ANTHROPOLOGY A N D THE ARTS 1903

Maya Sculpture from the Southern Low- The quality of the text does not measure
lands, the Highlands and Pacific up to that of the illustrations. Captions were
Piedmont, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras. written by three different authors and their
MERLE GREENE, ROBERT L. RANDS, remarks are uncoordinated and, for the most
and JOHN A. GRAHAM. Rubbings by part, uninformative. N o reference is made to
Merle Greene. Berkeley, CA: Lederer, extant photographs or to previous descrip-
Street and Zeus, 1972. 432 pp., endpaper tions of the monuments, and John A.
maps, bibliography, plates, index. $21.50 Graham is the only author who gives a
(cloth). modicum of archaeological background to
the monuments he covers. Dos Pilas Stela 2,
Reviewed b y pictured on Plate 9 1 has been published by
TATIANA PROSKOURIAKOFF Ian Graham as Stela 16, but there is no
Peabody Museum mention of this in its caption. Some of the
monuments, notably Polo1 Stela 1, seem to
This is the second publication presenting be badly put together, but we have no
a collection of rubbings of stone reliefs from indication whether the rubbings were made
the Maya area made by Merle Greene. The from individual fragments, from a faulty
first, Ancient Maya Relief Sculpture, was restoration, or if the distortions are only
published by The Museum of Primitive Art apparent.
in 1967. The present collection is far more More serious are frequent errors of fact,
comprehensive than the first. It contains 202 observation, and interpretation. Graham’s
plates and covers five major regions of the identification of the “five haabs lacking”
Maya area. Although some of the monu- glyph on Ixtutz Stela 4 (PI. 169) is surely
ments appear in the earlier publication, most incorrect. The date is probably 1 2 Ahau 8
of the rubbings seem to be new. The Pax, and although the meaning of the haab
Bonampak warrior on Lintel 3 is now glyph is unknown, the long count position
standing on both legs, and background could be 9.17.10.0.0. The caption of Tikal
glyphs have been added to the reproduction Stela 25 (PI. 129) implies that the pictured
of prisoners on Stela 1 2 of Piedras Negras. figure is the principal figure on the monu-
The rubbings are printed on glossy paper and ment although this figure, already illustrated
in darker tones, losing some of the charm in a Tikal Report, is one of two carved on
that distinguished the earlier reproductions the narrow sides of the monument. The
which were made on soft paper with a matte figure on Stela 28 of Tikal (PI. 131) is
finish, but they are nevertheless excellent described as standing on a mask, although it
and exhibit a consummate skill. clearly stands on a prone captive. The
Although for the purposes of serious saurian “earth-monster” known from Izapan
study rubbings are less satisfactory than to Aztec times, is not recognized on Yaxha
photographs, they sometimes bring out Stela 6 (PI. 162).
detail obscured by shadow in available Most of the captions read like random
photographs, as, for example, on El Cay0 remarks made after a casual glance at the
Panel 1. Moreover, the collection contains a pictures and offer no enlightenment to the
number of little-known sculptures, recently reader. Rands interprets the “long-nosed
discovered and still unpublished or not mask” as equivalent to “Bolon Dzacab,”
readily available to most scholars. Among while Greene uncritically accepts it as
these are fragments of a stela and of an “Itzamna,” applying Thompson’s recently
inscription from Chinikiha, the latter a propounded theory concerning the religion
beautiful example of the Classic Maya script. of the Classic Maya. All this must be
Another equally fine inscription is from profoundly confusing to a reader un-
Stela 4 of Ixtutz, until now a little known acquainted with scholarly conflicts. This
site. Also illustrated are three of its badly carelessly put together text is typical of “art
eroded stelae. Monuments from Dos Pilas, books” about Mesoamerica currently being
Tamarindito, and Seibal are still unfamiliar published. It is largely due to the long
to many scholars, as well as stelae from Tres neglect of the subject by professional art
Islas and El Zapote, which represent an historians, who have tended in the past to
earlier era. class Maya sculpture with the primitive arts
1904 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
and have left it to anthropologists and
amateurs. Fortunately, younger scholars are
beginning to take a serious interest in
pre-Columbian art and one may hope that
they will develop standards of scholarship
that will make such texts as this obsolete. In
the meantime, the reader might do well to
ignore the captions altogether, and to look
at the pictures, which offer ample material
for wonder and contemplation.
