![\"P1190142\"](\"https:\/\/mexicandancemasks.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/P1190142.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI admire the wild expression on this mask. I also like the unusual two-layered rim design\u2014a line of small triangles within another line of much larger ones. The long curving triangles under the eyes imitate those of Preciliano Rodr\u00edguez Cupis, the father of Jes\u00fas.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The forehead cross looks like a flower, or maybe an airplane propeller (see Butterfly mask by Jes\u00fas, 9\/14\/2016, for a similar cross).<\/p>\n From below, one can see that the double rim design continues under the chin. One sees these jagged teeth frequently on masks by Jes\u00fas.<\/p>\n The back design is typical of Jes\u00fas and his brother Rodrigo. There is obvious wear.<\/p>\n The next mask was also collected by Barney and Mahina as the work of Jes\u00fas , but it could be by another Rodr\u00edguez, such as his uncle, Conrado Rodr\u00edguez Cupis; for example it has Conrado’s eye design\u2014with plain openings that are pointed on both ends (B\/M 306\/*). This is a magnificent mask.<\/p>\n I especially like the triangles within the triangles under the eyes. Also note the many hair bundles; I have never seen this many on any other Yaqui mask (originally there were about 37 bundles around the chin, although some are no longer present, along with a more normal 17 across the brow)!<\/p>\n This is one of those mean looking canine masks.<\/p>\n The forehead cross is small and traditional, however it is less worn than other white areas on the mask, so I think it was added later. As you know by now, Jes\u00fas was prone to omit the forehead cross, making it necessary for the dancer to add one if a cross was desired. His uncle Conrado also seems to have omitted the forehead cross sometimes.<\/p>\n There is no sign of a chin cross.<\/p>\n The back is dark with wear. It was said to have been danced for six years, but one wonders whether it might have been danced for much longer. It has the oval shape that I associate with Conrado and his brother Preciliano. There is a huge ventilation opening.<\/p>\n This next goat faced mask was collected by Barney and Mahina in 2006 (B\/M 379\/371). At that time the carver was unidentified. However, this is definitely in the style of Jes\u00fas, for example it looks very similar to the green fish or iguana mask in an earlier post (9\/12\/2016).<\/p>\n This generic rim design was frequently used by the Rodr\u00edguez carvers.<\/p>\n There is no forehead cross, which is a common omission on the dance masks of Jes\u00fas.<\/p>\n Nor is there any sign of a chin cross.<\/p>\n This style of carved teeth is typical of Jes\u00fas.<\/p>\n The back shows moderate staining from use.<\/p>\n The next mask in this post was said to be the work of Lalo Guti\u00e9rrez, a carver unknown to me, and not identified with any other mask in the Burns collection (B\/M 383\/375). The eyes and the red areas around the eyes suggest the Rodr\u00edguez family style and the mask has the sharp nasal ridge typical of Jes\u00fas. It lacks a forehead cross, an omission which is also suggestive of that artist. Therefore I am attributing this mask to Jes\u00fas Rodr\u00edguez Mu\u00f1oz.<\/p>\n The nose has a distinctive shape.<\/p>\n There is no forehead cross.<\/p>\n One sees Rodr\u00edguez features. Note the rim design across the top of the mask\u2014vvvVVvvv.<\/p>\n This is such a handsome mask. Look at the carefully carved nostrils.<\/p>\n The back is heavily worn.<\/p>\n The next mask is clearly by the same hand, but of smaller proportions as if it was carved for a child. When purchased by Barney and Mahina, the carver was unknown (B\/M 844\/838). So I am attributing it to Jes\u00fas as well. The painted decoration is spare.<\/p>\n In my view the mask was initially provided with very little decoration, and then the rim design was later added by a dancer.<\/p>\n There is no forehead cross, which is normal for a mask by Jes\u00fas. The nose is exactly the same as that on the previous mask.<\/p>\n There are relief carved teeth, a difference from the previous mask. However, these resemble the jagged teeth on other masks by Jes\u00fas in today’s post.<\/p>\n This mask is 6\u00bdinches tall, 5 inches wide, and 3 inches in depth. In contrast a typical adult mask by a Rodr\u00edguez carver is taller, measuring about 8 inches tall, 5\u00bc inches wide, and 3\u00bc inches deep.<\/p>\n The back is unusually oval for a Yaqui mask, apparently because it was carved for a child’s shorter face.<\/p>\n By now you must have noticed that I am building up a model for the identification of masks by Jes\u00fas by extension\u2014proceeding from established and familiar features to other masks that share such design details and yet introduce us to others.<\/p>\n I found yet another mask with nearly the same shape in the Burns collection (B\/M197\/*). Ironically, this one was attributed to Rodrigo Rodr\u00edguez Mu\u00f1oz, the brother of Jes\u00fas. In some cases it is very difficult to tell their work apart, but you may have noted one typical difference\u2014Rodrigo preferred to install a highly formal forehead cross on his masks, while Jes\u00fas apparently felt no such compulsion and he frequently omitted this feature.