|
|
Literature on culture change in the Western Hemisphere generally and in Southern Mesoamerica specifically is fascinating for the remarkable longevity therein of the discredited dogmas of Diffusionism. As John Rowe (1966:134) has observed, diffusionism is predicated on the principal of Unilineal Cultural Evolution which identifies all apparently similar cultural expressions as links in a chain of causality proceeding from a uniquely original invention Ultimately, all diffusionism is based on ancient Semitic tales of a pair of progenitors and the subsequent dispersal of their offspring throughout the world. Clearly, the obligation to address issues stemming from Diffusionism is paralleled by the ongoing debate over "Creation Science" and is equivalent to obliging astronomers or geographers to review the beliefs and history of astrologers and "Flat Earthers". The problem is that Diffusionism, "Creation Science", astrology and the tenets of the Flat earth Society are all belief systems and are not, therefore, subject to scientific proof. Anyone who is forced to engage these beliefs plays the sucker twice, first when he takes them seriously and, second when his scholarly discussion is pointedly ignored by the true believers.. This principal denies even the possibility of independent invention, stimulus diffusion and cultural misunderstanding as explanations for superficially similar cultural expressions. Unilineal cultural evolution inevitably postulates some primordial "Mother Culture" from which cultural innovations spread through time and space like ripples in a pond.
In Mesoamerica, diffusionism found its Mother Culture during the 1940's, with the identification of Olmec civilization as a distinct and early culture situated midway between the Maya and Central Mexican regions. John Graham traces the origins of this "Olmec Mother Culture" theory to "Miguel Covarrubias, a Mexican commercial artist and fashion illustrator, an avid collector of antiquities, and enthusiast for the 'simpler, more honest' expression he perceived in Olmec artifacts, more compatible with the fashionable 'less is more' attitude 'de rigueur' for trendy aesthetes of the 1940's" (Benson and Graham 1988:2). Covarrubias himself described the Olmec as a civilization, "appearing suddenly out of nowhere in a state of full development, they constitute a culture that seems to have been the root, the mother culture, from which the later and better known...cultures sprang" (Covarrubias 1946a:79-80).
Graham has observed that Covarrubias' diffusionism "was based upon two false assumptions: first, that the then known art works were illustrative and representative of the totality of Olmec and Maya art, and that these presented a panorama in which Olmec, Izapan (an inserted 'transitional' style), and Maya arts succeeded each other sequentially in that order in separate but contiguous regions. Second, that the development of these three civilizations was linear and evolutionary, with the Olmec as the first high culture, the 'Mother Culture', the Izapan deriving from and developing further the original Olmec impulse, and in its turn passing that impulse on to its final development by the Maya" (Benson and Graham 1988:1).
Covarrubias expanded this diffusionist vision in a series of popular books and articles which, both fed upon and, fueled the ignorance of specialists and interested nonspecialists alike (Covarrubias 1942, 1946, 1946a, 1957). He also lost little time compiling the transcultural element lists so typical of diffusionist studies and organizing them into a cladistic chart illustrating the diffusion of cultural elements from a supposed Olmec original through all of the major regions, periods and cultures of ancient Mesoamerica (Covarrubias 1946a: Plate 4).
Professor Michael Coe at Yale subsequently stripped Covarrubias's Diffusionism of its trans-Pacific contacts (Coe 1962, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1992), adapting its "naive speculations and careless expositions into a unilinear cultural evolution -- from the 'classic' Olmec Mother Culture through a transitional and 'baroque' Izapan style to a culmination in the extreme 'baroque' Maya style, baroque at the time bearing a strongly pejorative sense" (Benson and Graham 1988:2). In addition to Coe numerous others have adopted various forms of Covarrubias' diffusionism (eg. Bernal 1969; Norman 1973, 1976; Quirarte 1973, 1976, 1981; Piña Chan 1989; Sharer 1994).
Virginia Smith discusses in detail the large number of Mesoamericanists who subscribe to Diffusionism (Smith 1984:3-6) Suzanna Miles (1965:237-238) and Tatiana Proskouriakoff (1950:102-153) were not diffusionists, as implied by Smith, although they recognized the recurrence of elements in various
early southern Mesoamerican art styles (Smith 1984:3-4).. Despite the general acceptance of diffusionism among Mesoamericanists, Smith's perceptive study of Izapa art concludes, "of the dozens of sites along the Pacific Coast of Mexico and Guatemala, none compares well to Izapa. Far from being a 'connecting link in time and space between the earlier Olmec civilization and the Classic Maya' art styles (M. D. Coe 1962:100), the Izapa style is unique. Further the notion that there is a particular link ought to be abandoned" (Smith 1984:48).
Graham has suggested that diffusionist sculptural studies became popular because neither Covarrubias, nor any of the other "people responsible for the propagation of the 'Olmec Mother-Culture' theory had by training, or inclination, any understanding of, or even real interest in, the formal properties of art styles (Benson and Graham 1988:2) Nonetheless, one diffusionist, Jacinto Quirarte (1973:32-33), was the first to perceptively observe that Izapan Art is a narrative style which employs various techniques for creating the illusion of depicted space.. The disastrous results of diffusionism's profound confusion between formal properties, which are inherent to specific art styles, and iconographic or thematic elements, which are not inherent or unique to specific art styles forms a recurring theme in Graham's work, (1971, 1977, 1978:186, 1981:164, 1982:9-10, 1982a, 1989:229-230, etc.).
In addition to its negative effects on studies of archaeological art, Diffusionism has also resulted in disturbing discrepancies in the published reports of key sites excavated by diffusionists. Troubling questions raised by these discrepancies led Graham to carefully examine those archaeological reports which supported the diffusionist viewpoint. His examinations revealed that many important conclusions of these reports were actually contradicted by the report's own data (Benson and Graham 1988:3; Graham 1989:240-242).
Other diffusionist studies employ another traditional technique -- comparison of lexica between distinct linguistic groups to show diffusionist descent. Jimenez Moreno (1942) provided a pretext for this form of diffusionism by initiating speculation on the linguistic stock of the Olmec. Terrence Kaufman (Campbell and Kaufman 1976:80) has taken credit for suggesting that (because Colonial linguistic maps show Mixe-Zoquean speakers near the supposed "Olmec Heartland" of the gulf coast) the Olmec spoke Mixe-Zoquean (Kaufman 1969, 1973, 1974). This suggestion ignored the proximity of speakers of Mayan, Otomanguean and even Aztecan to the same region on the same Colonial linguistic maps (Longacre 1967) Because this situation is unsatisfactory to diffusionists, new linguistic maps are being created to show only Mixe-Zoquean languages in regions where archaeological Olmec remains have been found, and beyond (Mexicon Reviewer). Remarkably, these transformations in the colonial linguistic map have ocurred without any new data on Mesoamerican Indian languages during the Colonial Period..
Also omitted from Kaufman's work is the evidence of changes in the nature and type of archaeological artifacts found in the Gulf Coast region in deposits representing the late centuries BC through the early centuries AD (Weiant 1943; Drucker 1943, 1943a, 1952; Drucker et al. 1959; Heizer, et al. 1968; Heizer et al. 1968a; Graham 1971; Porter 1989). These changes are so profound that they represent nothing less than the extinction of Olmec civilization from the archaeological record Joesink-Mandevill (1972) has found a way around the archaeological record, asserting an ability to identify the language of a people long dead, by examining ceramic deposits!.
