The History of the Study of Maya Vase Painting

THE MAYA VASE BOOK

THE HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF MAYA VASE PAINTING

MARY ELLEN MILLER

As onewould expect, the study ofClassic draw it. At the time, Stephens regretted After Stephens and Catherwood had Maya vase painting has followed the dis not being able to acquire the object him completedtheirtravels inthe Mayaregion covery and collection of Classic Maya self, but after a fire had destroyed the in 1842, the Maya were avidly studied by pottery. That collection has generally been collection of antiqUities he took home to others. Teobert Maler, Alfred P. Maud theresultofoneoftwo processes: one, the the United States, hewas relieved thathe slay, and other nineteenth century ex collection ofMayavases by private collec hadonlybeenlenttheobjectfor examina plorers, however, didnotencounterfmely tors and museums, and two, the excava tion (Stephens 1843, I: 271-275). He noted carved or painted pots at the Maya sites tion of vessels by archaeologists under in particular the band of glyphs around that they visited. Both found modem controlled conditions. The two phenom the rim, which he identified as partofthe Lacandon pots in the Usumacinta ruins. ena do overlap: some vessels excavated same writing system he had seen at and Maudslayretrieved some simple pots by archaeologists have ended up in PalenqueandCopan, and healsothought from aPalenquetomb (l889-1902, 5: 36). museum collections, and some found by that the figural representation bore a Maudslaywas also familiarwith thefinely pothuntershavebeenofuseto archaeolo resemblance to stone monuments at these paintedvesselsfrom GuatemalathatE. P. gists. In general, however, the conditions places (Figure 1). Dieseldorff(called J. DieseldorfbyMaud of the excavation of Maya pots have fre slay) was publishing at the same time quently determined the treatment they (Maudslay 1889-1902, 5: 38). In the 1880s, received. After the passageoflongperiods Desire Chamay sought Maya pots in of time, the difference in the treatment of Yucatan but finally had to accept them the vessels recedes. Finely painted pots, from anothersourcewhen his ownefforts regardless of their means of excavation, to excavate some from a mound did not eventually end up in museums where pan out. He had little good to say about theyarewrittenaboutbyarthistorians or Maya ceramics, but he did note the simi by anthropologists interested in their larity between pots dug from a mound in meaning. Yucatan and a vessel from Teotlhuacan. 'The resemblance between the ceramic John Lloyd Stephens may have been the art ofYucatan and that ofthe table-land first tocommentonMayavases,Justashe [I.e., Central Mexico) is seen at a glance. wasthefirsttowriteand publishaboutso Theirvalue as works ofart is nu, but the many other aspects of ancient Maya life peculiar ornamentation, common to all, and art. WhUe Stephens was staying in cannot be over-estimated from the point ncul, Yucatan, a townsman lent him a ofview ofour theory. On examining this Figure 1 vase so thatFrederickCatherwood might pottery, it is found that the potter made

128 [1989 The History of the Study of Maya Vase Painting. In The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of Maya Vases, Volume 1. New York: Kerr Associates.] THE MAYA VASE BOOK

the vases with reliefs. which he coloured. collection both for himself and for the hieroglyphic writing to show relationships varnished. and baked before he gave them Berlin museum. 1 He published articles fiftyyears before. Dieseldorffused Bishop to a CaIVer who sculptured devices and on two particularly important Chama pots. Landa's Relacion and the Popol Yuh to figures witha flint chisel" (Charnay 1888: andhis publicationprovoked essaysfrom interpret the scene and hieroglyphs on 376. illustration on p. 375) Charnaywas his German colleagues. Although Diesel the Chama vase (Kerr #2894), which he obviously notacquainted with the means dorffwas interested in the archaeological believed tobea sceneofsacrificeattended ofpottery manufacture. but he neverthe context, his concern was largely for the by Ahpops. Ernst Forstemann followed less isolated shared traits that served his meaningofthe imageryand styleofpaint Dieseldorffs interpretation of the scene theoryofa shared ''ToUec'' heritage for all ing. He was the first, I believe, to make andfurtherelucidated theglyphs, noting, of Mesoamerica. From Charnay's time "rollout" drawings ofMaya pots. inwhich for example. the glyph ahau, or lord. as onward. studies of pottery were often the images from a cylinder vessel were the fourth in the column behind figure f used to hypothesize diffusions ofculture extended ontoa sheetofpaper. With such and probably naming him (1904: 649). throughout Mesoamerica. a drawing. all the figures and hieroglyphs Both Forstemann and Dieseldorff were could be easilylabelled for reference. and struck by the fact that the pot had never Duringthelatenineteenth century. many a narrative scene could be viewed at a been used before its interment and thatit Germans cameto Guatemala to establish glance. showed a scene ofdally life. coffee fincas. among them E. P. Diesel In response, Eduard SeIer. writing with dorff, who acquired a ranch inCobanand The relationship of highland Guatemala greater academic authority and convic shared with his countrymen Eduard SeIer, to the lowland Mayawa.s not knownatthe tion, tackled the problem of the pot Ernst Forstemann, and Paul Schellhas time and Dieseldorff's finds were the first (SeIer1904). He faulted the previous inter an interest in Maya antiquities. He col to show. based on the hieroglyphs. that pretations. and he argued. by analogy lected Maya objects from farmers, labor the Maya at Chama had written in the with later arts of the Aztec and Mlxtec, ers. and travellers. In 1892, he directed same writing system as did the Maya at that the fans carried on the Chama vase excavations at Chama; and he built a Palenque--much as Stephens had used characterized long-distance traders. On

1. "In Germany we possess the most valuable Musewn ofPhiladelphia, had been sold after its been ''put into the wrong case and sent to the Maya manuscriptfThe Dresden Codex], and our discovery to an American, "where it probably Musewn at Berlin" (Maudslay 1889-1902, 5:2, scholars have taken the mostactivepart in deci figures as one of the chief ornaments of some 47). CouldDieseldoljf, a residentofCoban, have phering it; but, on theother hand, almost nothing drawing-room" {l904 a: 639}. At the time ofthe sent the lintel astray in order to build the collec has been done on the part ofGermany toward publication of the Gordon and Mason folio, the tion in Berlinfor which he so much hoped? Sub rollecting.fresh nnt.erial andpromoting researches CharntL vase was in the Cary Collection in Phila sequently known as Lintel 56, the monument whichgive such rich returns when conductedon delphia. Maudslay later noted that a Yaxchilan was destroyed in a World War II bombing raid. the spot" {l904 a: 640}. He was dismayed that lintel which had been "repacked in Coban for the famous CharntL oose, now in the University transmission toEngland" had, by somemistake,

129 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

the basis ofthis identification, all fans in Forstemann and SeIer, most subsequent Maya influences (l898: 39). His interest Maya artwerelongregarded as attributes German Mayanists worked on the prob in the Maya. like that of his contempo of traders, and many misidentifications lems of Maya writing. calendar. and ico rary, William H. Holmes of the Smith were made (Kurbjuhn 1976). He also- nography (cf. Beyer, Zimmermann, Ber sonian Institution, was extremely broad. correctly, I believe--identified the basic lin, Barthel. and Diitting). He wanted to know the techniques of gestures of the figures on the pot as ancient pottery manufacture, the distri appropriate ones for arrival, reception, Whole painted and carved pots, as well as bution of decorative motifs. and the and. in the case ofthe kneeling figure, of potsherds. were first systematically col meaning of iconography. We now recog humble salute (cf. V. Miller 1982). He lected at the major Classic site ofCopan nize that this first large corpus of pots, further proposed that the glyphic cap by Harvard's Peabody Museum of Ar somefrom Copanand morefrom theUlua tions offered the "title and name of the chaeology and Ethnology in the 1890s Valley, are not characteristic of Maya person in question" (SeIer 1904: 661). and it is here that the history ofarchaeo pottery in general. SeIer also suspected that the entire cor logical collection and study begins. Freder pus of Maya writing might treat astron ick W. Putnam. director of the Peabody Followingthework atCopan, few system omy (he wondered whether the pot might Museum, had already instituted a pro atic excavations were carried out in the show Venus gods). but he found this gram of careful stratigraphy in North Maya area for many years. But here and somewhatin contradiction to the realism American excavations; by means of his there. an occasional pot was happened of this particular vase painting (SeIer students, this method was introduced to upon. In highland Guatemala. particu 1904: 662). the Maya region. In their reports. Copan larly in the region of Ratlinxul, Chama, archaeologists Marshall Saville and J.G. and Nebaj. farmers. amateurs, and pot Such attention to the meaning and inter Owens described tombs and their con hunters encountered a number of finely pretation of Maya imagery and writing tents but made no attempt to determine painted pots which came to the attention were the preoccupation of the German stratigraphy or meaning; their final re of collectors and scholars. The "Fenton school, as we might term it. ofthe turn of ports are limited to straight description Vase," for example. was excavated at Nebaj the centmy. Dieseldorff continued his (in Gordon 1896). Following Honduras in 1904. whenceitcameinto the hands of collecting. writing. and interpretation government's termination ofthe Peabody the English collector C.L. Fenton. for whom (Dieseldorff 1926-33). but the ideas and Museum project at Copan in 1896. George it is named. writings of Eduard SeIer were the more B. Gordon turned his attention to the prominent ones. SeIer increasingly turned archaeology of the Ulua Valley. In his HerbertJ. Spinden submitted his disser his attention to Central Mexico. No Ger study (l898). he published rolled-out tation. A Study ojMayaArt. to the faculty man expedition to excavate a Maya site drawings and attempted to determine ofAnthropology at Harvard University in materialized. and, following inthestepsof diffusion into the Ulua Valley of 'foreign' 1909. and it was published as a memoir

