The Flowering Glyphs: Animation in Cotzumalhuapa Writing

THEIR WAY OF W R ITING

Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America

Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia

Series Editor

Joanne Pillsbury

Editorial Board

Elizabeth Hill BooneTom Cummins

Gary UrtonDavid Webster

THEIR WAY OF W R ITING

Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America

ELIZABETH HILL BOONE and GARY URTONEditors

DUMBARTON OAKS RESEARCH LIBR ARY AND COLLECTION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

© 2011 Dumbarton Oaks

Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C.

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

15 14 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Their way of writing : scripts, signs, and pictographies in Pre-Columbian

America / Elizabeth Hill Boone and Gary Urton, editors.

p. cm.—(Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian symposia and colloquia)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-88402-368-5 (hardcover : alk. paper)

1. Indians of Mexico—Languages—Writing. 2. Indians of Central America—Languages—Writing.

3. Indians of South America—Peru—Languages—Writing. 4. Picture writing—Mexico.

5. Picture writing—Central America. 6. Picture writing—Peru.

7. Mayan languages—Writing. 8. Nahuatl language—Writing.

9. Quechua language—Writing.

I. Boone, Elizabeth Hill. II. Urton, Gary. III. Dumbarton Oaks.

f1435.3.w75t74 2011

497—dc22

010050788

General Editor: Joanne Pillsbury

Art Director: Kathleen Sparkes

Text Design and Composition: Melissa Tandysh

Jacket Design: Kathleen Sparkes

Managing Editor: Sara Taylor

Volume based on papers presented at the Pre-Columbian Studies symposium “Scripts, Signs, and Notational Systems in Pre-Columbian America,” organized with Elizabeth Hill Boone and Gary Urton and held at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C., on October 11–12, 2008.

Cover illustrations: Inka khipukamayuq, drawing 137 of Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, Nueva corónica y buen gobierno, 1615, photograph courtesy of The Royal Library, Copenhagen. Mixtec scribe, detail, folio 48v of the Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus.

www.doaks.org/publications

These books were written in symbols and pictures. This is their way of writing, supplying their lack of an alphabet by the use of symbols.

—fr i a r motoli n i a, 1541, History of the Indians of New Spain

Before the Spaniards came the Indians of Peru had no knowledge of writing at all . . . , but this did not prevent them from preserving the memory of ancient times, nor did they fail to keep a reckoning for all their affairs whether of peace, war, or government. . . . [T]hey compensated in part for the lack of writing and let-ters . . . principally, with quipus. . . . What they achieved in this way is incredible, for whatever books can tell of histories and laws and ceremonies and accounts of business all is supplied by the quipus so accurately that the result is astonishing.

—josé de acosta, 1590, Natural and Moral History of the Indies

v i i

for ewor d | ixJoanne Pillsbury

1 i n troductionTheir Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America | 1

Gary Urton

2 The Cold War and the Maya Decipherment | 9Michael D. Coe

3 All Things Must Change: Maya Writing over Time and Space | 21Stephen D. Houston

4 The Flowering Glyphs: Animation in Cotzumalhuapa Writing | 43Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos

5 Teotihuacan and the Development of Writing in Early Classic Central Mexico | 77Karl Taube

6 The Written Surface as a Cultural Code: A Comparative Perspective of Scribal Traditions from Southwestern Mesoamerica | 111

Javier Urcid

7 Elaboration and Abbreviation in Mexican Pictorial Manuscripts: Their Use in Literary Themes | 149

Michel R. Oudijk

8 Writing, Images, and Time-Space in Aztec Monuments and Books | 175Federico Navarrete

9 Ruptures and Unions: Graphic Complexity and Hybridity in Sixteenth-Century Mexico | 197

Elizabeth Hill Boone

10 Moche as Visual Notation: Semasiographic Elements in Moche Ceramic Imagery | 227

Margaret A. Jackson

co n t e n t s

vi i i contents

11 Chuquibamba Textiles and Their Interacting Systems of Notation: The Case of Multiple Exact Calendars | 251

R. Tom Zuidema

12 Tocapu: What Is It, What Does It Do, and Why Is It Not a Knot? | 277Thomas B. F. Cummins

13 Khipu Typologies | 319Gary Urton and Carrie J. Brezine

14 Khipu from Colony to Republic: The Rapaz Patrimony | 353Frank Salomon, Carrie J. Brezine, Reymundo Chapa, and Víctor Falcón Huayta

15 The Cultural Category of Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies | 379Elizabeth Hill Boone

con tr ibu tors | 391

i n dex | 397

ix

T he first authors to write about the systems of recording information used by the Aztec and

Inka, the dominant empires in the Americas in the early sixteenth century, stressed the complex-ity and efficacy of the scripts, signs, and notational systems used to register dynastic histories, tax and tribute lists, and other matters crucial to the opera-tion of any large and complex state. The types of systems used to record information in the ancient Americas varied dramatically, from the glyphic writing in Mesoamerica to the knotted cord records, or khipus, that facilitated the expansion of the Inka empire in South America. As Elizabeth Boone and Gary Urton have noted, these early modern authors distinguished such systems from writing as they knew it, preferring, like Motolinia, to use the phrase “their way of writing” or, as was often the case in the Andes, simply “accounts.” Yet there was no doubt in the minds of these sixteenth-century authors that such systems were extremely effective in conveying information.

The European fascination with Pre-Columbian systems of recording information continued or even increased in later centuries. The eighteenth-century Neapolitan intellectual Raimondo di Sangro, principe of Sansevero, was obsessed with khipus and felt that they could replace European writing systems, as he considered them a richer and more efficient form of communication. Sansevero saw them as the future, not just the past. Indeed, he

said he would spread the word about this great sys-tem himself, were it not for all of his friends in the printing business who would be put out of work.

The study of ancient American writing and other systems of recording information did not wane in the nineteenth century. Mesoamerican systems, in particular, were the focus of many studies. We should remember, however, how little was known about ancient American writing at this time. The U.S. writer John Lloyd Stephens, travel-ing in the 1840s, described the spectacular monu-ments at the Maya site of Copan. He recognized that hieroglyphs had the potential to reveal rich histories, but that they remained unintelligible and functionally mute. By the late nineteenth century, however, essential features of Maya writing, par-ticularly numeration, had been worked out, setting the stage for the spectacular decipherments of the twentieth century.

With over a century of serious, sustained re -search on Pre-Columbian systems of recording information, it is perhaps a good time to consider our current state of knowledge. The present vol-ume is based on papers presented at the sympo-sium “Scripts, Signs, and Notational Systems in Pre-Columbian America,” held at Dumbarton Oaks on October 11–12, 2008. Organized with Elizabeth Boone and Gary Urton, this conference was a particularly celebratory one, as it marked the return of the annual Pre-Columbian symposium

f o r e w o r d

x foreword

to Washington, D.C., after four years of being held off-site while renovations were completed on the Main House at Dumbarton Oaks. Two papers presented at this symposium, by David Stuart and Alfonso Lacadena, were not available for publi-cation in the present volume. Dumbarton Oaks remains indebted to Elizabeth and Gary for their vision in the scholarly organization of the sympo-sium and for their expertise and tireless efforts in editing the resulting volume. Their own work on the subject of recording information in the ancient Americas has set a high standard, and we are for-tunate to have their consideration of the broader framework for the study of writing and other nota-tional systems.

I am grateful to Jan Ziolkowski, director of Dumbarton Oaks; William Fash, of the Adminis-trative Committee of Dumbarton Oaks; and the senior fellows in Pre-Columbian Studies for their counsel and support in the organization of the symposium and the creation of the present vol-ume. The staff at Dumbarton Oaks was unfailingly accommodating, from the symposium planning stages to the preparation of this publication. No one was more helpful than Emily Gulick, the program assistant in Pre-Columbian Studies, whose creativ-ity and hard work were behind every stage of this project. Bridget Gazzo, Pre-Columbian librarian;

Miriam Doutriaux, exhibition associate; and Juan Antonio Murro, assistant curator, organized two stimulating exhibitions on the history of decipher-ment designed to coincide with the symposium.

The present volume was prepared by the pub-lications department of Dumbarton Oaks, under the directorship of Kathleen Sparkes. I am grateful to Sara Taylor, art and archaeology editor, for her thoughtful work on editorial and production mat-ters. Outside of Dumbarton Oaks, I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their help-ful advice.

The success of any scholarly gathering and publication depends upon the free exchange of data and ideas and the rigorous analyses and discus sion surrounding their presentation. I would like to close by thanking the authors in this volume for their willingness to share their research. We are indebted, as well, to the many distinguished schol-ars who attended the symposium; their good ques-tions and comments contributed to the stimulating discussion at the symposium itself and to the ongo-ing dialogue about the nature of recording infor-mation in the ancient Americas.

Joanne PillsburyDirector of Studies, Pre-Columbian ProgramDumbarton Oaks

43

The site of el baúl earned a celebrated place in Mesoamerican archaeology thanks

to the discovery, in the early 1920s, of a large stela with a hieroglyphic inscription (Figure 4.1). Walter Lehmann’s (2000 [1926]) reading of the monu-ment’s Long Count date as 7.19.7.8.12 (ad 29 in the Goodman-Martínez-Thompson [GMT] correla-tion of the Maya and Christian calendars) spurred a major controversy at the time, eventually stimulat-ing the eminent Maya epigrapher Eric Thompson to undertake excavations at the site in 1942, partly in order to refute the monument’s early dating (Graham 2008; Rodríguez Beteta 1929). While he was unable to arrive at a secure conclusion on the dating of the stela, Thompson did show that the site’s major occupation belonged to the Late Classic period, and his work also included the first serious scrutiny of Cotzumalhuapa writing.

Little has been added in the ensuing decades to the study of Cotzumalhuapa writing. We now know, however, that the impressive acropolis of El Baúl was the largest architectural compound—perhaps

the royal palace—of an extensive city that also included the monumental compounds at Bilbao and El Castillo (Figure 4.2). A system of causeways and bridges integrated these compounds with each other and with the extensive surrounding settlements. The city’s major florescence and the majority of its sculptures date to the Late Classic period (ad 650–950) (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996; Chinchilla Mazariegos et al. 2009).

Since Thompson’s time, intensive agriculture, modern urban development, and, to a lesser extent, archaeological research have added numerous examples to the corpus of Cotzumal huapa inscrip-tions. El Baúl Monument 59 (Figure 4.3) was uncov-ered sometime in the early 1990s and removed from the site by unknown hands soon after. Juan Antonio Siller’s (Rivera and Siller 1995:85) photo-graph is the only available documentation of a very interesting example of the Cotzumalhuapa script. The monument shows three notations, each con-sisting of a series of ring-shaped numerals associ-ated with a nonnumerical sign that is also inscribed

4

The Flowering GlyphsAnimation in Cotzumalhuapa Writing

o s w a l d o c h i n c h i l l a m a z a r i e g o s

44 chinchill a mazariegos

inside a ring. The shape of the stone bears heavily on the inscription’s arrangement. No reading order is evident, and the two head signs are oriented in opposite directions—perhaps focusing atten-tion on the central notation. These combinations of signs and numerals apparently transmit self-contained messages, since they are not associated with images. Based on the evidence of other scripts throughout Mesoamerica, we may presume that they contain dates or calendrical names. Clearly,

a considerable amount of ancillary information is necessary to read these notations, which may be classified as writing only in a broad sense of the term (cf. Boone 2004).

Especially relevant for this essay is the vine that grows from the central glyph, curling above and blooming with beautiful flowers. Vines are fre-quently featured in Cotzumalhuapa art, either as speech scrolls or as prodigious plants. Indeed, the glyph seems to play the role of a seed that sprouts

figure 4.1 El Baúl Monument 1. (Drawing by the author.)

The Flowering Glyphs 45

estim

ated Late

Clas

sic-p

eriod

limit o

f

Cotzumalh

uapa u

rban

settl

emen

t

El Conventocolonial ruins

obsidian workshop

ball court

bridge

Cañaveral

0 500 m

Cristób

al Rive

r

Santiago River

North Group

El Baúl

El Castillo

GolónN

Bilbao

�ompson Bridge

San Juan Perdidocolonial ruins

El Baúl Bridge

�om

pson

Causew

ay

Sele

r-Sa

chs

C

ause

way

Eisen

Causew

ay

Berendt C

auseway

Gavarre

tet Cau

seway

Hab

el Ca

usew

ay

figure 4.2 Map of Cotzumalhuapa. The dotted line corresponds to the estimated extent of the Late Classic city, while the shaded areas indicate the modern urban areas. (Drawing by the author.)


fresh vegetation. If nothing else, the flowering vine marks this glyph as distinct from the others and perhaps adds significance beyond the bare indica-tion of a date or a personal name.

These observations highlight some of the que-ries posed by the study of Cotzumalhuapa writing, which remains one of the least-examined systems in ancient Mesoamerica. In this chapter, I present a brief description of the system, its sign inven-tory, and its possible calendrical meanings; I also address two major problems: (1) the relationship of Cotzumalhuapa writing to other scripts, which may have an important bearing on the history of Mesoamerican writing; and (2) the extraordinary degree of animation noticeable in some inscrip-tions, where the signs may acquire full figures and become active participants in narrative scenes.

Writing on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala

Through the centuries, the Pacific coast of Guate-mala has been a melting pot of peoples and lan-guages. While the linguistic history of the area remains poorly understood, there are arch aeolog -

ical indications of significant shifts that may cor-relate with the influx of migrants during the Early Classic and Postclassic periods. Documentary sources narrate highland Maya and Aztec conquests in the area in the last century before the Spanish conquest (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1998). Such dynamic demographic patterns may account for the diversity of writing systems that were employed by coastal peoples. Since the Preclassic period, at least three different systems existed on the Pacific coast: (1) the Preclassic system, exemplified on El Baúl Monument 1; (2) Teotihuacan writing, intro-duced to the coast in the Early Classic period; and (3) the Late Classic Cotzumalhuapa system.

Late Preclassic Writing

In addition to the stela at El Baúl, Preclassic writ-ing is in evidence at the coastal piedmont site of Tak’alik Ab’aj (Figure 4.4). Stratigraphy and radio-carbon dating of the recently uncovered Altar 48, to between 400 and 200 bc, may place the develop-ment of writing on the coast on a par with preco-cious developments of writing in the Maya Lowlands and elsewhere in Mesoamerica (Chinchilla Maza -riegos 1999; Coe 1976; Houston 2004; Marcus 1976;

figure 4.3 El Baúl Monument 59. (Drawing by the author.)


Saturno et al. 2006; Schieber de Lavarreda and Orrego Corzo 2009). Early inscriptions at Tak’alik Ab’aj display linear formats, with signs placed in more or less discreet cartouches that often contain only one head sign but may also include sign clus-ters. A trend toward a more standardized format of glyph blocks and smaller cartouche sizes is evident on Stela 5, whose Initial Series dates correspond to ad 103 and 126, according to the GMT correlation. The nonnumerical signs are badly preserved, but they clearly contain sign clusters that suggest com-plex word formation patterns.

At Cotzumalhuapa, El Baúl Monument 1 re -mains the only example of Preclassic writing, al though the supernatural head on the basal panel of Bilbao Monument 42 may be interpreted as a place-name (cf. Stuart and Houston 1994). Besides its Long Count date, El Baúl Monument 1 had a long inscription carved in a linear, double-column format on clearly demarcated panels. Poor preser-vation makes it difficult to comment on the script,

although there is some indication of sign cluster-ing. While the glyphic cartouches remain visible, the details of noncalendrical signs were carved in a very shallow relief that has been completely lost to erosion and exfoliation.

The inscriptions at Tak’alik Ab’aj and Cotzum-alhuapa reveal the early development of scribal communities across the coast, extending into the highland site of Kaminaljuyu and all the way down to Izapa in coastal Chiapas and Chalchuapa in El Salvador. We still do not understand the cessation of writing, at least on stone monuments, by the end of the Preclassic period. This change happened across the entire region, although there is little sub-stantial evidence on its causes and on the specific processes that were involved at each site.

Teotihuacan Writing

Karl Taube (2000; this volume) has shown that the complex clusters of symbols first noted on Early Classic Escuintla pottery by Nicholas Hellmuth

Such

iate Naranjo

Tilapa

Sam

alá

Nahua

late

Mad

re Viej

aCoy

olate Acom

é

Mar

ía L

inda

Paz

Los Esclavos

Lake Ayarza

Paci�c Ocean

Lake Amatitlan

Lake Atitlan

0 50 km

N

V. Sta. María

V. San Pedro

V. Toliman

V. Acatenango

V. FuegoV. Pacaya

V. Tecuamburro

V. Atitlan

Tak alik Ab aj

Palo GordoPalo Verde

Cotzumalhuapa

Santa RosaEl Portal

Kaminaljuyu

La MáquinaLa Nueva

Los Cerritos Norte

Cádiz-Ulapa

Finca San CristóbalAguna

Ajaxa

Río Seco

Montana/Los Chatos

figure 4.4Map of the Pacific coast of Guatemala showing sites mentioned in the text. The underlined names indicate sites with inscriptions in the Cotzumalhuapa system. (Drawing by the author.)


(1975) are examples of the Teotihuacan writing sys-tem. He suggests that some notations may contain the personal names of individuals and possibly top-onyms (Taube 2000:19–21). Teotihuacan glyphs are found on mold-made pottery and other portable objects. Almost without exception, these objects are unprovenanced, although they reportedly orig-inated from sites on the coastal plain of Escuintla (see Figure 4.4; Berlo 1984; Hellmuth 1975; Shook 1965). Frederick Bove and Sonia Medrano’s (2003) research suggests an intrusion of migrants who carried Teotihuacan cultural traits and established a major center at Montana, a large site located near the modern town of La Gomera. While impor-tant, this intrusion was geographically localized. It barely reached the piedmont region, where Cotzumalhuapa is located, and it did not extend to the western coast, where Tak’alik Ab’aj remained a substantial center throughout the Classic period. Extensive research has yielded no examples of the Teotihuacan script at Cotzumalhuapa or Tak’alik Ab’aj, the known locations of Preclassic scribal communities on the coast.

