ۺۨ۩ۥۨۢۆ
ﯦۏۆۛҖۦۣۘۛۙғۦۖۡٷۗ۠ۧғٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ҖҖۃۤۨۨۜ
ẹếẴẼỀẴếỄڷۦۣۚڷ۪ۧۙۗۦۙۧڷ۠ٷۣۢۨۘۘۆ
ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۠Өڷۃۧۨۦۙ۠ٷڷ۠ٷۡٮ
ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۠Өڷۃۣۧۢۨۤۦۗۧۖ۩ۑ
ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۠Өڷۃۧۨۢۦۤۙۦڷ۠ٷۗۦۣۙۡۡӨ
ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۠Өڷۃڷۙۧ۩ڷۣۚڷۧۡۦۙے
ۙۢ۠ۤۗۧۘڷۙۦ۩ۨٷۡڷٷڷۧٷڷۺۜۤٷۦۛۤۙڷٷۺٷیڷۃۣۧۙۢۨۧڷۛۢۙۙۧڷۜۛ۩ۣۦۜے
ۢۨۦٷیڷۣۢۡۑڷۘۢٷڷۣۢۨۧ۩ۣٱڷۢۙۜۤۙۨۑ
ҢҢۀڷҒڷڿۀۀڷۤۤڷۃڿڽڼھڷ۠ۦۤۆڷҖڷڼҢڿڷۙ۩ۧۧٲڷҖڷڼۂڷۙۡ۩ۣ۠۔ڷҖڷۺۨ۩ۥۨۢۆ
ڿڽڼھڷ۠ۦۤۆڷڿڼڷۃۣۙۢ۠ۢڷۘۙۜۧ۠ۖ۩ێڷۃڿڿғڿڽڼھғۺۥٷҖۀہڽҢڽғڼڽڷۃٲۍө
ہڿڿڼڼڼڿڽﯥہۂҢڿڼڼڼۑٵۨۗٷۦۨۧۖٷۛҖۦۣۘۛۙғۦۖۡٷۗ۠ۧғٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ҖҖۃۤۨۨۜڷۃۙ۠ۗۨۦٷڷۧۜۨڷۣۨڷ۟ۢۋ
ۃۙ۠ۗۨۦٷڷۧۜۨڷۙۨۗڷۣۨڷۣ۫ٱ
ۙۦ۩ۨٷۡڷٷڷۧٷڷۺۜۤٷۦۛۤۙڷٷۺٷیڷۃۣۧۙۢۨۧڷۛۢۙۙۧڷۜۛ۩ۣۦۜےڷғۀڿڽڼھڿڷۢۨۦٷیڷۣۢۡۑڷۘۢٷڷۣۢۨۧ۩ۣٱڷۢۙۜۤۙۨۑ
ڿڿғڿڽڼھғۺۥٷҖۀہڽҢڽғڼڽۃۣۘڷҢҢۀҒڿۀۀڷۤۤڷۃڼۂڷۃۺۨ۩ۥۨۢۆڷۢۙғ۠ۤۗۧۘ
ۙۦۙۜڷ۟ۗ۠Өڷۃڷۣۧۢۧۧۡۦۙێڷۨۧۙ۩ۥۙې
ڿڽڼھڷۦۤۆڷہڼڷۣۢڷھھғڿڽڽғۀڿھғۂھڽڷۃۧۧۙۦۘۘٷڷێٲڷۃﯦۏۆۛҖۦۣۘۛۙғۦۖۡٷۗ۠ۧғٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ҖҖۃۤۨۨۜڷۣۡۦۚڷۘۙۘٷۣۣ۠ۢ۫ө
Research
Through seeing stones: Maya epigraphy
as a mature discipline
Stephen Houston1 & Simon Martin2
Maya script—the most elaborate and
extensive system of native writing in the
New World—was in active use across
the Yucatán Peninsula from 300 BC–AD
1700. Maya epigraphy began in the late
nineteenth century, developing through the
efforts of key figures, often with oblique
approaches from other disciplines. Today, the
research landscape is increasingly virtual;
new discoveries have been combined with
greater precision in translation, providing
unique access to the complex interactions
of Maya society, where the elite shared a
language across political boundaries that was
incomprehensible to most of their subjects.
Mexico
Belizzze
Honduras
Guatemala
El Salvador
N 0
km
500
Nicaragua
Keywords: Mesoamerica, Maya, Classic period, epigraphy, language
Introduction
The toolkit of a Maya ritualist contains crystals: rocks that can be awakened by magical
interventions, and dipped or stored in liquids including the fiery alcohol known as
aguardiente. If petitioned, spirits within will answer questions posed of them, resulting
in an ‘illumination’ or ‘dawn’: a clarified vision of the world beyond the capacity of most
humans (Hanks 1990: 87, 246–48, 340; Brady & Prufer 1999: 132). Such ‘seeing stones’
would be a valuable aid in this evaluation of Maya epigraphy, a field attending to all aspects of
the most elaborate and copious system of native writing in the New World. The remarks here
reflect some 60 years’ joint experience in that subject. They touch on progress in discerning
the contents and contexts of Maya writing, a script in active use across the Yucatán Peninsula
and nearby regions for at least 1700 years, from about 300 BC–AD 1700 (scholars add or
delete centuries according to preference). In almost random motion but then launching in
clear directions, Maya epigraphy passes through cycles. It languishes, bursts with energy,
then slows again, in a test case of knowledge in the making.