Kaufman has also invented a "Proto-Mixe-Zoquean" language for the Olmec, based on descriptions which he and his coauthor admitted are "limited" (Campbell and Kaufman 1976:82). Yet, this detail did not stop those writers from attributing lexica for cultigens and "the maize preparation complex" as well as ritual terms such as incense, divination, dog, sacrifice, nagual, mat, paper, turkey and a day name as creations of the Mixe-Zoque which were diffused along with their referents throughout Mesoamerica (Campbell and Kaufman 1976:82). More recently, Kaufman and a new coauthor claimed to translate a non-Olmec inscription into his "Proto-Mixe-Zoquean" (Justeson and Kaufman 1993). Amazingly, in this most recent publication, Kaufman openly admitted that his "Proto-Mixe-Zoquean" is based on sources which are "inadequate for either historical reconstruction or decipherment"! (Justeson and Kaufman 1993:1710).
Although the details of diffusionist arguments are often problematic and their presentation contorted, it is their underlying premises which actually render them untenable. In contrast, legitimate studies of cultural interaction and culture change ask how, where and when the distinctive features of the various Mesoamerican civilizations came about and what types of interaction defined their relationships.
Attempts to sort Intermediate texts into rational groupings are complicated by the surprising degree of variation within the features of these texts. Yet there are two aspects of these texts which may be profitably examined: 1, the style of associated sculpture; 2, internal features of the texts themselves.
Three distinct styles of sculpture are associated with texts from the Intermediate Zone during the late centuries BC and early centuries AD: Olmec, Izapa and Maya (Graham et al. 1978, Graham 1971, 1978, 1981, 1989, Smith 1984). Although glyphs are found on individual sculptures representing all three sculptural styles, several texts appear to be secondary additions to preexisting objects carved in various or indeterminate sculptural styles (Coe, 1966, 1973, 1976). Connected texts, as part of the original artistic conception, are found on only two Olmec style sculptures, Abaj Takalik Stela 50 and Tres Zapotes Stela C (Porter 1989:i) In both of these instances, the monuments in question represent both the end of a local tradition of Olmec sculpture and the beginning of a subsequent local sequence of Maya sculptures. Indeed, Michael Coe has recently asserted that Tres Zapotes Stela C "is derivative from Olmec" (Coe 1984:76), reversing his earlier identification of Tres Zapotes Stela C as "Olmec La Venta" (Coe 1957:*), italicizing this assertion in lieu of an explanation.. Connected texts are not found on Izapa style sculptures at all (Norman 1976). However, connected texts from the intermediate zone appear on several Maya style sculptures The existing fragment of Chiapa de Corzo Stela 2 is problematic because it does not bear figural carving, and cannot therefore be assigned to a secure sculptural style. Nonetheless, purely glyphic sculptures are only known in the Maya and Zapotec traditions and Initial Series dates, such as that of Chiapa de Corzo Stela 2, are not found on Zapotec sculpture. .
The simple presence or absence of several key internal features from Intermediate texts indicates the cultural complexity of the Intermediate Zone during the late centuries BC and early centuries AD. For example various texts from the Intermediate zone bear Initial Series dates, yet there is enormous variation in the standard features of the Initial Series tradition. Features of the Initial Series tradition which may or may not appear on any given sculpture from the intermediate zone include the Initial Series Introductory Glyph, the Initial Series Introductory Glyph Variable, period glyphs, portrait numerals, month signs, day sign cartouches, day sign subfixes, universal affixation, affix rotation, paired columns, standardized glyph size, standardized glyph outlines and standard glyph forms.
Some of these features doubtless, reflect the early dates of these Initial Series dates, many dating to Cycles 6 or 7 of the Maya Era. Nonetheless, Nonclassic features abound on the periphery of the Classic Maya realm, indeed, the absence of period glyphs in Initial Series persists well into Cycle 9 at Pestac. The features of these Initial Series texts are as follows:
Cycle 6/7?
Abaj Takalik Stela 50, (6/7?).?.?.?.17 ? Kaban. Abaj Takalik Stela 50 has ISIG, ISIGV?, dot-bar IS, month signs?, single columns.
Abaj Takalik Monument 11, (6/7?).?.?.?.0? 11 Ahau? (Graham and Porter 1989). Abaj Takalik Monument 11 has period glyphs?, portrait numerals, day sign subfix, universal affixation?, affix rotation? and standardized glyph size.
Cycle 7
Abaj Takalik Stela 2, 7.6/11/16.?.?.?, ca. 292 BC-48 AD (Koue 1976; Graham et al. 1978:7-8). Abaj Takalik Stela 2 has ISIG, dot-bar IS, and standard glyph forms.
Chiapa de Corzo Stela 2, 7.16.3.2.13 6 Ben 16 Xul, 6 December 35 BC (Graham et al. 1978:7-8). Chiapa de Corzo Stela 2 has ISIG, dot-bar IS, day sign cartouche, standard glyph forms.
Tres Zapotes Stela C, 7.16.6.16.18 6 Etz'nab 1 Uo, 1 September 31 BC (Stirling 1939:213-216). Tres Zapotes Stela C has ISIG, ISIGV, dot-bar IS and day sign cartouche.
El Baul Stela 1, 7.18.9.7.12 12 Eb 10 Kumk'u, 17 July 11 AD (Graham et al. 1978:8). El Baul Stela 1 has Dot-bar IS, day sign cartouche, paired columns, standardized glyph size, standardized glyph outlines and standard glyph forms.
Kaminaljuyu Slab 7.?.?.?.?, has ISIG?, period glyph and standard glyph form.
Cycle 8
Abaj Takalik Stela 5a, 8.2.2.10.5 7 Chikchan 18 Uo, 21 Aug 83 AD, Abaj Takalik Stela 5b, 8.4.5.17.11 7 Chuen 14 Kayab, 3 June 126 AD (Graham et al. 1978:9-10). Abaj Takalik Stela 5 has ISIG, dot-bar IS, month signs?, day sign cartouche, day sign subfix, universal affixation, standardized glyph size, standardized glyph outlines and standard glyph forms.
La Mojarra Stela 1a, 8.5.3.3.5 13 Chikchan 3 K'ayab, 19 May 143 AD and La Mojarra Stela 1b, 8.5.16.9.7 5 Manik' 15 Pop, 11 July 156 AD (Winfield Capitaine 1988:14, Macri and Stark 1993). La Mojarra Stela 1 has ISIG, ISIGV, dot-bar IS, period glyphs, day sign cartouche, affix rotation, standardized glyph outlines and standard glyph forms.
The Tuxtla Statuette, 8.6.2.4.17 8 Caban 0 Kank'in, 12 March 162 AD (Holms 1907:695-699). The Tuxtla Statuette has ISIG, ISIGV, dot-bar IS, day sign cartouche, irregular glyph outlines and standard glyph forms.
Cycle 9
Cerro de las Mesas Stela 6, 9.1.12.14.10 1 Ok 3 Uayeb, 9 April 468 AD. Cerro de las Mesas Stela 6 has ISIG, dot-bar IS, and standard glyph forms.
Cerro de las Mesas Stela 8, 9.4.18.16.8 9 Lamat 11 Zotz', 6 June 533 AD. Cerro de las Mesas Stela 8 has ISIG, dot-bar IS, and standard glyph forms.
Cerro de las Mesas Stela 5, 9.6.19.14.1 6 Imix 4 Yax,
17 September 573 AD (Stirling 1943:35-42). Cerro de las Mesas Stela 5 has
ISIG, dot-bar IS, and standard glyph forms.
Pestac Stela 1, 9.11.13.9.0 10 Ahaw 3 Kumk'u, 1 February
666 AD (Blom 1935). Pestac Stela 1 has ISIG, ISIGV, dot-bar IS, period
glyphs, portrait numerals, month signs, day sign cartouche, day sign subfix,
universal affixation, affix rotation, paired columns, standardized glyph
size, standardized glyph outlines and standard glyph forms.
