Writing in early Mesoamerica 275 time and space; a script with weaker boundaries will need closer scrutiny 10 Writing in early Mesoamerica before it can be clearly defined. One way of understanding such boundaries is in terms of "open" and STEPHEN D. HOUSTON "closed" writing systems (Houston 1994b). Eric Wolf first applied these labels in an entirely different context, to certain kinds of peasant societies (1955:462). "Open" implied a near-constant state of interaction with other societies, "closed" quite the opposite, having the connotation of a marked From about 500 years before Christ until the beginning of the Common state of isolation. As with any social typology, the terms do not correspond era, the peoples of Mesoamerica innovated, used, and developed a series precisely to any one society, nor are they altogether successful in charac­ of graphic systems that encoded language: in short, they created "writing" terizing the actual history of peasant communities (Monaghan 1995:61-62; where none existed before, almost certainly in isolation from Old World Wolf 1986:327). They do, however, emphasize an important point, that some inputs. That such systems were writing by any definition of the word (cf. properties of societies - or writing systems - transcend or supersede local Damerow 1999b:4-5; Gelb 1963:58) is now beyond dispute, especially in conditions while others accentuate them. The irony is that terms which the case of Maya script (Coe 1999). This chapter reviews how these develop­ fail to work for Wolf's peasants may apply persuasively to writing systems: ments came about in the initial centuries of script generation in Mesoamer­ thus, an "open" writing system serves the needs of diverse culiures and ica, challenges misconceptions held by specialists within this region and languages; a "closed" one relates to a particular culture, language, or set of those outside - that Maya is the earliest script, that Maya is monosyllabic, related languages \Houston; Bafo.es, an cl Cooper, 2003) _:_it will tend toward that all relevant scripts are well understood (cf. Boltz 2000:4, 15; Defrancis greater linearity as a relatively clear record of language as well as greater 1989:50) - and offers a set of perspectives that builds on, and responds self-sufficiency or abstraction in graphic terms. In some respects, this dis­ to, valuable earlier treatments (e.g., Coe 1976; justeson 1986; )usteson and tinction seems to operate across a continuum, but there are also indications , , Mathews 1990; Marcus 1976b; Prem 1971). It begins by reviewing basic of a fundamental divide in strategy, an "open" script being far more likdy II concepts and problems and then addresses the iconographic and onomastic to require pictographic aids, a "closed" one, with fuller commitment to lin­ .,,, 1!1' basis ofMesoamerican writing, along with three major traditions, Zapotec, guistic transparency, having the capacity to occur on its own, within a closed I ., I Isthmian, and early Mayan, none of which supports an optimistic prognosis frame that excludes such aids. 1,,:;1. i I: for full interpretation. In general, the writing systems used in the eastern part of Mesoamerica •;,: I ';, have a "closed" nature. They are maladroit in recording other, unrelated lan­ 1::.' guages but supremely effective in reproducing their own, often including Basic concepts and problems 11• many linguistic and syntactic nuances: Mayan script or glyphs exemplify 11\:;: I A necessary step in understanding the development of writing systems in this class of writing system and represent standing proof against Ignace ' Mesoamerica is to sort out basic approaches. How, for example, do we model Gelb's claim that writing in the New World was "'limited" by its failure to script development? Most such attempts involve attention. to three features: use "systematicphonography" (Gelb 1963:59; emphasis in original; as many space, time, and script boundary (Coe 1976; justeson et al. 1985; )usteson have pointed out, Gelb expressed little but contempt for New World civi­ "i and Mathews 1990; Marcus 1976b; Prem 1971, 1973). The first two features lizations, which could not "stand comparison with the Oriental cultures" are s;fr-explanatory-when and where a writing system was used. The third he esteemed [Gelb 1963:58]; this attitude can also be found among some I simply means that certain scripts share enough features to be regarded as archaeologists of the time, including the prominent Old World specialists distinct systems. They may, and usually do, have internal variability, but V. Gordon Childe and Mortimer Wheeler [Hawkes 1982:278]). Few foreign 111 that heterogeneity is of an entirely different order in comparison to the words appear in Mayan script. When they do, the words are garbled, and I attributes of other writing systems. A script with pronounced boundaries have already been loaned and phonologically massaged into a Mayan lan­ ' will have attributes that immediately distinguish it from its neighbors in guage, in this instance Yukatek ('.faube and Bade 