1
2
Anthropology Department, Brown University, Box 1921, Providence RI 02912, USA (Email: stephen_houston@
brown.edu)
University of Pennsylvania Museum, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia PA 19104, USA (Email: simonm3@
sas.upenn.edu)
C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
ANTIQUITY 90 350 (2016): 443–455
doi:10.15184/aqy.2016.33
443
Stephen Houston & Simon Martin
An earlier editor of Antiquity described the decoding of Maya writing, the achievement
of many, as the ‘Last of the Great Decipherments’, with apologies to Indus script, which,
in our judgement, eludes any confident reading (Chippindale et al. 1988: 120). The tale
of ‘breaking’ the ‘Maya code’ is well told by others, and includes varying rosters of heroes
and villains (Coe 2012). By any account, there was plenty of insight, folly and luck to go
around. Maya archaeology before and after was not the same. Is every Maya house mound,
far-flung village, economic activity or modest person illuminated by the glyphs? No. Is our
understanding of the overall society and its framing concepts deepened? Undeniably.
A review needs to consider tone, as there is a temptation to register triumph. Most
texts are now legible, barring a few elements or longer, more ritual phrasings within
certain monuments or books. This is the Whig view of Maya epigraphy as a discipline
in which figures of singular ability push the field to ever better understanding. Yet, at times,
conclusions may push forward too quickly to consensus. Scholarship fails to distinguish
various levels of ‘reading’, some strictly phonic, rooted in sound, with minutely recorded
nuances of language; other levels give us a sense of frame and motivation that can seem little
more than general inference or loose speculation.
First, always, is craft. Based on reliable images and multiple contexts, this is the marshalling
of evidence for a phonic or semantic parsing of syllables and word signs—the two main
constituents of Maya writing. It may sound old-fashioned to say so, but such readings are
either right or wrong. They consist of a binary of proven fact and rejected alternatives, if
always subject to review against new data. An ancient system of sound values, assigned to
glyphs at their time of creation, means that those values are recoverable to testing. If retrieved,
they can be assembled into ‘core knowledge’, a body of accepted ideas whose boundaries can
vary by researcher to only a limited degree (Houston et al. 2001: 7−10). Strong readings show
a full, transparent basis: a redundancy of proof. Inevitably, there are conjectures, readings that
show promise but lack the surety of interlocking contexts (for one suggested list, see Boot
2009). Those that are faulty ultimately wither under the scrutiny of peers. What is made
of these packages of sound and meaning depends on the individual epigrapher: what they
perceive as their goals or activate in reference to their own background or preconceptions.
No historian or participant in this period of decipherment will write the same account.
Nor is any one breakthrough, by definition a large-scale shifting of understanding, correctly
understood as the decipherment. This misrepresents the process. As long as one undeciphered
sign dangles to torment specialists, the script is incompletely deciphered.
Apical ancestors
Maya decipherment rests on a secure armature erected long ago. First there were the temporal
patterns detected by figures such as Ernst Förstemann (1887–1898), the librarian in charge of
the Dresden Codex: the finest, most complex and elegantly executed Maya book. The signal
advances in knowledge that followed, yielding dynastic personage, sequence and process,
sound and language, mythic actors and narrative, and ultimate synthesis, all date to a time
after the Second World War. At the risk of distorting a complex path to decipherment, one
feature seems clear: progress often arises from someone outside the matter at hand, slightly
at the margins or even greatly so, less vested in received wisdom yet attentive to evidence.
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
444
The discovery of historical personages, male and female, along with the events that
enveloped them goes back to abortive observations in the early years—what is not taken up
frequently seems as interesting as that which is. But, as all Mayanists know, it was Tatiana
Proskouriakoff (1960, 1993), who brought these themes back with trenchant work still
worth reading and debating. The German expatriate Heinrich Berlin (1958) rooted these
discoveries in geography by finding a set of signs linked to places. Together, they revealed
kings and queens sequenced into dynasties, with identifiable dates of birth, accession and
death, also identifying subordinates, war captives and their titles. Proskouriakoff was trained
as an architect, and it was unemployment in the Great Depression that brought her to
archaeology where, by means of her vivid restoration illustrations, she became a specialist
in Maya art and buildings. Proskouriakoff’s wish to date such constructions by linked
inscriptions and to seriate sculptures by style led her, by steps, to an organisation of such
temporal evidence into what could only be, to collective surprise, the outlines of human
biography in Maya texts. Yuri Knorosov (1952), discoverer and explorer of Maya syllables
(spelling units of consonant plus vowel form), also clawed his way from the cultural and
intellectual isolation of Stalin’s Soviet Union. His work enabled all later studies of sound
and, thereby, all probes into the nuances of ancient language.