130 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

of the Peabody Museum in 1913. He excavating. collecting. and study in Be In 1919. the Museum of the American studied the known corpus of Maya art. lize [then British Honduras) and the south IndianinNewYorkacquireda sculptured includingceramics, which heincluded as ern partofthe Mexican territory ofQuin vase from Acasaguastlan. Guatemala (Kerr a nine-page subsection ofhis chapter, "A tana Roo (Gann 1918). He himselfexca #2776; Saville' 1919), from the collection Considerationofthe MaterialArts" (Spin vateda numberoffinepots, includingone ofthe German Consul General in Guate den 1913: 133-142). Spinden treated from Rio Hondo sometimes known as the mala City. Saville noted that the "vase is technique and acknowledged the useful Gann Vase (Thompson 1939,1970; without question the most beautiful ex ness ofpottery in establishing a chrono HammondI985). and two others from a ample ofearthenwareeverfound ineither logical sequence. but in general. he was nearby mound, one of which was pub North or South America," a claim still most concerned with the representation lished byGordonand Mason (Gann 1918: difficult to dispute. He compared its and decoration ofthe pottery. His sample Plate 17)--as was the Gann Vase (see carving to monumental stone and wood included the excavated pots from Copan below). He also bought a number ofpots carving at Quirigua and Tikal, and while as well as those collected for the Peabody from the mayor ofYalloch, EI Peten, who acknowledging its complexity and impor Museumbytravellers and pothunters; he had found them some years before in tance, he deferred "a comparative study also used anyvessels ofinterestknown to what Gann describes as a chuItun, or and an analysis" for a later date (Saville him in private collections. He praised the underground storage pit (Gann 1918: 138), 1919: n.p). J. Eric S. Thompson later workmanship of calVed and stamped but which might have been a partly col confided toFrederickDockstaderthatthe wares--which formed the preponderance lapsed tomb. Gann compared his finds to unusual carved vessel was surely a fake ofhis sample. of course. since those are the few known published Maya pots. and (personal communication from Michael found in Yucatan, the part of the Maya he attempted to identify the figures and Coe, December 1988), and perhaps region most frequented by early visitors some glyphs on the vases with the gods Thompson's misapprehension ofthe pot and where a resident population was more sorted out by Paul Schellhas (1904); he was what condemned it to scholarly ob likely to encounter objects in mounds- correctly identified God D. Itzamna. for scurity for a long time. Not surprisingly. but he reserved his highest praise for example, onone oftheYallochpots (1918: the only serious consideration ofthe pot polychrome pottery, particularly for those Plate 23). He related the Yalloch pots to in the early twentieth century came from examples from Chama that Dieseldorff NaranjO, which is indeed their logical HermannBeyer, whoanalyzed theAcasa had published, and for other specimens source, and he paid close attention to the guastlanVase in light ofthe Aztec Calen that had come into the hands of the patterns ofwearonindividual pots. Gann dar Stone (Beyer 1921). Peabody Museum. was an amateur archaeologist, but he was also a collector for museums. among By 1925, there were enough painted and In 1918. Thomas Gann, a British physi them. the Bristol Museum, which ac carved Maya pots for George B. Gordon cian, published the results ofhis years of quired the Yalloch pots. and J. Alden Mason to undertake their

131 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

three-volume corpus, Examples ojMaya Maya as Sylvanus G. Morley's The An sequence has formed the basis for all Pottery in the Museum and Other Collec cient Maya (1946). In the Gordon and subsequent ceramic sequences in the Maya tions, luxuriously printed folios in full Mason publications, no general comments area, even when not acknowledged by color. Mary Louise Baker, Annie Hunter, were offered about Maya vases, but the modern Maya archaeologists. Although and other artists made color drawings of very richness ofthe publication presented some of the 90-odd Holmul pots are ex the pots, including rollout drawings. them as art, not artifact. tremely interesting for their complex ico Despite its lavish production and limited nographyand beautifulpainting. Vaillant distribution, the Gordon and Mason vol In 1910-11, Raymond E. Merwin had felt that the "pottery found at Holmul is umes, published between 1925 and 1943, conducted extensive excavations at Holmul, extremely important because ofits chrono were known for many years as the stan Guatemala, and there he had "collected logical implications." dard corpus ofMaya vases. That corpus for the Peabody Museum...ceramic mas included examples ofthe pots mentioned terpieces of the Maya" (Spinden 1913: But Vaillant was a museum curator above--Chama, Copan, Nebaj, Yalloch, 141). During this era, archaeology was (American Museum of Natural History) Rio Hondo--with attention to those in other still equatedwith acqUisition for a foreign and collector as well as an archaeologist, collections: the Fenton Collection, the Berlin museum, such as Harvard's Peabody so he also sought to interpret the pots in Museum rur Volkerkunde, and an occa Museum, justas ethnographywas equated some otherframe. Based onwhatwas, by sional example from Mexican or Guate with the acqUisition of a non-industrial the timeofpublicationin 1932, stilla very malan collections. One vessel in the society's religiOUS and magicalobjects for limited sample ofknown Maya pots, Vail corpus is fake (Plate LVll), as Mason himself a museum.2 Merwin completed his dis lant established three broad schools of suspected ("of doubtful authenticity," he sertation in 1913, and then George Vail painting: 1) Copan-Motagua, 2) Pusilha noted). To my eye, this fake vessel seems lant submitted his dissertation in 1927 Uaxactun, and 3) Holmul-Yalloch (Mer to be closely related to the MayaArt Deco on the ceramics from Holmul. Merwin's ill win and Vaillant 1932: 78-83). Vaillant of the 1920s and 1930s (cf. Ingle 1985). health delayed publication ofthe excava made a very prescient prediction: "it might." Conspicuously absent from the volumes tions and pots until 1932, when George he wrote, "be possible, through associ were the Holmul pots, whose separate Vaillant had completed theirjoint study. ated trade wares, to find a fixed point in publication was in progress by the Pea Init, Vaillantpublishedthedesign hehad bodyMuseum (see below) and theAcasa used in the dissertation for the first se 2. DianaFaneofthe BrooklynMuseumhas done guastlan Vase of the Museum of the quence oflowland Maya pottery thatwas extensive research on the methods and goals of American Indian. Black and white line correlated to the Maya LongCount calen Stewart Culin, who acquired a great American drawings were made from the color rol dar--and thus, in turn, to ourown calen Indian coUectionfor that musewn. His goal was collectionofobjects. evento seizethelastremain louts and reproduced in popular litera dar. Vaillant is better known for his work ing sacredobjects ofan indigenous people. such tureand insuchwidelyread bookson the in the Valley of Mexico, but his Holmul as theZuni, but his statedplan was couched as ethnography.