Apart from studies focussing on the features of Initial Series dating systems, other studies of Mesoamerican texts have delineated a variety of graphic systems employed by the Pre-columbian inhabitants of the region. From these systems, two broad groups of Mesoamerican graphic communication systems are distinguished by the degree to which they string non-calendric graphic elements together into connected texts. Simple graphic notation systems which, do not commonly form connected texts, were employed in Olmec, Izapa, Central Veracruz, Teotihuacan (where James Langley stretches the concept of "writing" and even of "notation" in his compendium of artistic motifs at Teotihuacan, Langley 1986), Cholula, El Tajin, Cotzumahualpa, Nuiñe, Xochicalco, Cacaxtla, Fine Orange, New Chichen, Mixtec and Aztec arts, among others. Strangely, although these simple graphic notation systems existed throughout most of Mesoamerica, complex writing systems (forming connected texts) are primarily confined to the Zapotec and Maya art styles.
Because the structural features of Stela 10's text place it among the
complex writing systems, there is little point in discussing studies of
most of the simple graphic notation systems listed above. Nonetheless,
the pervasive influence of Diffusionism necessitates an examination of
the simple graphic notational systems employed in Olmec and Izapa arts
as well as an examination of the complex writing systems accompanying Zapotec
and Maya art styles.
Notations appearing on Olmec art have been cataloged in David Joralemon's (1971:7-18) "Dictionary of Olmec Motifs and Symbols". The vast majority of the elements appearing in Joralemon's catalog are facial features such as eyes, eyebrows, ears, noses and mouths which do not actually constitute independent notations. Independent notations appearing as captions in Olmec art are extremely rare and connected texts on Olmec sculptures antedating Tres Zapotes Stela C, with its Initial series date of 31 BC, have not been found (Porter 1992, 1995a). In fact, many of the independent notations which do appear in Joralemon's "Dictionary" are actually from texts on Zapotec or Maya style sculptures.
Objects with a questionable Olmec identity selected as sources of the notations in Joralemon's Olmec motif "Dictionary" include the Alvarado Stela, La Venta Monuments 13 and 29 and the secondary incision on a "mask of God II-F". The Alvarado Stela (Joralemon 1971: Figure 11) is carved in a regional Maya substyle with a Tuxtla inscription. La Venta Monument 13 with its brief, three (or four?) glyph text which is commonly cited as an example of Olmec writing (Joralemon 1971: Figure 4), is actually a Maya style column altar (Porter 1992, 1995a) carved with a Maya style standing figure (de la Fuente 1973:262-264). La Venta Monument 29 is not "typical Olmec" as Joralemon asserts (1971: Figure 132), it is a Maya style stela depicting a standing figure embracing a ritual tree. Nor is the incised decoration of the "mask of God II-F" Olmec (Joralemon 1971: Figure 187), it consists of the graphic scrollwork so characteristic of some Maya substyles. Therefore, it is likely that the eight motifs found exclusively on these pieces are not Olmec: 112; "Banded Bracket"; 78, "Surrender Signal"; 153, "Stacked 'Cannon Balls'"; 158, "Comb"; 160, "Inverted Y"; 77, "Flag or Pennant"; 178, "Footprint"; 179, "Three-petal Flower".
Other motifs in Joralemon's study cannot be found in all instances where he indicates (eg. 127, "Speech Scroll"). A number of other motifs are so broadly defined that they are not unique to Olmec, or even to Mesoamerican graphic notation systems (eg. 99, "Crossed Bands or St. Andrew's Cross; 117, "Dot or Spot").
Of the Olmec style objects bearing glyphic texts, other than Tres Zapotes Stela C, virtually all acquired their texts sometime after the completion of the original Olmec style object. Further, these texts are written in distinct graphic notation systems rather than in a single system, as one might expect if the Olmec invented writing. The Tuxtla Statuette bears a Tuxtla inscription, the Humboldt Celt and one Covarrubias notebook celt (Joralemon 1971: Figure 32, 34) bear Zapotec inscriptions For further discussion of the Zapotec nature of the Humboldt Celt see Whittaker (1972) and Justeson et al. (1985:34-37).. Another Covarrubias notebook celt, a pectoral fragment and a greenstone vessel fragment (Schele and M. Miller 1986: Plates 31, 45) and the Dumbarton Oaks Pectoral all bear Maya inscriptions (Joralemon 1971: Figures 37, 230) To Joralemon's credit, neither the Tuxtla Statuette, the greenstone bowl fragment nor the Dumbarton Oaks Pectoral inscriptions appear in his catalog..
As observed above theories of an Olmec origin for Mesoamerican writing
hinge upon: 1, an extension of the, incomplete and poorly documented, Contact
Period linguistic map more than two millennia into the past and 2, an assignment,
based upon point 1, of Mixe-Zoquean speech to the Olmec. Despite the absence
of early connected texts associated with Olmec art, a number of notations
or symbols appear in Olmec art which also appear in the Zapotec, Tuxtla
and Maya writing systems. Nonetheless, none of these genuinely Olmec expressions
forms either a likely antecedent to or descendant of the text of Stela
10. Indeed, the only Olmec monuments bearing contemporaneous inscriptions,
Abaj Takalik Stela 50 and Tres Zapotes Stela C, appear to be hybrids created
under the impetus of non-Olmec people during the final moments of Olmec
civilization.
Izapa Stela 1 bears a boot shaped notation in its upper register with a grouping of numerical dots above Norman (1976:91) identifies another example of "Boot" in the lower right of Izapa Stela 5. However, this image appears to be an object in the scene and not "Boot".. "Boot" also appears in Zapotec, Tuxtla and Maya writing, but not in Olmec notations. The numerical dots associated with this notation at Izapa could be interpreted as 1.4 "boot" or as 5 "boot". Both of these interpretations of the numerical dots have interesting ramifications: the first suggesting that Izapans employed Maya style positional notation, the second suggesting the Izapans employed Mexican style numerical notation. Nonetheless, the absence of clear positional notation on Izapa sculptures suggests the second possibility is more likely. Stirling failed to identify the numerical dots associated with "Boot" and identified "Boot" as "a little stand or altar", suggesting that it "resembles...the 'mountains' or place glyphs of the Mixtec Codices...[and] a slightly askew jaguar face" Stirling (1943:62). Norman echoed these identifications, describing this graphic grouping, as a "Stepped-Snout Profile" as "a 'notched table' with five circlets above it" and as "15 Ik day Glyph" (Norman 1976:49,91). Strangely, Norman's text does not recognize these dots as numeric, although the caption to Figure 3.1 does.
Izapa Stela 3 bears two notations, a human head of indeterminate gender in right profile inside a crescent which appears in the upper left of the composition and a grotesque head with its scroll eye unfurled which appears in the lower left of the composition. "crescent" is the second most common (with further examples on Izapa Stelae 6 and 26) of the four Izapa notations which repeat. "crescent" is remarkably similar to T683, the lunar sign employed in Maya writing. This similarity suggests the possibility that the examples of "crescent" on Izapa Stelae 3, 6 and 26 represent the moon numen in her anthropomorphic form. Stirling identified "crescent" as "a man in a canoe" This notion is based on a superficial resemblance to birch bark canoes with crescent prow and stern from the deciduous forests of the American northeast and has no relationship to southern Mesoamerican canoes which have flat shelves at prow and stern. (Stirling 1943:63). Norman (1976:45) identified "crescent" as the moon although he also repeated Stirling's identification as a canoe and further suggested it represents a "jaguar mouth" or a "postmortality theme" (Norman 1976:96-97)! "Unfurled scroll eye" is more problematic than "crescent". Numerous figures in Izapa art wear "scroll eye" masks so this notation may make reference to the priestly or other functions of these figures. Nonetheless, the unfurled "eye" has more ominous implications, extruded eyes being associated with sacrifice in later Southern Mesoamerican arts (Thompson 1972a:33-34). Stirling described "unfurled scroll eye" as "an inverted head, wearing an ear disk, the body of which is a simple heavy scroll" (Stirling 1943:63). Norman identified "unfurled scroll eye" as a notation which "establishes the deity roles of the associated serpent and standing figure and that the prominent scroll flanked by petals issuing from its head adds a particular functional definition..."(Norman 1976:96).