Another nodal figure is Michael Coe. Hired by Yale to study the ‘Neolithic’ of the New
World, he was an early proponent of local, ecological frameworks for understanding early
settlement. But Coe relished imagery as well, enjoyed an acute eye for visual patterns and
could tell a gripping story. From this student of what were then called ‘settlement patterns’
arose much of what is now known, if amplified or amended by later research, of mythic
actors and narratives on Classic Maya vessels (Coe 1973, 1989). The orthogonal mindset,
entering the field from different or ancillary fields, along with unusual personal trajectories,
characterises the last few decades. Linda Schele played a large role in bringing public attention
and enthusiasm to Maya glyph studies (Schele & Miller 1986; Schele & Freidel 1990; Freidel
et al. 1993). Her original career as a studio artist led Schele to develop hands-on teaching
methods at many seminars and meetings. Students equipped with scissors, photocopies and
coloured markers could physically engage with rendered texts, attaining a sense of collective
enterprise. What was once said of Förstemann might equally be said of Schele: both held
“the desire first of all to arouse interest, if possible to call forth a reply, in order to incite
[ . . . ] fellow-laborers to more energetic cooperation” (Tozzer 1907: 155). In the final decade
of her life, that outreach took her to embrace Mayan speakers wishing to learn such writing,
an initiative that continues to this day under her colleague Nikolai Grube and others.
It is the rare epigrapher who shows ineptitude as a draftsperson—there is some deep
connection between drawing and seeing that winnows relevant from irrelevant detail. A
superb craftsman and a perceptive detector of historical patterns is Peter Mathews (1997),
Schele’s collaborator in early studies at the site of Palenque, Mexico (e.g. Mathews & Schele
1974; Schele & Mathews 1979). The emphasis on primary documentation was brought to
an initial pinnacle by Ian Graham as the first director of the Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic
Inscriptions project at the Peabody Museum, Harvard, who drew or oversaw 19 volumes
of superlative line renderings of monuments. His successor Barbara Fash and her assistant
Alexandre Tokovinine have since pioneered 3D imaging of texts and digital rendering,
pointing to the future of such projects (Figure 1; see Tokovinine & Fash 2008).
C
445
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
Research
Through seeing stones
Stephen Houston & Simon Martin
C
Figure 1. Comparison of photograph and 3D scan of Tikal Stela 17, Guatemala, AD 557 (image: A. Tokovinine,
President and Fellows of Harvard College, courtesy Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions project, Peabody Museum,
Harvard University).
The act of synthesis, the crowning integration of approach and method, accords with
David Stuart (1987), the most unusual figure of all. Beginning as a child prodigy, Stuart
acquired a perspective on Maya glyphs unencumbered by the quiz culture of US universities.
When tallied, Stuart’s contributions correspond to a disproportionate number of postKnorosov readings of syllables and numerous word signs, along with, in recent years,
explorations of systematic theology among the Classic Maya. His expansive vision has forged
the current standard. In a way appropriate to the Maya, it exemplifies the indissoluble bond
between texts and images (e.g. Stone & Zender 2011). Such focused results offer the new
precisions of Maya epigraphy (Figure 2).
Epigraphic insight belongs to no one place. In past years, there have been centres of gravity
focused on particular programmes, as at Harvard or Yale, which shifted to yearly festivals of
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
446
Research
Through seeing stones
Figure 2. Head of Chahk, the rain god, with nominal glyph in headdress; north cornice of the ‘Temple of the Night Sun’,
Structure F8-1, El Zotz, Guatemala, c. AD 380 (image: Katie Simon and the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies,
University of Arkansas).
learning organised by Schele at the University of Texas. Other meetings have sprung up in
the wake of the latter, especially in Europe, where the vibrant Wayeb association has staged
gatherings in different European cities for almost two decades. The landscape of academic
discourse is increasingly virtual, however: communications are in bytes, images digitised and
epigraphic communities constituted less by proximity than intellectual affinity. Blogs such
as ‘Maya decipherment: ideas on ancient Maya writing and iconography’, hosted by Stuart,
offer immediate dissemination and a space for comment. Even so, the ‘seeing stones’ tell us
that university programmes will continue their long-term training of students, in settings
that nurture more personal discussion and a sense of identity or affiliation.
New precisions
The power of ancient texts to elucidate the past depends on our technical ability, first
opened by Knorosov, to assign sounds and sense to signs and to comprehend their organising
grammar, but only in part. Clearly it also depends on our capacity to set those texts within
social, cultural and historical processes, rendering them not simply legible but meaningful.