132 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

Mexican history. and with these external of the Maya calendar with the Christian during the city's longlife. From paintings dates to workbackward into a fixed point calendar that established the years AD. and carvings on vases and bowls of the in Mexican history" (1932: 79). Starting 300-900 as the Classic had been ac later periods. when depiction ofthe human in 1936. at KaminalJuyu, A V. Kidder cepted, but the nature of change dUring figure carne into vogue, much was learned began to excavate tombs that produced that erawas not known. AtUaxactun, the about the appearance ofthe people. their Just such trade wares (Kidder, Jennings, archaeologists retrieved hundredsofpots costumes, ornaments, weapons, imple andShook 1946). From theTeotlhuacan from tombs, bUrials, caches, and other ments. and particularly their ceremonial style pots he found he was able to show offerings. In the years before radiocarbon regalia" (1955 I: 11). In otherwords, Smith thesimultaneityoftheEarlyClassicMaya dating. through association with dated soughtto retrieve information ofarchaeo andTeotihuacan. Itwas thefirst concrete monuments, the ceramics, too, could be logical and anthropological value from dating of Teotihuacan and it helped es given secure dates, and they could then the pots, but he made no attempt to tablish theattributionofTula, Hidalgo. as be used, in turn, to date architecture discuss their intrinsic meanings. No the horne ofthe greatToltec predecessors withoutassociated dated sculpture. Gor comprehensive study was ever made of oftheAztec byshowingTeotihuacan to be don R. Willey and Jeremy Sabloff have the inScriptions on the pottery, perhaps earlier. When in 1941 Vaillant published referred to this period of American ar because by the time of publication in his greatlife's work, TheAztecs ofMexico, chaeology as the "Classificatory-Histori 1955. both Sylvanus G. Morley and J. he followed earlier assumptions which cal Period" and have noted that its great Eric S. Thompson had made a powerful placed the Toltecs atTeotlhuacan. Alas, est concern was for chronology (Willey argument that they were meaningless. today he is often remembered more for and Sabloff 1980: 83). Robert E. Smith such misapprehensions than for his fun studied theUaxactun ceramics carefully, In a separate publication, "Two Recent damental contribution to the establish reviewedVaillant's HoIrnulsequence. and Ceramic Finds at Uaxactun," A Ledyard ment ofa Maya ceramic sequence. named the basic ceramic periods still Smith discussed several Uaxactun pots used today: Tzakol 1. 2. and 3 for the ofextraordinarybeauty and iconography In 1926, the Carnegie Institution ofWash Early Classic (AD 250-550) and Tepeu 1, shortly after their excavation in 1931 ingtonbegan 11 yearsofsystematicexca 2. and 3 for the Late Classic (AD 600 (Smith 1932). The pots themselves in vations at Uaxactun, Guatemala. To Oliver 900). He clearly considered pottery to be cluded the Initial SeriesVase. the Uaxac G. Ricketson, A Ledyard Smith. and Robert most important as an archaeological tool tun Dancer Plate, and the UndeIWorld E. Smith. the recovery ofpots from tombs for dating architecture. but he was also Jaguar Plate, but Smith evinced no par located in stratigraphic sequence to one interested in the information yielded by ticular point of view about them other another afforded an opportunity to pro vessels: 'Their structure and decoration than to note that they "have much es vide the basis for temporal distinctions provided gauges ofthe Uaxactun potters' thetic interest." Morley commented on within the Classic period. The correlation development oftechnical arxl artistic ability the inscription of the Initial Series Vase,

133 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

which although in error from his point of 1946, the year Morley's book was pub during the Carnegie excavations of the view. seemed to him to be in distinction lished-so he could write that "by far the 1930s in comparison with the 1890s from most glyphs on pots. which he be bestpaintingsoftheOld Empirethathave excavations, John M. Longyear III ana lieved "to have degenerated into purely come to light...are the polychrome vases lyzed the glyphic notations on Copan pots. decorative elements" (Smith 1932: 21). and bowls of the Great Period found at He suggested that the Copador pottery Morley, as usual, although full of praise Uaxactun, at Holmul, and in the Chama texts "intended at least to imitate glyphs" for the object ("the most important ex region along the upper ChJxoy Riverw (1946: (1952:61) and the carved and incised ample ofancient Maya ceramics yetbrought 415). Morley reiterated the interpretation pots were made by artists "not familiar to lighn. had little to sayaboutthevessel ofthe Initial SeriesVase ofUaxactun that enough with the glyphs to reproduce them as a work ofart. he had made a decade earlier. CUriously, exceptfrom a copyprepared byone ofthe Morley claimed that this same Uaxactun priests" (1952: 65). He astutelynotedthat In his great, synthetic 1946 book. The "tomb contained other polychrome ves the guetzal Vase from the 19th century Ancient Maya. Sylvanus G. Morley de sels of equal beauty," a claim one might Peabody excavations bore a rim text nearly voted a chapter (Chapter 15, "Ceramics: well dispute, particularly based on the identical to the the rim text of the Gann pottery. the best guide to cultural devel poorly drawn illustrations provided by Vase and surmised that "one was obvi opment")toMayapots (Morley 1946: 382 Morley himself(Morley 1946: Figs. 49-51) ously copied from the other, or both were 404). In this chapter. Morley treated Maya By 1950 and the publication ofhis Maya pattemedaftera thirdspecimen"(1952: 64). ceramics essentially for their technical Hferoglyphic Writing, Thompson had come properties (shape. temper, slip) and for to a conclusion that he and Morley shared, The recognition of such patterning was their value to the archaeologist in estab and it shaped a generation of thinking ultimately important to Maya vase paint lishing chronology. Morley wrote one of about Maya vase painting: "Hieroglyphs ing studies, but for the meantime, the the clearest explications ofhow pottery is painted onpotteryvessels appear to have discovery seemed to fuel the notion that useful to the archaeologist and cultural been largely decorative" (1950: 27). He the glyphs on pots were not readable. historian that has ever been written for believed that many glyphs formed orna "Certainglyphsweremuchfavored bythe the Maya. mentalborders. and he found the "sense decorators of pottery and are repeated less mistakes ofa rathersingularnature" over and over again," wroteThompson in However. Morley treated the nature of in calendrical notations proof that the the introduction to his 1962 A Catalog oj painting on Maya vases in a subsequent "artist who painted the details was igno MayaHferoglyphs (1962: 15). "IUssurely chapter. as part of "Miscellaneous Arts rant of hieroglyphic writing" (1950: 27). Significant that among the glyphs par and Crafts," underthesubsection "Paint ticularly favored by potters and copied ing." Few monumental paintings were In his determination of the Copan ce from onepotto anotherare themonkey. a known--Bonampak was only found in ramic sequence from the wares collected fish and a bird, glyphs easily recognized by