Izapa Stela 5 bears numerous iconographic elements, only two which are sufficiently out of place to be notations. These two elements are ringtailed fish which appear in the upper left of the composition. A similar pair of ringtailed fish is indicated by the armlets of the main figure on Izapa Stela 1. Neither Stirling (1943:65) nor Norman (1976:166, 171, 195, 216, 219, 222) found anything particularly remarkable about the placement of these two fish. Although Norman identified the two lower fish as "deity messengers" or "deity consorts" rising on the incense smoke to carry some spirit into a "heavenly realm" (Norman 1976:219,222,224). The peculiar nature of Norman's analysis of these fish out of water is complimented by the nine pages he devoted to the discussion of the mythology of an eroded scroll which he believed was an independent notation and identified as "Symbol 8" (Norman 1976:174-182).
Izapa Stela 6 bears an eroded human head of indeterminate gender in right profile inside a crescent which appears in the upper portion of the composition. The association of "crescent" with a large batrachian Strangely, Stirling misidentified the main figure on this stela as "a sitting, potbellied jaguar" (Stirling 1943:65) and Norman blindly repeated the error with further additions (Norman 1976:100-101)! gazing upward recalls the Maya lunar series in which new moons are "upended frog"ed (born?).
Izapa Stela 8 bears a large notation within a cartouche which appears in the upper portion of the composition. Stirling observed that this element was badly eroded and identified it as simply "a large raised cartouch with beveled edges" (Stirling 1943:66). Norman, perhaps emboldened by the imagination which found a world of meaning in "Symbol 8", interpreted this cartouche as an "insect wing" and devoted considerable space to that identification (Norman 1976:104-106). Although most of this notation is eroded, the remaining portions resemble the "crossed bands" notation carved on the seat of Izapa throne 1. Based on this resemblance it is safe to say that Izapa Stela 8 also bore a large "crossed bands" notation. "Crossed bands" was a very popular form throughout Southern Mesoamerica during the Preclassic Period (eg. the sky band of Izapa Stela 18) and is, therefore, very difficult to interpret. Regardless of whatever else "Crossed bands" might mean, its identification with Izapa Throne 1 and the depiction of a similar throne in the scene below suggest that the throne depicted on Izapa Stela 8 is Izapa Throne 1.
Izapa Stela 12 bears a feline corpse with "Pronged scroll" emerging from its mouth. "Trefoil" appears in the center of the sky band, where it replaces the more common "U" element. "Pronged scroll" also appears on Izapa Stela 25 and Miscellaneous Monument 60, while "Trefoil" also appears on Izapa Stela 27. "Trefoil" was a very popular form throughout Southern Mesoamerica during the Preclassic Period and is, therefore, very difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, it appears quite often with numerals, indicating it may be a day sign. Stirling either did not notice or did not care to comment on the examples of "Pronged scroll" and "Trefoil" on this monument. Norman also failed to identify "Pronged scroll" Nor did he recognize "Pronged scroll" on Izapa Stela 25 (Norman 1976:132)., although he discussed "Trefoil" at some length (Norman 1976:116-117).
Izapa Stela 21 bears a human portrait of indeterminate gender in left profile within an elaborate cartouche which appears in the center of the composition. The cartouch bears a superfix, a postfix and a subfix. The superfix resembles T124/125/126. The postfix is an indeterminate form which closely resembles the Maya glyph T12. The subfix is a fascinating play on the "pronged scroll". In this example the squatting feet and fret nosed serpent tail(?) of an animal stand in for "pronged scroll". Of the identifiable notations at Izapa, this is (along with Izapa Miscellaneous Monument 60) the most likely to be a sacred round day notation. Norman identified this notation on Izapa Stela 21 as another "insect-like glyph" (Norman 1976:124,126). Perhaps the wealth of annoying exoskeletal life forms in the hot and humid Izapa region accounts for Norman's apparent fascination with insects.
Izapa Stela 26 bears a bust of a human figure of indeterminate gender in right profile within "crescent" which appears in the upper portion of the composition. The significance of this notation is probably similar to that of the portrait within "crescent" which appears in the upper left of Izapa Stelae 3 and 6.
Izapa Stela 27 bears a trefoil notation within a quatrefoil on the trunk of the tree which appears at the center of the composition and an eroded cartouche with two numerical bars above which appears to the right of the composition. Norman interpreted these two parallel bars as "indicating the number ten" and "Trefoil" as a "descending deity...enclosed within the cross" (Norman 1976:139). This description rather too closely recalls the Roman Catholic symbolism of the holy spirit descending in the form of a dove during the sacrament of the eucharist, and is therefore unlikely to be a native construct.
Izapa Stela 60 bears an avian portrait in right profile within an elaborate cartouche which appears in the lower right of the composition. The cartouche bears a prefix consisting of a winged scroll, an enormous superfix incorporating one single scroll, one winged scroll and two bifurcated scrolls, a postfix composed of a fish tail ? and a subfix consisting of two (numerical ?) dots. Norman identified this notation with the vulture form of the Maya day notation Ahaw and its association with leadership (Norman 1976:153-154).
Izapa Altar 60 bears a fret nosed serpent notation in left profile in the lower right of the composition. Norman aptly observed that the similarity between this notation and the snout of the crocodile on Izapa Stela 25 establishes that these two monuments were designed to go together, although he devoted an inordinate amount of space to the notion that the throne on which the main figure sits is a "glyph" (Norman 1976:248-250).
Izapa Throne 1 bears a "Crossed bands" notation in the center of the top surface and a series of grotesque heads in profile facing down along the front and sides of the throne. Although Norman recognized the relationship between this "Crossed bands" notation and the cartouche on Izapa Stela 8, he described them differently and did not recognize the relationship with "Crossed bands" in the sky band of Izapa Stela 18 (Norman 1976:251-254).
The second phase carving of Izapa Miscellaneous Monument 2 bears a series of 12+ animal (feline?) heads in profile flanking the central squatting figure to the left and the right. Stirling described these notations as "a series of curious ornaments" (Stirling 1943:68). Norman described the same forms more accurately as "small animal heads facing inward" (Norman 1976:257).
Izapa Miscellaneous Monument 36 bears an eroded cartouche (Norman 1976:275).
Izapa Miscellaneous Monument 38 bears a sunken cross (Norman 1976:276).
Izapa Miscellaneous Monument 60 bears a skull in left profile within an elaborate cartouche which appears in the center of the composition. The cartouche bears a superfix consisting of two numerical dots above a numerical bar and a subfix consisting of a "pronged scroll". This is almost certainly a sacred round day notation, 7 Kimi (Norman 1976:282-284.
Izapa notation is, like Olmec notation, confined to a few individual
glyphs scattered through the visual art. The art style and its glyphs is
further confined to a single site and a relatively narrow time period,
approximately 100 BC-100 AD. Nonetheless, among the small number of Izapa
glyphs known today, only "fish" "Boot" and "pronged scroll" also appear
in contemporaneous inscriptions on Maya style sculpture. This situation
suggests the Izapans may have had some sort of indirect contact with Maya
literati. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that Izapa glyphs form an antecedent
to the inscription of Stela 10.
Zapotec writing was first discussed by Eduard Seler (1904, 1904a) although it was not described in detail until Alfonso Caso began the first serious efforts to study the writing system (Caso 1928, 1946, 1965a, 1967). Since that time Ignacio Bernal, Joyce Marcus, Howard Leigh, John Paddock, Gordon Whittaker and others have begun refining more systematic approaches to recording and describing further iconographic and linguistic aspects of Zapotec writing.