In recent decades, we have come to understand the full scope of the texts, where the medium
in question—whether monuments in stone, painted ceramic vessels or personal adornments
fashioned from jade, shell or bone—determines what textual genres will be present and
which audiences were to be addressed (Figure 3). The reading precision acquired in recent
years allows us to draw close to the rhetorical purposes of Maya writing, appreciating the
social realities that stand behind the signs.
C
447
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
Stephen Houston & Simon Martin
Figure 3. Glyphs of Spondylus shell, burial 13, Piedras Negras, Guatemala, possibly 3 January AD 747; these may have
belonged to a poorly known ruler of Yaxchilan, Mexico, during an obscure phase of its history (a: 3.7 cm wide; b: 3.9 cm
wide; c: 3.8 cm wide; d: 4cm wide; excavated by H. Escobedo, drawings by S. Houston).
As mentioned before, the dominance of calendrical subject matter on the standing
monuments, the feature that so transfixed the early decipherers, is real enough. How the
Maya conceptualised time is still of central importance, relating as it does to the agentive
role of humans within that framework and of time itself as vested with personality (e.g.
Stuart 2012). Monumental stelae were seldom commissioned to commemorate a particular
historical event, but rather celebrated major stations in the calendar. This provided an
opportunity to append selected historical data in the form of royal biographies—res gestae—
although even these begin by detailing the ritual or rituals occasioned by the date (Stuart
1996). It would nonetheless be an error to see too stark a thematic division here. By the dawn
of the Classic era, if not far earlier, the concept of time had been thoroughly subsumed by
royal ideology, made clear when we consider that all such stations fell on the day named Ajaw
or ‘Lord’. Kings occasionally inserted their own portraits into oversized Ajaw day notations,
placing further stress on their integral role in the proper ordering of the cosmos. The rock
from which the monuments were hewn was considered to be as much an embodiment
of time as it was its marker—in Maya thought tuun (‘stone’) was not cold and dead but
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
448
possessed of an animate nature (Stuart 2010; Houston 2014). Stelae thus offer a unified
statement that fused image, text and material in order to present a singular expression of the
immutable bond between time and kingship.
The topics covered in the historical passages are thematically restricted and formulaic
in their structure and content. A major imperative was to establish personal identities—
names and epithets that distinguish historical individuals and define their place in social
and political structures. Onomastic studies have lately brought greater understanding of the
ways that kingly nomenclature reflects godly identities, often through verbal constructions
that define deities in action (Houston & Stuart 1996; Colas 2004). Titles have proved
to be a significant resource that points to otherwise shadowy groups and structures, with
the number of known royal and non-royal epithets—frequently set in hierarchical relations
through the use of grammatical possession—growing steadily in recent years. Statements of
genealogical descent were a further means of asserting legitimacy and identity. For a system
that was strongly patrilineal, there is a strong emphasis, at least in the final centuries of
the Classic period, on naming both parents, suggesting that the titles and relationships of
mothers were important to establish heritable rights.
That writing was the preserve of the powerful, and that it focuses exclusively on a
narrow segment of society, is hardly exceptional in global terms. Although we would
far rather hear from the whole spectrum of society, conceiving of this elite emphasis in
negative terms—as somehow peripheral to the concerns of a wider community—can no
longer be sustained. What the texts offer are the self-representations of the functioning
heart of government, giving accounts of those agents most empowered to enact social
transformations. Commoners lack their own voice, but their social participation and
collective agency are implicit in the voices we do have.
Kings could be direct participants in a given event, but more often they took a supervisory
role via the term uchabjiiy (literally ‘his manuring’ (field preparation)), offering a different
emphasis to the bombastic images of ‘heroic kingship’ that usually accompany the texts. Such
phrasing, which employs an agricultural trope of ‘tending’ or ‘manuring’ a field, distances
the sovereign from the thick of the action, even where we might most expect to see them,
as in records of conflict. In other contexts, the supervision of rulers (or gods) is indicated
by the term yichnal, which defines bodily presence and interaction within a field of vision,
elucidated by cognate survivals in descendent Mayan languages (Hanks 1990; Houston et al.
2006). The additional act of ‘witnessing’, indicated by means of ila (‘to see’), demonstrates
that there were fine distinctions in elite oversight and engagement that remain to be fully
determined.