134 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

the illiterate" (1962: 16). Thompson also tell a story (1943: 177). He lamented the composition" (Kubler 1962: 171). Ter considered what he interpreted as errors undeciphered glyphs on Maya ceramics. ence Grieder submitted a dissertation on inthe inscriptionofthe InitialSeriesVase He considered overall composition, not the formal qualities ofMayavase painting from Uaxactun to be evidence that the ing that the Initial Series Vase displays in 1962, and in a published article, he painterdid notworkfrom a manuscriptor "splendor, dignity, and movement" and discussed the representations of space drawing. He believed there to be "several the Chama Vase "radiates tension and and form on the pots (1964). He attempted errors indetails ofglyphs which showthe displays more action than is usually to study forms without analysis of their artist's Ignorance ofhis subject and which depicted..... (Kelemen 1943: 180). In 1944 meaning. a difficult task underany circum couldhardlyhaveappeared hadthisbeen Salvador Toscano wrote in a similar vein stances. a careful copy of a priest-astronomer's and drew attention to what he called the drawing" (1962: 17). "realismo pict6rico maya" (Toscano 1970: This flurry of writing by art historians 159). Jose Pijoan drew largely historical treated anessentiallyunchanged corpus. In general, Thompson paid very little at conclusions about Maya pottery (e.g. that The body ofMaya pots published byGordon tention to Maya pots. Havingdecided that "Old Empire" refugees must have taken and Mason, Merwin and Vaillant, and theirglyphs were ofno value, he had little any fme Maya pots to the highlands) Smith had been fIxed by World War II. It concern for the painting, carvlng, or (1946: 438). Like Toscano, Paul Wes was essentially this pre-war corpus with imagery, and he was known to condemn theim, too, was drawn to the more simple additions from Tikal and Altar de SacIif1 various vessels as forgeries. One vessel, life shown on Maya ceramics ("estan ausen cios that Marta Foncerrada and Sonia however, struck a resonant chord: the tes los dioses'1, indistinction to the stone Lombardo de Ruiz treated in their 1979 GannVase, which seemed to him to illus monuments, which were thought at the catalogue.3 Postwar excavators turned fIrst trate a Kekchi myth he had recorded time to show priests or gods (1950:239). to less elite settlements and were preoc about the moon's betrayal of the sun George Kubler first suggested in 1962 cupied with settlement pattern and daily (1939). He repeated his thesis about this that Maya pots reflected a lost "coeval life. Archaeologists, from 1940 to1960, pot throughout his life (cf. Thompson school ofmanuscIipt illumination" (Kubler essentially ceased to discover fme Maya 1970). 1962: 171), a notion thatwasrevived later potterybecause theywere no longerfmd by Michael Coe and others (Coe 1973; ing the tombs ofthe noblllty nor even the Starting in the 19405, art historians began Robicsek and Hales 1983, 1988). He tombs ofother wealthy persons. In fact, to pay attention to Maya vases. In 1943, believed that "Maya painters of this pe despite the discoveryofoneofthegreatest Pal Kelemen wrote that "one ofthe great riod also transferred the pagination of Maya tombs, that of King Pacal, in the est artistic achievements ofthe Maya was book-like compositions to pottery sur their painted pottery," and he was par faces" and noted that the form of the 3. They described their corpus as the pots with ticularly interested in the abllltyofpots to cylindricalvasereinforces the"re-entrant archaeological provenience, but for some Wi stated reason, they omitted the Seibal pots.

135 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

TempleofInscriptions atPalenque. many al. in 1961 at Temple University as a like god" (1963:92). But by 1971. when archaeologists. particularly in Mexico. clearinghouse for the nomenclature used Adams published the complete inventory began to say that Maya lords were not for Maya pottery. Interestingly enough. of Altar ceramics. he had identified the buried in pyramids at all. Archaeology of for the first eleven years of publication. texts and figures as those of historical the great cities languished. When a single. Geramica usually featured an unprove persons who attended funerary rituals significant pot was published by Frans nanced work of Maya art on the cover. (Adams1971). This appeared to be the Blom--who suggested that its imagery despite the fact that said work was never first major breakthrough in interpreting could be interpreted in light ofthe tale of discussed in the issue; in 1972. policy the inscriptions on Maya pottery. the HeroTwins in the Popol Yuh (1950)- apparently shifted. and all subsequent it was completely ignored. covers featured archaeologica1ly excavated Beginningwith the 1960s. museumsand vessels. collectors. particularly in the United States. In turn. the "new" archaeology necessi but also throughout the world. acquired tated greater use ofpottery for mechani The epigraphic revolution set in motion greatnumbersofMayavases thathadnot cal purposes. "Recently. with a shift in by Yuri Knorosov (English publication been previously known. The Museum of interest to smaller. presumablydomestic 1968). Heinrich Berlin (1958) and Ta Primitive Art (now incorporated into the or rural sites that are devoid of monu tiana Proskouriakoff (1960. 1963. 1964) Metropolitan Museum ofArt) acquired its ments or great architectural endeavors. initially had little effect on the study of famous pot in 1969; Dumbarton Oaks ceramics have assumed a more impor Maya vases. Unlike the stone monuments. builtits collectionoffine potsinthe 1960s tantrole asindicators oftlme" (Smith and the vases did not seem to relate dynastic and 1970s. Almost all Maya pots of this Gifford 1965: 498). Ceramicists became sequences ofthe sort Proskouriakoffhad era travelled the trail of the art market: specialized practitioners of archaeology. documented for Yaxchilan or Piedras they were generally looted from their and usually one such specialist was in Negras; theknowncorpus of1960did not contextsandbythe time theyreached the cluded on every major excavation. "A include pots with the prominent emblem United States. it was frequently difficult detailed knowledge of ceramic develop glyphs Berlin had isolated. The vases. to detennine theirplaces oforigin.4 Bythe ments is necessary for a proper evalu then. continued to be thought of as the end ofthe decade. few of these pots had ation of such phenomena (i.e. connec work ofilliterate artists. After the discov been published and only one had re tions with Central Mexico. diffusion. eryofthe now-famousAltarde Sacrificios ceived scholarly treatment. the Museum migration) and their place in the broader pot. RE.W. Adams believed it to bear outlines of Mesoamerican prehistory" illustrations ofgods and their celebrants (Rands and Smith 1965: 95). As an parallel to those Thompson had described 4. A given provenance may at times have been outgrowth of such speCialized ceramic in the Bonampak murals (Ruppert. attached to a piece to make it more valuable; in studies.JamesandCarolGifford founded Thompson. and ProskoUIiakoff 1955). with other sftuatfons. a dealer may have cautiously thejournal Ceramica de CulturaMayaet. ceremonies in "honor of the Tepeyollotl- refrainedfrom offering such information.

136 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

of Primitive Art Vase. now known as the previously known material. and he drew Thompson. Coe argued that the texts Metropolitan Vase (Foncerrada 1970). Two some astonishing conclusions. Coe sug were indeed meaningful. and that the exhibitions ofthe early 1970s ignored the gested that much ofthe imageryon Maya pattern Longyear recognized was wide 'new' objects: neither the Metropolitan vases derived from a long-lost corpus of spread. with both geographical breadth Museum ofArt·s blockbuster BeJore Cortes: Classic mythology. of which the tales of and chronological depth. Coe called this Sculpture ojMiddle America (Easby and the HeroTwins in the Popol Vuh were but highly patterned text the "Primary Stan Scott 1970) nor the Center for Inter a small fragment.5 and that this imagery dard Sequence" (Coe 1973: 18) and sug AmericanRelations'smallexhibit. TheArt was particularlygiven to funerary ceram gested that it was the "glyphic form of a oj Maya Hieroglyphic Writing (Graham ics because of their very nature: they long hymn which could have been sung 1971). considered a single example ofthe formed a "bookofthe dead." carried to the over thedead ordying person. describing new corpus. Underworld by the deceased noble. Nar the descent of the Hero Twins to the ratives and scenes thus previously thought Underworld..." (Coe 1973: 22). Coeiden In 1970. Michael D. Coe began work to to illustratedailylife (the ChamaVase. for titled a hitherto unrecognized school of help organize an exhibition on ancient example) could be re-interpreted as scenes Maya vase painting as the "Codex style"6 Maya writing at the Grolier Club. "While relating to the gods and the Underworld. (Coe 1973: Plates 42-46) and proposed mounting the exhibit. and especiallywhile Coe hypothesized that two gods in par that masters of manuscript art painted studying the texts that occasioned it. it ticular. God N and God L. were the ruling these pots. transferring images in black became quite clear that the focal point of lords ofthe Underworld. because oftheir or brown line from codex pages to the the catalogueshouldbe the large number frequency; he also noted the strtking cream-coloredsurfaces ofMaya cylinders. of painted and carved funerary vases absence of a number of gods. among whichwerebrought...togetherfor thefirst them. Chaco the Maize God. God D. and All in all. The Maya Scribe and His World time" (Coe 1973: 5). Once the Grolier God K (Coe 1973: 14-15). revolutionized the study of Maya pots. exhibition. The MayaScribe andHis World and arguments soon surfaced among (April 20 to June 5. 1971) closed. follow But perhaps most strikingly. Coe took a archaeologists and arthistorians: Should ingtheestablished tradition ofvase stud new arid comprehensive look at the in a corpus of looted pots be studied? Did ies. Coe had each Maya pot"rolled out"by scriptions on Maya pots. particularly the legally excavated pots really have the same an artist. He noted that the "subject matter rim texts. among them the two similar Primary Standard Sequence (Coggins ofthis pottery. and the hieroglyphic texts ones previously identified by Longyear painted or inSCribed upon it. have been (see above). In direct contradiction of 6. The Metropolitan Vase (Cae 1973: Plate 44J generally ignored by archaeologists and hadalready beenpublished in. Thompson 1970, Plate 14. and by Marta Foncerrada (1970J. wlw art historians" (1973: 11). He considered 5. As noted above. Frans Blom had already linked a single Maya vessel to a tale from the recognized its magnifu:ent quality and unusual the newcorpus ofMaya pots inllghtofthe Popol Vuh. style.

