houston 2004
Post on 02-Jun-2018
226 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Houston 2004
1/24
,
,
I
.
. I
I:
I
i
I
111
I
'
10 Writing in early Mesoamerica
STEPHEN D HOUSTON
From about 500 years before Christ unti l the beginning of the
ommon
era, the peoples
of
Mesoamerica innovated, used, and developed a series
of graphic systems that encoded language: in short, they created writing
where none existed before, almost certainly
in
isolation from Old World
inputs. That such systems were writing by any definition
of
the word cf.
Damerow 1999b:4-5; Gelb 1963:58) is now beyond dispute, especially in
the case
of
Maya script (Coe 1999). This chapte r reviews how these develop
ments came about in the initial centuries of script generation in Mesoamer-
ica, challenges misconceptions held by specialists within this region and
those outside - that Maya is the earliest script, that Maya is monosyllabic,
that all relevant scripts are well understood
cf.
Boltz 2000:4, 15; Defrancis
1989:50) -
and
offers a set
of
perspectives that builds on,
and
responds
to, valuable earlier treatments (e.g., Coe 1976; justeson 1986; )usteson and
Mathews 1990; Marcus 1976b; Prem 1971). It begins by reviewing basic
concepts
and
problems
and
then addresses the iconographic
and
onomastic
basis ofMesoamerican writing along with three major traditions Zapotec
Isthmian,
and
early Mayan, none
of
which supports an optimistic prognosis
for full interpretation.
Basic concepts and problems
A necessary step
in
understanding the development
of
writing systems in
Mesoamerica is to sort out basic approaches. How, for example, do we model
script development? Most such attempts involve attention. to three features:
space, time,
and
script boundary (Coe 1976; justeson
et al
1985; )ust eson
and Mathews 1990; Marcus 1976b; Prem 1971, 1973). The first two features
are s;fr-explanatory-when and where a writing system was used. The third
simply means that certain scripts share enough features to be regarded as
distinct systems. They may and usually do, have internal variability, but
that heterogeneity
is of
an entirely different order
in
comparison to the
attributes of other writing systems. A script with pronounced boundaries
will have attributes that immediately distinguish it from its neighbors in
Writing in early Mesoamerica 275
time and space; a script with weaker boundaries will need closer scrutiny
before it can be clearly defined.
One way of understanding such boundaries is in terms of open and
closed writi ng systems (Houst on 1994b). Eric Wolf first applied these
labels in an entirely different context, to certain kinds of peasant societies
(1955:462). Open implied a near- constan t state of nteraction with other
societies, closed quite the opposite, having the connotatio n
of
a marked
state of solation. As with any social typology, the terms do not correspond
precisely to any one society, nor are they altogether successful in charac
terizing the actual history
of
peasant communities (Monaghan 1995:61-62;
Wolf 1986:327). They do, however, emphasize an
important
point, that some
properties
of
societies - or writing systems - transcend or supersede local
conditions while others accentuate them. The irony is that terms which
fail to work for Wolf's peasants may apply persuasively to writing systems:
thus, an open writi ng system serves the needs of diverse culiures
and
languages; a closed one relates to a p rticul r culture language
or
set of
related languages \Houston;
Bafo.es an l
Cooper, 2003)
_:_it
will tend toward
greater linearity as a relatively clear record
of
language as well as greater
self-sufficiency or abstraction in graphic terms. In some respects, this dis
tinction seems to operate across a continuum but there are also indications
of a fundamental divide in strategy, an open script being far more likdy
to require pictographic aids a closed one
with
fuller commitment to lin-
guistic transparency, having the capacity to occur on its own, within a closed
frame that excludes such aids.
