Ninth-Century Stelae of Machaquilá and Seibal

Click on image to enlarge.

Machaquilá prior to the fall of the Mutal polity

The majority of Machaquilá's stelae was encountered by Ian Graham in the relatively small Plaza A on the southeastern edge of the site center (Figure 2, shown above). The stelae of this plaza, sixteen in all, roughly form two rows in front of large pyramidal structures on the north and east sides of the plaza. These stelae belong to four smaller groups, each associated with a structure in front of which they stand. The stelae on the east side of Plaza A bear the earliest dates, with likely dedications in 9.14.0.0.0 [3 December 711] (Stela 13), 9.15.0.0.0 [20 August 731] (Stela 10), 19.15.10.0.0 [28 June 741] (Stela 11), and 9.16.10.0.0 [15 March 761] (Stela 12). The plain Stelae 14, 15, and 16 were all grouped further to the south, in front of Structure 16.

Click on image to enlarge.

While this study focuses upon the ninth-century stelae along the northern edge of Plaza A, it is important to note that these earlier sculptures establish several visual precedents for the site's late sculpture. For their production, local artists drew on various regional trends, resulting in a rather eclectic array of compositional types (Figure 3, shown above). Stelae 10–13 and their accompanying altars were probably commissioned by two sequent rulers, Si(j)yaj K'in Chaak I (Stela 13 and Altar E) and his son, Yax 4? Pas Ajaw Ets'nab Chaak, (Stelae 10, 11, and 12 and Altar F). Unlike the sculptural programs of most Classic Maya centers, Machaquilá's known stelae from A.D. 761 and earlier do not constitute – iconographically or formally – a visually coherent group. The variations in their overall shape and size add notably to this sense of dissimilarity. Through A.D. 761, then, Machaquilá was a site without a consistent local 'style,' displaying in its small Plaza A an eclectic amalgamation of sculptural types. Apparently, with little local sculptural precedent, Machaquilá's rulers and their artists drew inspiration from other Classic Maya polities, although none of the early stelae is a direct copy of some other polity's sculpture.

All of the known eighth-century sculptures produced after Stela 12 at Machaquilá were found outside of Plaza A.  They include the hieroglyphic panels that once adorned Structure 4 in Plaza F, and three stelae, Stelae 17–19, all of which were found in Plaza C.  When designing Stelae 18 (9.17.5.1.0 [27 December 775]) and 19 (date indeterminate), Machaquilá's artists and patron-rulers turned to the site's earlier sculpture for inspiration, particularly to Stela 10 (Figure 3), presenting the ruler standing atop a quatrefoil motif, brandishing a K'awiil scepter, and impersonating the Water Lily Serpent. ⁴   This deity, associated with water on the ground and by extension earthly abundance, seems to have become the central patron deity of Machaquilá, as his costume is worn by the rulers depicted on most of the site's ninth-century stelae. The Water Lily Serpent is indicated on Machaquilá stelae by the diagnostic, large, downward-turning nose of the head just above the face of the wearer, the lily tied around the headdress with its blossom extending out at the forehead of the deity's head, and the fish hanging down, nibbling on the lily blossom. ⁵   This headdress is well-known from other Late Classic sculpture from throughout the Maya Lowlands. Although not a ubiquitous component of Water Lily Serpent iconography at other Maya sites, the angled platform motif, atop which is perched a shell-winged serpent, appears in all of its subsequent manifestations of the costume at Machaquilá. ⁶ 

Stela 18 also introduced a curious 1,820-day interval for timing period-ending rites, a distinctive feature of Machaquilá's stela consecration timings. Stela 18 and each of the ninth-century stelae reference Calendar Round dates that fall shortly after the given ho'tuun ending and mark an alternative five-year interval. Whereas a ho'tuun is a period of five 360-day tuuns, these additional dates record periods of either 364-day 'computational years' or 365-day 'vague years.' Not only are these intervals closer approximations of the solar year, they also reproduce either the tsolk'in (5 × 364 = 7 × 260 = 1,820) or the haab (5 × 365 = 1,825) date of the previous date. 1,820 is, in fact, the lowest common multiple of 260 and 364.  On the ninth-century stelae, this calendrical patterning produces Calendar Round dates that include either the tsolk'in day 1 Ajaw in the month Kumk'u (if 1,820 is used) or the haab day 13 Kumk'u (if 1,825 is used). While the specific rationale of these calculations remains elusive, their use at Machaquilá, appearing so consistently on the site's late stelae, constitute a unique, local form of calendrical arithmetic and one facet of Machaquilá's late stelae 'template.' ⁷ 

Endnotes

4. For illustrations of Machaquilá Stela 18, see Mayer (1989:Pl. 41) and Stierlin (1998:Pl. 212); Stela 19 remains unpublished.

5. Bowles 1974; Miller and Taube 1993:184; Schele and Miller 1986:47. There is at least one hieroglyphic record of this deity's name, on a panel from the site of Pomoná (cf. Schele and Miller 1986:Fig. III.12, top of right text column). The reference, however, reading 'YAX-CHIT / 1-? / NAAH (~? NOH) ka-KAN,' resists clear decipherment (Stephen Houston, personal communication via email, August 9, 2005). The same deity seems to be named on Machaquilá Stela 7, although only a portion of the name is legible. The traditional 'Water Lily Serpent' terminology is thus maintained herein.

6. These components are also attested at Dos Pilas (cf. Dos Pilas St. 14 [Graham 1967:Fig. 61]).

7. It is possible that this 1,820-day interval was used as an alternative to the 360-day tuun to track the coincidence of the tsolk'in with the 364-day year for its ritual import. That is, this use of the 1,820-day interval may index a growing interest in the affective potential of the tsolk'in on seasonal phenomena, such as rain and planting cycles. This possibility is complicated by the fact that the interval later shifts to 1,825 days, which lacks this correlation. Proskouriakoff (1993:181) wondered whether this alternate pattern of period endings may reflect interaction with non-Maya groups. Her hypothesis, however, was based on the pattern being exclusively a ninth-century phenomenon. Its link to the Maya 9.17.0.0.0 k'atuun ending, implied by Machaquilá Stela 18's inscriptions, supports a local, or at least 'Maya,' development. Additionally, neither 1,820-day nor 1,825-day intervals are intrinsically convenient for astronomical calculations, as they do not coincide with any astronomical cycles beyond the solar year.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page