The Wrestler (sculpture) - Unusual, or A Forgery?

Unusual, or A Forgery?

The sculpture falls outside the norms for much of the known Olmec art:

• The sculpture has no overt iconography, in contrast for example to Las Limas Monument 1.
• Whereas seated Olmec figures almost invariably have a broad base, this figure's base is narrow in proportion to its torso.
• The rotation of the upper body is unique in surviving Olmec sculptures, as is its "sensitive detail" such as the foot, complete with arch and rounded toes.
• In their petrographic analysis of Olmec artifacts, Williams and Heizer found that the basalt "is distinctive and . . . no other monument seen by us in Veracruz or Tabasco is made of the same material." They speculate that "it may be an imported piece . . . and its non-local origin is also suggested by the remarkable realism which is displayed".

The art historian Nancy Kelker of Middle Tennessee State University argues that a vague provenance, atypical stone, unusual carving of the back, nonstandard posture, recent publication of scholarly material on Olmec jades, and an urgent interest among Mexicans to find a myth for their origin in antiquity all suggest that it is a modern sculpture. In response to these arguments, the archaeologist Michael Coe and the art historian Mary Miller, both of Yale University, defended the sculpture as authentic, arguing that its similarity to Monument 34 from the Olmec site San Lorenzo, and the fact that we know little about Olmec art make it probable that this is an Olmec masterpiece from antiquity. At a separate time Coe stated that if Heizer felt the sculpture was a fake based on the petrographic analysis, then "something must be wrong with the petrographic analysis!". Susan Milbrath also argues against the possibility of a forgery. Milbrath maintains that its 1933 discovery, well before archaeologists defined Olmec culture or excavated Olmec sites, precludes falsification. She suggests that the Wrestler represents "a little known aspect of Olmec monumental art".