Identifying Individual Hands in the Monuments of K’inich Ahkal Mo’ Naab of Palenque

The Idea

Click on image to enlarge

The beautiful stucco glyphs from Temple XVIII provided the initial inspiration for this project. They are not displayed in text order, but rather by type: Calendric and Distance Number glyphs in the first rows, collocations with ’moon’ signs together, etc. This typological arrangement fortuitously allows the observer to compare various examples of the same glyph, side by side. It was there that I first noticed the variety of styles juxtaposed in a single inscription. For instance, the so-called Distance Number Introductory Glyph or DNIG (which we now read as u-ts’akaj), exists in several adjacent examples (Figure 4). It should be obvious to anyone immediately upon comparing these four, that at least two and perhaps all four were fashioned by different individual artists.

Standard Morellian practice suggests we examine simple, repetitive forms such as the shape of the -aj and the ts’ak glyphs to begin to recognize individual artistic habits. The second example of ts’ak ’swastika’ is rigidly straight, while the other three are curved. The other three differ less dramatically, but the fourth’s ’swastika’ has curved corners, and the treatments of the ’hairs’ and ’pellets’ in the final -aj syllable also strikingly differ from each other. The two ’shark’ profiles disagree in the shape and texture of every detail—eyes, whiskers, teeth, forehead-fins.

In spite of their differences, these glyphs do have enough similarity of style to appear to belong together; the sculptors have rendered their volumes to a similar depth and roundedness, and apparently employed similar tools. This indicates the existence of a master plan, a "house style" or "manual of style", as it were. Obviously, one high-ranking artist defined a format, and made certain that the work of every member of the team followed this format. Even so, he tolerated a rather wide range of interpretations. The graceful hand of the third example stands out: this artist preferred to sculpt tiny, ’laughing’ eyes and subtly modeled features.

A quick comparison of calendric glyphs, of the repetitions of names, revealed a similarly diverse team of artists (Figures 5 and 6).

Click on image to enlarge

Click on image to enlarge

Comparing the four examples of ’Long-Lips’-Chan-Mat, one’s eyes are drawn to the ’laughing eyes’ of the fourth head; this appears to be by the same artist as noted in the third example above. Contrasting with the subtle ’Master of the Laughing Eyes’ are the boldly-drawn eyes and mouths of the first and second examples. Here we see gorgeous clarity, strong simplicity of line and form. These qualities suggest another nickname –the ’Clarity Master’– and both appear to have been done by this single master, though minor interior details of the ma and ta glyphs invite caution.

The third example, stripped of fine details of eyebrow and wrinkles, presents us with a more minimalist example of the same aesthetic. Comparing the subtle concave ’bulges’ on their respective ta glyphs, I vacillate on whether to assign this minimalist glyph to yet another hand. My criterion is influenced mainly by Occam’s Razor: I assume that two very similar glyphs from the same inscription are by the same hand, unless compelled to conclude otherwise. What compels such a distinction is a combination of identifiable differences –a syndrome, if you like,– such as we see in the masters whom I have just nicknamed.

Click on image to enlarge

A study like this must proceed with extreme caution, especially because Maya artists clearly valued a certain level of creative improvisation. They deliberately used variant allographs –different spellings if you like– of many glyph collocations. Even when drawing the same exact glyph, an artist often seemed to revel in deliberately varying minor details.

Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page