References Cited
Graham, Ian
1967 Archaeological Explorations in El
Peten, Guatemala. Middle American
Research Institute, Tulane University,
Publication 33. New Orleans.
Greene, Merle
1967 Ancient Maya Relief Sculpture:
Rubbings by Merle Greene. New York:
The Museum of Primitive Art.
Satterthwaite, Linton
1958 Five Newly Discovered Carved
Monuments at Tikal and Data on Four
Others. Tikal Report No. 4. Philadel-
phia: The University Museum.
The Hieroglyphic Inscriptions and Monu-
mental Art of Altar de Sacrificios. JOHN
A. GRAHAM. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, Vol. 64, No. 2.
Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, 1972.
ix + 123 pp., figures, photographs, tables,
references. n.p. (paper).
Reviewed by DAVID H. KELLEY
University o f Calgary
This meticulous and comprehensive
report combines thorough description, care-
ful analysis, and new interpretations. The
descriptions are accompanied by illustra-
tions, both rubbings and photographs of
many monuments, sometimes more than one
photo under varied lighting conditions. The
standardized descriptive format not only
gives a summary of what can be read in a
text, but also gives full bibliographic refer-
ences to significant previous publications.
Information on location, associations, condi-
tion, areas of the monument which are
carved, material, shape, and dimensions is
also given. Erosion has taken a heavy toll of
the inscriptions at Altar de Sacrificios, but
[75,1973]
Graham has managed to read the chronologi-
cal matter on most monuments, generally
with very little doubt. In a number of cases,
Graham has verified or corrected previous
interpretations, mostly by Morley.
There is very little discussion of non-
calendrical glyphs, partly because erosion
has greatly reduced the visible detail and
partly because Graham intends to cover this
material in detail in a comparative section of
the Seibal report.
A chapter on “stela reuse, alteration and
obsolescence” makes a convincing case that
Stela 18 was originally erected at 9.4.0.0.0
in Group B, subsequently moved to the
South Plaza and carved with a new inscrip-
tion on the back at 9.9.5.0.0 (just 160 days
short of 104 vague years later). This is the
first known example of such a custom
among the Mayas. An extended discussion
makes it clear that alleged cases of partial
recarving of inscriptions cannot be sub-
stantiated.
A chapter on giant glyphs as katun
markers suggests that this practice, first
recognized at Caracol by Linton Satterth-
waite, was widespread and shows its probable
occurrence at Altar de Sacrificios.
Perhaps the most interesting chapter is a
critical comparative study of Maya practices
in recording information about the move-
ments of the moon, incorporating important
new information from Altar de Sacrificios.
This chapter shows the way in which even
badly eroded monuments can supply new
data on the chronology of use of particular
glyphs, helping us to outline the intellectual
history of the Mayas.
At a more detailed level, I disagree with
Graham’s reading of the dates in only one
case. On Sculptured Panel 4 is a date read by
Graham as “12 Ix 17 Zotz?” in which the
month is represented by a head regarded by
Graham as probably zotz, the leaf-nosed bat.
From inspection alone, it seems to me
clearly Muan, the owl, in a form close-
ly comparable to that on the Tablet
of the 96 Glyphs at Palenque. As will
be shown, this reading is supported by the
glyphic context, for the date appears with a
block of glyphs which include the “star”
glyph, a dotted prefix, and apparently the
“earth” glyph. Five other Mayan inscriptions
show partially comparable glyphs on days 16
or 17 Muan. Caracol Stela 3 and the