The Beast Between: Deer in Maya Art and Culture 9781477318065

Citation preview

the beast between

Looper_5982.indd i

1/27/19 3:01 PM

the l inda schele ser ies in maya and pr e-columbian studies

Looper_5982.indd ii

1/27/19 3:01 PM

The Beast Between DEER IN MAYA ART AND CULTURE

m at the w l ooper

uni v ersit y of t ex as pr ess

Looper_5982.indd iii

a ustin

1/27/19 3:01 PM

Copyright © 2019 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First edition, 2019 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to: Permissions University of Texas Press P.O. Box 7819 Austin, TX 78713-7819 utpress.utexas.edu/rp-form The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of ansi/niso z39.48-1992 (r1997) (Permanence of Paper).

library of congress cataloging-in-publication data

Names: Looper, Matthew George, 1966–, author. Title: The beast between : deer in Maya art and culture / Matthew Looper. Other titles: Linda Schele series in Maya and preColumbian studies. Description: First edition. | Austin : University of Texas Press, 2019. | Series: The Linda Schele series in Maya and pre-Columbian studies | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: lccn 2018034569 isbn 978-1-4773-1805-8 (cloth : alk. paper) isbn 978-1-4773-1806-5 (library e-book) isbn 978-1-4773-1807-2 (nonlibrary e-book) Subjects: lcsh: Maya art. | Deer in art. | Animals and civilization. | Human-animal relationships. | Mayas—Antiquities. Classification: lcc f1435.3.a7 l66 2019 | ddc 972.81/01—dc23 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov /2018034569 doi:10.7560/318058

Looper_5982.indd iv

1/27/19 3:01 PM

contents

vii

205 219 265

Looper_5982.indd v

acknowledgments

notes bibliogr aphy index

1

introduction

21

chapter one Deer Life: The Maya Ethnobiology of Deer

37

chapter two Bones to Picks: The Classic Maya Use and Depiction of Durable Deer Remains

59

chapter three Big Bucks: Deer and Social Status

73

chapter four Wearing the Horns: Deer, Sexuality, and Fertility in “Dying God” Scenes

95

chapter five Locking Horns: Deer Hunting, Warfare, the Ballgame, and Male Rites of Passage

119

chapter six Hart’s Devotion: The Siip in Classic and Postclassic Maya Society

153

chapter seven A Sinking Hart: The Solar Symbolism of Deer

169

chapter eight Deer Departed: Cervid Spirits of Death and Disease

191

epilogue Out of the Woods: Deer and Borders

1/27/19 3:01 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

acknowledgments

the idea for this book germinated while I was conducting research on deer dances for my study of ancient Maya dance (Looper 2009). However, I realized that the dances are related to a number of themes that would be better treated in a separate monograph. This has permitted an exploration with a much broader perspective. This study was supported by a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities (FB-51444-05), the National Science Foundation (IBSS: 1328928), two summer fellowships from Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, a Franklin Research Grant from the American Philosophical Society, and a research grant from the California State University Research Foundation. I am also grateful for the support of the Department of Art and Art History at California State University, Chico (Asa Mittman, chair) and the Art History Program, University of California, Davis (Talinn Grigor, chair) during the writing of this book. Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect those of the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, Dumbarton Oaks, the American Philosophical Society, the University of California, or the California State University. I thank the following institutions and individuals for permission to study works of art and to publish the drawings and photographs

Looper_5982.indd vii

included in this book: the Art Institute of Chicago; Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Harvard University; Dallas Art Museum; Dumbarton Oaks; Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala; Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia; Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia de México; Institute of Archaeology, Belize; Los Angeles County Museum of Art; and Peabody Museum, Harvard University; as well as Edwin Braakhuis, Linda Brown, Ed Carter, Michael Coe, James Garber, Ian Graham, Nicholas Hellmuth, Stephen Houston, Heather Hurst, Justin Kerr, Frank Lee Mays, Mary Miller, Dana Moot II, David Pendergast, Elizabeth Pope, Dorie Reents-Budet, David Schele, David Stuart, Karl Taube, Leticia Vargas (Proyecto Ek’ Balam, Centro INAH Yucatán), Alexander Voss, and Debra Walker. Many of these individuals as well as Krystyna Deuss, Virginia Fields, Judith Strupp Green, Donald Hales, Victoria Lyall, Martha Macri, David Mora-Marín, Matthew O’Brien, Yuriy Polyukhovych, David Reed, Matthew Robb, Carolyn Tate, Gabrielle Vail, and Marc Zender provided helpful comments, assistance with images and materials, and much needed support along the way, for which I am grateful. I thank Emmett Blankenship for providing the white-tailed deer ulna illustrated in chapter 2. I am particularly indebted to Thomas Tolles for many hours of editing and to Arianne Boileau, Kitty Emery, Julia

1/27/19 3:01 PM

acknowledgments

Guernsey, and an anonymous reviewer for their many helpful comments on drafts of the manuscript. Finally, I would like to thank several Maya informants in Guatemala, especially in Chajul, Santiago Atitlán, and San Andrés Xecul, for information reported in the present study. Most of these interviews were conducted in 2006.

viii

Looper_5982.indd viii

1/27/19 3:01 PM

the beast between

Looper_5982.indd ix

1/27/19 3:01 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

The metaphysical role of animals in primal societies which shaped and defined our species is not

Introduction

just a vague “reverence” for animals but a body of procedure and narrative which acknowledges kinship and the necessity of killing, a sinew of sentience and spiritual power linking death and love. shepard 1993: 278–279

n the early colonial k’iche’ Maya epic the Popol Vuh the Hero Twins discover that weeds and bushes overrun their maize field every night, even though they clear it daily. In order to ascertain the cause, they wait in the field and try to seize animals to interrogate them. First they try to catch the jaguar and puma, who elude them. They have better luck with the deer and rabbit, but their tails break off and the animals escape. Finally, they snare a rat, who tells them about their father’s ballgame equipment, which they later use in their battles against the lords of the underworld (Christenson 2003: 148–150). In this story, the reference to catching the deer and rabbit seems to allude to the fact that these animals are commonly hunted in the Maya area (Christenson

Looper_5982.indd 1

2003: 150). But it has also been argued that the shortening of the tails of these two creatures reduces their “animality” and thereby humanizes them (Burkhart 1986: 110). According to this interpretation, both the rabbit and the deer embody the interface between animals and humans and between forest and human dwelling/garden. To employ the terminology of Edward Said (1978: 54–55), deer are an important component of the “imaginative geography” that the Maya used to position themselves in contrast to nonhumans and conceptual “others” (see also Douglas 1975: 289). Why would the Maya select deer to represent such a fundamental aspect of identity? Various scholars have attempted to explain the prominence of deer as a metaphor among Native American peoples. One theory holds

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

that this lore is the legacy of the early colonization of the Americas by people crossing the Bering land bridge from Siberia (CordyCollins 2010; Furst 1976: 167–173). According to these authors, the Eurasian settlers may have practiced a form of ecstatic religion (shamanism) in which reindeer were prominent. The descendants of these shamans, who still practice in Siberia, observe the ecological connections among the larch tree, its fly agaric mushroom (Amanita) symbiont, and the reindeer, which eats the mushroom. These three species are fundamental to Siberian religious symbolism, which employs the psychoactive potency of the fungus as the basis of religious experience. The theory proposes that when colonists of Eurasian origin arrived in the tropical Americas they made species substitutions; in particular, native deer species symbolically replaced the reindeer. This is best illustrated with the Huichol of west Mexico, where the mara’akáme (shaman) gathers the peyote cactus (Lophophora williamsii) needed to induce religious trance visions. This is interpreted as a sacred deer hunt in which the mara’akáme shoots an arrow into the cactus. The plant is addressed as a deer, because the Huichol believe that the cactus grows where a deer has been ritually killed. Later, during the vision rite, the peyote is used to divine an auspicious day for inaugurating the deer hunt.1 While documentation from the ancient Maya is insufficient to confirm this evolutionary hypothesis, it does provide ample evidence of this animal’s complex roles in ritual and religion as well as subsistence. The prominence of a game animal in Mesoamerica may seem surprising, given the importance of maize agriculture in the development of the civilizations within this culture area. Indeed, not only

did the Maya rely heavily on maize for caloric intake, but this prime cultigen was widely venerated and even deified. The imagery and rites of the maize agricultural cycle pervaded aesthetics and ceremony for centuries.2 Nevertheless, the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) represented the most accessible of large mammalian fauna and was therefore an important wild source of protein and fat at most inland Maya sites.3 Humans increased deer populations not only by killing predators but also through the common use of slashand-burn cultivation, in which the forest is periodically cut back and burned to enrich the soil with ash and organic matter. Crops are cultivated on it for a few years, after which it is allowed to revert to forest. The deer not only consumed agricultural crops but were able to take advantage of low-growing vegetation around the edges of the fields, as well as shoots from recently coppiced or cut trees, for forage (see chapter 1). Consequently, over the course of the Classic period (250–900 AD) deer came to be a significant component of the ancient Maya diet, particularly for elites (see chapter 3). By the Late Classic period (600–900 AD) deer and maize were coupled in the Maya worldview, representing twin pillars of subsistence: one associated more with the wilderness, the other with the settled life of the household and village. But the separation was not complete, as their spheres overlapped in the cultivated fields and bordering zones. Deer were even incorporated into certain agricultural rituals (see chapter 5; Dehouve 2008: 5–7; Taube 1980: 69). Indeed, the Popol Vuh episode summarized above speaks to the conceptualization of deer as intrinsic to agriculture by affirming that the human-deer connection was established as part of the struggle to carve the agricultural fields out from nature. This reflects the

