Vumbex bo 2. ob- U3 Vetbexlyrdp, 1900 THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO: AN ETHNO-ICONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Lous Verbs Blsinr’ £0. Beil) Levdlen ; Hr by MAARTEN E.R.G.N. JANSEN posible — desde el punto de visa dle un cao fomando en cvears los caraceresespeciicos de a depeadensa gue sun or mis evdente que slo pueds parce por vee de palabras, se wraia de una exigencia que la anropote fuando no ignora pray simplemen ondce muy fara vet. 1a eitencia de dca ett, ‘Georues Balai: 1973, 30, £4 Stains es have developed various rich and complex sign systems, which because Of their pictorial, iconic or mnemotechnical character have been described u 45 a.“primitive™ or “rudimentary” stage in the evolution coward examination, however, such a descr Eurocentric bias. The study of color es of the tendenty to consider ons which the investigator is notable to ts omnipresent prejudices and hiera ig the irrationality and inferiority of a ext for robbing a people of violence under the tutelage of afer ea at had invaded the western hems s assumed power and erate on-states weenal colonialism, interwoven with a general economic dependence, causes a daily experience of discrimination and exploitation. Massacres of Indian communitce ike those in Guatemala, Brazil or Pera—and other forms of brutal repress bardly commented upon by the world press. Other count treaties they mage with Indian nations and eynic vias + proved an easy adants of the he resulting ly infringe upon Fundan al human ness cast a shadow over the scholarly concerns of archaeologists, iguists and others who occupy themselves with Indian cultures. The research done in such a way that it conforms to the colonial structures and ean hardly be © the peoples investigated. In the socialsciences, just as in polities, there is still hardly ‘ny participation of the indigenous peoples themselves (ef. Lewis: 1973) respect. THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 87 ire and the study of culture should be the base for ethnic identity and development, but the dominant classes try to expropriate the Indian past as a ‘national heritage” and Indian cultures of today into the realm of folklore, converting their products and artistic expressions into articles of naive consumption, and converting the peoples themselves into stereotypes, nice objects without a voice, or denying their existence altogether, Obviously, all this leads example can be fo Published by Enrique de Guimaraes in 1907, on the n registration system of strings and knots (Ravines: 1978, 772ss.). The author, basing himself on several secondary sources, had the idea that the precolumbian quipus were a form of writing and that, through an esoteric code, they preserved the intellectual achievements of the Inca nobles. In examining some quipus of his own time, Guimaraes was disappointed: these wete “ordinary” counting devices. The strings, in an ordered sequence and sometimes differentiated by form or colour, represented the categories (he different animals possessed by the peasant) and the knots the quantities (the number of each kkind of animal). He therefore concluded that the relationship between the ancient and the ‘modern quipu was vague and insignificant. In fact the modern quipu demonstrated to Guimaraes the ignorance of the Indian peasant: en sumo, no viene a se ora cogs que ur los lugares dond ead por sus antepasador, ques bien rv iracion mode doe indi pueda ener un bro en la mano y Sep serie de ser elemento de prgreco para el ss desaparecers por compleo lus del eotdén con nudos de que oy sale pa ads sas coca (avines 1978, 195, 7) Jn a short appendix to Guimaraes’ article, Max Uble already ree explaining how the precolumbian quipu had also been a mnemotechnical device, based on ‘numbers expressed by knots. By no means, Uble emphasized, is there an essential difference nt and modern quipu (Ravines: 1978, 781-782), Since then, detailed studies by ‘ke, Marcia and Robert ascher (see also Ravines: 1978), John Murra (1975: ch. 5) ‘others have further clarified our understanding of this interesting system and have showed that the quipu is indeed able to register complex sets of data, in terms of categories and quan s. Elements of material culture, historical events, population, rituals, tributes, laws etc, were all ordered in specific categories with logical and fixed sequences. The sequence of the strings Fepresented such a sequence of categories: for example, the inhabitants of a village were ordered in age groups, the first group (string) being those of 70 years and older, the second one of those beaween 60 and 70, etc. On each string the quantity of each category was expressed by knots, decimal system and a digital notation (lig. 1). Colours and special forms of strings constituted additional indications to distinguish the subject-matter, a red string referring to and a composit one of blu: to the feasts of the “God that lives in the blue heaven and created gold and si With Uble we conelude that the modern the precotonial one. The colonizat In the same way there are many storical continuity from precoloni investigator idealizes the some major points, ies which show a direct but which are not properly understood when nd looks down on the Indian people of today. Value.8 ME. RGN, JANSEN udgements about “modernization” according to the stan: sds of industrial society in Europe and North America often play a role here (ef. Fitzpatrick: 1980): indigenous culture is not the ancient Mesoamerican writing systems.