A description of Teotihuacan writing falls beyond the scope of this essay. Some of Taube’s observations are relevant for comparison with the Cotzumalhuapa system, however. Teotihuacan glyphs are not bound by cartouches or other stan-dardized shapes, with the exception of the probable calendrical signs in round cartouches accompa-nied by bar-and-dot coefficients that appear below the probable day names (Caso 1966; Taube 2000). Noncalendrical signs are usually grouped in clus-ters that sometimes acquire a large and elaborate “emblematic” shape but often are relatively con-densed and simplified. In exceptional cases, texts are arranged in linear format. While the system is undeciphered, Taube highlighted the similarity of Teotihuacan sign clusters to Zapotec and Aztec writing. Alfonso Lacadena’s (2008) recent explana-tion of Aztec writing as a logosyllabic system raises the question of whether the Teotihuacan system was also logosyllabic.

Taube (2000:48) suggests that Teotihuacan writing was probably the forebear of the Late Classic and Postclassic systems of central Mexico,

including the Xochicalco, Cacaxtla, and Aztec scripts. For the purposes of this essay, the rel-evant question is whether it was also ancestral to Cotzumalhuapa writing. As shown in the follow-ing sections, the answer to this question is prob-ably no. The circular shape of probable calendrical signs is a shared feature, but the signs themselves differ noticeably from the possible Teotihuacan day signs reported by Alfonso Caso (1966), James Langley (1986), and Karl Taube (2000). Most importantly, sign clusters are entirely absent from Cotzumalhuapa sculptures, suggesting a radically different approach to graphic communication. This is not to deny the strong impact of Teotihuacan on the Pacific coast. Cotzumalhuapa art incorporated many elements that were first introduced to the area by the Early Classic Teo tihuacan migrants, but it also departed from the Teotihuacan tradition in significant ways that include writing.

Cotzumalhuapa Writing

The rise of Cotzumalhuapa coincided with the demise of Montana around ad 650; the two events may have been related (Chinchilla Mazariegos et al. 2009). While Cotzumalhuapa inherited cultural elements from the earlier Teotihuacan-influenced peoples of the coastal plain, its style and iconogra-phy cannot be explained as a derivation from high-land Mexican or Gulf Coast models, as interpreted by earlier observers (Jiménez Moreno 1959; Parsons 1969:164–170; Thompson 1948:25–28). Far from imi-tating Teotihuacan models, the Cotzumalhuapa artists and their patrons may have consciously reacted against the Teotihuacan presence at Mon-tana, tracing their roots back to Preclassic fore-bears. Likewise, the city’s script is more remarkable for its innovations than for its adoption of elements from the previously described writing traditions.

The Cotzumalhuapa people revitalized the ancient tradition of monumental sculpture that was largely abandoned at the Teotihuacan-influenced Early Classic centers of the coastal plain. Bil-bao, the center of Preclassic activity in the area, was aggrandized and bestowed with monuments whose iconography suggests an ancestor cult. The famous stelae 2–9 from the Bilbao Monument


Plaza re plicate the Preclassic iconographic tradi-tion of representing gods or ancestors emerging from super natural openings on the monuments’ upper registers, perhaps inspired by the example of the Preclassic stela at El Baúl (Hatch 1987:474). The serpent headdresses worn by the paramount characters on the Late Classic stelae from Bilbao may also relate to the serpent headdress of the main character of El Baúl Monument 1 (see Figure 4.1). These traits suggest that the iconography of Late Classic Cotzumalhuapa art has long roots on the coast, but that it also incorporated Teotihuacan elements that were introduced to the area during the Early Classic period.

The Late Classic Cotzumalhuapans were aware of the practice of writing by Preclassic peoples, but they were most likely unable to understand Pre classic inscriptions such as the text of El Baúl Monument 1. Yet they reset this stela at the major royal and administrative center of the Late Classic city, the El Baúl acropolis. Moreover, they proba-bly knew the Teotihuacan script, at least in a broad fashion. But instead of following this model, they developed a new system, abandoning the complex sign clusters that characterize Teotihuacan and later Aztec writing and relying exclusively on calendri-cal notations. In this respect, the Cotzumalhuapa script innovated in ways that foreshadowed the later development of writing elsewhere in Mesoamerica.

The Cotzumalhuapa Inscriptions

Distribution

The corpus of Cotzumalhuapa writing consists of no less than sixty-one sculpted monuments with inscriptions, plus a small number of portable objects. The inventory is small, but it compares favorably with the number of known inscriptions at roughly contemporaneous sites such as Cacaxtla, El Tajin, Teotenango, and Xochicalco. Inscribed monuments are a fraction of the known corpus of sculptures in the Cotzumalhuapa style; in fact, some of the largest carvings at Cotzumalhuapa feature no glyphic notations. Two-thirds of the monuments belong to the city of Cotzumalhuapa

itself, which has forty-four inscribed monuments. Many come from the large compounds of El Baúl and Bilbao, but peripheral locations also boasted major monuments. Judging from their shape, the carved pillars from Golón (Figure 4.5) stood at the doorway of a large compound that remains

figure 4.5 Golón Monuments 2 and 3. (Drawings by the author.)


unidentified. They were found in a peripheral loca-tion in the southeastern part of the city. While no standing architecture is visible, the causeway that connected Golón with El Castillo highlights the importance of this sector in the city’s urban landscape (see Figure 4.2; Chinchilla Mazariegos et al. 2008).

Eight monuments with inscriptions come from the second- and third-level sites of Palo Verde, Aguna, Finca San Cristóbal, and Ajaxa, which are located within a ten kilometer range of Cotzumalhuapa (Chinchilla Mazariegos et al. 2006). Further examples are scattered at other sites within fifty kilometers of Cotzumalhuapa (see Figure 4.4). A small but important concentra-tion of four inscriptions comes from Palo Gordo (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2002; Termer 1973). There are two inscribed stelae at Los Cerritos Norte and a carved boulder at Cádiz, near the modern city of Escuintla. Further examples come from the site of Santa Rosa and an unreported location in the Antigua Guatemala Valley (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996; Girard 1972; Parsons 1969; Robinson n.d.). The sculptural style was spread over a much wider area, but no inscriptions are known from sites on the southeastern coast and highlands of Guatemala, such as La Nueva, which has an important concen-tration of Cotzumalhuapa-style sculptures.

General Features

Glyphs were carved on a variety of media, includ-ing rocks, stelae, altars, wall panels, steps, pillars, and pavement stones. Isolated glyphs are some-times found on ceramic figurines, hachas, and small stone carvings (Figure 4.6). Few lapidary objects have been documented at Cotzumalhuapa, but there is a glyphic notation on a jade plaque in the Cotzumalhuapa style recovered from the Chichen Itza cenote (Proskouriakoff 1974:191–192). Curiously enough, the Star glyph (appendix, no. 14) is the only sign of the script to appear on portable objects. This sign is also frequent on major Cotzumalhuapa monuments (Cossich Vielman and Chinchilla Mazariegos 2006).

Signs are usually inscribed in round car-touches that may or may not have a raised border.

figure 4.6Portable sculpture showing seated character with Star glyph (14). (Photograph by the author.)

But there are many examples of exempt signs that sometimes grow to disproportionate size. There seems to be no rule regarding sign orientation—the same sign may appear oriented to the viewer’s left or right. Moreover, head signs appear either in frontal or profile view, sometimes on the same carving. In such cases, there is no clue to deter-mine whether they are part of a single notation and whether the two signs are variants of each other. In general, such variation appears to result from the artist’s fancy, and choices may depend on artistic composition rather than on any fixed rule.

The Flowering Glyphs 5 1

Numerals

A single example of a bar-and-dot numeral appears on El Castillo Monument 1 (Figure 4.7). While unique, it may relate to the Teotihuacan prac-tice of writing bar-and-dot numerals underneath day signs in an inverted fashion—with the dots below the bars (Caso 1966; Taube 2000). This con-trasts with coastal Preclassic monuments, where numerals appear above day signs. Elsewhere at Cotzumalhuapa, numerals appear as series of plain circles or rings that function as coefficients

to nonnumerical signs. The longest documented series reaches twelve units on El Baúl Monument 56 (Figure 4.8), suggesting that numerical series may correspond to trecena coefficients.

A peculiar feature of Cotzumalhuapa nota-tions is the repetition of identical signs forming series that may reach up to nine identical signs. Presumably, repeating series stand for combina-tions of day signs and numerals, such as “9 Monkey” on the right side of El Castillo Monument 1 (see Figure 4.7). As Thompson (1948:32) pointed out,

figure 4.7 El Castillo Monument 1, Side A. (Drawing by the author.)


this appears to contradict a basic principle of Mesoamerican calendars: the independence of the trecenas and the veintenas. Yet the same format was employed in sixteenth-century documents from central Mexico and Oaxaca. In the Matrícula de Huexotzinco, Alfonso Lacadena (personal com-munication 2008) notes calendrical names, such as Omacatl (2 Reed) and Nauacatl (4 Reed), that were written with repeated signs instead of com-bining a single Reed sign with the corresponding numerals. Likewise, on the map of the Relación de Macuilxochtil, the town’s name (5 Flower) is writ-ten with five flower symbols. Lacadena suggests that this was a widespread, albeit uncommon, practice in Mesoamerican scripts.

figure 4.8El Baúl Monument 56. (Drawing by the author.)

Identification of Signs

Thompson (1948) first offered an inventory of Cotzumalhuapa signs, which has grown consider-ably with new discoveries. My current list contains thirty-two different signs, including numerals. In the following discussion, the signs will be identified by numerals corresponding to the list in the appen-dix. The inventory is far from complete, since newly found monuments often add previously undocu-mented glyphic signs. Many signs are known from isolated examples, and preservation problems make it difficult to assess variants. For this sign list, I decided to distinguish possible variants with sep-arate numbers instead of lumping them together. For example, signs 17 and 18 are probable vari-ants of a Death sign. The first clearly portrays the Cotzumalhuapa Death God, while the second is simply a skull with no distinguishing features.

The graphic shape of some signs still eludes identification, although much can be gained by comparing them with iconographic depictions in the art of Cotzumalhuapa and elsewhere. For instance, a sign that represents a cross-armed character (9) corresponds well with a widespread sculptural genre at Cotzumalhuapa. Characterized by their simplicity and general lack of adornment, these sculptures show seated human characters or human torsos with the arms crossed over the chest (Parsons 1969:figs. 46a–b, 47a). Comparison with multiple representations in Mesoamerican art sug-gests that they may represent mummy bundles. While plausible, this interpretation provides no key for their identification as day names.

Although the following paragraphs outline broad issues related to the calendrical identification of Cotzumalhuapa glyphs, a detailed discussion of any single issue falls beyond the scope of this chap-ter. A number of Cotzumalhuapa signs correspond


closely with day names in Mesoamerican calen-dars. These include Monkey (6), Deer (16), Death (17 or 18), Vulture (20), Rabbit (25), Rain (13, rep-resented by Tlaloc’s head), and possibly Serpent (26), Reed (30), Movement (4), and Crocodile (22). Problematic signs include Iguana (10), which is clearly identified as such by the crests above and below the animal’s head. A correspondence with Lizard, the fourth day of highland Mexican calen-dars, seems possible, but there is no known day list that specifically identifies this day name as Iguana. Other signs, such as Crab (19), are undocumented elsewhere in Mesoamerican calendars.

The identification of day signs is further com-plicated by the absence of a documented calen-dar from the Pacific coastal region. There is no record of a calendar from the Nahua-speaking Pipil who inhabited Escuintla in colonial times. In the sixteenth century, they shared the Cotzumal-huapa region with the Kaqchikel, whose presence resulted from the Late Postclassic expansion of the highland kingdom centered at Tecpan Guatemala and Tecpan Atitlan (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1998). While there is no assurance that the Kaqchikel were present on the coast during the Classic period, their calendar offers the closest available point of comparison for the Cotzumalhuapa glyphs. The colonial Kaqchikel calendar is known from chronological records included in the Memorial de Sololá and from a calendar compiled in 1685, which included both Kaqchikel and Nahua day names (Crespo 1957; Recinos 1950). Some day names appear to parallel signs in the Cotzumalhuapa script; for instance, the seventeenth day, Noh, glossed as “The Temple,” may correspond with a Cotzumalhuapa glyph that depicts a stepped platform (12). Yet such correspondences remain highly tentative.

figure 4.9 The Skull Bird sign (11): a) detail from Bilbao Monument 10 (reprinted from Habel 1878); and b) sherd of Tiquisate ware in the collection of the Museo Popol Vuh, note the bird’s beak in front of the skull’s mouth (photograph by the author).

The problems of calendrical correlation are also exemplified by the peculiar sign 11, known only from Simeon Habel’s 1863 drawing of the now-lost Bilbao Monument 10 (Figure 4.9a). Thompson saw it as a probable eagle, failing to recognize that it shows a human skull with a bird’s beak protrud-ing from the nasal cavity. The full-bodied bird was molded on a Tiquisate bowl, a type of pottery that was widely used at Cotzumalhuapa (Figure 4.9b).


4.11). This combination may be distinct from the Stepped Platform glyph that appears by itself on the closely related Monument 14 (Figure 4.12). Yet the crossed bars do not appear elsewhere in the cor-pus, casting doubt on whether this is an indepen-dent sign or just a graphic variant of the Stepped Platform glyph.

Combinations of different signs are extremely rare. In fact, most sculptures carry only one nota-tion, formed by a repeated sign or a combination of a sign and a numeral. A single monument may show two or more notations, but they tend to be spatially separated from each other, and they sel-dom include sequences of different signs. Of par-ticular note is El Baúl Monument 6, a rock carving with a lone example of a linear text formed by five different signs and no associated imagery (Figure 4.13). Robert Burkitt (1933) and Eric Thompson (1948:32) offered interpretations that remain largely untestable, especially because the series includes very odd signs, three of which are absent from the rest of the corpus.

figure 4.10Skull Bird with human body, carrying a severed human head, detail of Bilbao Monument 1. (Drawing by the author.)

The same mythological character appears with a human body on Bilbao Monument 1 (Figure 4.10; Gómez 2005). The bird with a human skull recalls some representations of owls in the Postclassic codices of highland Mexico (Seler 1996:253), and therefore, it may correspond with the sixteenth day of the Kaqchikel calendar, listed as Tecolotl in the Nahua list and Ahmac in the Kaqchikel list. The Spanish gloss is “El Buho” (Crespo 1957). This inter-pretation, however, opens the question of whether this glyph is a variant of the Vulture sign (20), also present in the script.

Sign Combinations

Signs do not cluster together in Cotzumalhuapa writing. The absence of sign clusters marks a major break with earlier coastal scribal traditions. For the first time, there are no complex combina-tions of signs such as those of the Preclassic and Teotihuacan scripts. There is a unique exception on Bilbao Monument 13, where the Stepped Platform sign (12) is combined with crossed bars (Figure


figure 4.11Bilbao Monument 13. (Drawing by the author.)



Even more difficult to assess are the multiple notations on the large stela known as El Castillo Monument 1 (see Figure 4.7). I am tempted to ar range them in a continuous series, although the ordering principle remains unclear: 2 Crab, 3 Bun-dle, 4 and 5 (missing), 6 Star, 7 Bundle, 8 (missing), 9 Monkey. Perhaps the most revealing feature is the budding vine that crowns the 9 Monkey series—the same kind of scroll used to depict the climbing character’s flowery utterance. As I will argue, the series appears to be an extension of the character’s chant, growing to encircle the entire scene.


figure 4.14Pavement slabs and steps with Death God face and 4 Death collocations: a) El Baúl Monument 18, a carved step with the number four on riser; b) Bilbao Monument 29; c) El Baúl Monument 34; d) El Baúl Monuments 67 and 68, found together on the Seler-Sachs Causeway; and e) La Gloria Monument 1, found on the Habel Causeway. (Drawings by the author.)

a

d

b

e

c

Oversized Signs

In some cases, the associated numerals provide the only clue to identify glyphs that grow to occupy the entire surface of large monuments. A case in point is the full-bodied deer that occupies one whole side of Ajaxa Monument 1, a boulder measuring 1.85 × 1.20 m (Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996:416–420). The numeral 9, partly carved on the deer’s back, betrays its nature as an oversized notation that may be paraphrased as “9 Deer.”

Archaeological evidence shows that important stations along the Cotzumalhuapa causeways were marked with oversized 4 Death no tations carved

on large pavement stones or steps (Figure 4.14; Chinchilla Mazariegos et al. 2008). Archaeologically documented examples that were part of cause-ways include La Gloria Monument 1, El Castillo Monument 16, and El Baúl Monuments 67 and 68. In addition, three unprovenanced monuments share the same design—an oversized visage of the Cotzumalhuapa Death God—and probably served the same function. Four of these carvings have an associated numeral 4 carved below the Death God face or, in the case of El Baúl Monuments 67 and 68, on a separate block that was found together with the Death God carving. The numerals suggest that all


of these carvings should be understood as oversized glyphic notations. The reasons for their placement as pavement stones on the causeways remain elusive.

Name Tags

Glyphic notations are often associated with human characters, perhaps indicating their calendrical names. For example, the notations 4 Deer and 8 Monkey on Bilbao Monument 18 (Figure 4.15) likely convey the names of the main protagonists. By contrast, a parallel scene on the obverse of El Castillo Monument 1 includes no glyphic identi-fication of the characters.

The Star glyph (14) is the most frequent sign in the Cotzumalhuapa script, appearing not only in glyphic notations, but also in headdresses and other iconographic contexts, as well as on ceramic and stone artifacts (see Figure 4.6). Eduard Seler (1904:312) first identified this sign as a stellar eye based on a comparison with the stars represented on the murals of Mitla and on the codices of highland Mexico. His interpretation is supported by exam-ples that feature an eyelid on Golón Monuments 4 and 5 (Cossich Vielman and Chinchilla Mazariegos 2006). Most intriguing are the 6 Star collocations that appear on no less than nine examples in the



Cotzumalhuapa corpus. Their frequent associa-tion with the gargantuan maw of a reptilian mon-ster suggests that this collocation may convey the name of this mythical beast.

