Holly Sullivan, Department of Anthropology
The existence of artistic authorship within ancient writing systems, though rare, is a significant diagnostic tool. Such signatures can illuminate social positions of artists and networks of artistic production. They also represent a unique genre of text outside of formal written language which can reveal aspects of the language never considered before. Recently, Mayan epigraphers have begun to ask if such a program of authorship existed among the Classic Maya. For my research project I undertook the collection and decipherment of 95 proposed signatures or “name-tags” on stelae and carved monuments from 23 sites in the Central Maya region of Mexico and Guatemala. These short texts began to appear on monuments suddenly around AD 603 (Mathews I 978:61, fig. 1) and disappeared with the collapse of the Maya civilization at circa. AD 900. “Nametags” usually occur separately from the primary text of the monument. In many cases the size of these inscriptions is notably smaller than the main text, similar to a subscript or marginal glossing. Nor are they usually emphasized in the deep relief common to main texts. Also a characteristic glyph combination, known as the lu-bat glyph, together with the possessive prefix WJ. usually precedes this series of names and titles. This glyph combination, together with the characteristic low relief carving style, makes these “name-tags” easy to identify. Originally thought to be verbal clauses (Schele 1982:124-128) over a hundred of these “tags” are now known to exist, and though many have been analyzed individually, to date no comparative analysis has been made of all of them.
David Stuart (1989a: 41-44) has suggested that these names are in fact sculptor signatures. He argues from decipherments of the Primary Standard Sequence that the lu-bat glyph introduces the signature of an artist, specifically a sculptor or carver (Stuart 1989a: 38-39; 1989b: 154-155). Though the actual reading of this glyph combination is still undecided, Stuart (1 989a: 38-41) proposes that it means “this is his carving.” Stuart’s hypothesis is strongly supported by his proposed identification of scribal signatures on painted pots. In particular he demonstrates that the lu-bat glyph is functionally related to the ts’ib glyph. Stuart maintains that the ts’ib glyph refers to painting and painted modes of decoration (1989a: 17-18), and that the lu-bat glyph refers to incised and carved modes of decoration (1 989a:3 1). Stuart (1989a:33-35) argues that the ts’ib glyph when joined with a possessive prefix is also used to introduce scribal signatures on pottery. Stuart concludes, from the y(u)-lu-bat combination, that the name tags on carved monuments are sculptor’s signatures.
Stuart (1989a: 35) further connects two similar ceramic vessels to the same artist by matching up possible scribal signatures and subtle handwriting variations. Some attempts have been made to authenticate carved monuments based on Stuart’s research. In particular, Caroline Tate (1 992:38) argues that authentication of carved monuments at Yaxchilan can be determined by matching up signatures with stylistic techniques and glyphic spelling characteristics. It is certainly true that subtle variances exist in Maya primary texts and figures; however the stone medium does not allow the calligraphic freedom painting does, nor do really accurate diagnostic features exist for authentication. Figures on monuments are often mutilated, and primary texts usually maintain rigid uniformity and symmetry. Nametags on the other hand, are carved with less rigidity, and do exhibit more unique characteristics. But it is possible that the carved signatures are not those of the actual sculptors. Large carved monuments and stelae would have required a great deal of human effort and labor (Houston 1990:27). Given this it is probable that some carvings were produced by a school or group of sculptors (fate 1992: 42). If these name tags are, in fact, sculptor’s signatures they may represent the names of master craftsmen rather than the actual carvers. As it stands, authentication of carved monuments based upon these name-tags is not conclusively accurate.
At present, the best and only reading for the lu-bat glyph is David Stuart’s. Likewise his arguments represent the best explanation for these unusual name tags, and his theory was the working hypothesis in my catalog and decipherment. Yet, this argument for sculptor’s signatures does not necessarily follow from the lubat reading. From my analysis of these name-tags it is apparent that Stuart’s theory still requires serious consideration, as the data may support alternative hypotheses. Most notably, I would like to consider the possibility that these name tags may possibly be name dedications of nobles who commissioned the work to be done, rather than the sculptors who carved them. Though I did not explore this possibility in depth in my analysis, this theory is supported by formal similarities in ownership statements within the Primary Standard Sequence on ceramic vessels, and an ownership clause on Lintel 25 at Yaxchilan which employs the same y(u)-lu-bat glyph combination.
Stephen Houston (1993: 132) demonstrates that during the Late Classic period, within a small region in the central Maya area, there was a notable increase in the appearance of the names and titles of subordinate lords on carved monuments. In particular the appearance of “sahal” and “God C” titles, typically used by vassal and noble lords, peak around AD 750 (Houston 1993: 132). From my analysis, the occurrence of signatures or “nametags” climax at about the same time (AD 750-770) and are limited to the same small geographical region. The causes of these trends are hard to determine, but it is reasonable to assume that proliferation of subordinate titles is related to the appearance of these elite name-tags, as sculptor’s signatures or elite name dedications.