<\/p>\n There is no sign of a forehead cross on this mask. On comparing the paint color on the ears with that of the rim and under the eyes, it seems obvious that the white splotches over red designs were a later addition. Without those additions, the mask would look more typical of the Rodr\u00edguez masks.<\/p>\n But one can’t miss the nearly identical shape of this mask when compared to the other two. They all could have been carved by the same hand.<\/p>\n And again we find a face that presents a conical shape.<\/p>\n The worn back of this mask also has a shape that is like the backs of other masks by Jes\u00fas, although the length of the ears makes it look slightly different.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The last three masks of this post share an unusual feature, a ridge or crest on the top. As I will further explain, I am linking these three masks on the basis of a hunch by Tom Kolaz. The first of these came labeled as a mask carved by Jes\u00fas Rodr\u00edguez Mu\u00f1oz, it has a Rodr\u00edguez look, and it lacks a forehead cross (B\/M 216\/213). Please note the forehead crest.<\/p>\n There are curving relief carved horns and this mask has Jes\u00fas’ usual mask shape.<\/p>\n There is not only no forehead cross, but also no place for one.<\/p>\n The back shows some staining from use, and is compatible with the attribution to Jes\u00fas,<\/p>\n The next goat mask was said to have been carved by Justo Jusacamea of Las Guacamitas (B\/M 393\/385). This is another carver who is unknown to me, and with no other mask attributed to him in the Burns collection. On inspection, this is another mask with Rodr\u00edguez family features\u2014including the rim design, the ears that resemble another mask in this post (B\/M 197) and that lonely pair of teeth on the lower jaw. The horns on this mask strongly remind me of those on the mask just above.<\/p>\n The design and modeling of this mask are very fine, definitely up to the Rodr\u00edguez family standards. This is a wonderful mask.<\/p>\n One could see this sort of face from Rodrigo or Jes\u00fas. It resembles the face on the pig mask by Jes\u00fas that you saw several weeks ago. Here it is to refresh your memory.<\/p>\n A top view of the goat faced mask comes next.<\/p>\n The forehead crest, which is so stylized and abstract, is perhaps the most interesting feature. One also notes the lack of a forehead cross.<\/p>\n The back looks only a little different from the one on the last mask. It has a great deal more staining from use.<\/p>\n The following mask, which came to Barney and Mahina without a carver’s name (B\/M 390\/382), reminded Tom Kolaz of the “Lalo Guti\u00e9rrez” Goat mask, causing him to wonder if it was by the same carver. Tom has a good eye, so I paid attention to this idea, looked around in the Barney and Mahina collection, and assembled this threesome. The decoration makes one think of the usual Rodr\u00edguez style. This is another mask of triangular\u00a0 or conical form, like so many other masks by Jes\u00fas, and it too has a triangular crest, so I am entertaining the idea that this is another mask by that carver. It is a terrific mask. This photo is slightly blurred, for which I apologize; I don’t have another that provides an overall view from the front.<\/p>\n The extended tongue is carved in relief.<\/p>\n The goat horns are depicted in an extremely abstract form, as if they were airplane wings. In passing, I often tilt the side of a mask upwards with a block of wood so that I don’t need to stoop so low to obtain a side view. In this case I overlooked the fact that the block was visible in the photo. In my post of 8\/29\/16 I included a photo of the garage studio where I shot this photo, and there you can see a pile of wooden blocks used for this purpose. You will see a few more of these exposed blocks, now and then, in my Burns collection photos.<\/p>\n The cross of four diamonds is a known Rodr\u00edguez variation (September 5, 2016), although usually presented in a broader form. The elevated area on the forehead is highly stylized and unusual.<\/p>\n “Kiss me you fool” (Theda Bara, 1915). The shape of the frames around the eyes is most typical for masks by Preciliano Rodr\u00edguez Cupis.<\/p>\n This back design is well within the usual style for Jes\u00fas. The mask was found in “Casa Blanco.”<\/p>\n In the next few weeks we will continue to sort out and admire Rodr\u00edguez masks as we examine some that may have been carved by Preciliano Rodr\u00edguez Cupis, the father of Rodrigo and Jes\u00fas, or by Conrado Rodr\u00edguez Cupis, their uncle (and the brother of Preciliano).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I had not planned on doing yet another post about the masks of Jes\u00fas Rodr\u00edguez Mu\u00f1oz. However, as I looked over the photos I had taken of the masks in the collection of Barney Burns and Mahina Drees, I realized … Read More <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n