The parallel scenes on El Castillo Monument 1 (see Figure 4.7) and Vista Linda Monument 1 show the monster’s distinctive dentition, with alternat-ing fangs and molars serving as a ladder for the climbing characters. Elsewhere, I propose that their goal is to reach a paradisiacal place of abun-dance, full of prodigious vegetation associated with flowers, fruits, and valuable objects such as jewels, headdresses, and cacao pods. This is the Cotzu-malhuapa version of the Mesoamerican Flower Worlds, the mythical places of abundance and brilliance in Mesoamerican religions that are often

associated with the sun and the souls of ancestors (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2008; cf. Hill 1992; López Austin 1994; Taube 2004). The monster’s gigan-tic maw is the entrance to this marvelous place, and the 6 Star collocations behind the climb-ing characters probably name the maw itself. The strongest evidence appears on two pairs of pillars (Monuments 33 and 84a–c) that framed doorways at the Bilbao acropolis, forming architectural ver-sions of this gaping maw (Figure 4.16). Each pil-lar shows the characteristic dentition, combined with series of Star glyphs that are joined together by the monster’s bifid tongue. The doorway formed by Monuments 33 and 84c has a 6 Star colloca-tion on each pillar, while the other pair, formed by Monuments 84a and b, shows three Star signs

figure 4.16Bilbao Monuments 84a and 84b, pillars from a doorway that stood at the Bilbao Monument Plaza, front and side views. Note the grooves on top of both pillars, which were designed to hold a lintel. (Drawings by the author.)


on each pillar, together forming the 6 Star colloca-tion. Thus, the 6 Star collocation appears to mark the monster and, more specifically, its gaping maw.

The 6 Star collocation also appears in the basal panel of El Baúl Monument 27. Here, the six glyphs acquire the shape of seated characters with crossed arms who carry the Star glyph as a headdress. This configuration may represent a conflation with the “crossed arms” sign (9) or perhaps an animated form of the Star sign. Its position at the base of the composition suggests that it may function as a place-name (cf. Stuart and Houston 1994). Yet another indication comes from the collocation’s appearance on the upper register of Palo Verde Monument 1, which hints of a celestial location. To summarize, the 6 Star collocation’s frequent asso-ciation with the maw of the reptilian monster sug-gests that it might convey the name of this being or perhaps the name of the paradisiacal place that is entered through the monster’s gigantic maw.

Flowering Glyphs, Singing Glyphs

As employed in this chapter, the term anima-tion refers to the scribal practice of investing the signs of a writing system with the attributes of liv-ing creatures without necessarily changing their

reading. Animated signs are well known elsewhere in Mesoamerica. In Maya writing, many signs are shaped as the heads of gods or animals that some-times acquire full bodies without changing their reading. In such cases, the arrangement of full-figure glyphs within the constraints of glyphic cartouches was a testing ground for scribal fancy and creativeness. Instead of simply clustering with each other, as hieroglyphs normally do, full-figure glyphs often interact by holding each other, car-rying each other, and sometimes fighting each other. Symbolic forms may also become animated, acquiring human or animal faces and bodies. In Maya writing, however, animated signs normally stay within the bounds of glyphic cartouches; they are easily distinguished from nonglyphic imagery. By contrast, animated signs in Cotzumalhuapa sculptures escape the bounds of glyphic cartouches and sometimes become the actors of complex nar-rative scenes.

Animated signs in the roughly contempo-rary script of Xochicalco are especially close to the Cotzumalhuapa examples. A glyphic collocation from the feathered serpent pyramid shows a day sign that has acquired arms and hands, with which it pulls the rope that ties a neighboring sign (Figure 4.17). Seler (1991:77) interpreted the gestures as indi-cating the measurement of time periods. This form

figure 4.17Animated glyph from the Temple of the Feathered Serpent at Xochicalco. (Drawing by the author, after Seler 1991).


of animation seems especially close to the 3 Death notation on Palo Gordo Monument 10 (Figure 4.18). The central glyph is provided with a pair of oversized hands that extend to hold his companions on either side. While their shape is humanlike, these hands most probably belong to the Death God, whose skel-etal body normally includes fleshed hands and feet. The inscription thus became a compressed portrait of the Death God holding two portraits of himself. At Cotzumalhuapa, hieroglyphic signs often acquire the qualities of living creatures, such as plants, animals, or humans. Moreover, glyphs are strongly

associated with the lush vegetation that symbolizes flowery speech or song—categories that were largely undistinguishable in ancient Mesoamerica (cf. King 1994; Monaghan 1994).

An unprovenanced relief, reportedly from the Antigua Guatemala Valley (Figure 4.19), has two animated glyphic notations: 4 Deer and perhaps 8 Coyote. Their size and dynamism make them more than just notations. Both animals are impor-tant elements in the composition, as they appear to interact with the seated character who gestures in front of a burning plate. Their awkward position

figure 4.18Palo Gordo Monument 10. (Drawing by the author.)

figure 4.19Relief carving of unknown provenance, reportedly from the Antigua Guatemala Valley. (Drawing by the author.)


suggests that they may be sacrificial victims, per-haps likened to the human-faced fruit that burns in the plate. In Cotzumalhuapa art, such fruits stand for sacrificial victims. Moreover, both ani-mals are linked with flowers, recalling the plant symbolism that is often found in association with Cotzumalhuapa glyphic notations. The animated glyphs are at once participants in a sacrificial fire ritual and notations that conceivably convey per-sonal names or dates related to the event.

Another form of animation involves the repre-sentation of glyphs as fruits, flowers, or seeds. In this guise, glyphs are closely associated with the ubiq-uitous vines that often function as speech scrolls. Examples include a series of glyphs hanging like fruits from a flowering plant on Bilbao Monument 11. On El Baúl Monument 30 (Figure 4.20), glyphic annotations are placed along the vines that repre-sent the characters’ utterances, like fruits or flowers growing from them. As noted, the glyphic collo-cations on El Castillo Monument 1 (see Figure 4.7) appear to substitute almost entirely for the flower-ing vines/speech scrolls that are commonly used to represent speech or chant. The association of glyphs with speech scrolls is familiar in other Mesoameri-can scripts, notably at Teotihuacan, where glyphic collocations may allude to the content of the speak-ers’ utterances. But this was taken a step further at

Cotzumalhuapa, where the glyphs themselves may perform speech.

In lowland Maya art, Stephen Houston and Karl Taube (2000) distinguish different types of utterances, marked with variously shaped speech scrolls. At least two types of utterances can be iden-tified in Cotzumalhuapa art. The most common is flowery speech (see Figures 4.20–4.21), which is marked by abundant flowers and precious objects that sprout from speech scrolls like fruits or flow-ers. The second is fiery speech, which is marked by undulating flamelike elements, such as the one that grows from the mouth of a deer on Bilbao Monument 14 (see Figure 4.12). On its compan-ion, Bilbao Monument 13, the flame denoting fiery speech hangs at the end of a series of ring-shaped numerals that form the Death God’s utterance (see Figure 4.11). Another example appears on El Baúl Monument 4 (Figure 4.22), where fiery speech is clearly associated with human sacrifice.

The flames denoting fiery speech may be ori-ented downward. Their identification with fire, however, is suggested by comparison with the flames on the burning plate featured in the Antigua relief (see Figure 4.19). The contrasting, and perhaps complementary, nature of both types of speech becomes evident in the Golón pillars (see Figure 4.5). Both pillars have parallel glyphic annotations,



consisting of two signs (26) that possibly represent serpent heads. But there are different elements com-ing out of the glyphs’ mouths on each pillar. The flames that fill Golón Monument 3 contrast with the flowery scrolls that appear in the midst of dense spiraling bands on Golón Monument 2, perhaps standing for water. These notations may comple-ment each other in the manner of antithetical cou-plets, a literary device that has been documented in Mesoamerican indigenous texts (e.g., Christenson 2003:50). The contrasting water and fire utterances

are reminiscent of the atl tlachinolli, “water, burned field,” couplet used by the Aztec as a metaphor for warfare. Moreover, both the flames and the flowery scrolls come out of the mouths of the glyphic signs, suggesting that these are their utterances.

Further examples of speaking or singing glyphs appear in other sculptures. Palo Gordo Monument 25 (Figure 4.23) has some of the most remarkable examples of animation in the Cotzumalhuapa script. One unique feature is the animation of numerical coefficients. Instead of the usual series

figure 4.21Bilbao Monument 20. Note the flowery speech scrolls coming out of the mouths of both characters. (Drawing by the author.)

figure 4.22Detail of El Baúl Monument 4, showing a skeletal character with a fiery speech scroll. Note the bleeding heart in his hand. (Drawing by the author.)


back. Elsewhere, I have interpreted the composition as representing a marital alliance because it employs a pan-Mesoamerican convention for marriage—a man and a woman standing or sitting in front of each other. If so, the glyph’s action may be inter-preted as the presentation of dowry (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2002).

The glyphs’ performance on this stela also includes verbal art, denoted by the scrolls that come out of their mouths. Moreover, the fruit-laden plant that grows from the serpent numeral 1 may also be regarded as the numeral’s utterance. Considering the usual interplay between plants and speech scrolls in Cotzumalhuapa art, this tree may be considered as like-in-kind with the scrolls that come out of the animated glyphs’ mouths on the same monument. By comparison, Monument 24 from the same site (Figure 4.24) shows an elabo-rate vine growing from a ring-shaped numeral placed in front of the mouth of a seated character. Oddly enough, this numeral does not function as a coefficient for another glyph. In both cases, the numerals take the role of seeds that germinate lush vegetation, which is largely associated with flowery speech or song in Cotzumalhuapa art.

The contrast between the stiffness of the stand-ing characters and the animation of their probable name tags is noticeable on Monument 25 (see Figure 4.23). Indeed, the glyphs are the most active partici-pants in this remarkable scene. The next step was taken on Monument 1 from Finca San Cristóbal, a minor site in the vicinity of Cotzumalhuapa (Figure 4.25). As on the Golón pillars (see Figure 4.5), the sculptor at Finca San Cristóbal did away with the characters, leaving only the glyphs. In a very per-functory way, the annotations may be paraphrased as “7 Rabbit” and “3 Death,” with the Death God’s coefficient threaded by a flowering vine. There are no associated characters, and the glyphs are the sole actors in the monument. They engage in ver-bal performance, and their utterances are depicted as tightly entwined vines that split apart at the top and bloom with beautiful flowers and sprouts. As in the other sculptures we have discussed, these calendrical annotations seem to substitute for the portraits of two individuals thus named.


of rings, the numerals on this carving are entwined serpents, whose coils form the notations “ten” and “one.” The first serves as a coefficient for a snarl-ing beast, a full-figure glyph that probably names the character to the observer’s left. The number one serves as coefficient and seat for a full-figure glyph shaped as a small mammal that takes an active role in the scene. This animated glyph presents objects—perhaps gifts or tribute—to the larger character. At the same time, it probably names the short stand-ing woman with a huge serpent emerging from her


Several monuments at Cotzumalhuapa show face-to-face characters engaged in flowery speech or chant (see Figures 4.20–4.21). The nature of their chanting becomes explicit on the grandest example, the magnificent rock carving known as Bilbao Monument 21 (Figure 4.26), on which the main characters face each other as they utter flow-ering speech scrolls. Most noticeable is the central character’s song, which flows out from his mouth and from the mouth of a skull on his chest. Both scrolls grow to enormous size, encircling the entire scene, and both are ripe, not just with flowers, but also with human-faced fruits and objects, such as knives, ear spools, and other jewels. Elsewhere, I propose that this character’s chant evokes the Cotzumalhuapa version of the Mesoamerican


figure 4.25Finca San Cristóbal Monument 1. (Drawing by the author.)


Flower World (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2008; cf. Hill 1992; Taube 2004). As he sings, the central character dances to the music played by a third participant, an uncanny-looking character who beats a kettledrum with a human femur while manipulating a puppet with his right hand. While dancing, the main character wields a large knife to harvest the human-faced fruits that grow from his own speech scrolls—a harvest that stands for human sacrifice by decapitation. Briefly stated, this is a sacrificial dance that may evoke the ultimate destiny of warriors and sacrificial victims as a flow-ery paradise, which is materialized by the main character’s chant.

Did the Finca San Cristóbal sculpture (see Fig-ure 4.25) evoke similar images? Can we conclude

that it is a reduced version of a similar scene, with the two chanters represented by their calendrical names? Indeed, to the eye of the knowledgeable reader, the animation of the 7 Rabbit and 3 Death collocations was probably meant to evoke a com-plex series of ritual events, mythical passages, and supernatural places. We may also return to our initial example, El Baúl Monument 59 (see Figure 4.3). Is this another variation on the same theme, the essential act of singing, enacted by a character who was named by the central collocation? Did this rather plain carving refer to and condense a com-plex series of ritual events, mythical passages, and supernatural places?

The answers to these questions will necessarily remain in the realm of speculation. Nevertheless,



these comparisons highlight the fact that the Cot-zumalhuapa scribes and artists experimented with various ways of encoding complex information, sometimes relying entirely on iconographic con-ventions and other times giving primary place to glyphic annotations. Glyphs were occasionally endowed with such a degree of animation that they become active participants in iconographic compositions. The information that the animated glyphs convey is encoded as much in their actions as in their intrinsic meanings, and the reader must have had a considerable amount of background information to decode such messages.

Cotzumalhuapa Writing in Ancient Mesoamerica

The preceding description of the Cotzumalhuapa script highlights some of its most salient features:

(1) A small number of signs that largely function in combination with numerals, suggesting a calendrical system that may include dates, per-sonal names, and perhaps place-names.

(2) A nearly complete absence of sign clustering or glyphic combinations—features that are associated with logosyllabic collocations in the Maya and Aztec scripts.

(3) An extraordinary degree of animation that sometimes turns notations into active partici-pants in elaborate scenes.

These features set Cotzumalhuapa writing apart from earlier writing traditions that were used on the Pacific coast, including Preclassic and Teotihuacan writing, and give the overall impres-sion that Cotzumalhuapa scribes and artists devel-oped a system of their own, rather than adapting the Teotihuacan system. From the latter, Cotzu-malhuapa may have inherited features such as the shape of calendrical signs, but not much else. In par-ticular, the absence of sign clustering suggests that the Cotzumalhuapa script relied largely on nonver-bal ways of presenting graphic information. In some respects, the closest correspondences are found in

the Postclassic Mixtec codices that employ calendri-cal annotations to identify dates and individuals and use pictorial resources to convey much of the associ-ated information, with only limited use of linguistic resources (Jansen 2001).

According to Houston (2004:277–278; Houston et al. 2003:457), the spread of Teotihuacan influence during the Early Classic period introduced a tra-dition of “open” writing systems across much of Mesoamerica. Such systems are less committed to linguistic transparency and, therefore, are more likely to depend on logographic signs and picto-rial conventions. Indeed, our limited knowledge indicates that the Teotihuacan script used glyphic notations mainly as captions for iconographic depictions that conveyed information in nonver-bal ways. The Teotihuacan script contrasted mark-edly with “closed” traditions, such as Isthmian and lowland Maya writing, in which the trans-mission of information relied almost exclusively on verbal resources. Yet Teotihuacan writing still shows complex patterns of sign clustering, perhaps similar to the logosyllabic script used by the Aztec (Lacadena 2008).

The trend toward open systems continued in the Late Classic period. The Cotzumalhuapa system was significantly more open than Teotihuacan nota-tions on Early Classic ceramics from the coast. It also seems to be more open than other Late Classic sys-tems, such as Xochicalco and Cacaxtla, that appear to have stronger roots in the Teotihuacan script. The Cotzumalhuapa scribes largely abandoned the use of verbal codes, relying entirely on picto-rial conventions to convey complex messages. Their limited use of the script to convey calendrical and name information represented a major step beyond Teotihuacan writing in the movement toward the open, nonverbal writing tradition that characterized the history of writing in much of Mesoamerica. This usage was certainly an innovation in Late Classic Mesoamerica and a step toward the open systems that came to dominate much of the region in the Postclassic period. More than a passive receiver of outside influence, Cotzumalhuapa may have been a source of innovation that left a mark on later devel-opments in Pacific Guatemala and elsewhere.


Acknowledgments

My research at Cotzumalhuapa has been possible thanks to the support of the Museo Popol Vuh, Universidad Francisco Marroquín. Elizabeth Boone and Gary Urton’s invitation to participate in the Dumbarton Oaks symposium provided the push I

needed to complete this long-overdue essay. Joanne Pillsbury and Emily Gulick’s hospitality and orga-nizational skills made the symposium a rewarding and congenial experience. I appreciate the stimulat-ing comments of all symposium participants, espe-cially Stephen Houston, Alfonso Lacadena, David Stuart, Karl Taube, and Javier Urcid.

n umber ex a mples prov isiona l designation

1 Ring Numeral

2 Plain Circle Numeral

3 Bar-and-Dot Numeral

4 Movement

Note: The third column provides convenient designations for signs based on a compari-son with Cotzumalhuapa iconography. These

designations are not offered as decipherments, though some find correspondences in Meso-american calendars.

a p p e n d i x : l i s t o f c o t z u m a l h u a pa g ly p h s



5

Unidentified(El Baúl

Monument 6, second sign)

6 Monkey

7 Decapitated Animal Head

8Unidentified

(El Baúl Monument 6, fifth sign)

9 Mummy Bundle

10 Iguana

11 Bird with Human Skull

Appendix (continued)



12 Stepped Platform

13 Rain (Tlaloc head)

14 Star

15 Inverted Tassel Headdress

16 Deer

17 Death (Death God)

18 Death (plain skull)



19 Crab

20 Vulture

21 Tied Bundle

22 Crocodile

23 Fire

24 Reptilian Monster

25 Rabbit

Appendix (continued)



26 Serpent (?)

27 Human Profile Head

28 Joined Bands

29 Composite Animal

30 Reed (?)

31 Dog or Coyote (?)

32 Small Mammal


Berlo, Janet Catherine 1984 Teotihuacan Art Abroad: A Study of Metro-

politan Style and Provincial Transformation in Incensario Workshops. 2 vols. BAR International Series 199. BAR, Oxford.

Boone, Elizabeth Hill 2004 Beyond Writing. In The First Writing:

Script Invention as History and Process, edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 313–348. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

Bove, Frederick J., and Sonia Medrano Busto 2003 Teotihuacan, Militarism, and Pacific

Guatemala. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 45–80. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Burkitt, Robert 1933 Two Stones in Guatemala. Anthropos

28:9–26.Caso, Alfonso 1966 Dioses y signos teotihuacanos. In

Teotihuacán: Onceava mesa redonda, pp. 249–279. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, Mexico City.