137 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

1975: 525)? Were not some ofthe scenes Vase (Kerr #496) was used by David Jo onMaya potteryillustrationsofmundane ralemon as the point of departure for an life (Gifford 1974; Kubler 1977; Paul 1976; identification of the widespread practice Reents and Bishop 1985)? Up until pub of penis perforation (1974). Based on lication of The Maya Scribe. Maya pots images from Maya ceramics. Peter Furst had been thought to conform to the pre and Michael Coe brought the Maya prac Figure 2 1960 paradigm of Classic Maya history: tice ofritual enemas to attention in 1977 the Maya were a pure, noble race who (Furst and Coe 1977). Nicholas Hellmuth Dumbarton Oaks corpus had been rolled dwelt in a time oftheocratic peace, ruled has focussed on the representations of out in life-size color drawings. but in the over by priestly timekeepers and sky gods (Hellmuth 1987), and the ones flrst year ofits publication, 1975, Justin Kerr watchers, who guided the illiterate through thoughtbyCoe to be absentfrom the pots began to use his rollout camera. a ma agricultural rituals on their occasional have been identified (e.g., God K in Ro chine he first hypothesized constructing visits to vacant ceremonial centers. Epi bicsek 1978; the Maize God in Taube in 1971. In 1975 he made his first suc graphic work by Knorosov, Berlin. and 1985; Chac by Stuart. as cited in Schele cessful rollout photographs with the camera Proskouriakoff had already established and Miller 1986, and God D inHellmuth, he designed and buUt. some of which that the Maya lords were dynastic warri n.d.). Hellmuth described other grisly were published in "Lords." Although the ors who chronicled the stuffoftheir own rituals (Hellmuth. n.d.). Coe went on to diagram (Figure 2) suggests a simple ma lives on their monuments: birth, acces identify the gods and patrons ofwriting. chine, theprinciplehas onlyusedbeenby sion. marriage. warfare. and death. But the Monkey Scribes. half-brothers to the others twice. once by the National Geo study of the pots. ifthought about at all, Hero Twins (Coe 1977). Coe also pub graphic Society. (see, for example, Stuart had lagged far behind. lished other corpuses ofMaya vases that 1975; Stuart and Stuart 1977. endpa had previously notbeen known: in 1975, pers) and once inEurope. for Lin Crocker With the recognition of both the greatly heexamined theDumbarton Oaks collec (BeIjonneau et al 1985).7 Kerr rollouts expanded corpus and the new light in tion and in 1978, he wrote the catalogue have been made for many subsequent which they could be examined. a world of to an exhibition at the Princeton Univer volumes (Coe 1982; Robicsek and Hales interpretations was opened through the sityArtMuseum (Coe 19751978;seealso 1981, 1982; Schele and Miller 1986; study of Maya vases. A good many more Coe 1982). Lords ojthe Underworld. Parsons et al 1988) and widely repro- notions about the Classic Maya were overturned through recognition of the The exhibition, Lords ofthe Underworld: 7. Othersmayhavebeendeuisedforphotograph rituals depicted on Maya pottery. Al Masterpieces of Maya Ceramics, also in ing Greek vases. 11le British Musewn. for ex though identified as a bloodletting potby troduced a newtechnologyto the studyof ample, was able to rollout the Fenton Vase (Kerr #2894 J, perhaps with a camera invented for Thompson (1961), the Huehuetenango Maya vases: the rollout camera. The other works.

138 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

duced in others. In general. the rollout material in Clancy et. al. 1985). RE.W. tions. Adams first read the texts on the camera has made the draftsman's rollout Adams has also directed excavations at AltarVase in 1971 as identifying the per obsolete. but Hellmuth. for example. has Rio Azul (Adams 1986). Diane and Arlen son in the tomb and the attendants at continued to commission drawings ofMaya Chase have recovered fine pots in the funerary rites. Following a placement of pots (Hellmuth 1976; Clarkson 1978). Peten. atSanta Rita. and now. at Caracol and somearchaeologists continueto have (A. Chase 1985; Chase and Chase1987). drawings made of the vessels they exca Underthe successive direction ofGordon vate. R Willey. Claude Baudez. William T. Sanders, and nowWilliam L. Fash. Copan In the 1960s. archaeologists returned to has been the site ofrenewed archaeologi the excavation ofmajor ceremonial archi cal investigation. Finely painted Maya tecture at Tikal and Altar de Sacrificios. vases have been recovered and studied and a new archaeological corpus ofMaya from alltheseandyetothersites (Rice and vases began to be assembled ryv. Coe Sharer 1987). Independent ceramic se 1967; Coggins 1975;Adams 1971.1977). quences. based in large part on the Holmul Clemency Coggins successfully con and Uaxactun findings. have been de Figure 3 structed a narrative of the Classic kings vised for these two sites. and some new at Tikal that was based on art. archaeol terminology offered. although in general. thecalendarround dateonthepot. hede ogy. epigraphy. and whole tomb lots. most depend on the chronologies and termined that one of the protagonists including many pots. In the 1960s and typologies established by Vaillant and mightbe BirdJaguartheGreatofYaxchi 1970s. David Pendergast and Norman RE. Smith. lan, whose glyph hebelieved he had iden Hammond. among others, recovered Maya tified. and whose emblem glyph surely pots from Altun Ha. Nohmul, and other Alongwith manyofthe potswitharchaeo does appear on the pot. As art historians sites (pendergast 1979.1982; Hammond logical context, a single archaeologically and some anthropologists began to re 1985). Susannah Ekholm recovered an excavated pot (Figure 3) has been singled think the implications of the scenes and enormous garbage dump or ceremonial out as oneofthe greatest masterpieces of texts on painted pots in general. includ cache filled with broken pots and figu Maya vase painting. Itis the "Altar" Vase ingthe unprovenienced corpus. manyar rines at Lagartero. Chiapas. in the late (Adams 1977; Schele 1988). which was chaeologists dogmatically supported the 1970s (Ekholm 1979). In the 1980s. the found in a minor burial associated with a Adams interpretation of the Altar Vase Guatemalan government directed exten major tomb at Altar de Sacriflcios. Per (Hammond 1982; Morley and Sharer 1983), sive excavations atbothTIkal and Uaxac haps no other single Maya vase has been even goingso far as to redrawand repoSi tun (see. for example, the Mundo Perdido the subject of such disputed interpretation the glyphs to make the argument