1991; Whittaker 1986). In I ,1 276 Stephen D. Houston Writing in early Mesoamerica 277 11 contrast, "open" "WTiting systems are found with some abundance in west­ ~ ern Mesoamerica. Most contain elements that make sense only in particular 1°!:1'i. z 11 ii languages, leading Janet Berlo to describe these words as "embedded texts" i'1'I I I that exist within narrative pictographies (Berlo 1983:2-17). Yet, to a strong ''i1 1 extent, these scripts and the information they contain could probably be ,, ' understood across language boundaries. A Mixtec pictorial, for example, can be easily glossed in English without doing violence to its general mean­ ing (e.g. Byland and J. Pohl 1994:176; van der Loo 1994:84). Some time ago, David Kelley made a similar observation, suggesting that the trans­ linguistic nature of these scripts made special sense in societies emphasizing ,I "economic or historical information," so that tribute rolls could be com- ----- -- . --- "I piled and interpreted in several different languages (Kelley 1976:166). Kelly also pointed out that, rather than being "primitive," these scripts admirably Fig. 10.1 Early linear texts: (a) Monte Alban Danzante, MA-D-55 (Urcid suited the needs of their societies, an early instance in which Ignace Gelb's Serrano 200l:fig. 4.47); (b) La Venta Monument 13 (Coe 1968:148, after evolutionism came under negative scrutiny. drawing by Miguel Covarrubias). It is striking that the earlier the scripts in Mesoamerica, the more likely i they are to be "closed." One ofthe so-called "Danzantes" from Monte Alban, Mexican city ofTeotihuacan possessed an elaborate emblematic script that Oaxaca, of uncertain date but probably from a century or so before Christ, appeared to combine isolated word signs ofa nominal and titular nature with l' displays a long sequence of non-calendrical signs in single-column order, pictographic or narrative settings. This iconographic property is precisely 'i'"'" a good illustration of the transparent linguistic commitment in closed sys­ what made the signs hard to identify at first (Taube 2000b:l5). Teotihuacan tems (Fig. 10.l [a]; Urcid Serrano 200l:fig. 4.47). A similar, relatively long script began to flourish about AD 350 to 450, so its dates are suggestive in I! sequence occurs on La Venta Monument 13, perhaps the earliest linear text view of developments in Mesoamerican scripts. The city is known to have in Mesoamerica, dating to about 500 BC or, according to some estimates, a exercised a profound impact on areas far distant, including the Valley of few centuries later (Fig. 10.lb; Karl Taube, personal communication, 2002). Oaxaca (e.g. the Lapida de Bazan; Taube 2000b:fig. 30.d). Thereafter, many At Monte Alban, texts from c. AD 450 to 800 become acutely "open," and areas under Teotihuacan influence employed glyphic styles that were decid­ earlier experiments with linear text disappear aside from long sequences edly "open," including spare nominal signs at El Tajin, Veracruz (Kampen of day signs and superposed registers of paired couples (Zaachila Stone l; 1972:figs. 32-38), apparent titles and name glyphs at Xochicalco, Mo­ Masson and Orr 1998; Urcid Serrano 200l:fig. 6.9). Even later texts from relos (Berlo 1989:30-40), painted glyphs at'Cacaxtla (Foncerrada de Molina ii,' this area have lost their "closed" quality entirely and appear to be little dif­ 1982), as well as sites as far distant as Chichenitza, Yucatan, where non-Maya ferent from documents elsewhere in Postclassic Mesoamerica, regardless of signs seem to label non-Maya personages (Maudslay 1889-1902, III:pls. 38, language zone (e.g. the Lienzo de Guevea; Seier 1906). Similarly, Isthmian 45-47, 49-50; Morris, Charlot, and Morris 1931:311). writing of the Tehuantepec and surrounding regions is patently "closed" The question before us, and one that is inherently difficult to answer, because of its long linear texts, a pattern that continues well into the middle is whether this new strategy reflected a historical practice emanating from of the firit millennium AD, as on Cerro de las Mesas Stela 8 (Stirling 1943). the pluralistic, polyglot polity centered on Teotihuacan. An exact sequence Later texts from the general region drop this "closed" quality and monu­ of choices is impossible to reconstruct, but it is plausible that Teotihuacan, mental inscriptions become, as in Veracruz, severely reduced to a system of whose memory was strongly cherished in Mesoamerican tradition, estab­ dates serving as nominal glyphs (Wilkerson 1984:110-114). lished a practice that became dominant in areas most directly under its influ­ Certain choices were doubtless made by script communities in response ence. Those examples ofTeotihuacan writing that are the most "closed," i.e., to events and influences of a broader sort. In the last few years scholars have linear, with many signs, including what may be quotative particles, occur become increasingly aware that, far from being devoid of writing, the great closest to the Maya region, on mifror backs and other objects from the 278 Stephen D.