2

Looper_5982.indd 2

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

profound degree to which deer and humans were interdependent, which was interpreted culturally in terms of both predation and reciprocity. In the domain of both visual art and inscriptions, deer achieved a prominence among mammals second only to the jaguar (Panthera onca) and perhaps monkeys during the Late Classic period in the Maya lowlands. At this time, cervid imagery sometimes appeared in the form of public monuments commissioned by elites; however, it was more common for this imagery to be relegated to small-scale works of art, especially painted and carved ceramics. It is therefore an unfortunate fact that most of the densely symbolic images examined in this study consist of unprovenienced vessels. This raises a number of methodological—and, to some, ethical—issues. Because the objects were looted, we often lack precise information about their circulation and use. Furthermore, the present locations of many of these works are unknown; hence their study can only be conducted using archival photographs. Finally, many painted vessels have been subjected to modification and/ or overpainting by modern restorers, which sometimes occludes important details. Despite these problems, current scholarly methods provide numerous means for exploring the significance of these works. These include the careful study of their style, imagery, and inscriptions; materials analysis; and comparison of unprovenienced objects with similar works that have been scientifically excavated and documented (see Just 2012; Reents-Budet 1994). Throughout this study, I have tried to avoid relying on works of uncertain authenticity or works whose details of text and image have been damaged through modern repainting. In some cases, it has been possible to

consult archival photographs of objects taken before “restoration.” There is ample evidence that the monumental art and elaborately painted and carved small-scale works discussed in this book were commissioned and used by elites and therefore expressed their views of the world.4 Many of these objects bore the names of royal or elite patrons, while others were used as forms of publicly displayed propaganda. Still others, such as the painted and carved vessels, may have circulated within networks of feasting and gift-giving as a form of sociopolitical currency (Reents-Budet 1994). Accordingly, this book interprets the role of deer and hunting as directly related to specific sociopolitical conditions and art-production systems of the Late Classic, which are characterized by population growth, the expansion of the elite class, and an intensification of status competition. One of the principal arguments of this book is that the increase in deer imagery during the Late Classic period might have been related to concerns about peripheral zones, as rulers of centralized polities began to rely more on subordinates and allies in outlying areas. Symbolically, these border zones were embodied by deer, one of the main creatures that traveled between forest and field in search of food. Therefore, deer are often not the focal figure in artistic representations but instead play a secondary role, sometimes quietly infiltrating the edges of compositions, serving as a frame or pedestal or attached to costume, carried, or acted upon. Throughout this book it will be important to consider how cervid imagery relates to the social identities of those involved in the creation and consumption of the objects on which it appears. Why were certain images of deer deemed worthy of “private” versus public production and display? More specifically,

3

Looper_5982.indd 3

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

what did the feasting, funerary, and gifting contexts in which pottery objects were sometimes used have to do with the pictorial content displayed on the vessels?

de er a s trop e s It is commonplace for scholars to assert that animal imagery, such as deer in ancient Maya art, expresses semantic content. However, it is important to consider for a moment some of the motivations for employing animals as semantic vehicles and how this process of signification is believed to operate. In symbolic anthropology, culture is often assumed to be composed of symbols (e.g., Turner 1967). A symbol can be defined as a sign-image that has become abstracted or separated from its original referent and context and becomes applied to other subjects and contexts (Fernandez 1986: 31). Clifford Geertz (1973: 5) asserted that symbols are the means by which culture is communicated. This stresses the stability of the semantic relationship that manifests cultural continuity. Victor Turner (1967: 36), on the other hand, considered symbols to be strategic tools for social action. Turner (1974: 29–30) also noted that the interaction between a symbol and its referent is an active process that engenders thought, inspiring interpretations about both terms (see Black 1981). Symbols therefore are not merely representational but influence behavior (see Fernandez 1986: 6). Because they are embodied in performance or artistic products, symbols also have the form of sensuous displays. The symbols themselves express emotional content that is abstracted from the image and used to decipher the subject. The experience of symbols therefore encompasses feelings and expectations as well as sensory data and cognition.

Because symbols gain meaning only within the patterned behavior of social life, it is necessary to examine a wide variety of contexts in which a symbol is used within a particular social system in order to understand its semantic functions. The investigation of symbols is thus basically an exercise in comparative interpretation: the explication of meaning in particular contexts vis-à-vis the wider usage of a particular symbol in culture. In symbolic anthropology, metaphor is singled out for its function as a powerful device for expressing meaning and interrelating diverse aspects of reality.5 However, it is also clear that metaphor is but one symbolic operation among many tropes through which form and meaning can be related (Friedrich 1991).6 For the purposes of understanding the semantics of ancient Maya imagery, one of the most useful distinctions is between metaphor and metonym or its more specific variant, synecdoche. In his essay “Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasia” (first published in 1956), Roman Jakobson (1971: 239–259) defined this contrast with reference to Ferdinand de Saussure’s paradigmatic/syntagmatic axes in language. Whereas metaphor suggests a similarity or analogy in form or feeling between terms in different domains (e.g., lion as royalty), metonym/synecdoche suggests contiguity between terms (see also Fernandez 1986: 43). In metonym the name of an object is substituted for something with which it is associated (e.g., “the crown” for the monarchy), whereas in synecdoche a part substitutes for the whole (e.g., “hands” for laborers). Both operate along an axis of successions. He further pointed out that metaphor has been studied more extensively than metonym because the interpretive logic is based on the unified concept of similarity. In contrast, metonym/synecdoche could involve

4

Looper_5982.indd 4

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

a number of relations, such as fission, fusion, proximity or contact, cause and effect, and general context. An investigation of metonymic reference would involve the exploration of ritual, mythology, everyday praxis, subsistence, the economy, medicine, or any number of other complex cultural processes in which a given sign might be involved. These distinctions are useful in discussing the meanings of visual art for several reasons. First, they provide a means of distinguishing different modes of signification: death could be symbolized on the one hand by an extinguished candle (metaphor) or on the other by a skull (metonym/synecdoche) (Brandl and Ammann 1993). Each symbolic solution represents a logical pathway grounded in a particular history and generated within a specific cultural context. The distinction also allows for a more in-depth analysis of semantic reference, since signs often combine metaphorical and metonymic modalities. This book endeavors to unpack the rhetorical functions of a series of images, thereby revealing an underlying metaphorical and metonymic significance for deer. By examining the diverse contexts in which deer images occur, it suggests that the metaphorical utilization of deer had sociopolitical functions, tied metonymically to both the economy and subsistence strategies. Symbolic anthropologists and more broadly semioticians acknowledge that the meanings ascribed to tropes are socially constituted and therefore subject to change as they are interpreted and acted upon (see Peirce 1998: 290–291).7 There is a slippage between the way that individuals attempt to convey their unique experiences and ideas using the culturally established, and therefore external, form of a trope. The very act of employing tropes creates new experiences, so the referent of

a given trope continually retreats from the speech act (see Bakhtin 1986). Recognizing the experiences as vaguely formed or inchoate, we may theorize that tropes help to make these thoughts and feelings more concrete. Individuals do not employ tropes randomly but draw from a body of options based on perceptions of how others will understand and react to them. The trope may be used in either a novel or a conventional manner. In either case, as James Fernandez (1986) noted, one must accede to the validity of their metaphors to discover what others are trying to communicate. Thus, it is through a process of mutual acquiescence that certain forms accrue meanings. Fernandez (1986: 13–14, 25) concluded that cultural integration correlates with the degree of consensus about the appropriateness of metaphors and asserted that metaphorical communication takes place within the “quality space” of culturally determined semantic domains. Roy Wagner (1989: 18) agreed, referring to the perception of meaning within the “value space” established by symbolic points of reference. In his view, “[c]ulture is but analogy based on (and subversive to) other analogies, not in a tension of rigid oppositions or categories, but a mobile range of transformations worked up[on] a conventional core . . . [that] is itself a kind of residue, ‘conventional’ only because some particular set, or combination, of its analogic associations has been identified as the most literal, or common—a definitional ‘absolute’” (Wagner 1989: 7). In the context of ancient Mesoamerican visual culture and literature, tropes typically acquire authority or force through a firm grounding within the boundaries of an ancestrally and ritually sanctioned “quality space.” Having defined the framework for the analysis, we may now turn to the question