An area where greater exactitude has had an impact on our model of society comes in
the cultural and political geographies of the Classic Maya. The evidence for a large array
of competitive kingdoms—expanding on Proskouriakoff and Berlin—has led to detailed
dynastic histories and links that speak to forms of hegemonic organisation (Martin &
Grube 1995, 2000). But this only raises further questions about the composition and the
ideological underpinnings of those statelets. It has been possible to align accounts of political
foundation with physical remains, charting both the construction of courtly architecture and
evidence for the movement of populations across the landscape (e.g. Sharer 1999; Houston
et al. 2003, 2015; Stuart 2007). What concerns us now is the way that power was moved and
C
449
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
Research
Through seeing stones
Stephen Houston & Simon Martin
instantiated in new places, a practice that probably involved the transfer of sacred artefacts
and relics. The emblem glyphs identified by Berlin have been revealed not as the names of
places or kingdoms per se but of dynastic houses—where some of these have local origins and
are synonymous with the toponym of the central political seat, while others were transplants
from elsewhere in which the name in the emblem has no local significance (Martin 2005;
Tokovinine 2013). There is emerging evidence for dynamic relocations and reformations
of a kind familiar to dynastic histories across the world, features that are all the easier to
observe when we have the close temporal control made possible by Maya chronology.
A logical precision resulting from Knorosov’s breakthrough is the ability to extract sound
and, as a result, language from the inscriptions. These advances have gone far indeed: the
fact that scholars can now debate finegrained subtleties of grammar, tense,
aspect and the representation of vowel
quality and quantity shows the advent of
linguistic research in a way inconceivable
to earlier researchers. Many of these data
are unreservedly recondite, and the skills to
evaluate particular arguments held by few.
They do reveal new categories of verb, such
as a particular kind of event, a mediopassive,
detected independently by current author
SH and Barbara MacLeod. Characterised
by a distinctive suffix, which may record
a particle use for verbs that have only one
‘argument’—a technical expression having
to do with how predicates are completed—
these form a widespread class used in
many statements of building or monument
dedication. They also include, as one of
their examples, a key glyph for ‘rising up’
Figure 4. Painted glyphs, Tonina door jamb, Mexico, AD
(t’abayi) with a logographic reading first
708; note fungus from unprotected surfaces (photography:
suggested by Stuart (Figure 4).
M. Coe, 2005).
Phonic glyphs afford an even greater
prize, sorting out the language or languages
of the Mayan inscriptions. The overwhelming evidence points to a single, prestige language
employed in the inscriptions, an ancestor to one living tongue, Ch’orti’. To be sure,
other languages did percolate into the writing system—unusual verbs at southerly Tonina,
Chiapas, Mexico, or possible Yukateko passives in the north at Chichén Itzá—but scholars
must confront a surprise. Sites such as Chichén Itzá, surrounded by a region of Yucatecan
speakers, display records in a language not spoken there today. The consequences of such
diglossia, with multiple languages, yet one ‘high’ and elite version centred at many cities,
are of intense interest sociologically, presenting a linguistic landscape in which royalty and
nobles spoke a tongue across political boundaries that was incomprehensible to most of their
subjects.
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
450
In the first studies of Maya religion, it was logical to work back from literary sources
produced under the colonial rule of the sixteenth century, more than six centuries after
Classic society fell into oblivion. These divide into the ‘anthropologically’ minded accounts
by clerics for a Spanish audience (such as Diego de Landa’s Relación de las cosas de Yucatán)
and texts written by and for indigenous Maya in Latin script (such as the Popol Wuj and
Chilam Balam documents). Most of the latter were efforts to preserve native beliefs and
knowledge in the face of Christian enculturation, although they are not the ‘pure’ Maya
visions once imagined. The contributions of these sources have certainly been important,
but it has been hard to avoid a directional fallacy that examines the Classic material for the
precursors of later myths, which thereby stand as the model and arbiter of how earlier beliefs
should be understood. Today the emphasis can shift to internal Classic Maya evidence,
assembling a picture of ancient concepts within the extraordinarily rich interaction of words
and images (Taube 1992; Martin 2006). The identification of the glyph term for k’uh
(Ringle 1988)—translated as ‘god’ in all the Colonial-period lexicons—opened a critical
avenue into local representations of the divine in the inscriptions (Houston & Stuart 1996).
By assessing the semantics of what was a ‘god’ and what was not, together with where and
how the adjective k’uhul (‘sacredness’) was applied, we gain a deeper picture of religiosity in
Classic times (Prager 2014).
Anyone who hoped that the Classic inscriptions would provide mythic narratives or
treatises on the essential nature of divinity has been disappointed. Although there are
references to a grand scheme of pan-regional beliefs and its presiding ‘pantheon’, these are
not treated in any detail. On the monuments, major deities most often appear in rites of
impersonation that seem to have invoked their direct instantiation in the bodies of royal
performers. Painted ceramics—the great majority of which come from the intense and deeply
lamented looting of Maya sites—are the richer sources here, often depicting fragments
of mythic tales or scenes from the governing palaces of the heavens and netherworld,
all annotated with glyphic captions. Fixed on a transcendent plane, they can be equally
understood as reciprocal models from and for human hierarchies, setting the divine order of
the cosmos and thus on earth. The greater part of religious discourse in the inscriptions is in
fact devoted to local observance, in which kings engage in rituals that honour or propitiate
lesser gods specific to a place or dynastic house and appear nowhere else. This proves to
be critical because it speaks to the source of royal claims to divine legitimacy and how it
was maintained, suggesting how kings gained rights to the k’uhul (‘holy’) prefix to their
royal titles. This kind of atomised religious authority is, in the Maya realm as elsewhere, the
sustaining counterpart to political division and multiplicity.
