Late Preclassic Inscription Documentation Project

Art History and Paleography

Accurate drawings of Late Preclassic texts can aid not only in decipherment, but also in the development and refinement of a paleographic chronology for the Mayan script. Such a framework can assist in the relative dating of unprovenanced texts and in tracing important historical changes, and is therefore of great importance. The research I have conducted with support from FAMSI should prove very useful for achieving this goal.

The early development of graphic forms and orthographic rules in the Mayan script have been discussed in Justeson and Mathews (1990), Grube (1990; 1994), and Lacadena (1996). In my dissertation I discuss several key cases relevant to the study of the four texts mentioned above. Some of the graphic and orthographic developments discussed by the authors mentioned above may prove more useful than others. The following are just a few examples.

The U-shaped element can serve as a good point of departure, given its presence in a large number of different signs, and also, its recognizable mutations through time. This widespread use in Mayan signs, as Lacadena (1996) has described, led to a chain shift of graphic change involving signs with the U-shaped element during the Early-to-Late Classic transition. The change in question involved the substitution of the original U-shaped element inside a cartouche for a circular element, and later still, the addition of two small circles on the outside of the cartouche. The earliest Mayan texts can provide additional data relevant to the historical development of these elements.

For example, the DO celt text, with the proposed date of A.D. 120 (Schele and Miller, 1986:83), has two examples of the U-element inside a hand sign and inside the likely predecessor of T168 (cf. B4 and A7). Several other undated and unprovenanced early texts also exhibit this element: the BMA pectoral, CNT 6125, the JM spoon, the PMY jaguar, the UNP clamshell, and the PMA flare, among others. The BMA pectoral (A2a) and the CNT 6125 (A2, A4c) both exhibit the use of the U-element. The JM spoon has two examples of the U-element, but both in the same sign (A3a, A8a); no other signs in this text are signs where the U-element is likely to occur in later texts. The UNP clamshell has one instance of the U-element, in the same sign as the occurrence in the JM spoon (cf. A7a). The DO pectoral has one iconographic occurrence of the U-element, but no glyphic ones.

The Protoclassic PMA flare shows four glyphic (i.e. rather than iconic) occurrences of the U-element: two in the SUN.GOD glyph (A2/B1), one in T840 (D1a), and one in T710 (D1c). Interestingly, the lower glyphic panel of KJ 10 may contain a case of the U-element at F3, in the same glyph as D1c of the PMA flare. If one takes into account the iconography of the glyphs in the PMA flare, one can witness the free variation relationship between the U-element and the O-element inside the (T62) earflare worn by the two instances of the SUN.GOD glyph; this variation may have started in the iconography, and subsequently intruded into the glyphic domain, although only further study can determine this.

Lastly, the PMY jaguar contains one clear example at A2.  Moreover, the PMY jaguar text may constitute a missing link in the history of the glyphic use of the U-element. It exhibits both the U-element typical of Mayan signs and the double-stub element more common in Epi-Olmec signs (but also present in some Mayan signs, as in the upward-pointing FLAT.HAND sign, cf. Tikal Stela 31). More importantly, I think that the PMY jaguar examples show that the double-stub element is simply a form of the U-element: the double-stub element is identical to the U-element if the last is placed along the outline of a glyph, rather than centered inside a cartouche. This text could be of significance, for this reason, in the study of the relationship between the Epi-Olmec and Mayan scripts. It suggests a time and place when and where both forms were in free variation in the Mayan script, before the U-element took over.

Interestingly, as already remarked, the DO pectoral text contains no examples of the U-shaped element, even in signs where the element is typically present in later texts (cf. A5 and B5). This fact may constitute evidence for a very early dating of the DO pectoral text, as proposed by Coe (1966; 1976) and Coe and Kerr (1998), and which I think is supported by a series of glyphic and iconographic comparisons with Kaminaljuyú Stela 10 and Stela 11, which may date to ca. 300-200 B.C.¹¹  For example, the rectangular posterior head element of the glyphs at A3/D4 in the DO pectoral resembles that found in the glyphs at F6, G1, and G8 in KJ 10.  The glyph at A6 on the HTZ axe and B1 on the PMA flare can be compared in particular with D4 on the DO pectoral, which contains not only a rectangular posterior element, but also the two circles present on the DO pectoral case.¹²  Another pair of elements that bears a close correspondence includes the lower torso and thigh elements of the seated personage on the DO pectoral and the glyph at E5 on KJ 10, on the one hand, and the tree-like Jester God crowning the seated personage on the DO pectoral and the standing personage on Kaminaljuyú Stela 10, on the other hand (cf. Coe, 1966; Fields, 1989; Taube, 1998).

Other sign attributes may be relevant for the purposes of relative dating of texts. The U-element, present in Mayan texts from the Late Preclassic through the Early Classic, is not a very narrow temporal marker. In the case of the BMA pectoral and CNT 6125, the T757 GOPHER sign and the T1 7u sign, rendered similarly in both texts (cf. A1b and A3b, and A1a and A3a/A4a, respectively) may allow for a more narrow relative dating of these two texts; they share calligraphic traits not present in other Mayan texts. The only exception with respect to the last remark is the DO pectoral; its instance of T1 7u at C6a agrees in form with those on the BMA pectoral and CNT 6125.

Endnotes

11. A full elaboration of this line of inquiry, however, requires its own paper and cannot be provided here. Kaminaljuyú Stela 10 was associated with Verbena phase (400-200 B.C.) sherds. Kaminaljuyú Stela 11 was associated with both Verbena phase and Arenal phase (200 B.C.-A.D. 100) sherds, suggesting perhaps a transitional date between these phases for its deposition, and therefore ca. 300-200 B.C.  I believe that the DO pectoral text dates to around this time. Federico Fahsen (personal communication, 2000) favors a dating of ca. 200-100 B.C. for KJ 10.

12. The posterior element present in these glyphic heads could in fact be a useful temporal and/or geographical marker, pending future study. Whether the apparent substitution between the rectangular posterior element and the earflare icon is significant remains to be seen through further study.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page