* A notable early negative judgement comes from the 16th Century philosopher Juan Ginés de Seplilveda, who in his dialogue Democrates Alter tried to prove the culture: enuem quamdam e obscura, 79, 100, ly aimed at the justification of the Spanish conquest, but st ilar derogatory statements have been made by authors on writing systems in general not until the rise of semiology in the last two decades that the classical Greek defi writing as the registration of the spoken language (with the alphabet as its culminating point) was abandoned and a betier evaluation of pictographic systems became possible 2 Genesis We will direct our attention here to Mesoam sereenfold books (codices) before and short late postelassic and early viceroyal periods. Only a limited number of codices have survived, all painted in this relative short ime-span (Glass and Robertson: 1975). Other samples of this form of pictography are found in sculpture, wall is, decorated ceramics, incised bones and shells etc. Through these media its history can be traced. Mesoamerican pictography as the Spanish invaders encount r a transit the development towards phonetic writing nor a result of decadence or stagnation, but a highly successful end-product of a creative process of at least 1000 and maybe even 3000 years. The first indications of a wide-spread system of signs and conver found already in the preclassic period, in Olmec art (1200-600 BC). In this system iconic representations (Images) coexisted with abstract 8 (ideograms), which were 10 become the «wo basic categories of later Mesoamerican sign-systems. In Olmee art, whieh isthe first clearly identifiable monumental art-syle in Mesoamerica, we recognize also some of the basic themes which rem: tant in subsequent ci rulers (Grove: 1981), b) the ine powers (Joralemon: 1976), and c) nahualis human experience of also having an animal-identty (Kobler: 1985). Among the conven notice: the representation of objects and beings through the combination of the most characteristic frontal and profile views (called a ‘multiplicity of visual positions” by Uspensky 1976), the indication of a person’s name through hieroglyphic signs, incorporated in his figure (e.g. on the head of the individual), the use of ideograms like speech-serolis and of some signs 8 (f. Coe: 1976), the representation of rulers in a standing position with ceremonial bars in their arms or seated on elaborated thrones, the identifica san pictography, as it was expressed in after the Spanish invasion (1519 A.D.), ted e. the red it, was n ions can be ‘THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 9 preclassic period, e.g. in the Zapotec civilization of Monte Alban, this system i further developed. The Mesoamerican calendar appears fully elaborated and provides a dating 1 for historiography and for ritual life. Abbreviations of a can be recognized. Together with the signs for pers appear (ef. jons in the form of “event ‘names, place-name si ns also wit the elaboration of both the iconographical conventions and the abbreviated and abstract We' see the development—and eventual separation—of the two mai semiotic traditions: 1. A pictographic tradition, which essential ‘Mesoamerican communicates through iconic representation, using ideograms for those units of information which are difficult 1o depict and reserving hieroglyphs (.. signs which have primarily a phonetic value) for the names of places or persons. developed manifestation can be seen in the classic Teotihuacan frescoes (Kubl F: 1973). Postclassic Toltec and Mixteca-Puebla art continues this tradi pictographic codices of Mixtecs, Nahuas (Aztecs) and other peoples (cf. and Heath-Smith: 1980; Smith: 1983). Wn of hieroglyphic writing, which registers a phonetic te and iconography as both a source and a support or illustration. Probat classic Zapotecs used such a system, but it was elaborated most by 1 Mayas (cf. Kelley: 1976; Schele: 1986). im at fixing a spoken text wi te preclassic and perfectly capabl but the data are “formulated” directly through conventional images, which may be understood thout prior knowledge of the message. The systematic interpretation of the pi ides in content (but not necessarily in form!) wi quick comparison with the above-mentioned quipus shows clearly that Mesoamerican pictography is not to be seen as a mnemotechnical system. Hieroglyphic writing, on the other hand, does register verbal expression and therefore fies for the ‘Togocentrie™” approach ion on a higher rank in an evolutionary scheme. But it should be pointed out here that both traditions evolved simultaneously and were in use For more than 1000 years, during which there were several intensive (commercial and military) contacts between the peoples that practiced them, Both systems had their advantages. While hieroglyphic writing was capable of preserving a text just as it had been formulated, pictography was less esoteric and was capable of being used between speakers of different languages. One becomes very conscious of this latter advantage ies of reducing a tonal language like Mixtec, with its sandhi perturba- tones, to alphabetic writing (Faraclas: 1983). It is also important to observe that, the difference between both systems is less