In general, the writing systems used
in
the eastern part
of
Mesoamerica
have a closed nature. They are maladroi t in recording other, unrelated lan
guages
but
supremely effective in reproducing their own, often including
many linguistic
and
syntactic nuances: Mayan script or glyphs exemplify
this class of writing system and represent standing proof against Ignace
Gelb's claim that writing
in
the New World was 'limit ed by its failure to
use systematicphonography (Gelb 1963:59; emphasis in ori ginal; as many
have pointed out, Gelb expressed little
but
contempt for New World civi
lizations, which could not stand comparison with the Oriental cultures
he esteemed [Gelb 1963:58]; this attitude can also be found among some
archaeologists
of
the time, including the prominent Old World specialists
V.
Gordon Childe and Mortimer Wheeler [Hawkes 1982:278]). Few foreign
words appear
in
Mayan script.
When
they do, the words are garbled,
and
have already been loaned and phonologically massaged into a Mayan lan
guage, in this instance Yukatek ('.faube and Bade 1991; Whittaker 1986). In
-
8/10/2019 Houston 2004
2/24
I
11
11 i
I
,I
"I
I
ii,
276
Stephen D. Houston
contrast, open WTiting systems are found with some abundance in west-
ern Mesoamerica. Most contain elements
that
make sense only in part icular
languages, leading Janet Berlo to describe these words as embedded texts
that exist within narrative pictographies (Berlo 1983:2-17).
Yet,
to a strong
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 hese scripts mad e special sense in societies emphasizing
economic
or
historical informati on, so
that
tribute rolls could be com-
-- .
piled
and
interpreted
in
several different languages (Kelley 1976:166). Kelly
also pointed out that, rather than being primitive, these scripts admirably
suited the needs
of
heir societies, an early instance in which Ignace Gelb's
evolutionism came under negative scrutiny.
It
s striking that the earlier the scripts in Mesoamerica, the more likely
they are to be closed. One
of
he so-called Danzantes from Monte Alban,
Oaxaca, of uncertain date but probably from a century
or
so before Christ,
displays a long sequence of non-calendrical signs in single-column order,
a good illustration
of
he transparent linguistic commitment in closed sys
tems (Fig. 10.l [a]; Urcid Serrano 200l:fi g. 4.47). A similar, relatively long
sequence occurs
on La
Venta Monument 13, perhaps the earliest linear text
in Mesoamerica, dating to about 500
BC or,
according to some estimates, a
few centuries later (Fig. 10.lb; Karl Taube, personal communication, 2002).
At Monte Alban, texts from c. AD 450
to
800 become acutely open,
and
earlier experiments with linear text disappear aside from long sequences
of
day signs and superposed registers
of
paired couples (Zaachila Stone
l
Masson and Orr 1998; Urcid Serrano 200l:fig. 6.9). Even later texts from
this area have lost their closed quality entirely and appear to be little dif
ferent from documents elsewhere
in
Postclassic Mesoamerica, regardless of
language zone (e.g. the Lienzo de Guevea; Seier 1906). Similarly, Isthmian
writing
of
the Tehuantepec and surrounding regions is patently closed
because of ts long linear texts, a pattern that continues well into t he middle
of
he firit mil lennium AD, as on Cerro de las Mesas Stela 8 (Stirling 1943).
Later texts from
the
general region drop this closed quality
and monu-
mental inscriptions become, as in Veracruz, severely reduced to a system of
dates serving as nominal glyphs (Wilkerson 1984:110-114).
Certain choices were doubtless made by script communities in response
to events and influences
of
a broader sort. In the last few years scholars have
become increasingly aware that, far from being devoid
of
writing, the great
Writing in early Mesoamerica
Fig. 10.1 Early linear texts: (a) Monte Alban Danzante, MA-D-55 (Urcid
Serrano 200l:fig. 4.47); (b) La Venta
Monument 13
(Coe 1968:148, after
drawing by Miguel Covarrubias).