139 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

logical provenience. istheidentificationof more believable (rover ofHenderson 1981). fakes. Maya pots have been forged for their origins (Bishop et. aI. 1982; Bishop For many archaeologists, a line against manyyears. Even a vessel in the Gordon et. al. 1985). Although it may be many looted pots had to be drawn. and by and Mason corpus appears to be fake years before large-scale results are known, following the Adams interpretation. they (plate LVII), and many others have been the study promises greater knowledge of positioned themselves on the side of the published over theyears (Dwyer and Dwyer unprovenienced wares and. with the linewith thosewhodid notusesuchpots, 1975, Plates 25 and 26; Von Winning provenienced pots, an understanding of regardlessofthecorrectness orincorrect 1978; Clancy et. al. 1985, Plates 77). Maya trading patterns. ness of the reading of the glyphs. Increasingly skillful forgers have become adept at copying real Maya pots, but it is Meanwhile. the corpus has continued to The great boom in the number of Maya usuallyjustsuch copyingthatgives away expand (Tate 1985; Couch 1988; BeIjon vases excavated both legally and illegally their art. Forgers are less likely to draw neau et. al.1985; Schele and Miller 1986; hasled toa needonthepartofallscholars accurate glyphic texts. Perhaps an even Clancyet. aI. 1985; Parsons et. aI. 1988). for systematic documentation ofthe cor greater problem is over-restoration (Tay Battle lines continue to be drawn about pus. In 1970, Nicholas Hellmuthbeganto lor 1982). in wWch a perfectly authentic the legitimacyofstudyingonepotand not photographall Mayavases inGuatemala. pot is heavily repainted. Maya Wero another (e.g. Klein 1988; Schele and Miller manyofwWchsub~uentlyappearedon glyphs are the least likely part of the 1988). Princeton University Press has the art market. He sold copies or partial painting to be retouched. but even archae just issued a volume that focuses on the copies of Ws archive to the University of ologicallyexcavated pots arenot immune study of Maya vases and their iconogra Texas atSanAntonio (cf. guirarte 1979). to repaint (e.g. Clancy et. aI. 1985: Plate phy, and yet more cWlling revelations DumbartonOaks, Washington, D.C.• and 95). The Kerr corpus frequently includes about the Maya will probably be forth the Metropolitan Museum ofArt. among rollout photographs of Maya vases in coming (Benson and Griffin 1988). Pri others. He has continued to build Ws various states ofrestoration. but to avoid vate collections age and become part of archive and has slowly begun to publish great repetition. only one version of a the public domain (e.g. Coe 1982; Couch it (1987, 1988). Justin and Barbara Kerr given Maya pot will be published. 1988). Ongoing archaeological projects have kept a record of every Maya vase continue to yield new works. Through they have rolled out, and in tWs volume In 1978, with support from Brookhaven careful examination ofthe corpus, schol they have now begun to publish the cor NationalLaboratoryand theSmithsonian ars are now beginning to recognize indi pus in the order in which this photo Institution. Ronald Bishop, Dorte Reents, vidual hands within schools of painting graphic record has been made. and others began to study the ceramic (Kerr and Kerr 1988; Schele and Miller wares ofboth provenienced and unprov 1986). The Kerrs have identified three One ofthe problems ofan expanded cor enienced pots. in the hopes of discover painters. the Princeton Painter. the Met pus. particularly one without archaeo- ing. through analysis of trace elements, ropolitan Painter. and the Fantastic Painter,

140 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

BIBLIOGRAPHY

who all work in "codex" style, and they glyph for cylindervase, andhehasshown Adams, R E. W. 'The Ceramics ofAltar de first recognJzed the Master of the Pink convincingly that many pot rim texts, Sacriftcios PeabodyMuseumPapers 63:1. Glyphs, although they now believe that including part of the Primary Standard Cambridge: Peabody Museum 1971. __"Comments on the Glyphic Texts of the the Pink Glyph pots may be the work of Sequence, read somethingto theeffect of: 'Altar Vase. 'Social Process in Maya Pre severalpainters inthesameworkshop. In "Here it is written, on this vase, used for history".Ed.NorrnanHammond. New York: 1975, Clemency Coggins noted that the cacao; his writing, So and So, the Scribe, Academic Press, 1977, pp. 412-420. potsofTikal Burial 116 hadallbeenmade his title, ofthis place"(Stuart 1988). What __"A Polychrome Vessel from Altar de by the same individual, but that each is particularly exciting about this deci Sacrtficios, Guatemala". Archaeology 16 vessel had then been painted by a differ phermentis thatitreveals theuseand pa (1963), pp. 90-92. __"Rio Azul, Lost City of the Maya". ent person (Coggins 1975). Much other tronage ofthe vessel. Stuarthas also read National Geographic Magazine 169:4 work can now be done on the styles and the glyphs identifying both painter and (AprtlI986), pp.420-451. handsofMayapainted ceramics, particu carver ofpainted and carved Maya vases Benson, Elizabeth P.and Gillett G.Griffin, eds. larlyas the published corpus grows. (1987). For the first time, we now know Maya Iconography. Princeton: Princeton the names ofMaya scribes and artists. It University Press, 1988. Someofthemostpromisingresearehnow is perhaps in theserecentglyphic studies Berjonneau, Gerald, Emile Deletaille, and undeIWay on Maya pots regards their that the greatest breakthroughs in the Jean-Louis Sonnery. Rediscovered Masterpieces ofMesoameri hieroglyphic texts. In the 19th century, studies of Maya vases are being made, ca: Mexico-GuatemaIa-Honduras. Boul Stephens, DieseldorfI, Forstemann, and and it is perhaps through such glyphic ogne, France: Editions Arts 135, 1985. others recognized that an understanding studies thatarthistorians andarchaeolo Berlin, Heinrich. "EI glifo emblema en las in of Maya vases and their imagery would gists may find some common ground. scripctones mayas." Journal de la comein tandemwith thedeciphermentof Societe des Americanistes, n.s. 47 their glyphic texts. In 1979, Peter Mathews (1958),111-119. Beyer, Hermann. Elllamado CalendarioAzteca' identified the phrase "u tup," or, his ear DescripclDn e interpreta.cii>n del cuauhxi spool (Mathews 1979) on an Altun Ha calli de la 'Casa de las Aguilas'. Mexico, flare. With this "name-tagging" as a model, George Kubler suggested additional ave 1921. Stephen Houston and Karl Taube have nues ofinquhy. Michael Coe, George Stuart, Bishop, Ronald L., Garman Harbottle, recently shown that many Maya plate Ed Kamens, andJustinand BarbaraKerr Edward V. Sayre. "Chemical and Math texts, at the end ofthe Primary Standard all read earlydrafts ofthis essayand gave ematical Procedures Employed in the Sequence, read "u lak," or, his plate, me thoughtful advice. Mayan Fine Paste Ceramics Project." Analyses ofFYne Paste Ceramics, excava followed by the name and titles of the tions atSeibal,GuatemaIa. Ed. Jeremy A ruler (Houston and Taube 1987). David Sabloff .Memoirs of the Peabody Museum Stuart has now gone on to identiJY the 15: 2.Cambridge: Harvard Univ., 1982. , __and Lambertus Van Zelst, "A Paste-