5

Looper_5982.indd 5

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

of why the Maya, like other cultures, so frequently used animals as metaphors. In cultural anthropology, animals have largely been examined from four perspectives: as totems and related symbols, as symbols for constructing other identities, as economic resources, and as metaphors for nature (DeMello 2012: 21). In this regard, the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss stands out as foundational, having profoundly influenced later scholars’ views of the meaning of animals in culture. Building on structuralist linguistic theory, Lévi-Strauss asserted that the symbolic potential of animals is frequently phrased as dyads. For example, he noted that jaguar and deer serve contrasting roles in Native American mythology, representing the dyads of carnivore/herbivore, killer/victim, and father/son-in-law (Lévi-Strauss 1969: 139). In From Honey to Ashes, he proposed another dyadic relationship involving deer, in which the contrast between deer and pigs is analogous to the contrast between women and men (Lévi-Strauss 1973: 343). Moreover, he interpreted totemism (the “archaic” equation of human ancestors with nonhuman species) as a symbolic operation that expresses human social relations (Lévi-Strauss 1963a, 1964). In essence, Lévi-Strauss used totemism to interpret the human/nonhuman animal relationship as one of both connection (identification) and mastery (through separation): that is, as cultural metaphor. His frequently quoted dictum that species are “good to think” is widely understood to reflect his interpretation of animals as handy devices within cultures’ symbolic tool kits (Lévi-Strauss 1964: 89). While Lévi-Strauss tells us that animals make useful metaphors for social classification, we are left wondering why animals—and why particular animals? John Berger (2015: 4, 7) argued that animals were the first metaphors

employed by humans and that this ascription of meaning arose from close observation of habits. Presumably, from the evolutionary perspective, this had much to do with the complex task of determining the value of particular species as prey and assessing the risk of other predators (see also Fernandez 1986: 32–36; Shepard 1993). This might explain, in part, why jaguars are of prime importance in Mesoamerica, as opposed to other quadruped mammalian species such as bears or foxes. Scholars have noted that the metaphorical use of animals varies cross-culturally depending on the available fauna and on the nature of cultural categories and other groups that animals would potentially symbolize (Tapper 1994: 51; Werness 2006). In some areas of Mesoamerica, ecology is clearly of great importance in this regard; for example, monkeys are found in art throughout Mesoamerica but achieve a special prominence in the Maya area, which was typified by forest habitats favored by monkeys. The semantic values attributed to animal-signs in Mesoamerica included the representation of mythical beings, the personification of natural forces, and the image of human social traits (Benson 1997: 13, 19–20). Animals were also frequently used as names and emblems of gender, social class, rank, lineage, and ritual complexes, such as warfare (Benson 1997: 6–7). Lévi-Strauss’s theories about totemism imply that animals became prominent metaphors owing to both their similarities to humans and differences from them. Perceived as discrete physical “units,” animals provide a solid basis upon which meanings can be predicated. Animals “stand for themselves”: that is, they are felt to be iconically “real”—natural, obvious, and complete (see Wagner 1989). Even today, “in uncertain social circumstances, subjects return to primordial predications in

6

Looper_5982.indd 6

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

search of a more concrete object upon which the subject can be fixed”: they might refer to each other as bears, doves, rats, and so forth (Fernandez 1986: 36). Berger (2015: 9) also noted that the metaphorical use of animals was based on observational proximity in cultures like the ancient Maya, yet, paradoxically, this usage itself is what distinguishes humans from nonhuman animals. The rhetoric of animal metaphors asserts simultaneously the closeness and separation between humans and other animals. Animals are ideal metaphors because their obvious similarities to and differences from humans are analogous to the similarities and differences between metaphors and their referents. One reason animals may be employed so frequently as metaphors is that they are fundamentally image tropes that iconically resemble physical humans (eyes, mouth, movement, bilateral symmetry, etc.) and act like them in some respects but also differ from humans and other animals in systematic ways such as anatomy and physical capacities. This structural patterning provides the opportunity for building potentially elaborate semantic armatures (Berger 2015: 4).8 Animals also can be perceived dualistically like humans, both as immortal types and as individuals that are born and are sentient, grow, and die (Berger 2015: 7). As such, they are ideal models for processual and performative concepts (Daston and Mitman 2005: 13). Economic/production systems are one of the most important processual systems that can be metaphorically embodied through animals (Tapper 1994: 52). In the Maya case, this relates most closely to hunting and agriculture, as animal domestication was not of great importance, limited to dogs and turkeys, presumably owing to humans’ access to a wide range of edible wild species. As outlined

by Jack Goody (2011), symbolism and social messages are often communicated through animals within the framework of consumption and unequal access. Animals are ideal in such contexts because they constitute a category with internal variation that can express various identities but packaged in material form that can be divided, modified, preserved, exchanged, and consumed. Animal metaphors therefore allow for the deployment of social symbolism within material networks. One dimension of this process is “gastro-politics,” the use of animal-derived foods to compete for social advantage (Appadurai 1981). A good example of this is the frequent association of deer meat with elite status among the ancient Maya, perhaps tied to territorial control (chapter 3). However, the products of animals are not only eaten but preserved, displayed, worn, and used as tools, which reflects innumerable facets through which material exchanges can express social meanings of animals (chapter 2). This book attempts to decipher the social meanings of deer in Maya art and culture but goes beyond traditional symbolic anthropology by placing these meanings within specific sociopolitical and economic contexts, particularly the Late Classic lowland Maya. In this way, the study attempts to reconnect the “mental” with the “material” dimensions of culture (see Ortner 1973: 1342). As Fernandez (1986: 10, 38) noted, in addition to appealing to logic, tropes are emotionally saturated; the sentimental content of animal metaphors is often of a moral character, implying praise or disparagement. In Western culture, owing to a general ideology in which animals pertain to a dominated category, these metaphors tend to be derogatory (e.g., dog, pig) or at best ambivalent (e.g., bull, fox). Animals are useful as moral metaphors because they

7

Looper_5982.indd 7

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

represent a degree of abstraction, separating morality from humans and thereby avoiding embarrassing subjects. At the same time, they naturalize morality (Tapper 1994: 51). Further, as Tim Ingold (1994b: 3) observed, biological species are not in fact “natural kinds” but rather co-descendants and potential co-ancestors. The boundaries of the moral community are therefore potentially inclusive of all living beings past and present. By classifying species as kinds, however, cultures are able to establish moral distinctions among them. It is this categorical distinction that allows us to order our lives in terms of, for example, “domestication and slavery, hunting and homicide, and carnivory and cannibalism” (Ingold 1994b: 3). For example, in a classic essay, Stanley Tambiah (1969) showed how Thai agriculturalists ascribe moral value to animal metaphors by employing animals of relative edibility and varying degrees of domestication as metaphors for marriage eligibility. His study therefore demonstrated that certain animal metaphors are important because they express social relations and the relationship between humans and nature and also represent a system of moral conduct. He further showed how edibility of various species is mapped onto marriage and sex rules and norms of behavior in the physical space of the home. In his schema, familiar wild animals that are eaten, such as deer, correspond to nonfamily members, with whom marriage is possible. They also correlate with the saan (house entrance platform) and the activities associated with this space. The similarities and dissimilarities implied by the metaphorical use of animals as characterizations of human society prompt a reconsideration of the contrast between nature and culture. The separation of culture from nature, in fact, provides the theoretical basis for

anthropological approaches that identify culture as fundamentally composed of semiotic fields. Mesoamericans distinguished between the human and natural worlds; however, the separation was incomplete. Scholars note that the Mesoamerican concept of personhood, manifested in sentience, volition, memory, and speech, does not assume an absolute distinction between humans and nonhuman animals (Monaghan 1998). This belief is shared with many other indigenous cultures, which recognize that personhood is not intrinsic to discrete physical entities. The notion that spirit may assume various physical forms has multifarious implications for understanding the human/animal relationship; for example, it affords some Mesoamericans the ability to transform into animals (Furst 1968). Many contemporary Mesoamerican peoples—like other Native Americans—also preserve beliefs in animal spirit protectors, which must be respected as persons and negotiated with in order to achieve success in hunting. This special relationship—typical of hunter-gatherer worldviews—emphasizes the porous boundary between humans and nonhumans through which coexistence becomes possible (see Ingold 1994a, 1994b). With the human domestication of plants and animals comes further intermeshing of other species with humans, such that it becomes impossible to distinguish purely “human” society versus nonhuman. An important manifestation of the humananimal relationship is the so-called nagual or co-essence with whom human persons share destinies (Holland 1961). Many though not all co-essences are wild animals, which are most active at night. Hence co-essences are frequently thought of as akin to wild animals, through whose eyes dreamers may see the world (Monaghan 1998: 142). Co-essences