Marcus and Bernal have focused their efforts on the search for Zapotec origins (Marcus 1976, 1976b, 1980, 1992). Marcus' publications of San Jose Mogote Monument 3 have been invaluable in demonstrating the antiquity of sacred round notation among the Zapotec (Marcus 1976, 1976b, 1980, 1992). Although the precise date of San Jose Mogote Monument 3 is less certain than Marcus would have it (Whittaker 1983:104-105). Bernal has also discussed early Zapotec texts, some in secondary contexts and some apparently in primary contexts (Bernal 1969, 1988).
Following Caso's Iconographic approach to the writing system, Leigh provided a model for future visual studies of individual Zapotec glyphs (Leigh 1970). Paddock also discusses some individual glyphs, although the treatment is not well integrated (Paddock 1970). Nonetheless, the incorporation of Ethnographic and Linguistic materials for a holistic approach was left to Whittaker. Whittaker has focused on clarifying and systematizing the basic understanding of Zapotec writing as a system (Whittaker 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1992). His notation list and descriptive analysis of the writing system is an excellent start at the sort of catalog of Zapotec Glyphs which is needed for any systematic study of Zapotec writing (Whittaker 1980). Nonetheless, a more complete catalog with glyph drawings traced from accurate images of the originals is sorely needed.
Although scholars continue to examine the problem, many questions regarding Zapotec writing remain unresolved Despite Marcus' advocacy (1976:49), I find her evidence for column pairs in Zapotec writing rather slim. Because Zapotec glyphs are regular in width but vary considerably in height, lacking the unit sizing essential to reading Maya writing in column pairs, it is extremely unlikely that Zapotec writing employed column pairs. . Even the issue of reading order remains controversial, with Marcus (1976:49, 1992:38) reading columns from left to right and Whittaker (1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1992) reading columns from right to left.
These issues aside, the most serious problem facing students of Zapotec writing is the poor quality of the early photographs and drawings which are commonly studied in lieu of the actual inscriptions. Andy Seuffert's drawings go far to rectify this problem and John Scott's recent catalog of Monte Alban Danzantes provides some early three and four glyph captions which are sufficiently well recorded to form a base of study. Scott dates Monte Alban 1 to 500-150 BC (Scott 1978:9-12) with Period I at 500-200 BC and Period II at 200-150 BC (Scott 1978:68-71). From this group of early sculptures seventy-three bear hieroglyphs.
FIRST ROW
Monte Alban D-2, 1, ? 2, V 3, W822.
Monte Alban D-3, 1, cartouche 2, V.
Monte Alban D-5, 1, cartouche 2, V 3, scroll.
Monte Alban D-6, 1, W121 2, W831.
Monte Alban D-8, 1, ? 2, W34 3, W831.
Monte Alban Stela 12
Monte Alban Stela 13
SECOND ROW
Monte Alban D-16, 1, W572 2, W563.
FOURTH ROW
Monte Alban D-18a, 1, ?.
Monte Alban D-19, 1, ?.
Monte Alban D-22, 1, W831 2, W633.
Monte Alban D-23, 1, head 2, V ?.
Monte Alban D-40, 1, W896 2, VI.
Monte Alban D-41a,1, coiled serpent.
Monte Alban D-46, 1, unknown.
Monte Alban D-55, A1, W40 A2, W852 A3, W401 B1, W627 B2,
Monte Alban W518 B3, W16 C1, W933 C2, W527.
Monte Alban D-57, A1, W670 A2, W527 A3, ? A4, W401 B1, W663
Monte Alban (148,151) 2, W560.
Monte Alban D-59, 1, W52 2, W264 3, ?.
Monte Alban D-61, 1, W657 (I?) 2, ?.
Monte Alban D-63, 1, W79 2, W667.
Monte Alban D-78, 1, W452 (W712) 2, head, "blood".
Monte Alban D-86, 1, W825 2, W651.
Monte Alban D-91, 1, W697.
Monte Alban D-92, 1, W145 2, W700 3, W264.
Monte Alban D-94, 1, ?.
Monte Alban D-104,1, W715.
Monte Alban D-108,1, ? 2, W560.
Monte Alban D-111,1, face ?.
Monte Alban D-112,1, W709.
Monte Alban D-115,1, cartouche.
Monte Alban D-123,1, W712 2, head, "blood".
Monte Alban D-130,1, W718 2, W825 3, W721.
Monte Alban E-1, 1, ? 2, bird ? 3, ?.
Monte Alban E-2, 1, W575 2, X?.
Monte Alban E-6, 1, ? 2, ?.
Monte Alban I-1, 1, W724 2, W148.
Monte Alban J-41,1, Period II (Caso 1946:131).
Monte Alban J-45,1, IV 2, W590-599 3, I?.
Monte Alban J-46,1, W446 2, W578.
Monte Alban J-52,1, W609.
Monte Alban J-54,1, ?
Monte Alban J-55,1, ?
Monte Alban J-56,1, ?.
Monte Alban J-63,1, W633 2, W609.
Monte Alban J-74,1, W727 (I?) 2, W560.
Monte Alban J-80,1, ? 2, W840.
Monte Alban J-89,1, ? 2, W609.
Monte Alban J-94,1, W660 2, ?.
Monte Alban J-121, speech scroll 2, head (W37) 3, "blood".
Monte Alban J-133, 1, ? 2, ? 3, ?.
Monte Alban JP-1, 1, ? 2, V 3, ?.
Monte Alban JP-2, 1, unassigned 2, unassigned 3, W4 H?
Monte Alban K-11, 1, ? 2, ? 3, ? 4, ?.
Monte Alban M-1, 1, ? 2, ? 3, ?.
Monte Alban M-2, 1, W825.
Monte Alban M-4, 1, W730 2, ? 3, W720-730 4, W733.
Monte Alban M-19,1, W609 2, ? 3, W88.
Monte Alban N-4, 1, W939 2, W88.
Monte Alban N-14,1, ? 2, W569.
Monte Alban N-11,1, cartouche 2, W151.
Monte Alban N-12,1, cartouche 2, W654 (I?) 3, W899.
Monte Alban N-14,1, W49.
Monte Alban N-22,1, W642.
Monte Alban N-32,1, cartouche 2, X.
Monte Alban N-33,1, head.
Monte Alban P-2, 1, ? 2, cartouche 3, ?.
Monte Alban S-3, 1, W437 2, W596.
Monte Alban S-4, 1, W606 2, W569 3, "crescent".
Monte Alban S-6, 1, ? 2, W606.
Monte Alban S-8, 1, ?.
Monte Alban S-10,1, W533 (W437).
Monte Alban S-11,1, W800-820 2, W237 3, VI 4, W479.
Monte Alban S-14.1, W151 2, "fish".
Monte Alban Unidentified-4, 1, W609.
Some Monte Alban Danzantes display two phases of carving and others exhibit features of non-local sculptural styles. D-16 and D18, have carving on two sides indicating reused stones, perhaps related to D-104 (Scott 1978:45). Scott identified J-41,1 and N-33,1 as carvings in Dainzu style (Scott 1978:51-52). Scott has also observed that J-45 was carved on a slab with an earlier "swimmer" and he identified this piece as a carving in "Izapan" style, which he assigned to Period II (Scott 1978:52-53). The implication of these pieces, that Izapa was an Otomanguean site with connections to Monte Alban, is worth further investigation.
It has been suggested that writing originated and diffused to other Mesoamericans from a Zapotec hearth (Marcus 1976, 1976b, 1980, 1992; Whittaker 1980). It is even possible that the earliest Zapotec glyphs are earlier than the earliest known Maya glyphs. Yet, among the relatively large number of Preclassic Zapotec glyphs assembled by Bernal, Caso, Marcus, Scott and Whittaker, only "fish" "Boot" and "pronged scroll" also appear in contemporaneous inscriptions on Maya style sculptures such as Stela 10.