141 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

Compositional Investigation ofClassic Sidrys. Institute ofArchaeology Mono __"A Pottery Vase with Figure painting Maya Polychrome Art." Fourth Palenque graph No.8. Los Angeles: UCLA, 1978. from a Grave in Chama." U.S. Bureau of Round Table. 1980. Vol. VI. Gen. Ed. pp.86-141. American Ethnology Bulletin 28. 1904. Merle Greene Robertson; Vol. Ed. Coe. Michael D. Classic Maya Pottery at Dum pp.639-44. Elizabeth P. Benson. San Francisco: barton Oaks. Washington. D.C.: __Kunst und Religion der MayavOlker im Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. Dumbarton Oaks. 1975. alten und heutigen Mittelamerika. 3 vols. 1985. pp. 159-165. __Lords ofthe Underworld: Masterpieces Berlin and Hamburg, 1926-33. Blom. Frans." A Polychrome Plate from ofClassic Maya Ceramics. Princeton: Dl1tting. Dieter. ''Algunas consideraciones Quintana Roo." Carnegie Institution of Princeton University Press. 1978. sobre el trabajo de Heinrich Berlin The Washington. Notes on Middle American __TIle Maya Scribe and His World. Palenque Triad. '" Estudios de Cultura Archaeology and Ethnology. No. 98. New York: Grolier Club. 1973. Maya5. 1965. 135-144. 1950. __Old Gods and Young Heroes: TIle Dwyer. Jane P.. and Edward B. Sculpture CerCunicn de Cultura Maya. Temple Uni Pearlman Collection ofMaya Ceramics. from the Land Collection ofMesoamerican versity. 1961 Jerusalem: Israel Museum. 1982. Art San Francisco: Fine Arts Museums Charnay. Desire. Ancient Cities ofthe New __"Supernatural Patrons of Maya Scribes ofSan Francisco. 1975. World. New York: Harper. 1888. and Artists". Social Process in Maya Pre Easby. Elizabeth Kennedy, and John F. Scott. Chase. Arlen F. "Contextual Implications of history. Ed. Norman Hammond. New Before Cortes: Sculpture ofMiddle Pictor1al Vases from Tayasal. Peten." York: Academic Press. 1977. pp. 327-47. America. New York: Metropolitan Fourth Pa!enque Round Table. 1980. __and PeterT. Furst. "Ritual Enemas." Museum. 1970. Vol. VI. Gen. Ed. Merle Greene Natural History 86: 3. pp. 88-91. Eckholm. Susanna M. 'The Significance ofan Robertson; Vol. Ed. Elizabeth P. Benson. Coe. William R TIka1: A Handbook ofthe Extraordinary Maya Ceremonial Refuse San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Ancient Maya Ruins. Philadelphia: Deposit at Lagartero. Chiapas." Actes du Research Institute. 1985. pp. 193-201. University Museum. 1967. XLI1" Congres International des Amen __and Diane Z. Chase. Glimmers ofa Coggins. Clemency C. Painting and Drawing canistes 8 (1976). Paris, pp. 147-59. Forgotten Realm: Maya Archaeology at Styles at TIkal: An Historical and Foncerrada. Marta. "Reflexiones sobre la Caracol. Belize. Orlando: Univ. of Iconographic ReconstructioTL Ph.D. diss.. decoraci6n de un vaso maya". Ana1es del Central FlOrida. 1 987. Harvard. 1975. Ann Arbor: University Instftuto de Investigaciones Esteticas 39 Clancy. Flora S.• Clemency C. Coggins. T. Microfilms. 1975. (1970). pp. 79-86. Patrick Culbert, Charles Gallenkamp. Couch. Christopher. Pre-Colwnbian Artfrom __and Sonia Lombardo de Ruiz. Vasyas Peter D. Harrison. and Jeremy A. Sabloff. the Ernest Erickson Collection at the Pintadas Mayas en Contexto Arqueolilgico. Maya: Treasures ofanAncient Civiliza American Musewn ofNatural History. Mexico: UNAM. 1979. tioTL New York: Abrams and Albuquer New York: American Museum ofNatural Forstemann. Ernst. 'The Vase ofChama." que Museum. 1985. History. 1988. U.S. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Clarkson, Persis. Classic Maya Pictorial Ce Dieseldorff. E.P. "A Clay Vessel with a Picture Bulletin 28. 1904. pp. 647-SO. ramics: A Survey ofContent and Theme. ofa Vampire-headed Deity." U.S. Bureau Gann. Thomas W. F. TIle Maya Indians of Papers on the Economy andArchitecture ofAmericanEthnology Bulletin 28. pp. Southern Yucatan and Northern British ofthe Ancient Maya. Ed. Raymond 665-66.•withremarks by Paul Schellhas. Honduras. United States Bureau of

142 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

American Ethnology Bulletin 64. 1918. Hellmuth, Nicholas M. Basal Ftange Bowls Among the Ancient Maya. Part 1. Gifford. James C. Recent 'Thought Concern and Tetrapods: Early Classic Maya Icon Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque. Part ing the Interpretation ofMaya Prehis ography and Ceramic Form. Corpus of 2. Ed. Merle Greene Robertson. Pebble tory:' In MesoamericanArchaeology: Maya Art. Vol. III. Culver City: Beach. Calif.: Robert Louis Stevenson NewApproaches. ed. Norman Hammond. F.L.A.AR. 1988.. School. 1974, pp. 59-77. London: Duckworth, 1974. pp. 77-98. __"Human Sacrifice ar#d the Dance after Kelemen. Pal. Medieval AmericanArt. 2 vols. Gordon. George Byron. Prehistoric Ruins of Decapitation as Depicted on Late Classic New York: Macmillan. 1943. Copan. Honduras: A Preliminary Report of Maya Vase Paintings:' Paper read at the Kelley. David H. Mesoamerica: "Gods, Kings, the Explorations ofthe Museum 1891-95. International Symposium on Maya Art, and the Maya Underworld". (Review of PeabodyMuseum Memoirs.Cambridge, Architecture. Archaeology, and Hiero Coe 1973, 1975. 1978. and 1982) 1896.. glyphic Writing, Guatemala City, n.d. Quarterly Review ofArchaeology (June __Researches inthe Uloa Valley, Honduras. (1977). 1983).14. Peabody MuseumMemoirs. 1. Cambridge. __Monster uncI Menschen in der Maya Kerr. Barbara and Justin:' Some Observa 1898. Kunst. Graz: Akademische Druck, 1987. tionson Maya Vase Painters."Maya __and J. Alden Mason. Examples of __'The Old Gods: God D, God N. and God Iconography. Ed. Elizabeth P. Benson Maya Pottery in the Museum and Other L: Supernaturals. 'Gods: and Mythical and Gillett G. Griffin. Princeton: Collections. 3 vols.Philadelphia: University Characters Part I." Corpus ofMaya Art. Princeton Univ. Press, 1988. pp. 236 Museum. 1925-43. F.LA.A.R.. n.d. 259. Graham. Ian. 1heArt ofMaya Hieroglyphic __Tzakol and Tepeu Maya Pottery Paint Kidder. Alfred V. Jesse Jennings. and Edwin Writing. New York: Center for Inter ings: Rollout Drawings by Barbara Van Shook. Excavations atKaminaYuyu, American Relations. 1971. Heusen. Persis Clarkson. and Un Crocker. Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Grieder. Terence. 1he Development ofRepre Guatemala: F.L.AAR., 1976. Washington. Publication 561, 1946. sentational Painting on Pottery ofthe Henderson, John. 1he World ofthe Maya. Klein, Cecilia F. " Mayamania: 'The Blood of Central Maya Lowlands During the Proto Ithaca: Cornell, 1981. Kings' in Retrospect:' ArtJournal 47: 1 Classic and Classic Periods. Ph.D. diss.• Holmes. William H. Archaeological Studies (Spring 1988). pp. 42-46. University of Pennsylvania 1962. Among the Ancient Cities of Mexico. Field Knorosov, Yuri V. Selected Chaptersfrom the __"Representation ofSpace and Form in Columbian Museum, Publication 16. Writing ofthe Maya Indians. Trans. Maya Painting on Pottery:' American Chicago 1895-97. Sophie Coe. Russian Translation Series AntiqUity 29: 4 (1964),4422-48 Houston. Stephen D., and Karl A Taube. ofthe PeabodyMuseum. vol 4. Cambridge: Hammond. Norman. Ancient Maya Civiliza "'Name-tagging' in Classic Mayan Script: Peabody Museum. 1967. tion. New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1982. Implications for Native Classifications of Kubler. George. Art andArchitecture ofAncient __'The Sun is Hid: Classic Depictions of a Ceramics and Jade Ornaments." Mexicon America. Baltlmore:Pelican.1962., ed. Maya Myth:' In Fourth Palenque Round 9: 2 (May 1987). pp. 38-41. __Pre-Columbian Art ofMexico and Central Table. 1980. Gen. Ed. Merle Greene Ingle. MaIjorie. 1he Mayan Revival Style: Art America. New Haven: Yale University Art Robertson;Vol. Ed. ElizabethP. Benson. Deco Mayan Fantasy. Salt Lake City: Gallery. 1986. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Gibbs M. Smith. 1984. Kurbjuhn. Kornelia. Precolumbian Fans in Research Institute, 1985. Joralemon, David. "Ritual Blood-Sacrifice Mesoamerica. Unpublished M.A. Thesis,

