 |
FAMSI © 2001: David F. Mora-Marín |
|
Late Preclassic Inscription Documentation Project Comparison of Drawings Several drawings of the DO pectoral text (Figure 10) have been published, including: Coe (1966:figure 11), Schele and Miller (1986:120), and Mora-Marín (1997:figure 3). The final drawing presented here differs from these three as follows. The main differences between Coe’s (1966) drawing (Figure 39) and Figure 10 are in C2, D2, and C6a; between Schele and Miller’s (1986) drawing (Figure 40) and Figure 10 are in A2b, D1, C2, D2, D3, and C6a; and finally, between Mora-Marín’s (1997) drawing (Figure 41) and Figure 10 are in A2b, C2, D3, and C6a. Of these, the ones pertaining to A2b, D1, and C6a are the most important ones for epigraphic purposes.
It is worth mentioning that the DO pectoral’s original cinnabar pigment has been replaced by a nontoxic counterpart. During the curation process, the cinnabar was removed, and the new pigment applied using pre-curation close-up color slides as guides. After curation, some of the intentional incisions were not refilled, and are therefore no longer visible under normal room lighting without magnification or light manipulation. Also, some of the scratch marks on the pectoral’s surface were accidentally filled in. 2 My drawing takes into account only the intentional incisions, most of which are visible in the photograph in Coe (1966:figure 2), and in the pre-curation color slides on file at Dumbarton Oaks; it should therefore be compared with those sources. Two different drawings of the JM spoon have been published: a drawing by Dorie Reents-Budet (Figure 42) partially published in Anderson (1993:113), and my earlier drawing (Figure 43) published in Mora-Marín (1997:figure 5). Figure 12, my more recent drawing, represents an improvement over the previous two. 3 It shows several signs and sign details missing from glyphs A2, A3, A7, and A8 in Reents-Budet’s drawing. The main differences with respect to my previous drawing lie in the renderings of A1a and A3d. The glyph at A1a is partly effaced, and so the reconstruction of A1 is uncertain. 4 Coe (1973:25) published a photograph and a line drawing of the PMY jaguar text (Figure 44). 5 The photograph does not show the lower four rows of glyphs very clearly. Upon inspection of the artifact, I realized they have experienced more damage than the top four rows, a fact that Coe’s drawing indicates through stippling. The drawing I have prepared (Figure 23) differs from Coe’s drawing in several details, a few of which are of likely epigraphic significance: 6 the extra details and apparent suffix to glyph B7; and an apparent suffix to glyph A8. The dimensions, provenance, and current location of the UNP clamshell (K763) are unknown to me. 7 The only previous drawing of the text is by John Montgomery (Figure 45), and is partially published in Anderson (1993:112-113); 8 it is for the most part accurate, but lacks a few small details, two of which are of likely epigraphic significance and which I have filled in my drawing (Figure 33). 9 One is a detail in the form of a nostril in the sign at A6a. This shows the sign at A6a depicts a nose. Also, the sign at A6b consists of two elongated elements; I think they could be fingers, one of which may show a fingernail, but this is unclear. I intend to discuss the rest of the drawings I am providing here for the first time at a later date. The FAMSI grant I received has allowed me to complete the following drawings: the JM spoon, INS 4442, INS 2007, INS 6528, PMY jaguar, CNT 6125, CNT 22001, the Hauberg Stela, Kaminaljuyú Stela 10, and the UNP clamshell.10
|
||
|
Text links to all pages at this site are available at the FAMSI INDEX |
||
