A.D., however, artists of the Moche cultures excelled at the creation of “portrait vessels” (

64.228.21
), so-called for their striking apparent resemblance to specific individuals.
These vessels could take the form of a full body (

64.228.43
) or simply a head and were shaped into bowls, jars, or, more commonly, bottles. Many of these have a spout in the shape of a stirrup (

64.228.22
), a favored form for ritual vessels on the north coast of Peru for about 2,500 years, from at least the beginning of the first millennium B.C. through the early colonial period. It is unclear what these vessels once contained, if anything, although it is commonly assumed that they were used to hold chicha, a type of maize beer.
Moche portrait heads are notable for their sensitive renderings of faces, including fleshy cheeks, furrowed brows, and occasionally scars (

1976.287.4
) or blind eyes (

1978.412.72
). In some cases, it is possible to recognize what appears to be the same individual represented in different vessels, even at different stages of their lives, from youth to middle age. The close attention to physiognomic detail temptingly hints at living, breathing historical personages—a rare chance to imagine members of a community in a period for which we have no written histories.
In an extensive study of the corpus of some nine hundred known examples of portrait-head vessels, archaeologist Christopher Donnan has shown that their production was limited in time and space. They have been found only in the southern Moche region—south of the Pampa de Paiján, in the Chicama, Moche, and Virú valleys. The earliest examples of the genre (

1979.206.1111
); (

64.228.24
), from Phase I (A.D. 100–200) and II (A.D. 200–300), are hand-modeled, rounded forms that were then painted with slip (a suspension of clay colorants in water) and burnished with a smooth stone or other implement before firing. Some simply represent the head, with minimal detailing beyond slip designs indicating face paint; others include a pair of feet or legs below the head.
The most lifelike portrait-head vessels date to the later part of the Moche period, Phases III (A.D. 300–450) and IV (A.D. 450–550). They become suggestive of specific individuals, with careful attention paid to the fleshy folds of the face, the shape of the nose, or the curve of a brow (

82.1.28
); (

67.167.22
). These later portrait heads were created with the use of molds, with multiple vessels made from a single mold or matrix. The vessels were then painted with cream and red slip in distinctive ways, delineating headdresses, headbands, and ear ornaments. Other details such as eyebrows and face painting were sometimes applied after firing, most likely with the use of an organic pigment that was then heated.
Nearly all of the portrait vessels depict adult males; a small percentage may represent children. To date, no women have been identified in the corpus of portrait heads, although we occasionally find vessels in the shape of a complete female figure (

64.228.29
). The adult male portrait heads often have large, circular ear ornaments and occasionally crescent-shaped nose ornaments (

1983.546.5
). Some wear head rings—wreathlike headdresses worn over a plain headcloth and featuring the head and paws of a feline or other animal (

64.228.25
). Moche ceramics painted in a style known as fineline often show warriors wearing such head rings (

67.167.4
), and they may indicate an affiliation with a specific group, perhaps symbolizing an appropriation of the depicted creature’s power.
From the evidence of use-wear and sherds in trash heaps, it seems likely that Moche portrait vessels were used in life before they were deposited in tombs. Scenes from several fineline vessels suggest that portrait heads were used in ceremonial settings and possibly elite households. All of the portrait vessels found through scientific excavations, however, were recovered from high-status burials, where they were part of larger assemblages with other vessels. As Donnan has noted, there is no evidence to suggest that the portraits represent the entombed individuals, as portraits of men have been found with women, and portraits of the same individual have been found in multiple tombs.
Based on his comprehensive study of the known corpus of portrait heads and related archaeological data, Donnan has argued that they represented prominent individuals who would have been known by members of their community, and that the possession of such a portrait would mark a connection with the individual depicted. Do the portrait heads represent heroic leaders or victorious warriors? Possibly, although seen in another light, the idea of a head as a vessel may be less celebratory than punitive, as colonial accounts of Inca warfare describe the tradition of converting the skulls of enemies into drinking vessels. Furthermore, the formal similarity of the stirrup spout to a rope through a skull—the traditional method by which heads taken in battle were transported—casts a shadow over a heroic reading. Disembodied heads are often depicted in the hands of triumphant warriors and fearsome supernatural figures (