None of the contemporaneous Zapotec inscriptions is as long, as complex
or as sophisticated in its conception as is the inscription of Stela 10.
This situation suggests that there was little contact between Preclassic
Zapotec and Maya and that whatever influence there may have been flowed
from the Maya to the Zapotec rather than vice-versa. Therefore, it is unlikely
that Zapotec inscriptions form either an antecedent to or a direct descendant
of the writing system inscrbed on Stela 10. Nonetheless, there are interesting,
and more likely, suggestions of a more direct relationship between Zapotec
writing and Tuxtla writing.
The Tuxtla writing system appears on both Olmec and Maya style sculptures found in and around the Tuxtla region of southern Veracruz. Nonetheless, this writing system is quite distinct from Maya writing. The Tuxtla writing system first came to the attention of scholars with the discovery of a small nephrite statuette which was found in a field near the town of San Andres Tuxtla in 1902 (Holmes 1907). Holmes observed the crude nature of the carving, a conical stone minimally modified to suggest a figure of a stout person wrapped in a mantle and wearing a buccal mask in the form of a duck's bill. He also observed that the incised lines forming feathers and bird's feet on the mantle could have been added at a later time. The inscription interacts awkwardly with the swelling volumes of the original carving and was almost certainly added sometime after the initial carving. Holmes observed that the glyphs are regular in width but vary considerably in height, indicating that the inscription was written in single columns rather than the paired columns so characteristic of Maya writing. Holmes' study also correctly ordered the columns and rendered the initial series date (Holmes 1907).
Maricela Ayala revisited the Tuxtla Statuette during the early 1980's, suggesting the interesting possibility that certain characters represent a form of punctuation (1983:197). Sylvia Meluzin later decided on an ordering for the columns which appears unlikely, given that no other known Tuxtla inscription commences with an Initial Series (Meluzin 1987).
Interest in the Tuxtla writing system has increased astronomically since the discovery of the lengthy and well preserved inscription of La Mojarra Stela 1 (Winfield Capitaine 1988). The most valuable of these recent studies is probably Macri and Stark (1991, 1993) "A Sign Catalog of the La Mojarra Script". Perhaps the most interesting observation in the "Catalog" is their demonstration of "affix rotation", meaning that the same side of an affix touches the main sign regardless of whether the affix is a superfix, prefix, postfix or subfix Although only the third of their three possible examples is convincing. (Macri and Stark 1993:viii-ix). Macri and Stark discussed three texts written in the Tuxtla writing system, the incised inscriptions of the Tuxtla Statuette, the Chiapa de Corzo Ceramic Fragment and La Mojarra Stela 1. However, other monuments in the Tuxtla region probably also bear texts carved in the Tuxtla writing system (Winfield Capitaine 1988, Miller 1991).
Winfield Capitaine has interpreted the incised inscription of an unprovenanced ceramic mask as an example of Tuxtla writing, although it is impossible to identify any specific features of the text in the accompanying photograph (Winfield Capitaine 1988:22, Figure 15c). He has also interpreted the incised inscription of an unprovenanced celt said to be from El Sitio as an example of Tuxtla writing (Winfield Capitaine 1988:22). Nonetheless it remains impossible to verify the authenticity or even the existence of this text because no photograph of it has ever been published (Navarrete 1971: Figure 5 is a crude and untrustworthy drawing).
Winfield Capitaine also interpreted the incised inscription of Tres Zapotes Stela C as another possible example of Tuxtla writing without saying why (Winfield Capitaine 1988:22). Nonetheless, several glyphs on Tres Zapotes Stela C appear in Macri and Stark (1993): A3 is MS26, A6 is MS98 and A8 is MS72. A5 may be MS63, A7 may be MS152, B11 may be MS22 and B13 resembles several of Macri and Stark's portrait glyphs without any precise correspondences. Several of these signs also appear in Thompson (1962): A3 is T544, A6 is T124 A7 is T751 and B11 is T517. A14 appears as W873 on Monte Alban Tablet J-14 at C2 (Whittaker's system). The relief inscription on the top of Tres Zapotes Stela D bears a superfix resembling MS98 and T124 while the main sign resembles T578/706. The relief inscription in the relief scene of Tres Zapotes Stela D also resembles several of Macri and Stark's portrait glyphs without any precise correspondences. The serpent tongue on the base of Tres Zapotes Stela D may be related to MS33. The relief inscription of Tres Zapotes Monument 5 resembles a dot-bar with a day sign VI:503, "6 Ik", although VI:MS52 is remotely possible.
The relief inscriptions of Cerro de las Mesas Stelae 5, 6 and 8 may bear Tuxtla writing. Although Cerro de las Mesas Stelae 5 and 8 retain few legible non numerical signs, Cerro de las Mesas Stela 6 may bear an example of MS123 at A8. Winfield Capitaine has interpreted the relief inscription of a stela from Cerro de las Mesas known as the "Stone of Chapultepec" as another pertinent text without saying why (Winfield Capitaine 1988:22). Nonetheless, several signs from this text are remarkably suggestive of Tuxtla writing without actually appearing in Macri and Stark.
The relief inscription of the Alvarado Stela, bears several signs which appear in Macri and Stark (1993): Glyph 1 is MS156, Glyph 2 is unknown, Glyph 3 is MS57 (also and perhaps more likely W933), Glyph 4 is MS105?, Glyph 5 is MS143, Glyph 6 is MS38, Glyph 7 is MS119? and Glyph 8 is MS81. Scott has identified the relief inscription of El Meson Stela 1, "Trefoil VI", with Monte Alban 1 (Scott 1977:99). Macri and Stark (1993) do not designate Trefoil, Whittaker (1980) designates Trefoil W494, and Thompson (1962) designates Trefoil T59.
Because its Initial Series date reaches "VI Trefoil", various writers have identified the text incised on Chiapa de Corzo Stela 2 as Tuxtla writing (Justeson and Kaufman 1993). Yet, Trefoil also appears as a day sign in Zapotec and Early Maya writing systems as well as in various notation systems. Trefoil has been identified as a day name and the name of a trecina, "Reed", on Monte Alban J-14 (Whittaker 1992:13), as a day name VI "plant form" on El Meson Stela 1 (Scott 1977:99) and as IX "day sign Acatl or Ben, with the meaning 'Reed'" on the Dumbarton Oaks Pectoral (Coe 1966:15). Nonetheless, Scott interpreted the El Meson Trefoil as "muluc" and Coe failed to find the numerical coefficient IX preceding the Dumbarton Oaks Pectoral trefoil (Scott 1977:100, Coe 1966:15). Because Initial Series dates do not appear in Zapotec writing, the text of Chiapa de Corzo Stela 2 could not represent Zapotec writing and, unfortunately, not enough of the text remains to determine if it represents Tuxtla or Early Maya writing. Nonetheless, Chiapa de Corzo Stela 2 was found far from the Tuxtla heartland and is therefore unlikely to represent Tuxtla writing.
The text of the Dumbarton Oaks Pectoral, which accompanies an Early Maya seated figure, is written in paired columns and shares many features with the text of Stela 10 and with Classic Maya texts, while sharing few features (apart from the Trefoil day sign) with Zapotec and Tuxtla texts. In Yucatec Maya the thirteenth day is named Ben "go/depart/do/happen" (Barrera Vasquez 1980:49-50), which is not productive in this context. However, in Quiche Maya the thirteenth day is named Ah "he who/he of/lord/want/green corn" (Edmonson 1965:5-6), and "Cane" (Edmonson 1971:n.7589).