Chinchilla Mazariegos, Oswaldo 1996 Settlement Patterns and Monumental

Art at a Major Precolumbian Polity: Cotzumalhuapa, Guatemala. PhD disserta-tion, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

1998 Pipiles y cakchiqueles en Cotzumalguapa: La evidencia etnohistórica y arqueológica. Anales de la Academia de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala 73:143–184.

1999 Desarrollo de la escritura en Mesoamérica durante el Preclásico. In Época precolom-bina, edited by Marion Popenoe de Hatch, pp. 557–562. Vol. 1 of Historia general de Guatemala, edited by Jorge Luján Muñoz. Asociación de Amigos del País, Fundación para la Cultura y el Desarrollo, Guatemala.

2002 Palo Gordo, Guatemala, y el estilo artístico cotzumalguapa. In Incidents of Archaeology in Central America and Yucatán: Essays in Honor of Edwin M. Shook, edited by Michael Love, Marion Popenoe de Hatch, and Héctor L. Escobedo, pp. 147–178. University Press of America, Lanham, Md.

2008 El Monumento 21 de Bilbao, Cotzumal-guapa. In XXI simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, edited by

Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 989–1005. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal, and Fundación Arqueológica del Nuevo Mundo, Guatemala.

Chinchilla Mazariegos, Oswaldo, Frederick J. Bove, and José Vicente Genovez

2009 La cronología del período clásico en la Costa Sur de Guatemala y el fechamiento del estilo escultórico cotzumalguapa. In V coloquio Pedro Bosch Gimpera, edited by Annick Daneels, pp. 435–471. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Chinchilla Mazariegos, Oswaldo, Víctor Castillo, Carl Lipo, Hector Neff, Kristin N. Safi, Clarus Backes, Veronica Harper, Marisela Galindo, and James T. Daniels

2008 Las calzadas de Cotzumalguapa: Nuevos datos arqueológicos y geofísicos. In XXI simposio de investigaciones arqueológi-cas en Guatemala, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 1017–1029. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal, and Fundación Arqueológica del Nuevo Mundo, Guatemala.

Chinchilla Mazariegos, Oswaldo, Elisa Mencos, Jorge Cárcamo, and José Vicente Genovez

2006 Paisaje y asentamientos en Cotzumalguapa. In XIX simposio de investigaciones arque-ológicas en Guatemala, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 103–118. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal, and Fundación Arqueológica del Nuevo Mundo, Guatemala.

Christenson, Allen J. (editor) 2003 Popol Vuh: The Sacred Book of the Maya. O.

Books, Winchester, U.K.

Coe, Michael D. 1976 Early Steps in the Evolution of Maya

Writing. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica, edited by H. B. Nicholson, pp. 107–122. UCLA Latin American Center Publications, Los Angeles.

r e f e r e n c e s c i t e d


Cossich Vielman, Margarita V., and Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos

2006 El signo “estrella” en el arte y la escritura de Cotzumalguapa. In XIX simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 119–130. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal, and Fundación Arqueológica del Nuevo Mundo, Guatemala.

Crespo, Mario 1957 Calendario cakchiquel de los indios de

Guatemala, 1685. Antropología e historia de Guatemala 9(2):17–29.

Girard, Rafael 1972 Nuevas esculturas líticas en el área maya.

In Atti del XL congresso internazionale degli americanisti, Roma-Genova, 3–10 settembre 1972, pp. 195–202. Tilgher, Genoa.

Gómez, Erika Magalí 2005 Estudio iconográfico en vasijas tiquisate

con decoración moldeada, Costa Sur de Guatemala. In XVIII simposio de inves-tigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 739–750. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, and Asociación Tikal, Guatemala.

Graham, John A. 2008 Leyendo el pasado: La arqueología olmeca

y el curioso caso de la Estela C de Tres Zapotes. In Olmeca: Balance y perspectivas; Memoria de la primera mesa redonda, edited by María Teresa Uriarte and Rebecca B. Gonzáles Lauck, pp. 39–63. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, and Fundación Arqueológica del Nuevo Mundo, Mexico City.

Habel, Simeon 1878 The Sculptures of Santa Lucia

Cosumalwhuapa in Guatemala. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 22, no. 3. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Hatch, Marion Popenoe 1987 Un análisis de las esculturas de Santa Lucía

Cotzumalguapa. Mesoamérica 14:467–509.

Hellmuth, Nicholas M. 1975 The Escuintla Hoards: Teotihuacan Art

in Guatemala. FLAAR Progress Reports 1, no. 2. Foundation for Latin American Anthropological Research, Guatemala City.

Hill, Jane H. 1992 The Flower World of Old Uto-Aztecan.

Journal of Anthropological Research 48(2):117–144.

Houston, Stephen D. 2004 Writing in Early Mesoamerica. In The First

Writing: Script Invention as History and Process, edited by Stephen D. Houston, pp. 274–309. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

Houston, Stephen D., John Baines, and Jerrold Cooper 2003 Last Writing: Script Obsolescence in

Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Mesoamerica. Comparative Studies in Society and History 45(3):430–479.

Houston, Stephen D., and Karl Taube 2000 An Archaeology of the Senses: Perception

and Cultural Expression in Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(2):261–294.

Jansen, Maarten 2001 Mixtec Systems. In The Oxford Encyclopedia

of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, edited by Davíd Carrasco, 3:344–346. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto 1959 Síntesis de la historia pretolteca de Meso-

américa. In Esplendor del México antiguo, edited by Raúl Noriega, Carmen Cook de Leonard, and Julio Rodolfo Moctezuma, vol. 2, pp. 1019–1108. Centro de Investigaciones Antropológicas de México, Mexico City.

King, Mark B. 1994 Hearing the Echoes of Verbal Art in

Mixtec Writing. In Writing without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Walter D. Mignolo, pp. 102–136. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.


Lacadena, Alfonso 2008 Regional Scribal Traditions:

Methodological Implications for the Decipherment of Nahuatl Writing. PARI Journal 8(4):1–22.

Langley, James C. 1986 Symbolic Notation of Teotihuacan: Elements

of Writing in a Mesoamerican Culture of the Classic Period. BAR International Series 313. BAR, Oxford.

Lehmann, Walter 2000 [1926] Travel Letter from Puerto Mexico. In Early

Scholars’ Visits to Central America: Reports, edited by Marilyn Beaudry-Corbett and Ellen T. Hardy, translated by Theodore E. Gutman, pp. 102–111. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

López Austin, Alfredo 1994 Tamoanchan y Tlalocan. Fondo de Cultura

Económica, Mexico City.

Marcus, Joyce 1976 The Origins of Mesoamerican Writing.

Annual Review of Anthropology 5:35–67.

Monaghan, John 1994 The Text in the Body, the Body in the Text:

The Embodied Sign in Mixtec Writing. In Writing without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Walter D. Mignolo, pp. 87–101. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.

Parsons, Lee Allen 1969 Bilbao, Guatemala: An Archaeological

Study of the Pacific Coast, Cotzumalhuapa Region, vol. 2. Publications in Anthropol-ogy 11–12. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wisc.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1974 Jades from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen

Itza, Yucatan. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 10, no. 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Recinos, Adrián (editor) 1950 Memorial de Sololá, Anales de los

cakchiqueles, Título de los señores de Totonicapán. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico City.

Rivera, Víctor, and Juan Antonio Siller 1995 Reconocimiento arquitectónico en

Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Sur de Guatemala y México. Consideraciones generales, marzo de 1992. Cuadernos de arquitectura mesoamericana 28:59–92.

Robinson, Eugenia n.d. Santa Rosa, un sitio defensivo en las Tierras

Altas de Guatemala. Reporte de inves-tigaciones arqueológicas 1991. Manuscript on file, Museo Popol Vuh, Universidad Francisco Marroquín, Guatemala City.

Rodríguez Beteta, Virgilio 1929 Lo que sostiene el Profesor Lehmann,

acerca de los monolitos de Guatemala. Anales de la Sociedad de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala 5:253–258.

Saturno, William A., David Stuart, and Boris Beltrán 2006 Early Maya Writing at San

Bartolo, Guatemala. Science, n.s., 311(5765):1281–1283.

Schieber de Lavarreda, Christa, and Miguel Orrego Corzo

2009 El descubrimiento del Altar 48 de Tak’alik Ab’aj. In XXII simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 409–423. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal, Guatemala.

Seler, Eduard 1904 Wall Paintings of Mitla, a Mexican

Picture Writing in Fresco. In Mexican and Central American Antiquities, Calendar Systems, and History, edited by Charles P. Bowditch, pp. 243–324. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 28. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

1991 The Ruins of Xochicalco. In Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology, edited by Frank Comparato, vol. 2, pp. 70–93. Labyrinthos, Culver City, Calif.

1996 The Animal Figures of the Mexican and Maya Manuscripts. In Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology, edited by Frank Comparato, vol. 5, pp. 165–340. Labyrinthos, Culver City, Calif.


Shook, Edwin M. 1965 Archaeological Survey of the Pacific Coast

of Guatemala. In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 180–194. Vol. 2 of Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by Robert Wauchope. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Stuart, David, and Stephen D. Houston 1994 Classic Maya Place Names. Studies in

Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 33. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.

Taube, Karl 2000 The Writing System of Teotihuacan. Ancient

America 1. Center for Ancient American Studies, Barnardsville, N.C.

2004 Flower Mountain: Concepts of Life, Beauty, and Paradise among the Classic Maya. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 45:69–98.

Termer, Franz 1973 Palo Gordo: Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie

des pazifischen Guatemala. Monographien zur Völkerkunde 8. Renner, Munich.

Thompson, J. Eric S. 1948 An Archaeological Reconnaissance in

the Cotzumalhuapa Region, Escuintla, Guatemala. Contributions to Ameri -can Anthropology and History 44. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.

391

Elizabeth Hill BooneElizabeth Hill Boone, a professor of art history, holds the Martha and Donald Robertson Chair in Latin American Art at Tulane University. She is a specialist in the painted manuscripts of Pre-Columbian and early colonial Mexico. Formerly director of Pre-Columbian Studies at Dumbarton Oaks (1983–1995), she has edited or coedited eleven books, including The Aztec Templo Mayor (1987), Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past (1993), Writing without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes (1994, with Walter Mignolo), Native Traditions in the Postconquest World (1998, with Tom Cummins), and Painted Books and Indigenous Knowledge in Mesoamerica (2005). Among her own books are The Codex Magliabechiano (1983), The Aztec World (1994), Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial Histories of the Aztecs and Mixtecs (2000; winner of the Arvey Prize of the Association for Latin American Art), and Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books of Fate (2007). She has held research fel-lowships at the Institute for Advanced Study in

Princeton and the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. She was awarded the Order of the Aztec Eagle by Mexico (1990) and was named the Andrew W. Mellon Professor at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts by the National Gallery of Art (2006–2008). Her current project examines changes in the indigenous tradi-tion of pictography and manuscript painting after the conquest.

Carrie J. BrezineCarrie J. Brezine is a weaver and spinner with expe-rience in both European and Andean textile con-struction. Her undergraduate work in mathematics at Reed College continues to inspire her research in fabric structure and ethnographic weaving. From 2002–2005, she was the database administrator for the Harvard Khipu Database Project, which catalogued and deciphered the knotted-cord com-munication devices of the Inka Empire. In the summer of 2005, she described and analyzed the patrimonial khipu of Rapaz, Peru. She is presently a PhD candidate in the Archaeology Program

c o n t r i b u t o r s

392 contribu tors

of the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University. Her dissertation research focuses on changes in weaving technology and dress in colo-nial Peru.

Reymundo ChapaReymundo Chapa earned his MA in anthropol-ogy in 2009 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he studied with Frank Salomon and Jason Yaeger. He has worked throughout the Americas, focusing on the archaeology of the south-ern Andes, particularly on ceremonial architecture and its development during the rise of social com-plexity in the Lake Titicaca basin. He has been an active contributor to the research of several promi-nent Pre-Columbian ceremonial centers, including Tiwanaku, Chavin de Huántar, and Chankillo, and he has contributed papers, such as “Transforming One Hundred Years of Archaeological Research into Models of Evolving Ceremonial Form at Tiwanaku, Bolivia” and “Aptapis and Archaeology: How Aymara Celebrations at Kasa Achuta, Bolivia, Give Meaning to the Past,” at professional confer-ences. He is currently a cultural resources project manager at a small environmental consulting firm in Austin, Texas.

Oswaldo Chinchilla MazariegosOswaldo Chinchilla graduated from the Universi-dad de San Carlos de Guatemala in 1990 and earned his PhD from Vanderbilt University in 1996. He is currently curator at the Museo Popol Vuh, Universidad Francisco Marroquín, and professor at the Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. His research focuses on the archaeology of the Pacific coast of Guatemala, Classic Maya writing and icon ography, and the history of archaeology in Guatemala. He has carried out extensive field research in the Cotzumalhuapa region of the Pacific piedmont of Guatemala, including recording and analysis of the sculptural corpus, studies of settle-ment patterns and urbanism, and documentary research on the Pre-Columbian peoples of the area. His recent papers concentrate on the mythological interpretation of Classic imagery from the Pacific

coast and the Maya Lowlands. He is the author of Guatemala, corazón del mundo maya (1999), Kakaw: Chocolate in Guatemalan Culture (2005), and Imágenes de la mitología maya (2010). He is also the coeditor of The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing (2001, with Stephen D. Houston and David Stuart).

Michael D. CoeMichael D. Coe is Charles J. McCurdy Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, at Yale University. His research interests focus on the pre-Hispanic civi-lizations of Mesoamerica (especially the Olmec and Maya) and on the Khmer civilization of Cambodia. He has also conducted archaeological excavations on forts of the French and Indian War in Massachusetts. Among his eighteen published books are Mexico (1962, with four subsequent edi-tions, two coauthored with Rex Koontz); The Maya (1966, with seven subsequent editions); The Maya Scribe and His World (1973); Lords of the Underworld: Masterpieces of Classic Maya Ceramics (1978); In the Land of the Olmec (1980, with Richard A. Diehl); Breaking the Maya Code (1992); The True History of Chocolate (1996, with Sophie D. Coe); The Art of the Maya Scribe (1997, with Justin Kerr); Reading the Maya Glyphs (2001, with Mark Van Stone); Angkor and the Khmer Civilization (2003); Final Report: An Archaeologist Excavates His Past (2006); and The Line of Forts: Historical Archaeology on the Colonial Frontier of Massachusetts (2006). He has been a Member of the National Academy of Sciences since 1986. He has been given the Tatiana Proskouriakoff Award by Harvard University (1989); the James D. Burke Prize in Fine Arts by the Saint Louis Art Museum (2001); the Order of the Quetzal by the Government of Guatemala (2004); the Orden del Pop by the Museo Popol Vuh (2006); and the Linda Schele Award by the University of Texas (2008). He is currently coauthoring a book on Maya cities with the photographer Barry Brukoff.

Thomas B. F. CumminsTom Cummins is the Dumbarton Oaks Professor of the History of Pre-Columbian and Colonial Art

contribu tors 393

and the chair of the Department of the History of Art and Architecture at Harvard University. He received his MA and PhD in art history from the University of California, Los Angeles, and has pub-lished essays and books on early Pre-Columbian Ecuadorian ceramics and on colonial art and archi-tecture in Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Mexico. He is the author of Toasts with the Inca: Andean Abstraction and Colonial Images on Kero Vessels (2002) and the coeditor of The Getty Murúa: Essays on the Making of Martín de Murúa’s “Historia gen-eral del Piru,” J. Paul Getty Museum Ms. Ludwig XIII 16 (2008, with Barbara Anderson).

Víctor Falcón HuaytaVíctor Falcón Huayta holds a Licenciado degree in archaeology from the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, and is a candidate for a master’s degree in Andean studies at the Pon-tificia Universidad Católica del Perú. He was a staff archaeologist of the Instituto Nacional de Cultura from 1991 to 2009. As a museum re searcher, he relates collected objects to current field findings. His publications include “La Huayllaquepa de Punkurí: Costa Nor-Central del Perú” (Anales, Museo de América, Madrid, 2005); “Reconstruc-tion of the Burial Offering at Punkurí in the Nepeña Valley of Peru’s North-Central Coast” (Andean Past, 2009); and “Un tambor de cuero pintado del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú” (Anales, Museo de América, Madrid, 2008). His research on the Lima cultura is published in “Playa Grande: Entre la aldea y el santuario; ¿Un caso de interpre-tación arqueológica ambigua?” (Arqueológicas, Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú, 2000); “El motivo interlocking a través del ídolo de Playa Grande” (Arqueológicas, 2003); and “Morir en Playa Grande: El rescate de un entierro de la cultura Lima” (Actas del Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 2004). He also conducts research on the rock art of the central Andes, including current work on Inka pictography in the Yucay Valley at Inkapintay (Ollantaytambo).

Stephen D. HoustonStephen D. Houston holds the Dupee Family Pro-fessorship of Social Science at Brown University, where he has taught since 2004. His previous posi-tion was as Jesse Knight University Professor at Brigham Young University. He took his BA at the University of Pennsylvania and his MPhil and PhD at Yale University. He is the author, coauthor, and editor of several books, including The Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Experience among the Classic Maya (2006, with David Stuart and Karl Taube), Veiled Brightness: A History of Ancient Maya Color (2009, with various colleagues), The Classic Maya (2009, with Takeshi Inomata), as well as The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process (2004), Classic Maya Place Names (1994, with David Stuart), and Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture (1998). The recipient of fel-lowships from Dumbarton Oaks, the Guggenheim Foundation, the School of American Research, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, he has also directed archaeological projects at Piedras Negras and, more recently, at El Zotz in Guatemala. With Dan Finamore, he curated the exhibition and edited the exhibition catalogue for Fiery Pool: The Maya and the Mythic Sea (2010).