8

Looper_5982.indd 8

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

have similarities to animals but are not the same as “real” or run-of-the-mill wild animals. Among the Tzotzil Maya of Chiapas, animal co-essences (hch’uleltik “our souls”) also do not overlap with game animals (hwe’eltik “our food”) (Köhler 1995: 131). Thus, even though co-essences have some qualities that make them like metaphors (they sometimes express social ranking by reference to the relative power of the co-essence), it is also significant that human individuals are the co-essences of spirit-animals and vice versa (Monaghan 1998: 143). This suggests that a consideration of the co-essence simply as a “tool” for human use would distort the dynamics of agency between the human and his/her co-essence. Going a step further, the notion that at least some animals are persons implies the ascription of consciousness and intentionality to them (Ingold 1994b: 9). Ingold (1994b: 7) provides an example of the interplay of agency between human hunter and deer: “to the extent that the human hunter benefits from forecasting the reactions of the deer, so the deer benefits from being able to predict the hunter’s prediction, and to confound it by exercising autonomous powers of intentional action.” A closely related issue is the anthropocentrism typical of discussions of animal/human relations, which often focus on how animals can be “used,” both physically and conceptually (see Tapper 1994: 48). This perspective is typical of both archaeological approaches, which emphasize using animal remains to assess the human use of subsistence resources and relationship to the environment, and art historical studies, which tend to focus on the symbolic use of animals, including their relationship to cosmology, mythology, aesthetics, and social identities. Indeed, as pointed out above with reference to co-essences, it might be useful

to consider “some non-humans in some situations as if they could perceive, feel, emote, make decisions, and perhaps even ‘reason’ something like a human being” (Philo and Wilbert 2007: 18). In the Classic Maya case, this perspective remains largely elusive simply because of the nature and scarcity of the evidence. However, it is worthwhile at least to entertain the possibility of viewing the human/ animal relationship from a nonhuman point of view. From the Mesoamerican standpoint in which some nonhuman animals can be considered as persons, it seems valuable to investigate the ways in which animals are entangled in human social relations or are even a part of these relations. A perspective that examines how the actions of animals and other nonhuman persons affect the world (including that of humans) might shed light on how humans think with animals, rather than about them (see Daston and Mitman 2005: 5). While Lévi-Strauss’s absolute distinction between nature and culture seems problematic in the Mesoamerican context, so too does its lack of acknowledgment of the importance of physical/material factors in relation to animal symbolism. Indeed, many scholars have noted that animal symbolism in Mesoamerican art is closely related to ecological considerations, including observations of behavior.9 Large, dominant carnivorous species (crocodiles, jaguars, eagles, etc.) served as metaphors for political power (Saunders 1994). Furthermore, rulers are often shown controlling or subordinating these creatures, thereby indicating their superdominance (Sugiyama et al. 2015). It is also fairly common in the literature on Maya art to associate various animals with specific cosmic realms (sky, earth’s surface, underworld, sea) based on their general habitat and/ or metaphorically associate transition between

9

Looper_5982.indd 9

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

these cosmic realms with animals that move between the realms of sky, land, and water.10 Frequently, these “vertically oriented” species that pass from one realm to another are interpreted as embodiments of religious power (Joralemon 1976; Linda Schele, cited by Reilly 1987: 63–64). Such interpretations often seem to reflect psychological understandings of animal symbols as mediators between different fields of consciousness. In particular, Carl G. Jung believed that animal images unify consciousness with unconsciousness, resulting in “the full realization of the potential of his individual Self” (Jung et al. 1978: 149). Jung identified various animals as “transcendental symbols,” including birds (particularly ducks and swans) and chthonic animals such as rodents, lizards, snakes, and fish, because they mediate between different cosmic realms (Jung et al. 1978: 152, 154). While such interpretations seem perhaps too generalized to be useful in specific cultural contexts, they do point to the importance of ecology and ethology (the study of animal behavior) as the basis for developing animal metaphors. It is obvious from their art that the Maya also paid close attention to the appearance of nonhuman animals and carefully observed their behavior. For instance, they often rendered ocarinas (whistles) in the form of coatis (Nasua narica), which emit frequent high-pitched “chirps” (Benson 1997: 21, 44). Indeed, one of the main themes of this book is to show how Maya observations of and interactions with deer through hunting served as a basis for ascribing metaphorical significance to these animals. More specifically, the Maya conceptualized deer (mainly white-tails) as embodiments of liminality, a state of being between two spaces or statuses. In cultural anthropology, Arnold van Gennep formulated the most influential model for

understanding liminality, with further elaborations by Victor Turner.11 The concept was originally developed by van Gennep to interpret “rites of passage” in traditional societies, whereby persons achieve new social or sexual identities and statuses. The process begins with the break from the patterns of daily life. Following this, the participant enters into a liminal, transitory state, often defined by feelings of “communitas” or collective catharsis. Finally, social order is reestablished by the reincorporation of liminal persons into society. While van Gennep was mainly concerned with personal rites such as initiations, marriages, and funerals, Turner generalized the concept of the liminal to encompass community events of various kinds. Turner devoted much effort to examining the qualities and social functions of liminality. According to him, the liminal state is characterized by pain, namelessness, spatial and temporal dislocation, disorientation, and the inversion of social norms (Turner 1974: 166–230, 2011: 156). From Turner’s perspective, the liminal state induces the individual to question the self and his/her role in society, leading to renewal through liberation from everyday social constraints. In Maya studies (and Mesoamerican studies in general), Turner’s ideas regarding liminality have been highly influential. For example, James Fitzsimmons (2009) employed these concepts to interpret Classic Maya funerary rites; Stephen Houston (2018: 93–95, 113–114) drew upon them to understand Maya male initiation; and Richard F. Townsend (1989) discussed Aztec coronation ceremonies from this perspective. Inspired in part by Evon Vogt’s (1976: 177) description of modern Maya New Year rites as liminal in nature, Karl Taube (1988a) discussed at length the equivalent Postclassic and early colonial Maya year-ending rite (Wayeb) in similar terms. According to his

10

Looper_5982.indd 10

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

interpretation, the Wayeb can be defined as a community rite of passage, in which social differences were nullified, followed by reconstitution of society and the world (Taube 1988a: 12). As part of his work on this ceremony, Taube (1989b) placed emphasis on clowning as a manifestation of social inversions typical of Mesoamerican collective rites of passage. This is similar to Turner’s characterization of the liminal space as a domain of experimentation. It is also possible to view many other ancient Maya rituals, especially the ballgame, as expressing similar ludic qualities. This book argues that deer were not only important to various Maya rites of passage, in the sense of van Gennep, but were also metonymically associated with transitional times and spaces. As such, they uniquely fulfilled the role of bridging or blurring oppositional categories, especially when deployed in the context of myth and ritual.

of deer traits upon humans, such as deer ears on human bodies; see Daston and Mitman 2005: 3–6; Schele and Miller 1986: 43). Such hybridity frequently evokes the inchoate state of the world in the mythical time frame, when primordial beings such as animals, celestial bodies, plants, and stones had the status of persons. The salience of animals in these stories reflects not only their temporal primacy in Mesoamerican myth but the fact that it was through interactions with nonhuman animals that humans were believed to have learned how to survive (Benson 1997: 132). The stereotypical activity that defines the inchoate state of being is speaking human language (López Austin 2011: 34). On a Maya cacao-serving vessel from the Calakmul region, now in the Princeton University Art Museum, a rabbit manifests his linguistic ability by writing down an account of the palace of God L in a codex—the apex of Maya literary achievement (fig. I.1). In this and related scenes, the animal character is often hyperhumanized, highlightde er narr ati ve s: my th and ri t ua l ing its imputed behavior and simplifying the In ancient Maya art cervid imagery rarely characterization, which is reduced to the level occurs as an isolated symbol or emblem but of a prototype (see Daston and Mitman 2005: instead as a component of a narrative. As 9). Thus, the rabbit is presented not just as a such, the imagery is “packaged” together with clever trickster but as the paragon of wit. His other metaphorical images with the overall act of writing serves as a model for human intention of representing and supporting the scribes in the sense that it authenticates their social status or political claims of the patron.12 literary endeavors as having been passed down Some of the images discussed in this book from primordial times, when animals and gods show deer as a secondary component of larger conversed. As the current era dawned, these scenes that focus on historical human actors, higher faculties were lost, and nonhuman permany of whom hold prominent social posisons were reduced to their current state. They tions. Other images depict deer in contexts that also often underwent physical modifications scholars generally define as mythical.13 Typiand differentiation, such as the deer and rabbit cally, the actors in these narratives are spirit losing their long tails after they were grabbed beings of various kinds, including gods. These by one of the Hero Twins, as described above. images exemplify both anthropomorphism The dawning/creation resulted in a great sort(the attribution of human traits to deer, such ing, in which animals were separated from as bipedal deer) and zoomorphism (bestowal humans and many dispersed to the wilderness 11