The growing sophistication of the decipherment brings with it philological and
epistemological issues of newfound relevance. Our increasing ability to penetrate the
texts poses the question of how the information they provide maps onto other realms
of knowledge. One of the dangers is that ‘textual realties’ remain locked within their own,
hermetically sealed, realm of discourse that fails to connect to the material world. (That
discourse can nonetheless possess an astonishing and supple sophistication; see Lacadena
2012.) Few would question the goal of forging a collaborative and mutually enriching
relationship between epigraphic and archaeological enterprises, nor can anyone doubt that
such an engagement has proved problematic elsewhere (Carver 2002). The Maya case offers
C
451
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
Research
Through seeing stones
Stephen Houston & Simon Martin
a powerful opportunity to re-examine these debates in the entirely different context of the
New World (see also Andrén 1998).
Witz to climb
Maya hills (witz) may not be alpine in scale, but they are slippery and tangled, with jagged
edges and sheer drops. Something akin to them awaits Maya epigraphers. The challenges
that continue to pose real difficulties result from insufficient evidence. Certain readings
have such solid support that it is a wonder they took so long to decode; others are hapax
legomena—things said only once—rarities for which no amount of wishful thinking will
permit a decipherment. The last 15 years have also witnessed what might be termed, with
humorous overstatement, the ‘spelling wars’ (e.g. Houston et al. 2000, 2004). Sequences of
signs, decisively read, can be transcribed into syllables to general acceptance. Transliterating
them into Mayan language is another matter. There are remaining doubts, for some: whether
there is vowel ‘complexity’ (length or accompanying glottal stops and fricatives); what the
developmental state of the language of the inscriptions might be; whether there are different
languages in the script; or how features such as mood or aspect might be handled (Robertson
et al. 2004). These issues do not always affect parsing of general meaning, but the details,
if unresolved, make any translations into English, Spanish or another language a matter of
contention. A large-scale, lavishly funded project of the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie
der Wissenschaften und Künste at the University of Bonn may lead to some resolution by
collecting and cross-referencing data. There is no equivalent of Gardiner’s (1957) seminal
grammar of Egyptian hieroglyphs, and we may never attain that level of comprehensiveness,
but international collaboration may go some way towards achieving it for Classic Mayan.
Other steep climbs include the challenge of reading early Maya glyphs, among the more
opaque productions of the writing system, and understanding how they might relate to
scripts that appear to be of slightly later date, such as Isthmian (Houston 2004). There are
clear links to later Maya signs, but whether syllables are fully present will need further testing.
Then there is the constant concern of ethics. A paradox: to unearth a Maya text is to endanger
it critically. How should such texts be documented, made accessible and, above all, preserved,
or rather, their inevitable decay slowed? These crises of preservation occur everywhere, and
the epigraphic heart breaks at seeing freshly exhumed, painted, poorly published texts
at sites such as Tonina, Mexico, darken with fungus and crumble to the elements (see
Figure 4; Stuart 2008). A further concern is the boundless quantity of looted inscriptions
that pose important dilemmas in regard to study and dissemination. The growing ability to
re-provenance monuments using textual information belies the argument that contraband
materials are forever rootless and devoid of scholarly value. Recent discoveries at La Corona,
Guatemala, have made it possible to fix 20 or more carved panels—currently in private and
public collections worldwide—to within metres of where the Maya had set them (Figure 5;
Canuto & Barrientos 2013).
Publications, too, are difficult to balance, as scholars strive for definitive standards, rapid
dissemination and to negotiate the proprietary concerns of excavators. Administrators in all
US universities now flutter with excitement about ‘big data’, and these, as in the German
project, are indeed the future of epigraphy. A comprehensive list of Maya dates is the first
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
452
Research
Through seeing stones
Figure 5. Stairway blocks excavated at La Corona, Guatemala, of an athletic contest taking place at AD 635 (courtesy:
Marcello Canuto, Director, Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University).
order of business, a study of formal change or variation in the Maya signary. The exalted
level of orthographic and calligraphic study in places such as China represents a summit we
may envy and emulate (e.g. Bai 2003; see Zender 2014 for a commendable shift forward).
There is still—amazingly—no comprehensive, peer-reviewed, specialist volume on Maya
writing as a whole.
Maya epigraphic research of recent years has combined new discoveries with a greater
precision in translation that has made even long-recognised topics newly informative.
Human societies consist of vastly complex interactions between the mental and material, in
which language works as a crucial intermediary, while simultaneously constituting a locus
of social meaning in its own right. No matter how occluded and strewn with interpretive
obstacles, the ‘seeing stones’ of writing offer unique access to the world of the Maya.