Names and titles among the corpus of signatures I analyzed overwhelmingly indicate that these individuals are members of the nobility; in many cases they are in fact intimate members of the royal family or young heirs to the throne. For example, the name-tag on the Palenque Death Head I (see Figure: I) reveals that the individual was the younger brother of the king. This agrees with preexisting notions about the Maya artisan class. It has long been suggested from early Colonial ethnographic accounts that artists and artisans were noble and elite members of Maya society. These accounts depict elite wisemen of the villages who were skilled in letters, writing, and carving (I’ozzer 1941:29). Excavations of a scribal workshop at Aguateca, Guatemala reveal that the occupants lived and worked in a noble house complex (Enomata 1993:900-938). Also, possible scribal signatures on pots manifest elite titles and names (Coe 1973: fig. 6; Stuart !989a: 34)). If these names are In fact signatures of sculptors It indicates that, like scribes, sculptors were members of a specialized class of elites. Conversely, it might simply indicate that the king’s younger brother commissioned the work.
Other titles employed in these tags make direct reference to painting and the scribal art. For example the ts’ib glyph is manifested several times. This may not be so unusual since many stelae and carved monuments were originally painted and decorated with bright pigments. However it is possible some scribes doubled as sculptors, or that scribes were somehow involved in the production of carved monuments. At any rate such titles lend more support to Stuart’s proposal that these are artisan’s signatures, than to possible name dedications.
From Enomata’s (1993:900-938) excavations at Aguateca it is apparent that some scribes worked in workshops. Tate (I 992:42) argues that a similar workshop system of production was utilized by sculptors at Yaxchilan. In several cases, particularly at Piedras Negras and El Peru, multiple nametags occur on a single monument. If these tags are signatures, as Stuart suggests, this multiple tag phenomenon may be indicative of the workshop productions Tate describes. It may also indicate that a group of elites commissioned the carving.
The appearance of these texts also appears to be closely tied to local rule, and limited to the reigns of Lords. The occurrence of a particular name tag on monuments does not occur anytime after the death of the Lord for whom the monuments are carved. There are also no instances of the same nametag appearing at more than one site. However, there is some evidence to suggest that transfer of these individuals occurred on a small scale. For example, a personage who claims to be from Y axchilan occurs on Lintel I at Bonampak. The intimate association with local rule might explain the lack of occurrence at more than one site. Yet, If these are sculptor’s signatures, and these sculptors are Intimately tied to the ruling houses at the site, we would not expect a vibrant body of carvers to suddenly disappear with a death of a king since they would still be allied to the ruling house. Unfortunately, the hypothesis that these are elite name dedications doesn’t adequately explain this peculiar pattern either.
These name tags are certainly the most unusual body of Maya appellatives available In glyphic texts. However, it Is not conclusive that they belong to sculptors as Stuart argues. It Is necessary to reconsider the corpus of scribal signatures to verify Stuart’s assumptions that both genres of name-tags are In fact artists signatures, together with an exploration of the practices of the Maya royal court to discover the existence of systems of patronage and commission practiced by the Maya elite. Any further research should also consider the problem of why a group of name tags suddenly cease with the death of the king.
Most of the photos Images and drawings for the catalog were obtained from my advisor Dr. Stephen D. Houston; many of my decipherments were also completed with his aid. I am grateful for his guidance and inspiration which initiated this project, as well as the advice and criticism offered by Dr. John E. Clark. I also appreciate the financial assistance of the ORCW for making this research possible.
References
- Coe, Michael D. 1973 The Maya Scribe and his world. The Grolier Club, New York.
- Enomata, Takeshi 1993 Archaeological Investigation at the Fortified Center of Aguateca. El Peten. Guatemala: Implications for the Study of the Classic Maya Collapse. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
- Houston, Stephen D. 1990 Maya glyphs. University of California Press, Berkley. 1993 Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas. University of Texas Press, Austin.
- Mathews, Peter 1980 Notes on the Dynastic sequence at Bonompak, Part 1. In Third Palenque Round Table. University of Texas Press, Austin. 5(2): pp.60-73.
- Robertson, Merle Green 1985 The Sculpture of Palenque, The Cross Group, The North Group. The Ovidado, and Other Pieces. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Stuart, David 1989a The Maya Artist: an Epigraphic and Iconographic Study. Senior Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 1989b Hieroglyphs on Maya Vases. In The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus of Roll-out Photographs of Maya Vases. Vol. 1: 149-160. Keff and Associates, New York.
- Schele, Linda 1992 Maya Glyphs: The Verbs. University of Texas Press, Austin.
- Tate, Caroline 1992 Yaxchilan, 7he design of a Maya ceremonial city. University of Texas Press, Austin
- Tozzer, Alfred M. 1941 Landa’s Relacion de las Casas de Yucatan, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. I 8, Peabody Museum, Cambridge.