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