Report of the 1998 and 1999 Investigations on the Archaeology and Iconography of the Polychrome Stucco Façade of Structure N10-28, Lamanai, Belize

Theoretical Constructs

A brief discussion should be made on the theoretical underpinnings that generally shape and guide a project such as this one. Two major art historical theorists are utilized, Erwin Panofsky and George Kubler. The ideas of others are drawn upon as well. Generally there are two schools of thought in the approach to the study of prehistoric art: the configurational school of Kubler with the ethnological school of Willey and most Mesoamerican archaeologists, though the earliest approaches to iconography were put forth by Panofsky. The configurational school believes that interpretation should be confined to iconographic clusters within a period so as to avoid disjunction of meaning and form. The ethnological school assumes that forms and symbolic meanings are the same if the culture itself is unchanged. Kubler, using Panofsky’s Principle of Disjunction argues that disjunction of form and meaning is more common than continuity.

One of the primary theorists of Art History, Erwin Panofsky, defined three levels of meaning involved in an iconographic approach. His three levels of meaning are: (1) primary or natural subject matter, (2) secondary or conventional, and (3) intrinsic meaning or context. The first level is subdivided between factual and expressional, such as representations of objects, the relation between the objects and events, and the expressive qualities of the object. This level is that of pure forms and contain primary (or natural) meaning. These pure forms are called artistic motifs, which constitutes a pre-iconographical description.

On the second level, artistic motifs and combinations thereof are connected with themes or concepts. Images are motifs with a secondary or conventional meaning. This is the level of iconographic analysis, where the subject matter of themes and concepts are the focus of iconography proper. However, a correct identification of motifs is necessary for a correct iconographical analysis (Panofsky 1972:6).

The third level is concerned with the intrinsic meaning of an image. This is arrived at by studying the "underlying principle which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religion or philosophical persuasion-unconsciously qualified by one personality and condensed into one work" (Panofsky 1972:7).

By principle, a correct pre-iconographic description is based on our practical experience, or "reading what we see". But this does not necessarily mean it is correct (Panofsky 1972:9). Iconographical analysis, though, requires familiarity with themes and concepts. He also cautions that a knowledge of themes and concepts does not also necessarily mean a correct iconographical analysis. Intrinsic knowledge, rather than familiarity, is required for the interpretation of symbolical values and the intrinsic meaning or content, or what Panofsky terms "synthetic intuition" (Panofsky 1972:14-15). By comparison of all other works and decoration of the period we can arrive at intrinsic meaning.

George Kubler, on the other hand, advocates Panofsky’s Principle of Disjunction. The concept of disjunction negates most ethnological analogies because of its emphasis on discontinuity, and provides an explanation for the complex mechanics of culture change (Kubler 1975:762). Kubler’s main argument is against the simplistic view by archaeologists that Mesoamerica was a large cultural system that experienced no major changes in its symbolic system from the Formative through the Conquest (Kubler 1975:762). He was especially critical of Gordon Willey who emphasized the anthropological view of cultural unity and the art historian’s cultural pluralism. However, Kubler asserts there are three incorrect assumptions of anthropology: art does not reflect life, it does not necessarily indicate nature, and art cannot be explained by texts and informants (Kubler 1975:766).

Kubler’s approach to Maya art is that of contextual study. If these themes consist of motifs recognized as object and events, then the motifs of this grouping should convey the information from the then undeciphered text framing the image. To Kubler the picture has more information than the glyphs do. Motifs by themselves can compose a meaningful theme, but not all motifs are meaningful because some are just ornamentation (Kubler 1969:5). Kubler also believes that within a long cultural duration, early and late versions of a theme are distinct (Kubler 1969:7). Frequent thematic representation over a long period of time indicates fixity of meaning; but when there are different symbolic systems continuity is unlikely (Kubler 1969:8). This is Panofsky’s disjunction.

Kubler emphasizes several main points. The structure and meaning of a form is necessary before its development can be studied, and meaning and relationships are more easily understood from late examples than earlier ones (Kubler 1969:47). Kubler states that the "two axioms of iconographic method are (1) that a visible form often repeated may acquire different meanings with the passage of time, and (2) that an enduring meaning may be conveyed by different visual forms." Disjunction is a mode of renovation whereby a succeeding culture inherits new meanings for old forms or new forms for old meanings (Kubler 1970:143).

Form and meaning can be understood by studying style and tradition and the relationships within a style. This is what the configurational method does. However, analogy and comparison is what brings about full meaning. Terence Grieder (1975:853), though aware of disjunction, believes that archaeology and history can determine disjunctive events in the past. Grieder’s approach is that only through "a full catalogue of images, with the archaeological record, including ceramics, with an awareness of evidence of disjunction, and with historical and ethnographic records to provide one end of the traditions of content, we can attain reasonably good descriptions of the more recent prehistoric cultures, and at least increase the evidential base for speculation about the remote ones" (Grieder 1975:853-854).

Gordon Willey (1973), in discussing his views on Mesoamerican iconography, states that art has two types of meaning: general and specific. When a researcher determines general meaning, that level is aesthetic or superficial. Specific meaning can be interpreted several ways, and in the understanding of how art functioned within a specific cultural context. Most Pre-Columbian art researchers have a basic methodological assumption, and that understanding must begin with the ethnohistoric accounts and then proceed back in time. This is based on three assumptions. The assumptions are Mesoamerica: (a) is a unified cultural tradition, (b) has a unified ideological system, and (c) has an integrity of belief and communication within these systems (Willey 1973:297-298). Kubler, on the other hand, searches for meaning in general analogy with reference to other cultures rather than specific Mesoamerican cultures (Willey 1973:298).

Processual archaeologists have recognized the dangers of disjunction between the ethnographic present and the archaeological past, preferring general comparative analogy and avoiding specific historical arguments (i.e. Binford). It seems that if the focus of archaeology is ecological, technical, and economic information, then art is unimportant. However, art and architecture are some of the most important pieces of information left behind by past cultures.

Esther Pasztory (1973) has developed the synthetic approach, which is a very good reconciliation between the disparate approaches of art history and archaeology. This method involves both disciplines and ideally should produce the best results. Her synthetic approach involves four steps: (a) analysis of motifs, (b) comparison of motifs with motifs in other Mesoamerican cultures, (c) the use of Aztec and Spanish texts, and, (d) modern ethnography. This approach goes beyond elementary contextual analysis (Pasztory 1973:150). However, I believe that the first two are the most important, and the farther removed from the present the culture is, then three and four become less important. In essence, I would rank the steps here in level of importance.

Many art researchers now have condensed these approaches, which they employ on many different levels, especially with how image is read (see Berlo 1983; Miller 1989). Basically, the new scholars using both traditions "use a rigorous analytical approach that combines the best of traditional anthropological use of discrete texts with the traditional art historical commitment to the primacy of the art object" (Berlo 1983:6).

This report should be considered the first in a series concerning this research project, as it appears it will last for several more field seasons. In my own approach I tend to draw upon all of the scholars mentioned above, and consider my own theoretical inclinations to be "middle of the road" between these extremes.

Especially in regards to Pasztory’s synthetic approach, this report should be considered only preliminary at best. It primarily deals with the first step in an iconographic analysis: the identification of motifs, forms, and patterns within the corpus. However, it also touches upon the second step as well with some very general comparisons of the motifs and forms from other sites.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page