Looper_5982.indd 11

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

(see López Austin 2011: 34, 72). The telling of this story on the vase was not simply a representation but functioned as an event or “dislocation . . . within a realm of conventional orientations” (Wagner 1978: 255) that claimed scribal arts as the purview of the elites who created and consumed the object and its contents in the context of high-status feasts. It represented a strategic act through which various agents expressed social difference with reference to nonhuman animals, among other metaphors. The image served as a complement to the physical grounding of these narratives in nature, through the material fact of the shortened tails of rabbits (and deer). Building on the work of early Mesoamericanists such as Eduard Seler and J. Eric S. Thompson, modern scholars frequently employ a comparative method to interpret mythical images in Maya art.14 This approach makes certain assumptions about the structure and function of myth as well as its relation to historical change. One of the clearest articulations of the comparative method in the study of Mesoamerican mythology is presented in Alfredo López Austin’s book Myths of the Opossum, first published in a Spanish edition in 1990 (López Austin 2011). López Austin makes the critical distinction between the characters in myth and their underlying narrative structures. Although the specific identities of characters (their names) often differ greatly between variants of a story, the “nodal subjects” of myths tend to remain stable. The purpose of comparative mythology therefore should be to compare narratives to understand their underlying structures. The structural approach outlined by López Austin owes much to the work of Lévi-Strauss, who had employed the cross-cultural analysis of myth to reveal supposedly universal laws inherent in human thought, especially

figure i.1. Rabbit scribe, detail of Late Classic vase, K511. Princeton University Art Museum y1975-17. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

oppositions and their resolutions (Lévi-Strauss 1963b: 224). Interestingly, however, LéviStrauss’s magnum opus, Mythologiques, largely skips the rich mythological content of Mesoamerica, focusing on South American and North American material. While scholars have critiqued many of the details of Lévi-Strauss’s analyses, structural oppositions have consistently been shown to be of great importance to Mesoamerican myth and cosmology as expressions of dualistic religious and cultural concepts (Graulich 1983: 575). López Austin (2011: 261) describes four immediate goals for the comparative method in mythic analysis: to disclose common narrative structures, to interpret characters and complementary patterns, to shed light on unclear elements, and to reconstruct missing segments of a myth. These are connected to an overall goal, which is to distill meaning from the aggregate of versions. In other words, he seeks to disclose what he calls “nomological subjects,” which are the major creative processes and cosmological principles articulated in myth. Myths are an important means of systematizing and passing on knowledge represented by these subjects (López Austin 2011: 283–285). In this sense, his use of structural analysis is similar to that of Lévi-Strauss. However, López Austin (2011: 233) takes account of

12

Looper_5982.indd 12

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

material factors, noting that mythic narratives are often rooted in observations of animals and their behavior. He also goes beyond LéviStrauss in examining individual myths against the background of variants in order to interpret the meaning of particular narrative iterations (López Austin 2011: 261). By conceiving of myth as both a means of codifying information and a cognitive medium for working through problems and imagining possibilities, López Austin points the way toward the interpretation of myths in relation to ideology. As extended metaphors, myths serve as the models for normative moral behavior (Hamell 1986: 74; López Austin 2011: 283–285). Far from being fantasy, myths are rooted in the rational attempt to define and explain multifarious aspects of the world and the role of humans within it (see López Austin 2011: 252). Even though their narrative structure is highly elastic, myths often employ extremely dense metaphors such as gods and animals that can be interpreted in diverse ways, depending on the context of the telling. A prime example of this polysemic quality of Mesoamerican myth would be the Popol Vuh, which simultaneously expresses tales of primordial heroism layered with astronomical, calendrical, and agricultural lore (see Tedlock 1996). By pondering the various meanings associated with different mythic elements, the listener/reader engages with the moral authority of ancestral wisdom. Because much of Classic-period Maya art has an elite focus, its mythical content has the primary moral function of legitimating rulership (Kubler 1974). However, because these myths are rooted in cultural processes that relate to multiple dimensions of worldview, such as farming, hunting, courtship, and veneration of the dead, ancient Maya mythic narratives provide an important glimpse of the broader meaning of metaphors such as deer in Maya culture.

Myths also function as a template for praxis, particularly as archetypes or allegories for the formalized procedures that scholars call ritual (López Austin 2011: 283–285; Wagner 1978: 251). Ritual predicates metaphors upon participants by packaging meanings in an aesthetically affective manner and by using these metaphors to structure social relations among the participants (Fernandez 1986: 42–43). The synergy between ritual and myth is intense and focused in Mesoamerica. Myth serves as a template for ritual, while ritual expresses the ideological content of myth and sometimes even reenacts it (see below and chapter 4). Because of the pervasiveness of ritual in ancient Mesoamerican life, ideologies were not derived from belief but from ritual performance that expressed mythic content. By occupying collective socially performed “quality space,” myths anchored belief. From the available evidence, it seems as if nearly every ritual activity depicted in ancient Maya art and inscriptions has a mythical counterpart, from solemn bloodletting to raucous feasts. On occasion, rulers explicitly performed as mythical characters. But often rituals were patterned after mythic narratives, which provide their thematic content and aesthetic force. A simple example from a pair of monuments from Quiriguá dating to 775 AD illustrates the direct rhetorical relationship between ritual and myth. These monuments are “twins,” dedicated on the same date, adjacent to each other, and by the same ruler. Their inscriptions can be read in a continuous sequence starting with Stela C and culminating with Stela A. The inscription on the east face of Stela C records the mythic date of 13.0.0.0.0 (3114 BC) followed by the planting of stones by the gods (fig. I.2a; Freidel, Schele, and Parker 1993). The text continues on the west face with an account of a historical ritual in 455 AD by a local ances-

13

Looper_5982.indd 13

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

tral king (fig. I.2b). The occasion was a period ending, a calendrical festival that commemorated the primordial stone-dedication mentioned on the east face. Significantly, exactly the same verbal expression, utz’apaw tuun “he/ they plant(s) a stone,” is used in each instance. The east text of Stela A records the dedication of the monuments in 775 (fig. I.2c). Although the agent is omitted, it is understood from the remainder of the inscription to be the current ruler K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat. Again, the verb refers to the “planting” of a stone. The texts of these two monuments together present the erection of stones by the gods as a proto-

type for a similar act by the ancestor, and both of these serve as the precedent for the ritual performed by the current king (Looper 2003: 158–185). Because the subject matter of monumental texts is relatively narrow, focusing on monument dedication, their mythological content seems to have been limited. This is in contrast to smaller-scale art works such as ceramic vessels, which seem to depict a much wider range of narratives (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2017: 35). It is common for vases and bowls to have a dedicatory inscription around the rim but completely unrelated mythic scenes and texts figure i.2. References to a, mythical; b, ancestral; and c, historical monument dedications. Details of Stelae C and A inscriptions, Quiriguá, Guatemala. Drawing by author.

a

they plant

a stone, the Paddler Gods

b

he plants

a stone, Tutuum

Yo’hl K’inich

it is planted

Six Ajaw

stone

c

14

Looper_5982.indd 14

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

below. Because of this contextual heterogeneity, attempts to reconstitute grand mythic narratives from disparate sources (monuments and portable objects) may result in a pastiche. Another problem that hampers comparison between mythic sources is that many monumental narratives seem to present mythology from the perspective of local dynasties for political purposes (Stuart 2011: 209). In such cases, we must walk the fine line between recognizing the possibility of local variation in mythic content and the existence of widespread mythic templates. Because mythological referents of monuments and pottery rarely overlap, it seems most fruitful to compare myths on the level of fundamental tropes (or “nodal subjects,” to use López Austin’s term) and ritual and myth on the level of ideology. Another issue raised by the comparative method in the study of mythology has to do with identifications across time. In fact, this study points out connections between Classicperiod hunting-related lore and material from the colonial and modern eras, drawing upon historical accounts, indigenous literature, and ethnographic studies. The problems of such trans-historical comparisons/analogies have been discussed at length in various contexts by numerous scholars. Indeed, as Ralph Beals (1945: 1) pointed out long ago: “Nowhere in Mexico is there an aboriginal culture which is intact, uncontaminated by European influences. Not even the memory of purely preHispanic conditions survives. For from three to four centuries processes of disintegration, absorption, and reconstruction have made the Indian cultures new and distinct.” More recent historians of Latin American art sometimes invoke the term “hybridity” to define the way in which cultural contact had ideational implications for various groups in a colonial context,

which results in the emergence of new forms of art and identities (see Dean and Leibsohn 2003). Nevertheless, just as the grammatical structures and vocabularies of colonial-era and modern Mayan languages are studied for clues regarding the structure and meaning of ancient Maya inscriptions, so too is it possible for us to identify common themes expressed through plot and imagery between ancient and modern mythic narratives and performances. In fact, most modern scholars concur with López Austin (2011: 16), who argues not only that Mesoamericans shared many common elements of religion and mythology but that these traditions endured to the present, although often altered in various ways by European influence. In the Maya area, one of the best proofs of the validity of this approach is the application of elements of the Popol Vuh to the interpretation of ancient Maya art.15 This is despite the fact that this document is of early colonial date and relates to a highland geographical area to the south of the northern lowland area where most ancient Maya art is found. A final issue relating to comparative mythology is its cross-cultural validity. In fact, various studies have considered the symbolism of deer within a cross-cultural framework. While some have been limited to Mesoamerica,16 other studies range widely, employing comparisons with data from South America as well as North America north of Mexico (e.g., Olivier 2015). The justification for such an investigation is that certain myths are apparently very widespread. Some myths can even be characterized as virtually pan-American, such as the story of a diminutive bird who falls in love with a female weaver (López Austin 2011: 18). This story, which is even found in the Andes, is of great importance to the Maya and other Mesoamericans (as discussed