Perhaps the greatest problem facing students of the Tuxtla script is the claim that this important newly visible writing system is a final proof of Diffusionist beliefs (Miller 1991:34-35; Stuart 1993, 1993a; Justeson and Kaufman 1993). Diffusionists who have written about this script assert that: "[1]the archaeological cultures of the [Tuxtla region] descended from that of the Olmecs (1200 B.C. to 500 B.C. [sic.]). [2] The script may itself descend from an Olmec hieroglyphic system, but too little of the Olmec script has been recovered to confirm or disprove a connection...The keys to [the writers'] decipherment were...[3] the assumption that the texts were in Mixe-Zoquean languages...and...[4] comparison with similar Mayan signs" (Justeson and Kaufman 1993:1703). An examination of these stated assumptions underlying Justeson and Kaufman's incredible claims reveals the following:
1. There is little evidence to suggest that the archaeological cultures responsible for Tuxtla writing evolved from the Olmecs. This assertion is diffusionist cant. The Tuxtla Statuette exhibits a simplifying style with swelling volumetric forms which is compatible with Olmec style, yet the incised inscription overlies these forms in a way which suggests beyond reasonable doubt that the text is a secondary or even tertiary addition to the original carving. The inscription on the back of Tres Zapotes Stela C is certainly contemporary with the late Olmec carving on the front, but the inscription is an anomaly which defines the piece as a combinant (Graham 1989:235) -- in no way a natural outgrowth of Olmec antecedents (Porter 1992, 1995a). In fact all Tuxtla style sculptures are carved in a low relief style which has no relationship to, and cannot be a lineal descendant of, Olmec artistic expressions.
2. Extensive research reveals that there is no Olmec writing system, no Olmec antecedents to the apparently lengthy connected text of Tres Zapotes Stela C, at 36 BC, the earliest known Tuxtla style inscription (Porter 1989, 1992 and 1995a). On the other hand, there are numerous, and considerably earlier, lengthy connected texts on Early Maya style sculptures found throughout the Maya region (Kuoe 1976; Graham 1977; Graham et al 1978; Graham and Porter 1989; Porter 1992, 1995a).
3. Kaufman claims that the Tuxtla inscriptions are written in a version of Mixe-Zoquean because he believes the Tuxtla cultures are direct descendants of a Mixe-Zoquean Olmec "Mother Culture". These issues have been discussed above in some detail and do not merit further discussion here.
4. Kaufman, and Justeson in particular, are proponents of a "method" of glyphic interpretation which is so versatile that it can be employed to provide "translations" of unknown scripts which will support any theoretical stance desired by the "translator". Indeed, Justeson and Kaufman have used this "method" to create from the Tuxtla writing, a typically Sumero-Semitic semi-syllabic script in which there is little relationship between the object depicted by the glyph and the human experience it attempts to communicate. This egregious "method" has come to dominate popular Maya epigraphy during the last two decades and is examined in more detail elsewhere.
Tuxtla inscriptions bear a number of features which resemble postulated antecedents of Stela 10's inscription. Yet, Stela 10's inscription is at least 200 years earlier than the earliest known Tuxtla inscription (Tres Zapotes Stela C). It is possible that Tuxtla writing is antecedent to the writing system employed in Stela 10's text, but there is no evidence for earlier Tuxtla writing. It is also possible that Tuxtla writing and Stela 10's text are both descended from some common ancestor, yet there is no evidence for this earlier writing system either.
Only two Olmec sculptures bear contemporaneous glyphic writing, Abaj
Takalik Stela 50 and Tres Zapotes Stela C. Yet, both of these monuments
are combinant sculptures which represent the end of local Olmec sculptural
traditions and the beginning of distinctive regional Maya sculptural traditions.
At each of these two sites writing is an intrusive feature which accompanies
the arrival of pure Maya style and is an unlikely outgrowth of known Olmec
traditions.
The first model of Maya culture was created by late Medieval Europeans adventurers and clerics, who unconsciously employed a pagan European model of Maya culture. In this model the Maya were ruled by feudal lords, worshipped demons who dwelt in idols, and wrote with an alphabetic script. Virtually all information on the Maya, and other Mesoamerican Indians, generated by European colonial sources promotes this model (eg. Sahagun, de Landa and Cogolludo).
The second model of Maya culture was created during the early years of the present century by dilettantes and merchants, who unconsciously employed a romantic model of Maya culture. In this model the Maya were ruled by an elite priestly class, worshipped a Classical European pantheon, their sacred calendars were based exclusively on astronomical cycles and they wrote with an ideographic script. This model dominates the work of Seler 1904a, Schellhas 1904, Goodman 1897, 1905; Morley 1915; Teeple 1925, 1925a, 1926, 1928, 1930; Thompson 1941, 1943, 1944, 1963, 1948, 1970, 1972, 1972a; Satterthwaite; Beyer 1930, 1931, 1934, 1934a, 1935, 1936, 1936a, 1938, 1941 and others.
The third model of Maya culture was created during the middle of this century by professional Academics who unconsciously created a fairy tail model of Maya culture. In this model the Maya were ruled by kings and queens, worshipped a Classical European pantheon and wrote with a modified Semitic semi-syllabic script. This model dominates the work of Knorosov 1953, 1955, 1955a, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1965, 1967, 1982; Proskouriakoff 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1993; Kelley 1962, 1962a, 1962b, 1968, 1976; Lounsbury 1973, 1989; Schele 1976, D. Stuart 1987, 1990; Houston 1988, 1989; Taube, Coe 1992 and others.
The fourth model of Maya culture has only recently emerged and is based on widespread similarities among Native American cultures. In this model eminent Maya were members of initiatory shamanic orders (Porter 1988), their rituals were designed to manipulate sacred force (Marcus 1978), their Sacred Round is based on the period of human gestation (Tedlock 1982:93) and they wrote with a lexemic script (Porter 1996). This model is based on works by Landa (Tozzer 1941), Valentini (1880), Thompson 1944, 1950, 1953, 1953a, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1972, 1972a; Cordy (1946), Proskouriakoff (1960, 1965), Marcus (1978), Schele and J. Miller (1983), Bricker (1981) and various ethnographers (Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934, Villa Rojas 1945, Tedlock 1982, Porter 1988). This model was first propounded in 1986, and has influenced the direction of subsequent work, both acknowledged (Lincoln 1990), and unacknowledged (Schele and Freidel 1990, Freidel et al. 1993).
Within these models of Maya culture, two conceptions of Maya ideology, one Theistic, and one Spiritualistic, have been propounded. Theistic notions of Maya ideology are based on a naively uncritical reading of works on the Maya written by Late Medieval Christian ideologs such as Diego de Landa, Ciudad Real, Nunez de la Vega, Villagutiere Soto Mayor, Lizana and others (Schellhas 1904, Anders 1963, Thompson 1970, Taube 1992). The Spiritualistic conception is based on a modified ethnographic analogy with anthropological descriptions of modern Maya and other Native American peoples (Fewkes 1893, 1895, 1906; Hvidtfeldt 1958; Proskouriakoff 1965; Marcus 1978; Porter 1988, 1997).
Three conceptions of Maya eminence, one Theocratic, one Feudalistic and one Shamanic have been propounded. Although source cultures employed in two of these conceptions have never been consciously identified or adequately explained by their proponents, Theocratic notions of Maya eminence appear to be based on a misunderstood ethnographic analogy with modern Maya from Chiapas (Ricketson 1937:15). Feudalistic, or "dynastic" notions of Maya eminence, as now constituted, are based on Tatiana Proskouriakoff's naively uncritical reading of works about the Maya written by Late Medieval European propagandists (Proskouriakoff 1960:460,464). These works reflect official Church fictions such as those contained in the Malleus Maeficarum, regarding the Satanic origen, nature and practices of all non-biblical peoples. Often these works contain only the briefest glimpses of native life, seen from a vast remove and generously padded with the hysterically cringing, yet surprisingly tedious, prose first inflicted upon the world by St. Augustine of Hippo when his mommy died and he lost the will to live. Indeed, apart from the inquisitorial court's summary of Diego de Landa's trial for conversion by torture (the official Church torturer was away when Diego wanted to play), virtually all records of indigenous language, beliefs and practices published and distributed by the European invaders were written to facilitate the identification and final extermination of Indiginous thought. The Shamanic conception is based on an application of the direct historical approach to anthropological descriptions of Modern Maya from Chiapas, Guatemala and the Yucatan peninsula (Porter 1988).