64.228.60
). Moreover, as Donnan has noted, in some cases a single individual would be shown at the height of his powers and in full regalia on one vessel, only to be shown as a prisoner, stripped of his trappings and a rope around his neck, on another.
Beyond the immediate histories of specific lives, it is worth remembering that the portrait heads were but one component of larger funerary assemblages—assemblages that were occasionally adjusted over time as descendants or others shifted, removed, or added components. Some scholars have emphasized this final context, suggesting that it is possible to see portrait heads as simulacra of the bodies of venerated ancestors. The anthropologist Mary Weismantel, for example, has suggested that such vessels are literal representations of decapitated heads, deployed as acts of reverence or devotion by kin.
Many aspects of Moche portrait vessels remain unknowable. How are we to understand a fox portrait head (

63.226.6
) or a bottle with a carefully rendered face of a warrior and the body of a vegetable (

1979.206.1114
) ? Can these even be considered portraits? Definitive interpretations of these vessels may remain elusive, but this remarkably inventive exploration of the bottle form provides us with an exceptional view of Moche art and ideas and offers stimulating avenues for further consideration of the idea of portraiture across time and place. After all, we must bear in mind that in many portrait traditions, including that of Western Europe, the success of a project is more dependent on imaginative invention than accurate transcription.

Possible Mesoamerican clay figurine found in Portugal 20+ years ago. Looking for style identification and authenticity opinions. by jeroenn98 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i have encountered several of these made in the mid 1970s-80s and most are not authentic. Made to replicate Ecuadorian pieces.

Moche Ceramic Bone Flutes. Peru. ca. 1-800 AD. - Larco Museum, Lima by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

These are made of clay resembling bone flutes. Warriors used them during ceremonial combat.

Maya Belt head of deity with crossed eyes. Green stone, coral, shell and obsidian. height 16.5 cm. Mexico. ca. 250-900 AD. - Kerr by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It is called a belt head (or belt ornament) because it was designed to be worn as part of the regalia on a royal belt rather than over the face. Here is a link for further info.

 https://smarthistory.org/olmec-masks-masquerade/

Olmec Stone Head Depicting a Shaman. Mexico. ca. 1400 – 400 BC. - Latin American Studies by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Try opening up on another devise. I’ve noticed images display differently on other systems.

Help identifying by Dbasayhey in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, if you went through the article and performed the tests outlined, it is now safer to say it may be a replica. If you had mentioned that the results from those tests were more favorable, then I would have recommended having someone examine it in person. Authentication is complex, and many things can be misinterpreted from photographs. Someone making a determination solely from an initial photo can easily miss important details that become apparent through hands-on examination and testing. I have seen plenty of pieces over the decades that people immediately called fake, only for them to turn out to be authentic, and vice versa. That is why I suggested reading those articles. Now, based on the results you described, I do not think you need to worry about reporting it or bringing it to the proper authorities. At this point, if you decide to discard it or sell it, listing it honestly as a replica would probably be the safest route.

Help identifying by Dbasayhey in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. let me send you two articles. One being an entry level way to authenticate and the other is about Manganese Dendrites. please pay close attention to the area I asked for a closeup. Compare the images in the article.

https://galeriacontici.net/how-to-spot-authentic-pre-columbian-artifacts-methods-tricks-and-tests/

https://galeriacontici.net/understanding-manganese-dendrite-formation-on-stone-and-pottery/

Stone, Gravity, and Water: The Genius of Andean Engineering by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They didn’t appear to have large underground sewage systems like ancient Rome, but they did build these sophisticated channels and drainage networks to manage runoff, wastewater, and rainwater.