Margaret A. JacksonMargaret A. Jackson is currently assistant pro-fessor of art history at the University of New Mexico. As an art historian, her research focuses on the ancient cultures of the Andes, with particu-lar emphasis on the imagery and iconography of the Moche of Peru. Additional research interests include the visual cultures of ancient Mesoamerica and systems of visual communication. She com-pleted her PhD in Pre-Columbian art history at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the president of the Association for Latin American Art and an active member of the College Art Association. Most recently, she was coeditor of Invasion and Transformation: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Images of the Conquest of Mexico (2008, with Rebecca Brienen). Her book Moche Art and Visual Culture in Ancient Peru (2008) was the

394 contribu tors

recipient of the Association for Latin American Art book award in 2010.

Federico NavarreteFederico Navarrete is a historian and anthropolo-gist at the Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. His work centers on the nature and workings of the historical traditions of Mesoamerican, and more generally Amerindian, societies. He is the author of La migración de los mexicas (1998) and editor of Indios, mestizos y españoles: Interculturalidad e historiografía en la Nueva España (2007, in collab-oration with Danna Levin). His latest book, Los orí-genes de los pueblos del Valle de México, is in press. He has also published articles in Estudios de cul-tura náhuatl and Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics. Another line of his research concerns the history of Amerindian societies after European colonization, their cultural transformations, and their relation-ship with colonial empires and the independent nation-states of the Americas. In this area, he has published the books La conquista de México (2000), Las relaciones interétnicas en México (2004), and La invención de los caníbales (2006). He has also writ-ten the historical novel Huesos de Lagartija (1998).

Michel R. OudijkMichel Oudijk received his PhD from the Uni-versiteit Leiden in the Netherlands. After com-pleting his degree, he worked for three years as associate professor at the Københavns Universitet in Denmark. Since 2004, he has been a researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City, where he is currently working on the translation and analysis of Zapotec colonial texts. He has published extensively on Zapotec his-tory and Mesoamerican pictographic documents, including Historiography of the Bènizàa (2000) and Los lienzos pictográficos de Santa Cruz Papalutla, Oaxaca (2010, with Sebastián van Doesburg). His recent research concerns the interaction between indigenous and Spanish colonial societies. He is the coeditor of Indian Conquistadors: Indigenous Allies in the Conquest of Mesoamerica (2007, with Laura

Matthew) and coauthor of La conquista indígena de Mesoamérica: El caso de don Gonzalo Mazatzin Moctezuma (2008, with Matthew Restall).

Frank SalomonFrank Loewen Salomon is the John V. Murra Pro fessor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin. Born in New York in 1946, he took his BA from Columbia University in 1968 and his MA and PhD from Cornell University in 1974 and 1978. He joined the Department of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1982. A historical ethnographer of the Andean peoples, he has discovered and analyzed unsuspected sources on the northern reaches of the Inka Empire, which are treated in Native Lords of Quito (1986). In 1991, he published, with George Urioste, the first English version of the Quechua-language Huarochirí manuscript (1608?), the only known book presenting an Andean sacred tradition in an Andean language. He coedited the South American volumes of the Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas (1999, with Stuart Schwartz). Since 1994, he has been engaged in field study of Peruvian communities that pre-serve as sacred patrimony khipus (knotted-cord records, a perennially enigmatic “lost script”). A resulting book, The Cord Keepers, was published in 2004.

Karl TaubeKarl Taube received his PhD from Yale University in 1988 and is currently a professor of anthropol-ogy at the University of California, Riverside. He has conducted fieldwork in Honduras, Gua-temala, Mexico, Ecuador, and Peru. He is cur-rently the project iconographer for the San Bartolo Project in the Peten of Guatemala. His primary research concerns the archaeology and ethnol-ogy of Mesoamerica and the American Southwest, including the development of agricultural symbol-ism and the relationship between Teotihuacan and the Classic Maya. Among his publications are The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan (1992), Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya (1993, with Mary Ellen Miller), Aztec and Maya Myths

contribu tors 395

(1993), The View from Yalahau: 1993 Archaeological Investigations in Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico (1995, with Scott Fedick), The Writing System of Ancient Teotihuacan (2000), Olmec Art at Dumbar-ton Oaks (2004), The Murals of San Bartolo, El Peten, Guatemala, Part 1: The North Wall (2005, with William Saturno and David Stuart), and The Murals of San Bartolo, Part 2: The West Wall (2010, with William Saturno, David Stuart, and Heather Hurst).

Javier UrcidJavier Urcid is an anthropological archaeologist interested in the role of ancient literacy in the formation and maintenance of social complex-ity, in the origins and alternative developments of writing systems, and in the semantic and pho-netic decipherment of extinct scripts. His other interests center on archaeological approaches to ancient political economies and on bioarchaeol-ogy, particularly the social dimensions of mortu-ary practices and cultural/ritual modifications of human remains. His main research focuses on Mesoamerican scribal traditions. He is the author of Zapotec Hieroglyphic Writing (2001) and the coauthor of The Lords of Lambityeco: Political Evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca during the Xoo Phase (2010, with Michael D. Lind). He has also written articles on Ñuiñe, Central Mexican, and Mixteca-Puebla scripts.

Gary UrtonGary Urton is the Dumbarton Oaks Professor of Pre-Columbian Studies in the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University. His research focuses on a variety of topics in pre-Hispanic and early colonial intellectual history in the Andes, drawing on materials and methods in archaeology,

ethnohistory, and ethnology. His research on Inka khipus has resulted in the description of two hun-dred and fifty samples from museums in Europe, the United States, and South America. He is the author of numerous articles, books, and edited volumes on Andean/Quechua cultures and Inka civilization. His books include At the Crossroads of the Earth and the Sky (1981), The History of a Myth: Pacariqtambo and the Origin of the Incas (1990), The Social Life of Numbers: A Quechua Ontology of Numbers and Philosophy of Arithmetic (1997), Inca Myths (1999), Signs of the Inka Khipu: Binary Coding in the Andean Knotted-String Records (2003), and Los khipus de la Laguna de los Cóndores (2007). He is director of the Khipu Database Project at Harvard University.

R. Tom ZuidemaR. Tom Zuidema’s initial academic studies were at the Universiteit Leiden on the languages, laws, and anthropology of the former Netherlands Indies. Since he could not go to Indonesia, he turned his interests to the Andes, first studying in Spain and defending a PhD at the University of Madrid (1953) and then completing fieldwork in Peru and defend-ing a second thesis at the University of Leiden (1962) on the ceque system of Cuzco. From 1956 to 1964, he was curator of the Americas and Siberia at the State Museum of Anthropology, Leiden, and from 1964 to 1967, he was professor at the Universidad Nacional de San Cristóbal de Huamanga in Ayacucho, Peru. From 1967 until 1993, he taught at the University of Illinois, with interruptions to teach elsewhere. His principal interests in Peruvian anthropology have been kinship, social and ritual organization, iconography, and Andean astron-omy and calendars, in particular the Inka calendar as it functioned in Cuzco.

397

i n d e x

Page numbers in italics indicate illustrative material.

abbreviation. See elaboration and abbreviationabstract or conventional versus iconic systems, 386Acatempo Stela, 93, 94, 104Acosta, José de, v, 168n5–6, 306n3, 309n15, 387acsus (female dresses) in Chuquibamba textiles, 252–253Aguna, Cotzumalhuapa inscriptions at, 50Ahuitzotl, 188, 190, 191, 192ajaw signs, 24, 31Ajaxa: inventory of Cotzumalhuapa inscriptions at, 50;

Monument 1, 56alabaster carved vessels, 134–139, 136alphabetic writing: hybridity of graphic systems after

Spanish conquest, 201, 204–210, 205–210; quilca and, 278

Alvarado, Pedro de (Tonatiuh), 211, 212Alvarez de Arenales, Juan Antonio, 368–370, 369, 373anabil, 23Anahuac, Late Postclassic concept of, 103Anales de Chimalpahin, 158Anales de Tlatelolco, 158, 168–169n5–6Angulo, Jorge, 84animal bones, carved, 135, 137, 139animation of Cotzumalhuapa writings, 44–46, 46, 59–65,

59–66Anna, Timothy, 371anthropology in Stalin’s USSR, 11–12

Antigua Guatemala Valley, Cotzumalhuapa writing from, 50, 60, 60–61

Codex Añute (Codex Selden), 114, 115, 150, 151, 167, 169n8Apoala, 158, 163, 165, 167Armstrong, W. E., 17–18Arroyo de Piedra, identification of scribes producing

Maya glyphs in, 23Ascher, Marcia and Robert, 320, 339Atahuallpa, 259Atetelco, White Patio mural at, 96atl tlachinolli, “water, burned field,” couplet in Aztec

writing, 62, 186Atlee, Clement, 9Atonaltzin, 165Atzompa, ceramic vessels from, 134, 135Codex Aubin, 168n5, 178, 179, 180, 181, 186, 215Axayacatl, 188, 192Axtapalulca Plaque, 81, 82, 100ayllu, 288, 306n5, 354–355Codex Azcatitlan, 168–169n5–7, 178, 179, 180, 181, 188, 215,

216, 217Aztec writing, 175–195; atl tlachinolli, “water, burned

field,” couplet in, 62, 186; chronotopes (time-space representations) and régime d’historicité (historical sensibility) in, 176–178, 181, 184, 188, 190, 191; conquests of Mexica rulers, depiction of, 178, 181, 184, 186; Dumbarton Oaks conferences on codices, 2; genres or classes of documents in, 190–191; in Mexica codices, 178, 178–184, 179, 180, 182, 183; on Mexica

398 index

stone monuments, 184–190, 185, 187, 189; Moche ceramic imagery compared, 238; New Fire ceremony, 186, 192; oral and performative literary traditions, relationship to, 175–176, 191–192; places of origin in, 157–158; social and cultural meaning, importance of, 190–192; Spanish conquests, adaptation to, 191; succession of year signs and tlatoque (rulers) in, 178–181, 184, 186; Templo Mayor, Mexico-Tenochtitlan, depictions of, 177, 178, 179–181, 184–186; Teotihuacan writing and, 48, 66, 77, 87

Aztlan, 157–158, 162

Baird, Ellen, 202Bakhtin, Mikhail, 176Balancan Stela, 27Codex Baranda, 170n22Barthel, Thomas S., 16, 307–308n8Bateson, Gregory, 18Bayer, Herman, 30Beazley, John, 23Benedict, Ruth, 12Beria, Lavrenty, 16Berlo, Janet, 77Bertonio, Ludovico, 287–288Beyer, Hermann, 81Bilbao: architectural compound at, 43, 45; Monument

1, 54; Monuments 2–9, 48; Monument 4, 61, 62; Monument 10, 53; Monument 11, 61; Monument 13, 54, 55, 61; Monument 14, 54, 55, 61; Monument 18, 57; Monument 20, 61, 62, 64; Monument 21, 64–65, 65; Monument 29, 56; Monument 33, 58–59; Monument 42, 47; Monuments 84a–c, 58, 58–59; possible ancestor cult at, 48–49

Codex Bodley, 152–153, 153, 157, 167, 168n3, 169n8Bolívar, Simón, 367–368, 368, 370–371Boltz, William, 29–30Boone, Elizabeth Hill, ix, x, 2, 3, 156, 179, 191, 197, 232, 379,

391–392Bonampak murals, 34Codex Borgia, 103, 198, 382Borgia Group codices, 2, 103, 153Codex Boturini, 199, 215. See also Tira de la

Peregrinaciónboustrophedon sequence, 114–115, 215Bove, Frederick, 48Brasseur de Bourbourg, Abbé, 15Brezine, Carrie J., 319, 353, 360, 391Browder, Jennifer, 84Burkitt, Robert, 54

Cacaxtla script: inventory of inscriptions compared to Cotzumalhuapa, 49; lack of study of, 77; Teotihuacan writing and, 48, 66, 82, 96

Cádiz, Cotzumalhuapa inscription at, 50Calakmul dynasty and Maya glyph changes, 32

calendrical notations: calendar khipus, 345; in Chuquibamba textiles (See Chuquibamba textile notation systems); Cotzumalhuapa writings, largely calendrical system suggested by, 65; Monte Albán objects marked with calendrical names of owners, 134, 135; in Ñuiñe scribal tradition, 78; Tovar calendar, 206

canuto khipus, 322–323, 323, 350n3Caracol, absolute size and relative proportion of Maya

glyphs at, 24Cartilla (Pedro de Gante, 1569), 205cartillas de enseñar a leer, 205Caso, Alfonso, 48, 78, 82, 83, 85, 140, 190catechisms, pictorial, 205–206, 205–210Catholicism: foundation/migration stories involving,

166; glyph representing change from indigenous religion to, 162; images, influence on viewing and reading of, 278; indigenous pictography as vehicle for ideology of, 198; khipus and, 290, 358; uncu for Christ Child statue with tocapu, 290, 291

Cave Seven, Oaxaca, 158celts and celtiform stelae, 99, 100census khipus, 344, 345ceque systems: at Cuzco, 259, 259–260, 266, 267, 272, 344;

khipus recording, 345Cerro Bernal inscriptions, 144n2Cerro de la Caja and environs, carved stones from,

117–122, 120, 121Cerro de la Campagna, Santiago Suchilquitongo, Tomb

5, 125, 126–127, 128Cerro de las Mesas Stela 15, 80Cerro de los Tepalcates, Chacahua, Oaxaca, 123, 124Cerro del Rey, Río Grande, Stela 1, 133, 134Cerro Nuyoo, Tomb 5, 130, 132Cerro Yucuniza mortuary slab, 130, 132Cerron Palomino, Rodolfo, 286, 288Champollion, Jean-François, 18Chapa, Reymundo, 353, 392Chiapanec scribal tradition, 112, 113Chiapas, Teotihuacan writing at, 78Chicanel pottery, Late Preclassic, 77–78Chichen Itza: size of glyphs on jades from, 25;

Teotihuacan glyphs and, 82, 84; Yukatekan terms in script at, 27

Chichimecateuctli, don Pedro, 213, 214Chicomoztoc, 158, 159, 160, 162Chimalpahin, 168–169n5–6chinampas at Tenochtitlan, El Plano del Papel de

Maguey showing, 88, 89Chinchilla Mazariegos, Oswaldo, 43, 387, 392Ch’olti’an hypothesis for Maya glyphs, 27, 36n6Cholula: lack of writing tradition at, 77; Relación

geográfica of, 152–153, 160; Tlachihualtepec or Great Pyramid of, 160, 161

Choque, Rosa and Rosalía, 360chronotopes (time-space representations) in Aztec

writing, 176–178, 181, 184, 190, 191chullpas, tocapu-like designs on, 290, 292

index 399

Chuquibamba textile notation systems, 251–275; in archaeological, ethnohistorical, and art historical contexts, 269–272, 270, 271; and ceque system, Cuzco, 259, 259–260, 266, 267; different calendars represented in, 256–257, 257; eight-pointed star motif and, 269, 271, 271–272; feathered ponchos and, 269–272, 271; felines, llamas, and toads, symbolic use of, 261–262; female dresses (acsus) and large shawls, 252–253; forty-one, forty, and forty-two, textiles referring to, 259, 259–260, 263, 263–264, 264; historical and geographic origins, 256, 269; Kosok shawl’s standardized sidereal calendar within solar year, 256, 267–269, 268; male tunics (uncus), loincloths, and ponchos, 252, 252–253; Merrin Gallery shawl, 263, 263–264; Museo Banco Central de Reserva del Perú loincloth, 264; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, shawl with sidereal lunar calendar, 254, 255, 258–263, 259, 265–266, 267, 268; Ohara shawl with modules of three different calendars, 261, 265, 265–267, 269; Peabody Museum uncu with solar calendar, 252, 253, 257–258, 258, 266, 268, 269; Pleiades constellation and, 259, 267; types of intentional orders used in, 251–253, 252–255

classes or genres of documents: in Aztec writing, 190–191; ethnoiconological context provided by, 150–151

“closed” versus “open” writing systems, 66, 384coastal writing tradition: defined and described, 112, 113;

mortuary contexts, 130–134, 133; Teotihuacan and Citzumalhuapa writings in context of, 47–48, 66

Coatepec, 161, 162, 165, 166Coatlinchan, unfinished monumental figure from, 100Cobo, Bernabé, 308n9codices: Aubin, 168n5, 178, 179, 180, 181, 186, 215;

Azcatitlan, 168–169n5–7, 178, 179, 180, 181, 188, 215, 216, 217; Baranda, 170n22; Bodley, 152–153, 153, 157, 167, 168n3, 169n8; Borgia, 103, 198, 382; Borgia Group, 2, 103, 153; Boturini, 199, 215; Colombino, 152, 168n3; Dehesa, 170n22; Dresden, 5, 15, 35n2; Egerton, 170n22; Fejérváry-Mayer, 103, 153, 155, 198, 200; Florentine, 168–169n5–6, 169n10, 202–204, 203, 204; Gómez de Orozco, 158; Kingsborough, 88, 89; Madrid, 15, 35n2, 80, 81; Magliabechiano, 202, 206; in Mayan imagery, 35n2; Mendoza, 85, 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 188, 217, 218, 219, 279, 309n17; Mexica codices, 2, 177–184, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 198, 199; Mexicanus, 168–169n5–6, 178, 179, 181, 185, 186, 212, 213–215, 215; Mexicayotl, 168n5; Osuna, 212; Paris, 35n2, 80, 81; de Santa María Asunción, 85; Selden (Añute), 114, 115, 150, 151, 167, 169n8; Telleriano-Remensis, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 188, 202, 206, 212; Tudela, 202, 206; Tulane, 170n22; Vaticanus A/Ríos, 178, 180, 206; Vaticanus B, 103; Vienna, 385; Vindobonensis, 159, 164–165, 165; Zouche-Nuttall (Tonindeye), 115, 152, 158, 167, 169n8. See also Mixtec codices

Coe, Michael D., 9, 24, 392Coixtlahuaca valley through-cave inscriptions, 144n6Cola de Palma, near El Ciruelo, Stela 3, 130–134, 133

Cold War and Maya decipherment. See Knorosov, Yuri Valentinovich, decipherment of Maya glyphs by

Colhuacatepec, 158, 159, 160Codex Colombino, 152, 168n3comparative dialogue, importance of, 3–6, 18Condesuyu: Inka province of, 251, 256, 269, 272, 298;

references to dress in, 269–272, 271Conklin, William, 2, 321–322, 325conquests of Mexica rulers, Aztec writings depicting,