15

Looper_5982.indd 15

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

in chapter 4). Other extremely widespread, virtually pan-American concepts include the “master of animals” myths and their accompanying rituals (see chapter 6). The existence of these complexes of belief and ritual practice justifies the far-ranging comparisons made in this study. Because of their geographical proximity and long history of interaction, which is attested linguistically, historically, and archaeologically, the mythic corpus of Mesoamerica merits comprehensive analysis: these myths surely “form a coherent nucleus, a particular order, that served as an ideological framework for societies that existed before the European conquest” (López Austin 2011: 18). Accordingly, throughout this study, I make comparisons between ancient Maya imagery and other Mesoamerican cultures—particularly the central Mexican Nahua or Aztec— when they help to illuminate the imagery.17 Especially relevant to the study are the myths and rituals of various colonial and modern Maya groups, including the Yucatec, Lacandon, Itzaj, Mopan, Ch’ol, Ch’orti’, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Q’anjob’al, Ixil, Awakatek, K’iche’, Kaqchikel, Tz’utujil, Poqomam, and Q’eqchi’. However, because these narratives are the products of specific places and the rituals carried out by individuals, they must be interpreted within local contexts. Even the Popol Vuh is a product of a particular place (Santa Cruz del Quiché) and time and therefore represents local politics and social values (Akkeren 2003). While this narrative cannot be taken to be representative of “Maya mythology” as a whole, the Popol Vuh can be compared with other Mesoamerican myths as an aid to reconstructing more ancient and geographically dispersed mythic paradigms, such as those that circulated during the Classic period.

pr e v ious s t u di e s of de er in m aya a r t Although several aspects of deer symbolism in Maya art have been explored in scholarly studies, the considerable importance of this animal to ancient Maya society merits an extended investigation. The earliest discussions of this imagery focused on one of the hieroglyphic manuscripts dating to the Postclassic period (900–1521), the Madrid Codex, which contains numerous depictions of fairly naturalistic deer, often trapped in snares (see chapter 6; Anders 1963: 206–207). Early scholars also noted the prominence of cervid imagery in Classicperiod art, but interpretations were relatively superficial. Nevertheless, some scholars, such as J. Eric S. Thompson (1939b: 150, 151, fig. 3), made observations about ancient Maya deer iconography, supported by analogies from mythology and folklore. During the 1970s and 1980s, scholars began to publish more detailed studies of deer imagery in Maya art. Peter Furst (1976: 167) wrote: “From the enormous corpus of painted and carved Maya funerary pottery, it is quite evident also that the deer played an important role in Maya beliefs about the land of the dead, the underworld; clearly the deer was intimately associated among the Maya and other Mesoamerican Indians with magic, transformation, death ritual and the upper- and underworlds, in particular the latter.” During this period, most studies employed ethnographic or ethnohistoric data to aid in the interpretation of iconography. One of the most frequently cited works is Mary Pohl’s (1981) study of deer symbolism in relation to ethnographically documented political ritual (see chapter 7). In an important unpublished study from the same period, Karl Taube (1980) presented detailed

16

Looper_5982.indd 16

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

analyses of many key images of deer in Classic Maya art, often following Thompson in interpreting them by using mythic analogies. This was followed by several other studies that discussed cervid imagery in relation to ideologies of sacrifice and ecological interpretations (see Taube 1988a, 1988b). At around the same time, Nicholas Hellmuth (1987, 1991, 1996) explored a related dimension of deer imagery: its associations with warfare and the ballgame. Hellmuth’s studies are notable for being almost entirely iconographic, without relying on ethnographic, mythic, or ethnohistorical comparisons. Edwin Braakhuis (1987) published a study of a Classic-period painted vessel that he believed to display deer symbolism. Building on Thompson’s methodology, he used folklore and comparative mythology to develop an interpretation of deer as related to the sun and to temporal concepts. Several years later, Braakhuis (2001, 2005), as well as Erik Boot (1989), used the same methodology to demonstrate the relationship between deer and sexuality in ancient Maya art, an interpretation that other authors have explored.18 More recently, scholars have used the same methods to link deer with the veneration of the dead (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2011, 2012b, 2017), with concepts of disease (Helmke and Nielsen 2009), and with seasonality (Asensio Ramos 2007). Guilhem Olivier (2015) has elaborated upon many of these themes (especially deer as a metaphor for sexuality, warfare, and sacrifice), though his emphasis was on central Mexico, rather than the Maya. While the present study obviously builds on several of these pioneering publications, it moves beyond the relatively narrow focus of previous authors to pursue the interweaving

of these themes. Moreover, many aspects of cervid imagery remain controversial or unexplained. Several areas have been only superficially explored, such as the relationship of the animal to elite status or the ceremonial functions of deer remains such as antlers and hides (chapters 2 and 3). The present discussion of numerous dimensions of deer symbolism in Maya art addresses many of these issues and suggests new avenues for investigation. The study takes as its starting point the semantic analysis of deer imagery, as deciphered through comparisons with mythological discourses and related ritual narratives. Inspired by López Austin, it also explores the ideologies that myths and rituals express, taking into account their specific context or their general context when details of use and circulation are lacking. These ideologies are interpreted against the background of relevant archaeological data to suggest the impact of deer hunting on culture as well as on the environment. By going beyond the traditional bounds of art history, we can better understand the wider significance of deer as they became entangled in human relationships, both materially as hunted game and spiritually. Methodologically, the present study also differs from many previous works in employing extensive comparisons of ancient Maya imagery and texts with ritual dances performed in colonialperiod and contemporary Maya communities. This is an approach that I previously explored in relation to diverse themes in a general study of ancient Maya dance (Looper 2009). The contextualization of these narratives provides a perspective on the social meaning of deer imagery particularly in the Late Classic Maya lowlands.

17

Looper_5982.indd 17

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

cha pter s y nop se s The book is divided into eight chapters, each of which emphasizes a particular work of art or group of related works as useful in understanding a facet of deer symbolism in Maya art. The first chapter covers the ethnobiology of deer, focusing on indigenous interactions with and exploitation of these animals. The main deer species native to the Maya region are the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), the red brocket or temazate rojo (Mazama temama), and the Yucatán brown brocket or temazate gris (Mazama pandora). The chapter opens with a discussion of the animals’ physical characteristics, behavior, habitat, and diet. This is followed by a description of the hunting tactics used by the Maya in various periods. The case for deer management is also considered. Though the ancient Maya prized deer for its meat, every part of the animal carcass was utilized. Thus, while entire deer are often shown in Maya art, the remains of these animals, especially antlers and hides, are also frequently depicted. In addition, an array of tools and ornaments was made from deer bone. Chapter 2 compares the visual representation of deer remains, often appearing in ceremonial contexts, with the archaeological evidence for the use of these materials. Chapter 3 employs a similar comparative method in order to discuss the link between deer and social status in ancient Maya society. This is illustrated through a discussion of an incised shell plaque located in the Cleveland Museum of Art. This object depicts a man wearing a deer headdress and surrounded by the attributes of high rank, including a shell that speaks to him of “great tribute.” The discussion focuses on the symbolism of wealth in the image as well as the complex text act

whereby the materiality of the shell upon which the image is inscribed participates intimately in communicating status. The chapter also compares the ideology of elitism conveyed by this object with the archaeological evidence associating deer consumption with social status during the Late Classic period. Chapter 4 considers the relationships of deer, sexuality, and fertility. An important context for these themes is a stylistically related series of ceramic vessels that depict the socalled Dying God motif. These vessels show aged deities reclining on platforms, attended by young women and youthful hunting gods with deer features. The implicit and explicit erotic connotations of these images suggest that they may relate to complex lore in which deer, seduced by young hunters, are the daughters or wives of the aged god. These myths highlight the sexual significance of the hunt, which serves as a metaphor for the acquisition of wives. Yet the ceramic paintings also incorporate maize symbolism, suggesting a broader interpretation of these images as mythic fertility narratives linking hunting with agriculture. The intimate deer-human relationship in Maya culture is expressed by the extensive use of the deer hunt as a metaphor for warfare, the topic of chapter 5. Some of the earliest examples of deer symbolism in Maya art show captives in the guise of deer, wearing deer attributes or being trussed or displayed like deer carcasses. An important ritual involved the sacrifice of captives depicted as deer on scaffolds, which were also used for royal accessions. This chapter explores the complex symbolism of this ritual, in which the capture and butchering of deer represented a primordial sacrifice necessary for the inauguration of rulers. This symbolism was embedded in one of the most