Native American cultural norms do not normally include systems of land tenure, social eminence or ideology which could form a likely basis for the development of either a feudal or a theist tradition among the Maya. Therefore, various authors have suggested that the forms of Maya art and writing may have been misapprehended by academic reconstructions which rely upon foreign models of Maya society (Proskouriakoff 1965, Marcus 1978, Porter 1988).
Surprisingly few works on Maya writing discuss interpretive models. Most methodological studies focus instead on a regrettably overheated and ultimately pointless debate regarding the supposed "logographic" (eg. Seler 1892, 1893, 1893a; Brinton 1893; Thompson 1950, 1953, 1953a, 1959, 1965, 1972a; Barthel 1958; Demarest 1976) or "phonetic" nature of Maya writing (eg. Thomas 1882, 1892, 1892a, 1893, 1893a; Whorf 1933, 1935, 1941; Knorosov 1953, 1955, 1955a, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1965, 1967, 1982; Kelley 1962a, 1962b, 1968, 1976; Lounsbury 1973, 1989; Fox and Justeson 1977; Campbell and Justeson 1984; Bricker 1986; Fox 1983; Schele 1987; Stuart 1987; Houston 1988, 1989; Stuart and Houston 1989; Coe 1992). Surprisingly, none of these works employs a consistent approach throughout.
Proskouriakoff and Marcus have noted a tendency among recent works toward presenting interpretations without the supporting data essential to critical review (Proskouriakoff and Marcus in West 1984). However this practice has been established ever since Paul Schellhas first asserted that figural types appearing in the Maya books depicted deities - no evidence or sources were provided to support this assertion and no alternative possibilities were considered (Schellhas 1904:1). Similarly, J.E.S. Thompson (Thompson 1950:98), simply rejected out of hand the, now vindicated, postulate that the Sacred Round corresponds to the period of human gestation (Tedlock 1982:93). The practice of presenting conclusions shorn of evidence continues today among an exclusive group of writers (eg. Stuart and Houston 1989; Coe 1992; Grube 1994). Some recent studies go even further, citing unsupported interpretations elicited through personal communications with colleagues, as if these communications constituted empirical testimony.
Proskouriakoff herself engaged in similar practices, assuming that the mere existence of women and children in the figural art and historical records in the glyphic texts identified Maya monuments as the dynastic records of monarchs (Porter 1988:73-75). Perhaps Champollion's (1822, 1824, 1836-41) well known identification of dynastic records of monarchs in his decipherment of Egyptian writing is the unstated premise on which Proskouriakoff based her identification of Maya appellatives as personal names (Justeson 1989:25). Yet, Proskouriakoff did not employ the direct historical method, which Champollion applied to test his translations of Late Egyptian terms by carefully correlating them with terms in its descendant language, Coptic (Gardiner 1957; Iversen 1961:138-139; Coe 1992:91). Perhaps this is because Proskouriakoff's interpretations of sculptures and texts at Piedras Negras grew out of purely iconographic studies which did not identify more than the most general semantic categories of individual glyphs. Indeed, Proskouriakoff usually did not attempt "translations" of Maya Glyphs into Maya language, preferring instead to use prefabricated interpretations provided by authors as diverse as Thompson and Knorosov.
Some publications which actually discuss method, omit crucial features of the method employed or advance methods other than those which are actually employed. Nonetheless, careful examination of previous studies of Maya writing reveals the important role played by several semiotic models derived from Near Eastern, particularly Semitic, writing systems.
The Alphabetic Model regards writing as a subset of spoken language in which meaning is a function of the accuracy of efforts to transcribe the phenomenology of spoken language. The advantage of this approach is that de Landa's alphabet is based on interviews with literate Maya. Therefore, there must be some factual relationship between the glyphs in de Landa's alphabet and the sounds which he assigned them. The disadvantage of this approach is that Maya writing is certainly not an alphabet and the true relationship between the glyphs in de Landa's alphabet and the sounds which he assigned them remains unknown.
The Cryptographic Model regards writing as a code in which meaning is a function of position and rank. The advantage of this approach is that it deals only with known quantities, such as the Maya calendar, and is therefore testable. The disadvantage of this approach is that it is only applicable to glyphs which are part of some set of known quantities such as the Maya calendar.
The Descriptive Model regards writing as a supplement to visual art in which meaning is a function of objects appearing in the accompanying art. The advantage of this approach is that it includes a new set of data in the study of Maya writing, Maya art. The disadvantage of this approach is that it draws the connection between Maya writing and Maya art too loosely to produce consistently reliable results.
The Grammatic Model regards writing as a semantic structure in which meaning is a function of location, repetition and pattern within a text. The advantage of this approach is that it recognizes writing as a form of language, and therefore it seeks to place Maya glyphs within appropriate grammatic structures. The disadvantage of this approach is that grammatical structure is, by its very nature, an empty vessel which determines meaning in only the vaguest manner.
The Iconographic Model regards writing as an extension of visual art in which meaning is a function of the objects depicted by individual glyphs. The advantage of this approach is that it links glyphs to artistic depictions of their real-world referents in a concrete and testable manner. The disadvantage of this approach is that it is only applicable to glyphs which display a clear relationship with artistic depictions of their real-world referents.
\The Ideographic Model regards writing as a distinct form of language in which meaning is a function of efforts to transcribe the essence of symbolic thought. The advantage of this approach is that it is not dependant on specific knowledge of Maya culture. The disadvantage of this approach is that it does not distinguish between genuine insight and sheer guesswork.
Each of the foregoing semiotic models has stimulated significant contributions to the study of Maya writing. Yet each of these models also limits the horizons of scholars who attempt to apply them to non-Semitic writing systems. Therefore it is important to examine Maya writing from new perspectives, which include, but are not limited to these Near Eastern typologies. Glyph interpretations which have not been securely linked to factual data found in the elements of Maya art and material culture and in the languages, glyphs, glyph groups and texts themselves cannot be regarded as a legitimate foundation for testing new models.
Maya texts themselves consist of glyph blocks arranged in paired columns which are read in descending order from left to right. Thus, the first glyph block in "collum A" is read first, the first glyph block in "collum B" is read second and so forth. Glyph blocks may be composed of a single glyph, a "main sign" or of glyph compounds, consisting of multiple main signs or a main sign with attached peripheral glyphs, "affixes". Affixes may appear on any or all four sides of a main sign. The elements of glyph compounds are read from the upper left of the glyph block to the lower right of the same glyph block. These main signs and affixes consist of drawings representing people, fauna, flora, minerals, elements, heavenly bodies and artifacts significant to Maya sacred and secular life.
Maya calligraphy has a unique focus on glyphic imagery which permitted each scribe to invent new character forms or modify old character forms - so long as the object represented remained identifiable to the intended audience. Both multiple character forms for the same meaning and multiple meanings for the same character form result from this focus. Doubtless, some Maya glyphs have lost this direct connection between content and image. Nonetheless, the Maya glyphs which retain this connection provide an ideal sample for generating empirically testable glyph interpretations.
It is not possible to translate lengthy Maya texts in their entirety because the majority of non-calendric Maya glyphs have yet to be deciphered. Nonetheless, the known portion Maya Glyphs suggests that surviving Maya texts discuss the backgrounds, personal histories and achievements of eminent Maya. Events within these personal histories are usually related to ritually significant nodes of the Maya divinatory cycle, the solar year, and the Maya Long Count.