178, 181, 184, 186Contreras, Carlos, 368conventional or abstract versus iconic systems, 386Copan: absolute size and relative proportion of glyphs

at, 24; Structure 10L-16, Stairway Block 2, 100–101; Structure 26, 91; vowel notations at, 32

Copan Hieroglyphic Stairway: consonant sensitivity in glyphs from, 33; heterography at, 34; production of, 23–24

Cortés, Hernán, 166costume and performance in Moche culture, 228, 229Cotzumalhuapa writings, 43–75; animation of, 44–46, 46,

59–65, 59–66; architectural compounds at El Baúl, El Castillo, and Bilbao, 43, 45; cartouches, 50; in context of coastal writing tradition, 46–49, 47, 66; distribution and inventory of inscriptions, 49–50; head signs in frontal or profile view, 50; human sacrifice in, 65; iconographic depictions, comparison of signs with, 52; largely calendrical system suggested by, 65; in Late Classic period, 48–49; Late Preclassic system, 46–47; media, variety of, 50; Mixtec codices compared, 66; name tags, use of, 57, 57–59, 58; numerals, 51, 51–52, 52; orientation of signs, 50; oversized signs in, 56, 56–57; sign combinations, rarity of, 54–55, 55, 66; sign inventory, 52–54, 67–71; 6 Star collocations with maw of reptilian monster, 57–59, 58; Star glyph, use of, 50, 57–59, 58; Teotihuacan writing and, 48–49, 95

Couch, Christopher, 202counted offerings in ritual petitions, 153, 155Covarrubias Orozco, Sebastián de, 287, 300–301Coyolxauhqui circular monument, Templo Mayor of

Mexico-Tenochtitlan, 122–123Crónica mexicáyotl (Tezozómoc), 181Cross Panels of Palenque, 190cross-reading, use of, 15Cruz, Juan de la, 201, 205cryptography and decipherment, lack of connection

between, 16Cueto, Marcos, 368cuicatl, 175, 191Cuicuilco, lack of writing tradition at, 77Cuilapan, Oaxaca cloister stone with Zapotec

inscriptions, 117, 118cultural category, writing systems as, 379–390; access to/

interpretation of message, 382–383; commonalities of, 380–384; glottographic versus semasiographic systems, 384–385; hieroglyphic script versus pictographic systems, 386–387; historical significance of surviving documents, 383–384; iconic versus

400 index

conventional or abstract systems, 386; Mesoamerican and Andean terms for, 380; pictures versus glyphs, 385–386; recording process, 381; scripts, signs, and pictographies covered by, 379–380; speech and performance compared, 380–381; typology of, 384–388; vehicle for message, 381–382; writing as term, problem of, 379–380, 387–388

cultural code, written surface as, 111–148; in Aztec writing, 190–192; performance and place-making, relationship of writing to, 114–116, 114–123, 118–121, 123, 124; personhood and human body in mortuary contexts, notions of, 125–139, 126–129, 131–133, 135–138; scribal error, semiology of, 139–143, 141, 142; semiological theory of writing behind, 111–112; in six scribal traditions in southwestern Mesoamerica, 112, 112–113

cultural encyclopedias, 206cultural superiority associated with possession of

writing system, 306n3Cummins, Thomas B. F., 277, 386, 392–393Cunil, Jacinto, 18Cuzco: ceque system, 259, 259–260, 266, 267, 272,

344; Condesuyu, references to dress in, 269–272, 271; guinea pig sacrifices, 262; khipus from, 328; napa or puca llama, 262; painted tablas at, 300; Tawantinsuyu, concept of, 298–299, 299

dart-thrower carved with owner’s name, 134, 135Dávila, Francisco, 309n11Davletshin, Albert, 30de Young stela, 22, 22–23dedication stone, Templo Mayor, Mexico-Tenochtitlan,

188–190, 189, 191–192Codex Dehesa, 170n22diagramming tradition, 221n2Dibble, Charles, 385difrasismo, 161, 169n14, 170n20–21diglossia in Maya glyphs, 28, 37n10“direct historical approach,” 151disjunction, 151Doctrina (Pedro de Gante, 1553), 205Doctrina christiana (1548), 205Doctrina christiana en la lengua guasteca con la lengua

castellana (Juan de la Cruz, 1571), 201, 205Doctrina Xpiana en lengua misteca (Hernández), 161,

161–162Donnan, Christopher, 239Dos Pilas, identification of scribes producing Maya

glyphs in, 23Dresden Codex, 5, 15, 35n2Dubois, Cora, 12Dumbarton Oaks conferences on Pre-Columbian

writing systems, ix–x, 1–3Durán, Diego, 190, 202, 206

eagles devouring hearts in Teotihuacan art, 103, 105n6effigy figure, skin as writing surface on, 138, 139

effigy vessels, 125–130, 127, 129, 132, 139Codex Egerton, 170n22eight-pointed star motif and Chuquibamba textile

notation systems, 269, 271, 271–272El Baúl: acropolis at, 43, 45; Monument 1, 43, 44, 47, 49;

Monument 6, 54, 55; Monument 18, 56; Monument 27, 59; Monument 30, 61, 64; Monument 34, 56; Monument 56, 51, 52; Monument 59, 43–46, 46, 65; Monuments 67 and 68, 56

El Castillo: architectural compound at, 43, 45; causeway connecting Golón with, 50; Monument 1, 51, 55, 58, 61; Monument 16, 56

El Fraile, 289El Mundo Perdido, Tikal: marcador from, 83, 90, 101;

stucco-painted vessel from, 95, 96El Palmillo, genealogical slab probably from, 125, 128El Tajin, inventory of inscriptions at, 49El Zotz, identification of scribes producing Maya glyphs

in, 23elaboration and abbreviation, 149–174; analogies between

ethnographic present and historical past, 153–154, 155; ethnoiconological methodology of approach to, 150–154, 151, 153, 154, 155; foundation/toma de posesión/taking hold of the bundle theme, 150, 166; genre of document, context provided by, 150–151; historical sources for, 156–157; migration theme, 156, 162–168, 163, 165; minimal pictographic elements, identifying, 150; nose-piercing theme, 152–153, 153; origin theme and places of origin, 156, 157–162, 159, 160; sacred birth theme, 167; thematic focus, determining, 151–153, 152, 154, 155; thematic units commonly found in historical sources, 156

Elkins, James, 233, 380Eloxochitlan de Flores Magón burial, Sierra Mazateca,

carved human mandible from, 134, 136emblematic glyphs (toponyms, titles, and personal

names), 84–88, 85, 86, 87, 385encyclopedias, cultural, 206Engels, Friedrich, 11, 12, 17errors in writing, semiology of, 139–143, 141, 142Escalante, Pablo, 191, 202Escuintla: Early Classic pottery and Cotzumalhuapa

writing, 47–48; Teotihuacan glyphs and, 84Estela Lisa, Monte Albán, 91, 93Estrada-Belli, Francisco, 88ethnoiconological approach to elaboration and

abbreviation, 150–154, 151, 153, 154, 155Etla district mausoleum facade and effigy vessel, 125, 127Ex-Arzobispado Stone, 187, 188

Falcón Huayta, Victor, 353, 364, 393feather paintings, 202–203, 203feathered ponchos and Chuquibamba textile notation

systems, 269–272, 271Codex Fejérváry-Mayer, 103, 153, 155, 198, 200felines, llamas, and toads, Chuquibamba textiles’

symbolic use of, 261–262

index 401

Fierro, Pancho, 366, 368Finca San Cristóbal: inventory of Cotzumalhuapa

inscriptions at, 50; Monument 1, 63, 64, 65Florentine Codex, 168–169n5–6, 169n10, 202–204, 203, 204Flower World, Cotzumalhuapa version of, 58, 64–65Fonds mexicain 399 manuscript, 209, 209–210, 210foundation/toma de posesión/taking hold of the bundle

theme, 150, 166four steps on the road to God, 161, 161–162Fracción Mujular: inscriptions, 144n2; Stela 3, 79, 80Frame, Mary, 256, 267, 269, 284funerary contexts. See mortuary contexts

Galvin manuscript, 301, 302, 303Gamarra, Agustín, 369Gante, Pedro de, 205Gante I manuscript, 206, 206–209, 207, 208García-Des Lauriers, Claudia, 87genealogical records, inscriptions of, 125, 126–128genres or classes of documents: in Aztec writing, 190–

191; ethnoiconological context provided by, 150–151Gerson, Juan, 202Gisbert, Teresa, 290glottochronology applied to Maya glyphs, 27glottographic versus semasiographic systems, 201,

232–233, 384–387glyphs versus pictures, 385–386Golón: Monuments 2 and 3, 49, 49–50, 61–62, 63;

Monuments 4 and 5, 57Gómez Chávez, Sergio, 82, 88Codex Gómez de Orozco, 158González Holguín, Diego, 287Gorbachev, Mikhail, 10, 11, 16Graulich, Michel, 188grids, central Mexican examples of writing in, 87,

88–90, 89Grube, Nikolai, 30Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe: Chuquibamba textile

notations and, 262, 269–272, 270; Nueva corónica y buen gobierno, authorship of, 310n24; tocapus and, 279–280, 280, 281, 283, 286, 288, 297, 298, 299, 301–305, 304

Guchte, Maarten van de, 290Guerrero: Lienzo de Petlacala, 150; Rufino Tamayo stela,

possibly from, 79, 94; Teotihuacan writing at, 78, 79, 93–97, 93–98, 94, 104

guinea pig sacrifices, Cuzco, 262Guzmán, Manuel de, 214

Habel, Simeon, 53Haddon, Alfred, 17Hamilton, Andrew, 338Harris, Roy, 111Hartog, François, 176, 177head signs: Cotzumalhuapa writings, frontal or profile

view in, 50; Teotihuacan writing, frontal view in, 104

Heggarty, Paul, 345Hellmuth, Nicholas, 47helmets as icons for Warrior theme in Moche ceramic

imagery, 234–238, 236, 237herders’ use of khipus, 354, 371, 373Hernández, Benito, 161, 161–162Heyerdahl, Thor, 16hieroglyphic script: Mayan identified as type of, 15,

386–387; pictographic systems versus, 386–387Historia del origen y genealogía real del los reyes ingas del

Perú (Martín de Murúa, 1590), 298, 299, 302Historia general del Perú (Martín de Murúa, ca. 1615), 303Historia tolteca-chichimeca, 152, 158–162, 159, 160, 169n6,

175, 176historical sensibility: Aztec writing, régime d’historicité

in, 176–178, 184, 188, 190, 191; in Moche ceramic imagery, 245

El Hombre de Tikal, 90, 90–91Houston, Stephen D., 21, 61, 66, 382, 384, 386, 393Huaca de la Luna, 227, 294, 294–297, 295, 296Huajuapan de León, Ñuiñe mortuary material from area

of, 130, 132Huamelulpan, carved stones from, 122huatancha, 355huehuetlatolli, 175, 191Huitzilopochtli, 123, 157, 177, 181, 187human body and personhood, writing conveying

notions of, 125–139, 126–129, 131–133, 135–138human bones, carved, 134, 136human sacrifice: in Cotzumalhuapa writings, 65; in

Moche culture, 227; San José Mogote, Monument 3, and 122–123, 123; Stone of Tizoc and, 188, 191–192; Templo Mayor, Mexico-Tenochtitlan, foundation/renovations of, 180, 181; in Teotihuacan writings, 102, 103

human skin, as writing surface, 138, 139Humboldt Fragment 1, 85Hun Nal Ye cave, stone coffer from, 27hybridity of graphic systems after Spanish conquest,

197–225; alphabetic writing, 201, 204–210, 205–210; changes to graphic systems following conquest, 202, 219–220; comparison of Mesoamerican and European graphic expression, 197–198; diagramming, 221n2; different graphic systems in sixteenth-century Mexico, 197–201; mimetic figuration, 201, 202–204, 203, 204; pictography, 198–200, 199, 200, 210–219, 211–219; pictorial catechisms, 205–210; semasiography and, 198, 233

hyperdiffusionism, 18

iconic versus conventional or abstract systems, 386Icxicouatl, 158ideograms (logograms) and Knorosov’s decipherment of

Maya script, 15–16Ilhuicatepec, 162Inka: caves of origin at Pacaritambo, 297, 298; lost writing

system, efforts to unveil, 278, 306n6, 307–308n8;

402 index

supposed lost paintings of, 306–307n7; writing system, lack of, 281–283, 308n9. See also Chuquibamba textile notation systems; Cuzco; khipu; tocapu

Inka-type khipus, 323–325, 326Inti Raymi, feast of, 262inverted signs, semiology of, 140–143, 142Isthmian script: as “closed” system, 66; decipherment

proposals, 35n1; glottographic nature of, 384; length of use of, 21

Ixcaquixtla, Tomb 1, 130, 132

Jackson, Margaret A., 227, 380, 385, 393jaguars devouring hearts in Teotihuacan art, 102, 103Jama-Coaque vessels with tocapus, 296, 297, 305Jansen, Maarten, 150, 385Japanese script and Maya glyphs, 16Jara, Victoria de la, 283–284, 297, 310n28, 312n42

Kaha Wayi (khipu house) and Pasa Qullqa (storehouse), Rapaz, 355–360, 356, 357, 358, 359, 373

kanji writing, 16, 19n3Kaqchikel and Cotzumalhuapa writings, 53, 54Kauffman Doig, Federico, 363–364KCCS (Khipu Color Code System), 339KDB (Khipu Database), 320, 325, 326, 329, 334, 338,

350n5, 361Keber, Eloise Quiñones, 179Kelley, David, 1, 16“key-type” Wari khipus, 321, 322khipu: ancestral mummies, entrusted to, 5;

Chuquibamba textile notation systems and, 256; in colonial and Catholic contexts, 290, 353–355; defined, 320–321; distinguished from other cord constructions, 320; Dumbarton Oaks conferences on, 2; herders’ use of, 354, 371, 373; metacategory of khipu, representing, 306n3; Pachacamac archive, 328, 335, 344, 345, 348, 361; Paracas cords, possible origins in, 350n1; study of, 277–278; tocapus and, 279–284, 288, 289–290, 300–301; Toledan-era viceroyalty, khipus of governance under, 353; in Tupicocha, 354, 354–355, 374; as writing systems, 387. See also khipu typologies; patrimonial khipus in Rapaz

khipu typologies, 319–352; archival images or icons, 342–343, 342–344; archival similarities and differences, 328–329, 342–344; archives of Inka-type khipus based on provenience, construction of, 325–327, 326, 327; canuto khipus, 322–323, 323, 350n3; ceque system khipus, 345; color values and patterns, 338–339, 340, 341, 342–343; comparing and distinguishing types, 325; cord attachment methods, 331–332, 332; fiber type and cord construction, 329–331, 330, 331; functional types, 344–345; Inka-type khipus, 323–325, 326; KCCS (Khipu Color Code System), 339; KDB (Khipu Database), 320, 325, 326, 329, 334, 338, 350n5, 361; “key-type” Wari khipus, 321, 322; knot construction and directionality, 332–338, 333, 334–337; measuring

significance of differences using SplitsTree4 and NeighborNet algorithm, 345–348, 346, 347; Middle Horizon/Wari khipus, 321, 321–322, 322, 325, 350; patrimonial khipus of Rapaz not fitting, 363–364, 374; sizes of archives and khipu samples, 328; subsidiaries, presence/absence and number of, 328–329, 329

King, Mark, 175King, Timothy, 82, 88Codex Kingsborough, 88, 89K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, Teotihuacan cultural ties of,

100–101Kirchhoff, Paul, 157Kirov, Sergei, 10Knorosov, Yuri Valentinovich, decipherment of Maya

glyphs by, 9–20; and anthropology in Stalin’s USSR, 11–12; background, education, and career, 12–14; death of Stalin, dissemination of Knorosov’s work following, 16–17; Great Purge/Great Terror in USSR (1936), effect on intellectual life, 10–11; language of glyphs importance of, 16, 18; methodology of, 14–16; photograph of, 10; publication of article on decipherment by, 14; reasons for success of, 17, 18; recognition of achievements of, 18; and Thompson, John Eric Sidney, 10, 14–18

Kosok, Paul, 256, 267Kroeber, Alfred L., 269Kubler, George, 1, 151, 219, 284Kuna-Lacanha, Chiapas, Early Classic stela from, 99, 100

La Ciénega, Zimatlan, genealogical slab from, 125, 128La Gloria, Monument 1, 56La Herredura, Tlaxcala, temple sign from, 86La Mojarra stela, 144n4La Nueva, concentration of Cotzumalhuapa-style

sculptures at, 50La Serna, Viceroy, 369, 370La Sufricaya, Early Classic painted grids from, 87, 88La Ventilla, Teotihuacan: corpus of glyphs from, 84;

marcador from, 82, 83; Plaza de los Glifos (See Plaza de los Glifos, Teotihuacan); shields depicted at, 103; zoomorphic vehicles at, 92, 93

Lacadena, Alfonso, x, 30, 48, 52, 77, 177, 385Lagoon of Primordial Blood (Quelatinizoo), 158–162, 166Lake Titicaca and ruins of Tiwanaku, association of

tocapus with, 288Lambityeco: Tomb 6, Mound 195, 125, 127, 128; Tomb 11,

Mound 195, carved baton or spatula made of deer tibia from, 134, 135

Landa, Diego de, 13, 14–15, 16, 18, 278, 386Langley, James, 48, 102, 103language. See speech and languageLápida de Bazan, Monte Albán, 91, 92Larco Hoyle, Rafael, 229–231, 246n1Las Colinas, Tlaxcala, Teotihuacan-style ceramic bowl

from, 84Later Oaxacan scribal tradition, 113, 134, 139, 143Leakey, L. S. B., 18

index 403

Lehmann, Walter, 43, 239Leibsohn, Dana, 2, 176León, Cieza de, 308–309n11Lettera apologetica (Raimondo di Sangro Sansevero,