18

Looper_5982.indd 18

1/27/19 3:01 PM

in t ro d uc ti o n

pervasive images associated with royal accession: the supernatural known as the Starry Deer Crocodile. This chapter also discusses the relation of deer hunting to the ritual ballgame as well as rites of youthful initiation. The deer hunt therefore was closely connected to an elaborate network of ceremonies that expressed and manifested ideologies of male dominance in Classic Maya culture. Chapter 6 discusses the principal Maya deities associated with the hunt, the Siip. The evidence for the Siip first appears in the Classic period but is also documented in the Postclassic codices as well as colonial and recent ethnographic accounts. The focus of the discussion is on a comparison of ancient representations and contexts of the Siip from the Classic period with the extensive evidence for the role of the Siip in the Postclassic Maya codices (Dresden and Madrid; Anders 1967; Deckert and Anders 1975). The chapter also examines the rituals associated with the worship of hunting deities, including shrines of various types as well as hunting dances during the colonial and modern eras. Chapter 7 analyzes one of the most enigmatic and frequently published Maya images that includes deer: the so-called Calcehtok vase in the Dumbarton Oaks collection, Washington, DC. While diverse interpretations of this image have been offered, this chapter

compares its imagery with a series of stylistically distinct representations as well as Mesoamerican mythology to argue that the scenes on this vessel express a mythic narrative in which a hero attempts to resurrect his father, who then transforms into a deer. This narrative is tied to important concepts of seasonality and the passage of time, both crucial concerns to the ancient Maya. Chapter 8 explores one of the most common contexts for cervid imagery in Maya art. These are wahyob, spirits associated with death and disease. Some of these beings combine the features of various animals or humans with deer, and many have specific hunting attributes, such as conch trumpets. This chapter analyzes the iconography and sociopolitical significance of these spirits, which typically appear outside of historical contexts. An exception is the incised peccary skull from Copán Tomb 1, which features two distinct compositedeer beings, both of which are well-known wahyob, together with an image of historical rulers. The Copán peccary skull can be viewed as important evidence for understanding the supernatural dimensions of royal power during the Classic period. Finally, in the epilogue, I summarize the various findings of the study, interpreting deer imagery in Maya art as a fundamental image trope that expressed concepts of liminality.

19

Looper_5982.indd 19

1/27/19 3:01 PM

figure 1.1. Classic-period painted vase showing white-tailed deer. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K5204.

Looper_5982.indd 20

1/27/19 3:01 PM

chapter one

Deer Life The Maya Ethnobiology of Deer

eer are usually easily recognizable in Maya art. For example, the painted vase K5204 shows two plump deer with long pointed ears, cloven hooves, upright short tails, and, most distinctively, curved white antlers (fig. 1.1).1 In fact, three species of deer are native to the Maya area: the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), the red brocket or temazate rojo (Mazama temama), and the Yucatán brown brocket or temazate gris (Mazama pandora).2 Subspecies identification of these animals is controversial and seemingly arbitrary. Although M. pandora is sometimes treated as a subspecies of either M. temama or a mainly South American species, M. gouazoubira, physical characteristics indicate that it is likely a separate species (Medellín, Gardner,

Looper_5982.indd 21

and Aranda 1998). Moreover, several studies of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA suggest grouping Odocoileus, M. temama, and M. pandora into one subclade, while M. gouazoubira belongs to another.3 This implies that the genus Mazama is no longer valid. Regardless of their precise phylogenetic relationship, all three species belong to the family Cervidae. Together with pronghorns, giraffes, bovids, musk deer, and mouse deer, the Cervidae pertain to the taxon Ruminantia, which employ rumination to extract maximum benefit from forage. Characteristic of these animals is a complex stomach that includes a chamber called the rumen. This structure allows them to chew, swallow, regurgitate, and rechew cud as well as ferment the fiber into volatile fatty acids that the animals rely

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

on for energy (Sauer 1984: 88). In turn, the Ruminantia belong to the order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, including pigs, peccaries, whales, llamas, etc.) and to the class Mammalia (mammals). The ancestry of both Odocoileus and Mazama genera can be traced to Blastomeryx and Dremotherium, tusked mammals that existed during the Oligocene epoch (Stirton 1944). During the subsequent Miocene epoch, fossils of various antlered cervids representing the superfamily Cervoidea appear in Eurasia (Gentry 1994; Webb 2000: 38). Around 5 million years ago, the first cervids entered North America, eventually finding their way to Central America (Gilbert, Ropiquet, and Hassanin 2006). The spread of Mazama and Odocoileus to South America was enabled by the formation of the Isthmus of Panama during the late Pliocene, though the details of diversification and dispersal of Mazama are not fully understood (Duarte, González, and Maldonado 2008; Webb 2000). According to a hypothesis of Luis Escobedo-Morales and colleagues (2016), based on mitochondrial DNA evidence, about 2.7 million years ago M. pandora split from a large clade that included Odocoileus and other “red” Mazama species. Ancestors of red brocket deer and related Andean species crossed into South America about 2.4 million years ago, while the ancestor of Odocoileus and M. pandora remained in Central America. Odocoileus expanded northward and southward, while M. pandora became isolated in Yucatán. About 2 million years ago M. temama split from the “red” clade and moved northward from northern South America. It is likely that DNA studies in the near future will clarify the relationships of Mazama species in support of reclassification.

m aya n c l a s sific at ion a nd t er minolo g y The limited data available regarding Maya folk taxonomy of deer reveal some similarities to the scientific categories outlined above; yet there are also important differences. The Itzaj of northern Guatemala consider brocket and white-tailed deer to be closely related to each other and to be somewhat less closely related to the imported Bovidae, sheep and goats, though not to the cow, another bovid (Atran 1999: 153). This schema corresponds roughly to the scientific categories of Cervidae and Ruminantia. However, above the level of Ruminantia, the Itzaj do not view peccaries (and pigs) as being more closely related to Ruminantia than they are to other mammals. In other words, they have no category corresponding to Artiodactyla. The Tzeltal of Chiapas, Mexico, also classify the two deer species together and then with sheep and goats but separate them from peccaries (Hunn 1977: 225–229). The distinction may have to do with observations of ecological roles, which are important to the folk taxonomy in general. Taxonomic distinction may be reflected in the Classic period as well, in the structural contrast between peccary and deer in mythic scenes (see chapter 7). Mayan languages employ distinct terms for white-tailed deer and brockets and occasionally also distinguish the red brocket from M. pandora. The most common terms of reference for white-tailed deer derive from proto-Mayan *kehj (Kaufman 2003: 583). Reflexes are found in virtually all Mayan languages, with Yucatecan languages preserving forms of kej and Ch’olan and Tzeltalan languages using chij. The terms for white-tails documented during the Classic period are also kehj/keehj and chihj (Grube 2004: 61; Lacadena García-Gallo and Wichmann 2004: 141). During the colonial

22

Looper_5982.indd 22

1/27/19 3:01 PM

d eer life

period, the term for “deer” sometimes shifted in meaning to refer to horses, in which case Nahua terms were employed for deer. Yucatecan languages utilize the term yuk to refer to brocket deer. In Lacandon and Itzaj, color terms may be added to distinguish the reddish M. temama from the grayish or brownish M. pandora. Yuk is also the name of one of the Lacandon totems (March 1987: 53; see also Tozzer 1907). Interestingly, colonial Ch’olti’ has an entry for yuk as “cabra” (goat), and a related term, chiuc, is used to refer to the brocket deer in Q’eqchi’. The term yuk is attested in a personal name in the Classic period and probably refers to Mazama species (Helmke and Nielsen 2009: 69). It is probable that the brocket/goat overlap began in the colonial period, analogous to the convergence between horses and white-tails. Ch’olti’: yuc cabra, goat (Morán 1935: 14; Robertson, Law, and Haertel 2010: 305) Q’eqchi’: yuk cabra (Comunidad Lingüística Q’eqchi’ 2004: 212) chiuc cabra [brocket deer] (Cruz Torres 1978: 43) Itzaj: yuk brocket deer (Hofling and Tesucún 1997: 696, 713, 822) ajyuk brocket deer (Hofling and Tesucún 1997: 79, 142, 822) (aj)chäk yuk red brocket deer (Hofling and Tesucún 1997: 101, 196, 879) (aj)ta’am-puse’en yuk gray brocket deer (Hofling and Tesucún 1997: 131, 580)

Lacandon: yuk brocket deer [M. temama] (Cook 2016: 41) chäk yuuk red sprocket [sic] deer (Hofling 2014: 98) Mopan: yuk brocket deer (Hofling 2011: 481) (aj)chäk yuk red brocket deer (Hofling 2011: 83, 147) Yucatec: yuk Mazama species (Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 29) yuuk Mazama pandora (Gómez Navarrete 2009: 108) yùuk fawn (Bricker, Po’ot, and Dzul de Po’ot 1998: 318)

Other terms for brockets attested in Mayan languages include Ch’ol chäk me’ and wach’ me’.4 The me’ element in these terms is a postcontact neologism derived from the bleating sound of sheep (Kaufman 2003: 586). Colonial Tzeltal has ghuagh “venado de los bermejuelos” (reddish deer) (Ara 1986: 296), while modern Tzeltal preserves jwahch’el chij (Slocum and Gerdel 1980: 109, 152). Other miscellaneous terms for brockets are found in Chuj (ch’uk chej, ch’ukul; Hopkins 2012: 79, 80) and Tzotzil (hul-bak, literally “branchless horn”; Laughlin 1975: 160). Another deer-related term found in Mayan languages is may. The compound forms chimay and chijmay refer to white-tails in Ch’ol and Chontal.5 In contrast, Yucatecan languages gloss may or maay as “(cloven) hoof.”6 The personal name component may also appears in the Classic period, and a grapheme representing a deer’s hoof reads MAY, but it is not clear if these refer to white-tailed deer, brockets, or deer hooves in general.