Mexican city ofTeotihuacan possessed an elaborate emblematic script that
appeared to combine isolated wor d signsofa nominal
and
itular nature with
pictographic or narrative settings. This iconographic property is precisely
what made t he signs hard to identify at first (Taube 2000b:l5). Teotihuacan
script began to flourish about AD 350 to 450, so its dates are suggestive in
view
of
developments in Mesoamerican scripts. The city is known to have
exercised a profound impact on areas far distant, including the Valley of
Oaxaca (e.g. the Lapida de Bazan; Taube 2000b:fig. 30.d). Thereafter, many
areas under Teotihuacan influence employed glyphic styles that were decid
edly open, includi ng spare nomin al signs at El Tajin, Veracruz (Kampen
1972:figs. 32-38), apparent titles and name glyphs at Xochicalco, Mo
relos (Berlo 1989:30-40), painted glyphs at'Cacaxtla (Foncerrada de Molina
1982),
as
well
as
sites
as
far distant as Chichenitza, Yucatan, where non-Maya
signs seem to label non-Maya personages (Maudslay 1889-1902, III:pls. 38,
45-47, 49-50; Morris, Charlot, and Morris 1931:311).
The question before us, and one that is inherently difficult to answer,
is whether this new strategy reflected a historical practice emanating from
the pluralistic, polyglot polity centered on Teotihuacan. n exact sequence
of choices
is
impossible
to
reconstruct, but it
is
plausible
that
Teotihuacan,
whose memory was strongly cherished in Mesoamerican tradition, estab
lished a practice that became dominant in areas most directlyunder its influ
ence. Those examples ofTeotihuacan writing
that
are the most closed, i.e.,
linear, with many signs, including what may be quotative particles, occur
closest to the Maya region,
on
mifror backs and other objects from the
277
1:1'
i1'
'1
i
l
"'"
i
-
8/10/2019 Houston 2004
3/24
JI
: 1
11
.
I
'
278 Stephen
D.
Houston
Fig.
10.2
Linear
Teotihuacan script
(Taube
2000b:20,
34--35,
fig. 27).
Pacific coast
of
Guatemala (Fig. 10.2; Taube 2000b:20, 34-35, fig. 27). A
working hypothesis might be t hat the m ore polyglot the elites of an area -
the Pacific Coast of Guatemala (Maya, Xinca, Pupuluca, and Pipil
[?]
[Chinchilla Mazariegos 1996:533-534, 550]), Chichen Itza (Maya and Na
huatl[?]), Cacaxtla (Mayan and other indeterminate languages?)-the more
inclined they would be to use open script and to underscore its relation to
Teotihuacan, the preeminent, multi -ethnic Mesoamerican civilizationof he
first millenniu m AD. Only among the Maya does closed script continu e
to flourish,
and
then in codices that could be consulted by relatively few
people (Houston t
al
2003). Maya glyphs expired soon after the Spanish
conquest, while o pen fo rms
in
Mexico continued to find a role in colo
nial court cases and, in general, as a preferred means of formal indigenous
expression (B6one 2000:245-249).
Another issue in conceptualizing early writing in Mesoamerica
is
how
to present its development in graphic form. One approach is to group
scripts by attribute, some having bars
and
dots for numbers, others mak
ing use of the Maya Long Count (a place-notational system that implied a
mythogenic account as its starting point), yet others a list of more subtle
traits, including he shape
of
day signs
and
double column formats (Justeson
Writing in early Mesoamerica
et
al
1985:table 16). These tabulations intersect with space
and
time to help
create block-like flow charts whose outlines indicate script boundaries (see
above) but whose arrows, issuing laterally or debouching into later scripts,
indicate the influenceof one script on another (e.g. Prem 1973:fig. l Urcid
Serrano 200l:fig. 1.2).