1750), 284Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 139, 145n16Levillier, Roberto, 353Lienzo de Amoltepec, 162–164, 163, 169n16Lienzo de Chiepetlan, 162Lienzo de Cuauhquechollan, 162Lienzo de Guevea, 153, 154Lienzo de Jicalan or Jucutacato, 162Lienzo de Petlacala, 150, 162Lienzo de Tequixtepec I, 158Lienzo de Tira de Xalatzala, 162Lienzo de Tlapiltepec, 158, 165Lienzo de Tlaxcala, 88, 102liminal places, migration from, 162, 166literacy, 23, 190literary themes, elaboration and abbreviation of. See

elaboration and abbreviationllamas, Chuquibamba textiles’ symbolic use of, 261–262llutu k’uychi (mourning/dark rainbow) textile colors, 339Locke, Leland, 278Lockhart, James, 219logograms, and Knorosov’s decipherment of Maya

script, 15–16logographic functions in Moche ceramic imagery,

238–239Loo, Peter van der, 150, 151, 153Los Cerritos Norte, Cotzumalhuapa inscription at, 50Los Horcones: Stela 2, 79, 80; Teotihuacan writing at, 78Lounsbury, Floyd, 1, 16Lowland Maya writing, as “closed” system, 66Lysenko, Trofim, 11, 16

machæc, 239Mackey, Carol J., 354Macuilxochitl, carved human mandible from, 134, 136Madrid Codex, 15, 35n2, 80, 81Codex Magliabechiano, 202, 206Maksimov, A. N., 12Malinowski, Bronislaw, 11Manco Capac, 297, 301–305, 302, 303, 304Mapa de Cuauhtlanzinco, 162Mapa de Teozacualco, 157, 158marcadors: El Mundo Perdido, Tikal, 83, 90, 101; La

Ventilla, Teotihuacan, 82, 83Marcus, Joyce, 91, 385marked beans (pallares) in Moche ceramic imagery, 229,

230Marr, Nikolai Y., 11marriage alliances and genealogical slabs, 144n9Marx, Karl, 11, 12Matatlan, genealogical slab probably from El Palmillo

embedded in wall of house in, 125, 128Matrícula de Huexotzinco, 52

Maya glyphs, 21–30; absolute size and relative proportion of, 24–26, 25; Ch’olti’an hypothesis, 27, 36n6; content used for, 26; diglossia in, 28, 37n10; Dumbarton Oaks conferences on, 1–2; glottochronology applied to, 26, 28; heterography (variation at any one time), 34; as hieroglyphic script, 15, 386–387; Japanese script and, 16; living essence attributed to, 26; morphosyllables, 28–30, 29; non-Maya glyphs with, 26, 27; phonic and linguistic characteristics, 26–30; polycode nature of, 24; production of, 22, 22–24; somatic framework for, 26; supernatural resonances of, 24; surviving examples and media, 21–22; Teotihuacan writing and, 77–78, 90, 90–93, 91, 92. See also Knorosov, Yuri Valentinovich, decipherment of Maya glyphs by; variations in Maya glyphs over space and time

McClelland, Donna, 239McCormac, F. G., 364Medina Susano, R. Clorinda, 371Medrano, Sonia, 48Memoria de Juquila (Memoria probanza de Yetzegoa),

166Memoria de Yacuini (Memoria probanza de Yacuini), 166Memorial de Sololá, 53Méndez, Cecilia, 373Codex Mendoza, 85, 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 188, 217,

218, 219, 279, 309n17Mendoza, Antonio de, 212Mendoza y Velasco, don Juan de, 166Mexica codices, 2, 177–184, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 198, 199.

See also specific codicesMexica stone monuments, 184–190, 185, 187, 189Codex Mexicanus, 168–169n5–6, 178, 179, 181, 185, 186,

212, 213–215, 215Códice Mexicayotl, 168n5Mexico-Tenochtitlan: Aztec writing at, 177–181, 182,

184–187, 192, 192n1; elaboration and abbreviation of literary themes at, 157, 166; founding of, 217, 220; El Plano del Papel de Maguey showing chinampas at, 88, 89. See also Templo Mayor, Mexico-Tenochtitlan

Mexico-Tlatelolco, 180, 181, 192n1Middle Horizon/Wari khipus, 321, 321–322, 322, 325, 350migration theme, 156, 162–168, 163, 165Millon, Clara, 84, 103miniaturized items, 139, 145n16mistakes in writing, semiology of, 139–143, 141, 142Mixtec codices: Cotzumalhuapa writing and, 66; darts,

use of, 95; decipherment efforts, 2; Dumbarton Oaks conferences on, 2; emblematic play in, 385; events and places, manuscripts organized around, 177; jewels in feminine names in, 150; Later Oaxacan scribal tradition and, 113; migration theme and, 162–165; Moche ceramic imagery compared, 238; places of origin, 158, 161; sacred birth theme and, 167; thematic units in, 156

Moche ceramic imagery, 227–249; compounded signs, 239–240, 240; iconic signs with logographic functions, 239; machæc, 239; marked beans (pallares), 229, 230; Mixtec and Aztec traditions compared, 238; molds,

404 index

manufacture and use of, 233–234, 234, 235; mortuary contexts of, 229; notational elements, Larco Hoyle’s theories regarding, 228, 229, 229–231, 230; oral literary tradition and, 245; phases in, 246n1; porras (conical mace heads), 235, 236, 239; preadaptation toward visual signing in, 233; rebus devices, 239; relationship to monumental and performance art, 228, 229; Revolt of the Objects scene, semasiographic nature of, 241–244, 241–245; semasiography defined and described, 231–233; speech or language, not reducible to, 240–241; stepped pyramid motif, logographic aspects of, 238, 238–239; Warrior theme demonstrating use of conventionalized signs, 234–238, 235, 236, 237, 240

Moche costume and performance, 228, 229Moche murals, tocapu-like figures in, 293–297, 294, 295,

296, 305Moche pyramid complexes and monumental art, 228,

229Moctezuma, in Codex Mendoza, 218, 219Molina el Cuzqueño, Cristóbal de, 288, 289, 297, 300,

307n7Monaghan, John, 175Montana site: Cotzumalhuapa writings and decline of,

48; Teotihuacan cultural traits at, 48Monte Albán: Building J, 140, 142; Building L-sub, 114,

114–117, 116, 138, 139, 140, 145n17; calendrical names of owners, objects marked with, 134, 135; Estela Lisa, 91, 93; Fragments S11 and S16, South Platform, 140, 142; Lápida de Bazan, 91, 92; Middle Formative danzante sculptures at, 100; miniature items from, 137, 139; Monument SP2, South Platform, 140, 141; Monument SP8a, South Platform, 140, 142; Monument SP9, South Platform, 140, 142; Mound II slab, 117, 119; scribal error at, 140–143, 141, 142; Stela 1, 92, 93; Stela 7, 91; Teotihuacan writing at, 83, 91, 91–93, 94; Terrace 79 house, ceramic plaque from, 134, 135; Tomb 7, miniature weaving baton from, 137, 139; Tomb 104, 125, 126–127, 134, 135, 140; Tomb 158, Terrace 27, carved lintel from, 130, 131; Tombs 139–141, Terrace 21, 140, 142

Morgan, Lewis Henry, 11, 12, 17Morley, Sylvanus, 14, 18, 30morphosyllables in Maya glyphs, 28–30, 29mortuary contexts: of coastal writing tradition, 130–134,

133; of Moche ceramic imagery, 229; of Ñuiñe scribal tradition, 130, 132; personhood and human body, notions of, 125–139, 126–129, 131–133, 135–138; of Zapotec writing, 125–130

Moteuhczoma Ilhuicamina, 186, 188Moteuhczoma Xocoyotzin, 186, 192Motolinia [Toribio de Benavente], ix, 202Muchic or Yunga language, 239mummified remains, writing on skin of, 138, 139Murúa, Martín de: on khipus, 326; on tocapus, 281, 287,

298, 301–305, 302, 303, 310n22, 310n24

Nahua and Nahuatl: Cotzumalhuapa writings and Nahua day names, 53; migration theme and, 162, 164;

non-Maya glyphs, use of, 26; places of origin and, 157–162; Teotihuacan writing and, 77, 78, 84, 85, 88, 89; thematic units in, 156

napa or puca llama, 262Naples documents and the khipu, 284, 306n6, 310n24,

312n42Naranjo, identification of scribes producing Maya glyphs

in, 23Navarrete, Federico, 175, 383, 385, 393–394NeighborNet, 345–348, 346, 347New Fire ceremony, 117, 158, 186, 192Nicholson, H. B., 1, 2, 151, 190Noriega, Mound 4, genealogical slab from cist in, 125, 128Nowotny, Karl Anton, 2, 153Nueva corónica y buen gobierno (Guaman Poma, 1615),

279–280, 280, 283, 301, 304, 310n24Ñuiñe scribal tradition: alabaster carved vessels, 134;

calendric notation in, 78; defined and described, 112, 113; mortuary contexts, 130, 132

Nun Yax Ayiin, Tikal Stelae 31 and 32, 99, 100

Ocelotzin, 213, 214Okladnikov, A. P., 16Olderogge, Dmitri Alexeyevich, 14, 16Olivier, Guilhem, 186, 187“open” versus “closed” writing systems, 66, 384oral literary tradition: Aztec writing and, 175–176,

191–192; ethnoiconological analogies drawn from, 156; khipus and tocapus in, 279; Moche ceramic imagery and, 245; written transmission versus, 4–5

origin theme and places of origin, 156, 157–162, 159, 160orthographical issues, 6orthostats: human skin as writing surface on, 138, 139;

preservation of performance and place-making in, 114–116, 114–123, 118–121, 123, 124; scribal error on, 140

Codex Osuna, 212Oudijk, Michel R., 149, 385, 394

Pacaritambo, Inka caves of origin at, 297, 298, 308n11Pachacamac khipus, 328, 335, 344, 345, 348, 361Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, Santa Cruz, 279, 297,

298, 299, 311n38Palacios, Enrique, 185pallares (marked beans) in Moche ceramic imagery, 229,

230Palo Gordo: inventory of Cotzumalhuapa inscriptions

at, 50; Monument 10, 60; Monument 24, 63, 64; Monument 25, 62–63, 63

Palo Verde: inventory of Cotzumalhuapa inscriptions at, 50; Monument 1, 59

Panofsky, Erwin, 150, 151Paris Codex, 35n2, 80, 81Parry, Milman, 149pars pro toto convention in Teotihuacan writing, 95, 98,

98–100

index 405

Pasa Qullqa (storehouse) and Kaha Wayi (khipu house), Rapaz, 355–360, 356, 357, 358, 359, 373

Pasión, absolute size and relative proportion of Maya glyphs at, 24

patrimonial khipus in Rapaz, 353–377; Catholicism, no association with, 358; dating of, 364–368, 373; figurines, 362, 363, 364, 365, 367, 371, 373; historical context, 353–354; Kaha Wayi (khipu house) and Pasa Qullqa (storehouse), 355–360, 356, 357, 358, 359, 373; khipu collection, 358, 360–364, 361, 362, 363; meaning attributed to, 363; military history and Peruvian War of Independence in Rapaz area, 364–373, 366–369, 372; Pre-Columbian khipus, not resembling, 363–364, 374; scholarly study of, 355; Tupicocha khipus and, 354, 354–355, 374; village, description of, 355–356

Peirce, Charles S., 111, 233performance: in Aztec writing tradition, 175–176,

191–192; elaboration and abbreviation of literary themes and, 114–116, 114–123, 118–121, 123, 124; in Moche culture, 228, 229; writing as cultural category compared to, 380–381

personhood and human body, writing conveying notions of, 125–139, 126–129, 131–133, 135–138

Peten, San Diego wall carving at, 25Peterson, Jeanette, 202Philip II (king of Spain), death inventory of, 300pictographic systems versus hieroglyphic script, 386–387pictures versus glyphs, 385–386Piedra Labrada: Stela 1, 81, 82; Stela 3, 133, 134; Stela 11,

130, 133; stela with Teotihuacan water sign, 83, 84; Teotihuacan writing at, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84

Piedras Negras: identification of scribes producing Maya glyphs in, 23; Panel 2, 87

Pillsbury, Joanne, x, 3Pintura de la Peregrinación de los Culhuaque-Mexitin

(Mapa Sigüenza), 162, 168–169n5–6Pipil and Cotzumalhuapa writings, 53Pizarro, Pedro, 259place-making and performance, relationship of writing

to, 114–116, 114–123, 118–121, 123, 124places of origin and origin theme, 156, 157–162, 159, 160El Plano del Papel de Maguey, 88, 89Plaza de los Glifos, Teotihuacan: day signs, 80, 81, 82;

Early Classic painted grids at, 87, 88; emblematic glyphs (toponyms, titles, and personal names), 84, 85; jaguars devouring hearts, 102; Tlaloc and quincunx sign, 102, 103

Pleiades constellation and Chuquibamba textile notation systems, 259, 267

polychrome mural fragment with Teotihuacan day sign, 83, 83–84

polycode nature of Maya glyphs, 24Ponce Monolith, Tiwanaku, 289Popol Vuh, 164Porras, Bartolomé de, 300porras (conical mace heads) in Moche ceramic imagery,

235, 236, 239Porter, James, 100

Post-Monte Albán scribal tradition, 112, 113Prem, Hans, 385Primeros memoriales (Sahagún), 102, 202Probanza de Yetzelalag (seventeenth century), 166processualism, 4propagative syllables in Maya glyphs, 32–34, 33Proskouriakoff, Tatiana, 1, 104puca or napa llama, 262puka k’uychi (red rainbow) textile colors, 339pyramid complexes, Moche, 228, 229pyramid motif, stepped, in Moche ceramic imagery,

logographic aspects of, 238, 238–239Pyramid of the Moon, Burial 2, five Tlaloc water jars

from, 103Pyramid of the Plumed Serpents, Xochicalco, 93Pyramid of the Sun, Late Preclassic Chicanel pottery in

interior fill of, 78

Quelatinizoo (Lagoon of Primordial Blood), 158–162, 166queros with tocapus, 285, 286, 287, 297, 305Quetzalcoatl, 152, 164Quetzalteueyac, 158Quicopecua, Tomb 1, Mound 1, 125, 126–127quilca, 278, 308n9Quilter, Jeffrey, 2quincunx motif: Tlaloc head with quincunx in mouth,

Teotihuacan, 81, 90, 96, 98, 101, 101–103, 102; tocapus and, 297, 299

quipu. See khipu

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 11Rapaz. See patrimonial khipus in RapazRawlinson, Henry, 18rebus writing and rebus devices, 77, 210, 222n16, 234, 238,

239, 384, 387régime d’historicité (historical sensibility) in Aztec

writing, 176–178, 184, 188, 190, 191Relación de la provincia de los Collaguas (Juan de Ulloa

Mogollón, 1583), 272Relación de las antigüedades del Pirú (Santa Cruz

Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, ca. 1613), 279, 297, 298Relación de las cosas de Yucatán (Diego de Landa), 13,

14–15, 16, 278Relación de las fábulas y los ritos de los incas (Molina el

Cuzqueño, ca. 1575), 288, 307n7Relación de Macuilxochtil, 52Relación geográfica of Cholula, 152–153, 160Reptile’s Eye glyph in Teotihuacan writing, 81, 81–82Revolt of the Objects scene in Moche ceramic imagery,

241–244, 241–245Río Grande 2, coastal Oaxaca, carved stones from, 122ritual petitions, counted offerings in, 153, 155River of Jade and Quetzal Feathers, 158, 162Rivers, W. H. R., 17Robertson, Donald, 177Roman Catholicism. See Catholicism

406 index

Roman y Zamora, Jerónimo, 281Rosny, Léon de, 15Rowe, Ann, 256Rowe, John, 284Roys, Ralph, 18Rufino Tamayo stela, possibly from Guerrero, 79, 94,

94–95Ruíz Estrada, Arturo, 355, 363, 364Rulers 13 and 15, Copan, 23, 24Russia. See Knorosov, Yuri Valentinovich, decipherment

of Maya glyphs by

sacred birth theme, 167Sahagún, Bernardino de, 168–169n5–6, 169n10, 202–204,

206Salomon, Frank, 353, 394San Baltazar Chichicapan, genealogical slab attributed

to, 125, 128San Bartolo: origins of Maya glyphs and, 31; size of Maya

glyphs used at, 25, 26San Bartolome Lachixova, title of, 166San Jose de Moro, 227, 228San José Mogote, Monument 3, 122–123, 123San Juan Tabaa, title of, 166San Martín, José de, 368–370San Pedro Añañe, alabaster vessel from, 134–139, 136San Pedro Quiatoni, stone miniature replica of tomb

facade, 125, 127Sangro Sansevero, Raimondo di, ix, 284Códice de Santa María Asunción, 85Santa María Camotlan, writing on skin of mummified

remains from, 138, 139Santa Rosa site, Cotzumalhuapa inscription at, 50Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro, 281, 288, 300, 307n7Saussure, Ferdinand de, 111, 232Schele, Linda, 1Schellhas, Paul, 13Schultze-Jena, Leonhard, 153scribal error, semiology of, 139–143, 141, 142seated character with Cotzumalhuapa Star glyph,

portable sculpture, 50Codex Selden (Codex Añute), 114, 115, 150, 151, 167, 169n8Selden Roll, 164Seler, Eduard, 57, 59self-sacrifice rituals, 188–190semasiography, 231–233; dialectic model of, 232–233;

glottography versus, 384–385; hybrid graphic systems as semasiographic, 198, 233; mathematical notation as semasiographic, 231–232; Mexican pictography as semasiographic system, 198; in Moche Revolt of the Objects scene, 241–244, 241–245; musical notation as semasiographic, 231; origins and meaning of term, 221n3; road signs as semasiographic, 232; triadic model of, 233

semiological theory of writing, 111–112serpents devouring hearts in Teotihuacan art, 102, 103shawls. See Chuquibamba textile notation systems

shields, Teotihuacan monumental rendering of, 99, 100–103

singing canine heads and weapon bundles, Teotihuacan-style, 95, 96

Sipan, 227, 228size of signs: Cotzumalhuapa writings, oversized signs

in, 56, 56–57; Maya glyphs, absolute size and relative proportion of, 24–26, 25

skull birds in Cotzumalhuapa writing, 53, 53–54, 54Smith, Mary Elizabeth, 1, 191social and cultural meaning. See cultural category,

writing systems as; cultural code, written surface assomatic framework: for Maya glyphs, 26; for Maya stelae,