radical than it may seem, Pictopraphy is based on ‘a number of pictorial conventions which correspond closely to sets of also uses many abbreviated images with a fixed meaning, variability of the reading. Hieroglyphs, on the other hand, are not seldom derived from such abbreviated pictures. Most hieroglyphic texts in Maya reliefs and codices are accompanied by pictorial scenes which express at least part of the same information in a pictographic manner. res produces he original message. A fomatic expressions and hereby considerably reducing the90 MB. RGN, JANSEN To illustrate this point we will compare some representations of similar events in the different systems, In postelassic Mixtee codices we find the scattering of green dust” together with the on of a quail as part of a ceremonial salute 1o honour rulers, deceased ancestors and sca, of. Jansen: 1982, ch. ceremony, represented on ic copal (incense) bag scatter oF ations of what might be piciete or seeds of some kind (Kubler: 1967, 10; Miller: 1973, figs. 168-184, 235, 366). Generally, elaborated speech-scralls accompany the action, probably. signifying hymns (fig. 2). It is interesting co note that in some cases the contents of these hymns—the shells and jade artifacts painted in the ser ss of water by the Water- and Rain Deities in other frescoes (Miller: 1973, figs. 301-314, 324-327), suggesting that this is what the priests pray for: possibly the “precious stones of the Rain Go stand for maize-cobs and prosperity.* In both cases—Mixtee codices and Teotihuacan freseoes—the representati pictographic and relatively easy to understand: the actor is painted in full, performing representative part of the ceremony. Likewise, lassie fs show rulers in priestly Function performing such a “scattering! uals: is purely maize-kernels or sprinkled red piciete (sill used by the 3) wever, is accompanied by a hieroglyphic text in typic action is mentioned in the form of an “event glyph this verb consists precisely of ‘This root is preceded by a gl ‘moon"’ and the prefix for added under the main sign rd person singular. Often still another glyphic element, ns differ as to the precise reading of this verbal form (T 1.710:130). Linda Schele (1982, $3 and 287) proposes mal for the scattering hand, a root which in the Quiché and Tzeltal wa for T 130, and that represents the letter x ia hop Diego de Landa (ef. Durbin: 1969), The ly is scattered: on the contrary, the pictogray ints at decipherment of the event glyph, This discussion illustrates the different origins of Maya hieroglyphs. Quite a few, written down Solve the question of what ie problem is reflected in the different ke the Others are based on the the third person singular prefix d category is made up trary signs with just a specific phonetic value: T 130 seems to fit in here, q that occur in pictography are formed in a similar way. The place-name signs in the Codex Mendoza (painted for the First viceroy, in native style with Spanish commentary) have been the base for many studies of the Aztec writing system, ever since its first publication in THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 1 1625 by Samuel Purchas (de Laet: 1633, Kircher: 1652/54, Clavigero: 1780/81, Aubin: 1849, 1885, Clark: 1938, Nowotny: 1959, Dibble: 1971). Here also we find abbreviated icons leograms of which the phonetic reading is reinforced through phonetic indicators or complements, based on homonyms. In fac, this hieroglyphic system was so well developed that the continued use of pictography in the area has to be explained as a conscious preference and not as a lack of capacity. Both traditions, we conclude, are intimately related: though in a different ‘have pictorial and phonetic aspects. The interpretation, therefore, will ester iconological analysis which takes into account the native language $3 Paradigm incidentally also of contact and american and European cultures ographic manuscripts received commentaries either in the native languages (written with the introduced alphabet) or in Spanish, like Codex Mendoza, Codex ‘Telleriano-Remensis and many others. These commentaries, together with other relevant tral and historical information written down shortly after the invasion, directly or indirect proceed from the experts who knew and used the system: now they constitute our most impor. tant Key to the understanding of these works. These data, however, are far from complete, and are often incoherent or even contradictory, due to mutual misunderstanding and European {impositions, so the key cannot be used without careful reasoning and anthropological-historical criticism, Alter the period of initial contact, the colonial hierarchy was established and all dialogue between civilizations was suppressed: the study of the precolonial past became the exclusive privilege of European or colonial scholars, who generally limited themselves to archaeological remains and archives, As a consequence, the codices were seen from an essentially antiquarian and iew of history and the cul Because of the colonial pressure the great tradition of codex-painting had come to an end in the early 17th Century and was replaced by alphabetic writing: numerous decument Indian languages were produced. The manuscripts that have survived in archives and testify that during the viceroyal period writing was a common practice for many Indians. ‘The Spanish clergy used