Typologies
of
script directly involve historical traditions. For some schol
ars, these blocks
of
writi ng systems can be boiled down to two major egacies,
both emerging from iconographic traditions of he Early and Middle Form
ative periods,
in
a time roughly coincident with the first half
of
the first
millennium BC. One has been described as Oaxacan, the otheras South
eastern,
in
large
part
because
of
heir zone
of
nitial florescence (Justeson
etal 1985:38; )ust eson andMathews 1990:107). However, given the evidence
in favor of dramatic breaks within script traditions, as open conventions
of writing dominate closed ones, this distinction between Oaxacan and
Southeastern traditions seems misleading. Scripts are concrete practices that
associate with c ommunicative strategies: th y
are not
Darwinian organisms
that inhetifattriliutes but iffa Sense fainarcklari entities that acquire such
attributes during their period
of
use.
One
of
he primar y problems here may be the use ofbiological metaphors,
inclu ding offshoot,
-
8/10/2019 Houston 2004
4/24
280
: :I
,
Stephen D. Houston
Another problem in looking at script ongms nd development in
Mesoamerica
is
a basic one of ampling. For the Maya, thousands of exts are
available from the Classic period, but from the earliest periods, those most
relevant to this book, t he sample is exceedingly small nd heterogeneous
(see
Bagley,
this volume). Although isolated texts from a varietyoflocations
in the highlands of Guatemala share a few signs, no credible argument can
be made for a complete overlap
of
systems. The incised text
on
Kaminaljuyu
Stela I
0,
actually a t hrone fragment, which probably dates to round the
time
of
Christ, shares at mos t three signs with Ist hmian scri pt (Fig. I 0.3;
MS49, MSIOl/103, MSl29; Macri nd Stark 1993). Connections with the
later Maya signary are just as weak, involving no more than a few glyphs,
none-in
ny exj:>laiiiable
order: one sign, identical to later winik ( person )
or
win l
{ unit of
20
days ) glyphs, does
not
appear
in
contexts that are
obviously pertinent to those readings. The few other texts from the same
site, such as Kaminaljuyu Stela
21
(Parsons 1986:fig. 157), are short nd
display no demonstrable overlap with the longer text from Stela 10. What
this means is that scholars cannot easily determine patterns
of
sign equiv
alence or allography (substitutable forms), what the overall system might
have looked like, or how he script might have functioned. It s
not
even clear
that these texts belong to the same system or to a cluster of highly localized
scripts. Worse, most
of
hese early texts have been shifted from their original
position or appear on unprovenanced portable objects, making i t difficult
to establish that particular texts belong to a more or less synchronous sys
tem. The period in which we most want to understand Maya writing - that
of its coalescence nd broader use -
is
the time in which the dating
is
the
least secure. Zapotec script is in
no
better position in that monume nts can
only be dated to, at best, 250-year spans calibrated by rather gross archae
ological phases rather than by internal dating (e.g. Urcid Serrano 2001:4,
fig. 4.16).
The two difficulties - poor sampling and uncertain chronology - sug
gest that an appropriate analogy might be the ever-wavering interpretation
of hominid fossils (Tattersall 1995:229-246). Every year, seemingly, new
finds of unexpected morphology appear, with dramatic consequences for
any statement'
of
evolutionary relationship. Recent chronometric dates of
Javanese specimens of omo erectus
push
the diaspora from Africa ever fur
ther back han hithe rto suspected; fresh finds
of
aberrant Australopithecines
in
Kenya
point
to early evidence of upright posture. Some would even sug
gest that the fossil record - the analogue of a corpus of surviving texts -
represents only about three percent
of
all the primate species that have ever
existed (Tattersall 1995:231). The earlier one goes, the more sketchy the
Writing in early Mesoamerica
Fig.
10.3
Kaminaljuyu
Stela
10
texts
(after
rubbing supplied by Albert
Davletshin .
narrative that can be devised a sobering reminder o the taxing issues in
understanding the early writing ofMesoamerica. At some point the analogy
fails:
palaeoanthropologists deal with the residue ofbiological evolution
nd
vastly enlarged frameworks of ime. Yet the example of such research should
guide us to an attitude
of
expectant humility. Unexpected discoveries.may
dramatically revise current beliefs,
as
happened with the discovery of the
281
top related