36n5Soviet Union. See Knorosov, Yuri Valentinovich,

decipherment of Maya glyphs byspace. See time and spaceSpanish conquest: Aztec writing and, 191;

ethnoiconological approach to representations of, 166; khipus in colonial and Catholic contexts, 290, 353–355; Moteuhczoma Xocoyotzin’s failure to build sacrificial stone and, 192; tocapus, colonial understanding of, 278–283, 287–288, 305. See also hybridity of graphic systems after Spanish conquest; patrimonial khipus in Rapaz

Spear-Thrower Owl, 90, 101speech and language: Moche ceramic imagery not

reducible to, 240–241; writing as cultural category compared to, 380–381; writing, relationship to, 111–112

SplitsTree4, 345–348Spranz, Bodo, 1Squier, E. G., 290Stalin, Joseph, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16Star glyph, Cotzumalhuapa writings, 50, 57–59, 58Stephens, John Lloyd, ixstepped pyramid motif in Moche ceramic imagery,

logographic aspects of, 238, 238–239Stone of Tizoc, 181, 184, 186–188, 187, 191–192Stuart, David, x, 1, 24, 28, 32, 34, 88, 104Sucre, José Antonio de, 370–371, 373syllabary, identification of Maya script as, 15synharmony, principle of, 15syntagmic relationships in spoken and written language,

111–112

Tak’alik Ab’aj: Classic period, as important center through, 48; Late Preclassic writings from, 46–47

Talum carved vessels, 133, 134Tamarindito, identification of scribes producing Maya

glyphs in, 23tattooed mummified remains from Santa María

Camotlan, 138, 139Taube, Karl, 47–48, 61, 77, 134, 385, 394–395Tawantinsuyu, 298–299, 299tecalli bowl carved with Reptile’s Eye glyph, 81, 82tecalli plumed serpent with Teotihuacan day names, 78, 79tecalli sculpture with Tlaloc and quincunx sign, 101

index 407

Techinantitla, Teotihuacan writing at, 84Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 188,

202, 206, 212Temple of the Sun, Cuzco, 259Temple-Plaza-Altar complexes, 117, 118, 125temple signs, Teotihuacan, 86, 86–87Templo Mayor, Mexico-Tenochtitlan: Aztec writing

depicting, 177–181, 184–186; Coatepec, representing, 161; Coyolxauhqui monument at base of staircase, 122–123; dedication stone, 188–190, 189, 191–192; deposition on cult images removed from, 212–213, 213, 219

Tenoch, enthronement of, Codex Azcatitlan, 216, 216–217Tenochtitlan. See Mexico-TenochtitlanTenosique Bowl, non-Maya glyphs in Maya inscriptions

on, 27Teocalli de la Guerra Sagrada, 181, 184–186, 185, 187,

190, 192(Teo)Colhuacan, 158, 162Teohuaonohualli, 213, 214Teotenango script: inventory of inscriptions compared

to Cotzumalhuapa, 49; lack of study of, 77Teotihuacan: grid plan of metropolis, 88. See also

La Ventilla, Teotihuacan; Plaza de los Glifos, Teotihuacan

Teotihuacan-style statuette with day sign, 79, 80Teotihuacan writing, 77–109; in context of coastal writing

tradition, 47–48, 66; Cotzumalhuapa writings and, 48–49, 95; day signs in, 78–84, 79–83; development of Early Classic central Mexican writing and, 77–78; emblematic glyphs (toponyms, titles, and personal names), 84–88, 85, 86, 87, 385; grids, central Mexican examples of writing in, 87, 88–90, 89; Guerrero, monumental texts from, 78, 79, 93–97, 93–98, 94, 104; head signs in frontal view, 104; human sacrifice, depictions of, 102, 103; Maya influence, 77–78, 90, 90–93, 91, 92; “open” systems, trend toward, 66; pars pro toto convention, 95, 98, 98–100; shields, monumental rendering of, 99, 100–103; speech scrolls in, 61; symmetry as characteristic of, 100; Tlaloc head with quincunx in mouth, 81, 90, 96, 98, 101, 101–103, 102; Zapotec writing and, 48, 77–78, 83, 90, 90–93, 91, 92, 100, 104; zoomorphic vehicles, 92, 93

Tepantitla, Teotihuacan writings from, 84, 85, 96, 102, 103

Tepecuacuilco: Stela 1, 95–96, 96; Stela 2, 96, 97, 98; Teotihuacan writing at, 78

Tepelmeme de Morelos, Oaxaca, Protoclassic murals, 80, 81

Tepeyollotl-Tezcatlipoca, 186Testerian manuscripts, 206–209, 206–210Tetitla, Teotihuacan emblematic glyphs from, 86Texcocan manuscripts, organization of, 177textiles: color system for, 339; costume and performance

in Moche culture, 228, 229; tocapus and, 278, 287, 289. See also Chuquibamba textile notation systems; khipu

Tezcatlipoca, 103, 186, 187Tezozómoc, Fernando Alvarado, 181

Thomas, Cyrus, 15Thompson, John Eric Sidney: Cold War decipherment of

Maya glyphs and, 10, 14–18; Cotzumalhuapa writings and, 43, 51–52, 54

Tikal: Burial 116, incised bone from, 90, 90–91; identification of scribes producing Maya glyphs in, 23; somatic framework of stelae at, 36n5; Stela 1, 90; Stela 31, 99, 100, 105n6; Stela 32, 99, 100, 104; Temple of the Inscriptions, 24, 25; Teotihuacan arrival at, 88, 104; Teotihuacan writing at, 78, 83, 90, 90–91

Tikal dynasty: Maya glyph changes and, 32; probable usurpation by Teotihuacan, 88, 104

Tilantongo, 157, 167time and space: Aztec writing, chronotopes in, 176–178,

181, 184, 190, 191; tocapus used to represent significant spaces, 297–300, 298, 299. See also variations in Maya glyphs over space and time

Tiquisate bowl, Cotzumalhuapa writing and, 53Tira de la Peregrinación, 168–169n5–6. See also Codex

BoturiniTira de Tepechpan, 192n2, 199, 211, 215Tiwanaku monoliths and tocapus, 288–289, 289Tizoc: dedication stone, Templo Mayor, Mexica-

Tenochtitlan, 188, 190; Stone of Tizoc, 181, 184, 186–188, 187, 191–192

Tlachihualtepec or Great Pyramid of Cholula, 160, 161tlacochcalco, 87Tlaloc heads: in Cotzumalhuapa writing, 53;

Teotihuacan Tlaloc head with quincunx in mouth, 81, 90, 96, 98, 101, 101–103, 102

Tlaltecuhtli, 185, 186, 187, 188Tlamanalco church choir paintings, 202Tlapacoya, lack of writing tradition at, 77Tlapanecs, ritual use of counted bundles by, 153, 155Tlatelolco. See Mexico-TlatelolcoTlatolatl, 212tlatoque (ruler) successions in Mexica codices, 178–181, 184Tlaxcallan property plan, 213, 214Tlaxiaco, alabaster vessel from, 134–139, 136Tlazolteotl, 208toads, Chuquibamba textiles’ symbolic use of, 261–262tocapu, 277–317; ancestral mummies wrapped in

textiles with, 5; arrangement of, variations in, 292; Berlin cross painted with, 284–287, 285; on chullpas, 290, 292; color schemes, significance of, 286–287; defining, 286–288; Dumbarton Oaks conferences on, 2; fixed set of signs, problem with interpretation as, 305; Inkas’ lack of writing system and, 281–283, 308n9; Jama-Coaque vessels with, 296, 297, 305; khipus and, 279–284, 288, 289–290, 300–301; Lake Titicaca and ruins of Tiwanaku, association with, 288; in Manco Capac portraits, 301–305, 302, 303, 304; Moche murals, tocapu-like figures in, 293–297, 294, 295, 296, 305; multiple media, appearances in, 290–293; on queros, 285, 286, 287, 297, 305; quilca, relationship to, 278; quincunx motif and, 297, 299; as señales (signs), 300–301; significant spaces, used to represent, 297–300, 298, 299; Spanish conquest,

408 index

in writings and images after, 278–283, 287–288, 305; specific meanings for individual forms, efforts to decipher, 283–284; symbolic meanings attached to, 288–290; textiles, relationship to, 278, 287, 289; Tiwanaku monoliths and, 288–289, 289; uncus (male tunics) with, 281, 282, 284–287, 290, 291, 293–294, 295, 300, 301–305, 302, 303, 304; urpus painted as if wearing uncus with, 290, 293

Tokarev, Sergei Aleksandrovich, 12, 13Toledan-era viceroyalty, khipus of governance under, 353Tollan, 159–161Tollan Cholollan, 152Tolstov, Sergei Pavlovich, 11–12, 13, 14Codex Tonindeye (Codex Zouche-Nuttall), 115, 152, 158,

167, 169n8Torres Straits Expedition (1898), 17Totometla, Tlaloc and quincunx sign from, 101Tovar calendar, 206Townsend, Richard, 186Tozzer, Alfred, 18tribute khipus, 344, 345Codex Tudela, 202, 206tukapu. See tocapuTula: lack of study of, 77; Teotihuacan writing and, 82, 87Codex Tulane, 170n22tunics, male. See uncusTupicocha khipus, 354, 354–355, 374

U-shaped element serving as toponymic sign for Teotihuacan and Xochicalco, 96, 97

Uaxactun Stela, 27Ulloa Mogollón, Juan de, 272Umberger, Emily, 186, 187, 188uncus (male tunics), 252–253; Peabody Museum

Chuquibamba uncu with solar calendar, 252, 253, 257–258, 258, 266, 268, 269; with tocapu designs, 281, 282, 284–287, 290, 291, 293–294, 295, 300, 301–305, 302, 303, 304; urpus painted as if wearing, 290, 293

Urcid, Javier, 2, 111, 382, 386, 395urpus painted as if wearing uncus with tocapu designs,

290, 293Urton, Gary, ix, x, 1, 2, 319, 320, 323, 324, 334, 338, 339, 345,

380, 395USSR. See Knorosov, Yuri Valentinovich, decipherment

of Maya glyphs byUxmal, Yukatekan terms in script at, 27Uxul stelae, size of glyphs on, 24, 25

variations in Maya glyphs over space and time, 21–42; in absolute size and relative proportion, 24–26, 25; consonant sensitivity, development of, 32, 33; diversity, accounting for, 30–34; heterography (variation at any one time), 34; Middle and Late Classic-period glyphs, 32–34; morphosyllables, 28–30, 29; number of glyphs in use at any one time and place, 30–31; phonic and linguistic

characteristics, 26–30; Postclassic-period glyphs, 34; Preclassic- and Early Classic-period glyphs, 31; propagative syllables, use of, 32–34, 33; social circumstances affecting, 23, 31, 32, 34–35; vowel notations, introduction of, 32

Codex Vaticanus A/Ríos, 178, 180, 206Codex Vaticanus B, 103Vega, Garcilaso de la, 281, 326, 328Ventris, Michael, 18Veracruz: Teotihuacan writing at, 78, 100; Xochicalco

Glyph A on monument probably from, 82, 83Codex Vienna, 385. See also Codex VindobonensisCodex Vindobonensis, 159, 164–165, 165. See also Codex

ViennaViracocha, 288Vista Linda, Monument 1, 58Von Winning, Hasso, 82, 86, 103

Wari/Middle Horizon khipus, 321, 321–322, 322, 325, 350Warrior theme in Moche ceramic imagery, 234–238, 235,

236, 237, 240White Patio mural at Atetelco, 96Whittaker, Gordon, 385–386Wichmann, Søren, 30women and writing: Chuquibamba textiles for women,

252–253 (See also Chuquibamba textile notation systems); ethnoiconology of representations of women, 150, 151; Maya glyphs, female literacy in, 23

writing systems in Pre-Columbian America, ix–x, 1–7; comparative dialogue, importance of, 3–6, 18; as cultural category, 379–390 (See also cultural category, writing systems as); as cultural code, 111–148 (See also cultural code, written surface as); cultural superiority associated with possession of writing system, 306n3; Dumbarton Oaks conferences on, ix–x, 1–3; elaboration and abbreviation of literary themes in, 149–174 (See also elaboration and abbreviation); hybrid graphic systems, 197–225 (See also hybridity of graphic systems after Spanish conquest); Inka lack of, 281–283, 308n9 (See also Chuquibamba textile notation systems; Cuzco; khipu; tocapu); oral versus written transmission, 4–5; orthography of, 6; true writing, status as, ix, 2; use of writing as term, problem of, 379–380, 387–388. See also specific systems, e.g., Maya glyphs

xiuhamatl, 177Xiuhtecuhtli, 103, 187Xochicalco Glyph A on Teotihuacan-style vessels and

monuments, 82, 82–84Xochicalco script: animated signs in, 59, 59–60;

inventory of inscriptions compared to Cotzumalhuapa, 49; lack of study of, 77; Temple of the Feathered Serpent, 59; Teotihuacan writing

index 409

and, 48, 66, 78, 82, 87, 93, 94, 101; Tlaloc head with quincunx in mouth, 101

Xolochiuhyan place name, Codex Mendoza, 85Xoxocotlan, Tomb A, lintel, 140, 142

Yagul, Tomb 28, Terrace C, 125, 126–127Yaxchilan, absolute size and relative proportion of Maya

glyphs at, 24, 25Yaxha stela, 24, 25Yaxitzadao, 166year counts: in Mexica codices, 178–181; on Mexica stone

monuments, 186Yogana: alabaster vessel attributed to, 134–139, 136; effigy

vessel from, 125–130, 129Yucatan, number of Maya glyphs in use in, 30Yukatekan terms in script at Uxmal and Chichen Itza, 27

Zacuala Palace mural, Teotihuacan, 93

Zapotec writing: alabaster carved vessels, 134; and Cuilapan cloister stone, 117, 118; defined and described, 112, 112–113; genealogical records, inscriptions of, 125, 126–128; human skin as writing surface for, 139; length of use of, 21; migration theme and, 162, 165–166; mortuary contexts of many inscriptions, 125–130; places of origin and, 158–160; scribal error in, 140–143, 141, 142; symmetry as characteristic of, 100; Teotihuacan writing and, 48, 77–78, 83, 90, 90–93, 91, 92, 100, 104; Xochicalco Glyph A probably originating in, 83

Zender, Marc, 34, 385Zhdanov, Andrei, 10–11Zimatlan: human carved parietal bone attributed to, 134,

136; stone cylindrical basin attributed to, 134, 135zoomorphic vehicles, Teotihuacan figures riding, 92, 93Codex Zouche-Nuttall (Codex Tonindeye), 115, 152, 158,

167, 169n8Zuidema, R. Tom, 251, 286, 345, 386, 395Zumárraga, Juan de, 212–213, 214

4 11

The Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia series volumes are based on papers presented at scholarly meetings sponsored by the Pre-Columbian Studies program at Dumbarton Oaks. Inaugurated in 1967, these meetings provide a forum for the presentation of advanced research

and the exchange of ideas on the art and archaeology of the ancient Americas.

Further information on Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian series and publications can be found at www.doaks.org/publications.

d u m b a r t o n o a k s p r e - co l u m b i a n s y m p o s i a a n d co l l o q u i a

published by dumbarton oaks research library and collection, washington, d.c.

Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1968

Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chavín, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1971

The Cult of the Feline, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1972

Mesoamerican Writing Systems, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1973

Death and the Afterlife in Pre-Columbian America, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1975

The Sea in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1977

The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference, edited by Ann Pollard Rowe, Elizabeth P. Benson, and Anne-Louise Schaffer, 1979

Pre-Columbian Metallurgy of South America, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1979

Mesoamerican Sites and World-Views, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, 1981

The Art and Iconography of Late Post-Classic Central Mexico, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, 1982

Falsifications and Misreconstructions of Pre-Columbian Art, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, 1982

Highland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by Arthur G. Miller, 1983

Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, 1984

Painted Architecture and Polychrome Monumental Sculpture in Mesoamerica, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, 1985

Early Ceremonial Architecture in the Andes, edited by Christopher B. Donnan, 1985

The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, 1986

The Southeast Classic Maya Zone, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Gordon R. Willey, 1988

The Northern Dynasties: Kingship and Statecraft in Chimor, edited by Michael E. Moseley and Alana Cordy-Collins, 1990

Wealth and Hierarchy in the Intermediate Area, edited by Frederick W. Lange, 1992

4 12

Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet Catherine Berlo, 1992

Latin American Horizons, edited by Don Stephen Rice, 1993

Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century AD, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, 1993

Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, 1993

Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices, edited by Tom D. Dillehay, 1995

Native Traditions in the Postconquest World, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Tom Cummins, 1998

Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen D. Houston, 1998

Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, edited by David C. Grove and Rosemary A. Joyce, 1999

Gender in Pre-Hispanic America, edited by Cecelia F. Klein, 2001

Archaeology of Formative Ecuador, edited by J. Scott Raymond and Richard L. Burger, 2003

Gold and Power in Ancient Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and John W. Hoopes, 2003

Palaces of the Ancient New World, edited by Susan Toby Evans and Joanne Pillsbury, 2004

A Pre-Columbian World, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Mary Ellen Miller, 2006

Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Jeff Karl Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan-Graham, 2007

Variations in the Expression of Inka Power, edited by Richard L. Burger, Craig Morris, and Ramiro Matos Mendieta, 2007

El Niño, Catastrophism, and Culture Change in Ancient America, edited by Daniel H. Sandweiss and Jeffrey Quilter, 2008

Classic Period Cultural Currents in Southern and Central Veracruz, edited by Philip J. Arnold III and Christopher A. Pool, 2008

The Art of Urbanism: How Mesoamerican Kingdoms Represented Themselves in Architecture and Imagery, edited by William L. Fash and Leonardo López Luján, 2009

New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Luis Jaime Castillo B., 2010

Astronomers, Scribes, and Priests: Intellectual Interchange between the Northern Maya Lowlands and Highland Mexico in the Late Postclassic Period, edited by Gabrielle Vail and Christine Hernández, 2010

The Place of Stone Monuments: Context, Use, and Meaning in Mesoamerica’s Preclassic Transition, edited by Julia Guernsey, John E. Clark, and Barbara Arroyo, 2010

Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Gary Urton, 2011

The Flowering Glyphs: Animation in Cotzumalhuapa Writing

Documents