Acknowledgements
Stephen Houston wishes to thank Brown University and the Center for the Advanced Study in the Visual Arts,
National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., for the sabbatical support that enabled this article. Mary Miller and
another, anonymous reviewer provided wise advice, as did Chris Scarre.
References
BAI, Q. 2003. Fu Shan’s world: the transformation of
Chinese calligraphy in the seventeenth century
(Harvard East Asian Monographs 220). Cambridge
(MA): Harvard University Asia Center.
ANDRÉN, A. 1998. Between artifacts and texts: historical
archaeology in global perspective. New York: Plenum.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9409-0
C
453
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
Stephen Houston & Simon Martin
BERLIN, H. 1958. El glifo ‘emblema’ en las inscripciones
Mayas. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 47:
111–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/jsa.1958.1153
BOOT, E. 2009. The updated preliminary Classic
Maya—English, English—Classic Maya vocabulary
of hieroglyphic readings. Mesoweb Resources.
Available at: www.mesoweb.com/resources/
vocabulary/Vocabulary-2009.01.pdf (accessed 2
February 2016).
BRADY, J.E. & K.M. PRUFER. 1999. Caves and
crystalmancy: evidence for the use of crystals in
ancient Maya religion. Journal of Anthropological
Research 55: 129–44.
CANUTO, M. & T. BARRIENTOS. 2013. The importance
of La Corona. La Corona Notes 1(1). Mesoweb.
Available at: www.mesoweb.com/LaCorona/
LaCoronaNotes01.pdf (accessed on 2 February
2016).
CARVER, M. 2002. Marriages of true minds:
archaeology with texts, in B. Cunliffe, W. Davies &
C. Renfrew (ed.) Archaeology: the widening debate:
465−96. Oxford: Oxford University Press & the
British Academy.
CHIPPINDALE, C., N. HAMMOND & J.A. SABLOFF.
1988. The archaeology of Maya decipherment.
Antiquity 62: 119–22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00073580
COE, M.D. 1973. The Maya scribe and his world. New
York: Grolier Club.
– 1989. The hero twins: myth and image, in J. Kerr
(ed.) The Maya vase book: a corpus of rollout
photographs of Maya vases, volume 1: 161−84. New
York: Kerr Associates.
– 2012. Breaking the Maya code. London: Thames &
Hudson.
COLAS, P.R. 2004. Sinn und bedeutung Klassischer
Maya-personennamen: typologische analyse von
anthroponymphrasen in den hieroglypheninschriften
der Klassischen Maya-Kultur als beitrag zur
allgemeinen onomastik (Acta Mesoamericana 15).
Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein.
FÖRSTEMANN, E.W. 1887–1898. Zur entzifferung der
Mayahandschriften. Dresden: Druck von C.
Heinrich.
FREIDEL, D., L. SCHELE & J. PARKER. 1993. Maya
cosmos: three thousand years on the shaman’s path.
New York: William Morrow.
GARDINER, A. 1957. Egyptian grammar: being an
introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. Oxford:
Griffith Institute.
HANKS, W.F. 1990. Referential practice: language and
lived space among the Maya. Chicago (IL):
University of Chicago Press.
C
HOUSTON, S. 2004. Writing in early Mesoamerica, in
S. Houston (ed.) The first writing: script invention as
history and process: 274−309. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
– 2014. The life within: Classic Maya and the matter of
permanence. New Haven (CT): Yale University
Press.
HOUSTON, S. & D. STUART. 1996. Of gods, glyphs and
kings: divinity and rulership among the Classic
Maya. Antiquity 70: 289–312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00083289
HOUSTON, S., J. ROBERTSON & D. STUART. 2000. The
language of Classic Maya inscriptions. Current
Anthropology 41: 321–56. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1086/300142
HOUSTON, S., O. CHINCHILLA MAZARIEGOS &
D. STUART. 2001. Introduction, in S. Houston,
O. Chinchilla Mazariegos & D. Stuart (ed.) The
decipherment of ancient Maya writing: 3–19.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
HOUSTON, S., H. ESCOBEDO, M. CHILD, C. GOLDEN
& R. MUÑOZ. 2003. The moral community: Maya
settlement transformation at Piedras Negras,
Guatemala, in M.L. Smith (ed.) The social
construction of ancient cities: 212–53. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
HOUSTON, S., D. STUART & J. ROBERTSON. 2004.
Disharmony in Maya hieroglyphic writing:
linguistic change and continuity in Classic society,
in S. Wichmann (ed.) The linguistics of Maya
writing: 83–101. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
HOUSTON, S., D. STUART & K.A. TAUBE. 2006. The
memory of bones: body, being, and experience among
the Classic Maya. Austin: University of Texas Press.
HOUSTON, S., S. NEWMAN, E. ROMÁN & T. GARRISON.
2015. Temple of the Night Sun: a royal tomb at El
Diablo, Guatemala. San Francisco (CA):
Precolumbia Mesoweb.