143 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

SUNY Albany 1976. Royal Ontarto Museum, 1979. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, Longyear, John. Copan Ceramics. Carnegie __Excavations atAltun Ha, Belize, 1964 1985, pp. 57-64. Institution ofWashington Pub. 597. 70, Vol. 2. Toronto: Royal Ontarto Rice, Prudence M., and Robert J. Sharer, eds. Washington, D.C. 1952. Museum, 1982. Maya Ceramics: Papersfrom the 1985 Maler, Teobert. Researches in the Central Pijoan, Jose. SummaArtis: Historia General Maya Ceramic Conference. Oxford: Portion ofthe Usumatsintla Valley. delArte. Vol. X: Arte Precolombiano, B.A.R International Sertes, 1987. PeabodyMuseumMemoirs,2. Cambrtdge: Mexicano y Maya. Madrtd: Espasa Ricketson, Oliver G., and E. B. Ricketson. Peabody Museum, 1901-03. Calpe, 1946. Uaxcu::tun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926· Mathews, Peter. 'The Glyphs on the Ear Proskourtakoff, Tatiana. "Hlstortcal Data in 1937. Carnegie Institution of Washington Ornaments from Tomb A-I/ 1". Excava the Inscrtptions ofYaxchilan, Part I." Publication 477. Washington, D.C. 1937. tions atAltun Ha, Belize 1964-70, Vol. 1. Estudios de Cultura Maya 3 (1963), Robicsek, Francis. The Smoking Gods: Ed. David Pendergast. Toronto: Royal pp.149-67. Tobacco in Maya Art, History, and Ontarto Museum, pp. 79-80. __"Historical Data in the Inscriptions of Religion. Norman: Univ. ofOkla. Press, Maudslay, Alfred Percival. Biologia Centrali Yaxchilan, Part II."Estudios de Cultura 1978. Americana: Archaeology. 5 vols. London: Maya 4 (1964), pp. 177-201. __and Donald Hales. The Maya Book of Dulen and Co., 1899-1901. __"HistOrical Implications ofa Pattern of the Dead: The Ceramic Codex. Norman: Merwin, Raymond E., and George C. Vaillant. Dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala". Univ. ofOklah. Press, 1982. The Ruins ofHolmu1., Guatemala. Peabody AmericanAntiquity 25 (1960), pp. 454 __Maya Ceromic Vasesfrom the Lote Museum Memoirs, 3 (2),1932. 475. Classic Period: The November Collection of Miller, Virginia E." A Reexamination ofMaya guirarte, Jacinto. 'The Representation of Maya Ceramics. Charlottesville:University Gestures ofSubmission." Journal ofLatin Underworld Processions in Maya Vase Museum ofVirginia, 1982. American Lore 9:1 (1983), 17-38. Painting: An Iconographic Study." In Ruppert, Karl, J. Ertc S. Thompson, and Morley, Sylvanus G. TheAncient Maya. Palo Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed. Tatlana Proskourtakoff. Bonampak, Alto: Stanford, 1946. Norman Hammond and Gordon R Chiapas, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of George W. Brainerd, and Robert J. Sharer. Willey. Austin: University ofTexas, Washington Pub. 602. Washington, D.C. TheAncient Maya. Fourth Edition. Palo 1979, pp. 116-148. 1955. Alto: Stanford, 1983. Rands, Robert L., and Robert E. Smith. Saville, Marshall H. "A Sculptured Vase from Parsons, Lee A., John B. Carlson and Peter "Pottery ofthe Guatemalan Highlands." Guatemala." LeqfIets ofthe Museum of David Joralemon. The Face ofAncient In Handbook ofMiddle American Indians, the American Indian, Heye Foundation I, America: The Wally and BrendaZoUman Vol. II, Part 1. Austin: University of New York, 1919. Collection ofPrecolumbianArt.Indianapo Texas: 1965, pp.95-145. Schele, Unda. 'The X1balba Shuffie: A Dance lis: Indianapolis Museum ofArt, 1988. Reents, Dorie J., and Ronald L. Bishop. After Death." in Maya Iconography. Ed. Paul, Anne." History on a Maya Vase?" "History and Ritual Events on a Petexba Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Archaeology 29, no. 2 (1976), pp. I, 118 tun Classic Maya Polychrome Vessel". Griffin. Princeton: Prtnceton Univ. Press 126. Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983. Vol. pp. 294-317. Pendergast, David M. Excavations atAltun VII. Gen. ed. Merle Greene Robertson, __and Mary Ellen Miller. The Blood of Ha, Belize, 1964-70, Vol I. Toronto: Vol. ed. Virginia Fields. San Francisco: Kings: Ritual and Dynasty in Maya Art

144 THE MAYA VASE BOOK

Fort Worth and New York: Kimbell Art vols. New York: Harper and Brothers, Estudios de Cultura Maya 1 (1961). pp. Museum and Braziller. 1986. 1841. 13-20. ___and Mal)' Ellen Miller "Letter to the Stuart. David." 'The Rio Azul Cacao Pot __A Catalog ofMaya Hieroglyphs. Editor" (response to Cecilia Klein). Art Epigraphic Observations on the Function Norman: University ofOklahoma. 1962. Jouma147: 3 (Fall 1988). p. 253. ofaMaya Ceramic Vessel." Antiquity 62 __MayaHieroglyphicWriting: Introduction. Schellhas. Paul. "Representation of Deities of (1988). pp. 153-57. Carnegie Institution ofWashington. Pub the Maya Manuscripts." Peabody __'Ten Phonetic Syllables." Research lication 589. 1950. Museum Papers 4: 1. 1904. Reports onAncientMaya Writing 14. __Maya History and Religion. Norman: SeIer. Eduard. 'The Vase ofChama." U.S. Washington. D.C.: Center for Maya University ofOklahoma. 1970. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin Research. 1987. __'The Moon Goddess in Middle America 28. 1904. pp. 651-664. Stuart. George E. '''The Maya Riddle ofthe with Notes on Related Deities." Carnegie __Gesanunelte Abhandltmgen zurAmeri Glyphs." National Geographic Magazine. Institution ofWashington Contribution kanischen Sprach und Altertumskunde. 5 December 1975.• toAmerican Archaeology 29. 121-173. vols. Graz: Akademische Druck, 1960. __and Gene S. Stuart. 'The Mysterious Toscano. Salvador. Arte Precolombino de Smith. A Ledyard (with notes by Sylvanus G. Maya. Washington. D.C.: 1977. Mexico y de La Americi.L Central. Mexico: Morley). 'Two Recent Ceramic Finds at Tate. Carolyn. 'The Carved Ceramics Called UNAM. 1970 (reprint 1944). Uaxactun." Carnegie Institution of Chochola." Fifth Palenque Round Table, Tozzer. Alfred M. trans. and ed. Landa's Washington Contribution to American 1983. Vol. VII. Gen. ed. Merle Greene ReIaciDn de las cosas de Yucatan. Archaeology 5. Washington. D.C. 1932. Robertson. Vol. Ed. Virginia Fields. San Peabody Museum Papers 18.1941. pp. 1-25.. Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Vaillant. George C. 'The Aztecs ofMexico. New __Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of Institute. 1985. pp. 123-133. York: Doubleday. 1941. 1931-37. Carnegie Institution ofWash Taube. Karl. '''The Classic Maya Maize God: A Von Winning. Hasso. "Betrachtungen zu ington Publication 588. Washington. Reappraisal." Fifth Palenque Mesa einem gefelschten polychromen Maya D.C. 1950. Reclonda, 1983. Vol. VII. Gen. Ed. Merle Gefass". Baessler-Archiv. N. F. 26 (1978), Smith. Robert E. Ceramic Sequence at Uaxac Greene Robertson; Vol. Ed. Virginia pp. 233-240. tun, 2 vols. Middle American Research Fields.San Francisco:Pre-Columbian Art Westheim. Paul. Arte antiguo de Mexico. Mex Institute Pub. 20. New Orleans, 1950. Research Institute. 1985. pp. 171-182. ico: Fondo de Cultura Economica. 1950. __and James C. Gifford. "Pottel)' ofthe Taylor. Dtcey. "Problems in the Study of Willey. Gordon R.. and Jeremy A. Sabloff. A Maya Lowlands". In Handbook ofMiddle Narrative Scenes on Classic MayaVases": History ofAmericanArchaeology. 2nd ed. American Indians, Vol 2. Part 1. Austin: Fals!fications and Misreconstructions of London: Thames and Hudson. 1980. University ofTexas. 1965. pp. 498-534. Pre-Columbian Art Ed. Elizabeth Boone. Zimmermann. Gl1nter. Die Hieroglyphen der Spinden. Herbert J. A Study ofMaya Art: Its Washington. D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Maya-Handschriften. Abhandlungen aus Subject Matter and Historical 1982. pp. 107-124. dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde. Vol. 62. Development Peabody Museum MemOirs. Tedlock. Dennis. trans. PopoI Vuh. New York: Hamburg. 1956. 6. Cambridge: Peabody Museum. 1913. Simon and Schuster. 1985. Stephens. John Lloyd. Incidents ofTravel in Thompson. J. Eric S. "A Blood-drawing Central America. Chiapas, and Yucatan. 2 Ceremony Painted on a Maya Vase".

145