in the fe tongues for evangelization and published catechisms, the Spanish administration appointed official interpreters in, the official status of the indigenous languages, though Since the beginning of the republican period an integeationist ideology has prevailed, which pursues hispanization even more and represses Indian literacy in the schools, in the text-books and in the media, Through the ages, our discipline has gained in pr92 ME. RQ. N, JANSEN bases, but, we have to recognize, it has moved away from the Indi improvement, and at the same time a change in our outlook and paradigm, will be the result Of bridging the gap between the Indian heritage and the Indian peoples. This situation constitutes one of the main differences between the study of Mesoamerican leonography and European art-history: the latter has a huge amount of written sources and of scholars who share the culture they analyze. In Mesoamerica there re sources and the scholars ate foreign to the world they study. On the other hand, the disruption ancient pictography was discont i themselves. A major ively few informative forms did not mean a total disruption in content: the wued but many cultural elements and structures from precolonial times are preserved in traditional Indian communities. Through the colonization process the significance and even the presence of such tra obscure (0 the native Americans themselves and customs may have become they may need to study their own culture ‘methodically and consciously in order to rediscover and understand it fully. But, obviously, is always their own cultural tradition, more intimate, more transparent and more significant possibly be for outsiders ‘This cultural continuity has @ very important potential for the interpretation of the precolonial past: it can supplement the fragmentary historical sources, correct the Eurocentric distortion, explain the meaning and function of both material items and religious concepts etc ial ealls not only for much more ethnography but also for ion of the culture-carriers themselves, ie direct historical approach or the continuous model in les: 1977, Hodder: 1982). Precisely because of the cultural continu id the consequent importance of ethnographic data for any interpretative effort Precolumbian archaeology has to be erhno-urchaeology and native American history has to be ethnohistory. For the study of the Indian images and signs we may use the analogous term ethno-iconology, in order to make explicit its special characteristics: 4) In dealing with this culture we have to be aware of a dominant coloni Eurocentric distortions. b) Modern ethnographic clarification of archaeological and «) In order to obtain and apply This perspective is known as archaeology (cf. region perspective and tion and dwork equal participa. 4d) The research is inserted in a contemporary social stru which makes it impossible for the investigator to remain a neutral observer. ies an easy projection of data into the past, Disjunetion can be an important obstacle. Originally used by Erwin Panofsky in his discussions of European art, this term was introduced into Mesoamerican studies by George Kubler (1967, 1972) in order indicate the interruption of a representational code, due to historical and/or social processes, to the effect that the same forms or iconographic schemes may be used in different periods to express different contents and messages, determined by subsequent cultures or successive phases of the same culture, Kubler criticized the common use of Aztec terminology for iconographic entities in earlier ‘THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 93 succsive cultures spanning a duration on the order of shout one thousand years in the same region, Sich as weseraBurope or Meronmeia, we ay expec to Observe and the juetionsof form and meaning more often lar represemations,s0 we aay expect represenatons ofthe feathered setpent and Quetaloal i ‘meanings et Teast as diferent acrose more than one thousand Yeats in Mesico (1967, 12, refers to the realm of form, and should not be confused with cultural discontinuity, h means the end of a co-tradition. Such a confusion, however, often occurs, specially in n caused by the Spanish invasion: or, worse, modern than the investigated period! Quite the contrary, it obliges (© historical and social processes and to systematically the changes that affected the culture-area. Continuity always implies development and change; it does not stand for a “fossilizatior in which everything remains the same, but simply for a strong diachronic a ion, it becomes possible to discover in which way a specific cultural phase is related to its antecedent and which traits, practices or concepts may have been present at an earlier time. The comparison of the present and the past should take into account both tradition and transformation and should not be based on isolated elements but on structured, coherent and meaningful clusters of data, ‘This principle has been clearly formulated by Henry B. Nicholson (1976, 171) in his detailed review of the disjunction proble Kubler himself (1973, 16: By examining the conoaraphic repertory for given period, it posible to asetal ofthe voeabulry, andthe kinds of combina 166) concurs, be it from another angle: tatements are also valid for the study of ie Mesoamerican co-tradition as a in fact, eal method, succintly lated by