KNOROSOV, Y. 1952. Drevnyaya pis’mennost’
Tsentral’noy Ameriki. Sovetskaya Etnografiya 3:
100–18.
LACADENA, A. 2012. Syntactic inversion (hyperbaton)
as a literary device in Maya hieroglyphic texts, in
K. Hull & M. Carrasco (ed.) Parallel worlds: genre,
discourse, and poetics in contemporary, colonial, and
Classic Maya literature: 45–75. Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.
MARTIN, S. 2005. Of snakes and bats: shifting identities
at Calakmul. The PARI Journal 6: 5–15.
– 2006. Cacao in ancient Maya religion: first fruit from
the maize tree and other tales from the underworld,
in C. McNeil (ed.) Chocolate in Mesoamerica: a
cultural history of cacao: 154–83. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida.
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
454
MARTIN, S. & N. GRUBE. 1995. Maya superstates.
Archaeology 48: 41–46.
– 2000. Chronicle of the Maya kings and queens:
deciphering the dynasties of the ancient Maya.
London: Thames & Hudson.
MATHEWS, P. 1997. La escultura de Yaxchilán. Mexico,
D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
MATHEWS, P. & L. SCHELE. 1974. Lords of Palenque:
the glyphic evidence, in M. Greene Robertson (ed.)
Primera mesa redonda de Palenque, part I: 63–75.
Pebble Beach (CA): Robert Louis Stevenson School.
PRAGER, C. 2014. Übernatürliche Akteure in der
Klassischen Maya-Religion: eine Untersuchung zu
intrakultureller Variation und Stabilität am
Beispiedes k’uh ‘Götter’-Konzepts in den religiösen
Vorstellungen und Überzeugungen Klassischer
Maya-Eliten (250–900 n.Chr.). Unpublished PhD
dissertation, University of Bonn.
PROSKOURIAKOFF, T. 1960. Historical implications of a
pattern of dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala.
American Antiquity 25: 454–75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/276633
– 1993. Maya history. Austin: University of Texas Press.
RINGLE, W. 1988. Of mice and monkeys: the value and
meaning of T1016, the God C hieroglyph (Research
Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 18).
Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research.
ROBERTSON, J., S. HOUSTON & D. STUART. 2004.
Tense and aspect in Maya hieroglyphic script, in
S. Wichmann (ed.) The linguistics of Maya writing:
259–89. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
SCHELE, L. & D. FREIDEL. 1990. A forest of kings: the
untold story of the ancient Maya. New York: William
Morrow & Company.
SCHELE, L. & P. MATHEWS. 1979. The bodega of
Palenque. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.
SCHELE, L. & M.E. MILLER. 1986. The blood of kings:
dynasty and ritual in Maya art. Fort Worth (TX):
Kimbell Art Museum.
SHARER, R.J. 1999. Archaeology and history in the royal
acropolis, Copan, Honduras. Expedition 41: 8–15.
STONE, A. & M. ZENDER. 2011. Reading Maya art: a
hieroglyphic guide to ancient Maya painting and
sculpture. London: Thames & Hudson.
STUART, D. 1987. Ten phonetic syllables (Research
Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 14).
Washington, D.C.: Center for Maya Research.
– 1996. Kings of stone: a consideration of stelae in
Maya ritual and representation. Res: Anthropology
and Aesthetics 29–30: 149−71.
– 2007. The origin of Copan’s founder. Maya
decipherment. Available at: https://decipherment.
wordpress.com/2007/06/25/the-origin-of-copansfounder/ (accessed 2 February 2016).
– 2008. When archaeology is destruction. Maya
decipherment. Available at: https://decipherment.
wordpress.com/2008/12/15/when-archaeology-isdestruction/ (accessed 2 February 2016).
– 2010. Shining stones: observations on the ritual
meaning of early Maya stelae, in J. Guernsey,
J. Clark & B. Arroyo (ed.) The place of stone
monuments: context, use, and meaning in
Mesoamerica’s preclassic transition: 283–98.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection.
– 2012. The order of days: unlocking the secrets of the
ancient Maya. New York: Three Rivers.
TAUBE, K.A. 1992. Major gods of ancient Yucatan
(Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology
32). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection.
TOKOVININE, A. 2013. Place and identity in Classic
Maya narratives (Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and
Archaeology 37). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection.
TOKOVININE, A. & B. FASH. 2008. Scanning history:
the corpus of Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions tests a
3-D scanner in the field. Symbols Spring: 17–20.
TOZZER, A.M. 1907. Ernst Förstemann. American
Anthropologist 9: 153–59. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1525/aa.1907.9.1.02a00100
ZENDER, M. 2014. On the reading of three Classic
Maya portrait glyphs. The PARI Journal 15: 1–14.
Received: 11 March 2015; Accepted: 4 September 2015; Revised: 17 September 2015
C
455
Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
Research
Through seeing stones