23

Looper_5982.indd 23

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

physica l char ac teristic s of w hite -tailed de er The largest of the deer species in the Maya area is the white-tailed deer, though its body is considerably smaller than specimens of the same species found in northerly latitudes of North America (fig. 1.2). The head and body of the deer in Mexico measure only 1,000–1,300 mm long, with a tail of 180–270 mm. They weigh 27–57 kg, with males larger than females (Leopold and Schwartz 1959: 508; see also Pohl 1977: 55, table 1). In contrast, North American white-tails are considerably heavier, weighing on average 45 kg for females and 68 kg for males, with much larger specimens reported (Sauer 1984: 80). Adult males in modern Yucatán yield up to 35 kg of boneless meat, while adult females yield up to 25 kg (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 179). The coat of the white-tailed deer is grayish brown or reddish brown above, with a white belly, chin, and tail (Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1115; Reid 2009: 289; Schlesinger 2001: 178). Fawns have spotted coats as camouflage (Sauer 1984: 73). They have pronounced white markings around the eyes and on the muzzle, while their ears are long and narrow. The white-tail has a long narrow head and a flat back. Its tail is brown above and white below. The whitetail has four sets of external glands located on the inner and outer surfaces of its hind legs, between the hooves, and in the corners of the eyes. These glands secrete pheromones that are part of a complex scent communication system (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 153–157; Sauer 1984: 75). The skeleton and musculature of whitetailed deer are highly adapted to fleeing predators, which in Mesoamerica principally included the jaguar, puma, coyote, and of course humans (Méndez 1984: 517). The

figure 1.2. The white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus. Photograph by Nicholas Hellmuth, www.maya-ethno zoology.org.

white-tail walks with its head held higher than its back. When fleeing, its tail is raised like a white flag. The animal may trot or gallop, though white-tails are also skilled at leaping easily over high obstacles when frightened (Sauer 1984: 78). Other than its white tail, the most prominent feature of the white-tailed deer is the pair of antlers of mature males. These antlers are curved and thick; their multiple tines or points branch off of a single beam (Emmons and Feer 1990: 162). These structures evolved for purposes of defense as well as for signaling social hierarchy, especially as relates to reproduction (Sauer 1984: 73). Antler growth begins in mid-March or April in the United States (Sauer 1984: 84). The antler tissue hardens in the fall, and the skin covering or velvet drops off or is rubbed away. As testosterone levels decrease in winter, the antlers are shed (Sauer 1984: 85). In Yucatán, however, antlers are shed much later, in March (Leopold and Schwartz 1959: 512). Regrowth may take

24

Looper_5982.indd 24

1/27/19 3:01 PM

d eer life

several months (Goss 1983: 36). Because the period of antler shedding corresponds to the end of the dry season in the Maya area, it is sometimes argued that the cycle of deer antler growth and shedding was symbolically linked to maize and/or vegetal life cycles in general.7 Deer are typically represented in Maya art as adults with elongated snouts; large, erect ears; curved forked antlers; a tan, brown, or reddish back; a white chin, throat, and belly; and a fluffy white tail (see fig. 1.1; Seler 1996: 220). They also usually have slender legs with black hooves, though the legs are generally rendered articulated, as with humans. In particular, the middle of the forelegs is commonly shown bending forward like a human elbow. In actual deer the joint at the midleg is the wrist or carpal, which bends backward. It should be noted that the coloration and body proportions of deer in Maya art are frequently non-naturalistic; therefore, these features cannot always be used to make species identifications. However, the typically curved and often branched antlers of deer in Maya art point to white-tails rather than brockets, suggesting that the representational conventions for deer derived mostly from observations of white-tails. I know of no clear representation of brockets in Maya art. For example, a polychrome vessel depicts a mythic scene in which two deer make gifts of food to the aged creator deity God D (fig. 6.11). The antlers of one of these animals are short and straight even though this creature is otherwise nearly identical in coloration to the deer with branched antlers. It is unlikely that this animal represents a brocket, as the antlers project upward rather than backward. Instead it may represent an immature buck, or a buck regrowing its antlers, or perhaps the artist simply ran out of space (cf. Hellmuth 1978: 182, 1987: 321–322).

Another problematic issue relating to deer identification is the frequent depiction of deer in the Madrid Codex with testicles but without antlers. A sacrificed deer from a Late Preclassic mural also has a penis but no antlers (see fig. 2.7). While Eduard Seler (1996: 218) argued that this convention may be rooted in the prominence of deer goddesses in Mesoamerican lore (see chapter 4), it may instead be a way of representing either immature bucks or animals hunted after their antlers have been shed (see Milbrath 1980: 451, 1981: 280–281; Vail 1997). Species identification in Maya art is further complicated by the fact that many depictions of deer are actually images of deerlike supernaturals or mythical beings that may blend the cervid with human or other animal features.

h ab i tat a nd di e t of w h i t e - tailed de er White-tails are found throughout the entire Maya area, living in lowland rain forests, brushlands, savannas, farmlands, cloud forests, and dry oak forest, though overhunting is a problem in some areas (Méndez 1984: 519; Reid 2009: 289–290, map 271). They are sometimes characterized as “opportunistic edge browsers,” as they are frequently found at edges of forests and grasslands, gaps in woodlands, and fields. Current ecological studies in the Maya area estimate that whitetails live on average 10 percent of their time in mature forests, 45 percent in secondary forests, and 45 percent in agricultural fields (Emery and Thornton 2008b: 164). They prefer young rather than old forest because of food availability and protection from insects (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 179). The whitetailed deer therefore is one species that has thrived in the mosaic of managed forest and

25

Looper_5982.indd 25

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

fields that has characterized the landscape for thousands of years.8 Even today the Itzaj tend forest stands of ramón (Brosimum alicastrum) and other fruit trees, which are used as food by humans and animals (including deer) alike (Atran et al. 1993: 684–685). The Lacandon leave part of their corn harvest standing in the field in order to attract game animals, including deer (Nations and Nigh 1980: 13). For these reasons, it has been suggested that white-tails and humans have co-adapted in the Yucatán peninsula (Greenberg 1992). White-tailed deer are herbivorous, with crepuscular (dusk and dawn) feeding activity (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 179; Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 140). August is their preferred feeding time in agricultural fields, when new foliage sprouts on burned or cut trunks (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 179). Correlations between activity and lunar cycles are inconclusive (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 142). Likewise, the observation that white-tail activity correlates with rising and/ or falling barometric pressure is unconfirmed in the tropical American context (see Bauer and Bauer 1993: 61–64). White-tails are selective feeders, preferring high-quality forage with low cellulose content (Brown 1994; Kroll 1994). Therefore, they focus on high-protein, energy-rich plants, rather than more fibrous grasses (Harlow and Guynn 1994). One study of stomach contents of white-tails in Quintana Roo found that their diet was composed of 42 percent leaves, 32 percent fruits and seeds, and 26 percent other items (by volume), with 43 taxa represented (Jorgenson 1993: 172, 1998: 186). The principal plants were Psychotria species, which includes many understory shrubs. In the ancient Maya context, isotopic studies of deer bone suggest feeding by some individuals on C4 plants, which may include maize

(Emery, Wright, and Schwarcz 2000; Wright 1997: 187).9 These studies calculate that some animals consumed up to a quarter of their carbon intake in the form of maize or other C4 plants (Emery, Wright, and Schwarcz 2000: 543, 545; Freiwald 2010: 413).

b e h av ior of w h i t e - tailed de er White-tailed deer do not generally gather into large herds but form small social groups. One type of group forms around an adult doe, her yearling daughter, and the fawns of the season (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 142; Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1117). Several adult females may also form loose associations. Adult males are either solitary or form groups of two to three that maintain dominance hierarchies.10 Some deer behaviors are specifically tied to the assertion of status hierarchy. Subordinates generally learn to avoid dominant animals or risk being driven from the group. Avoidance of eye contact between subordinates and dominants is particularly important. Aggressive behaviors include a direct stare with the ears dropped back, the head held high, or the head held low. When a subordinate does not back down, chasing (often combined with kicking, or rearing and flailing the forelegs) may ensue (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 146). White-tail vocalizations include grunting, bleating, groaning, and the familiar snort-and-stomp, when an animal is disturbed (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 163; Sauer 1984: 77). These calls allow deer to announce anxiety because of a threat, dominance, intention to mate, solicitation of care by fawns, and other expressions (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 163–164). The rut (annual period of sexual activity) seems to be triggered by photoperiodism, meaning that it is seasonal in northern

26

Looper_5982.indd 26

1/27/19 3:01 PM

d eer life

latitudes but can occur at any time of the year in the south, including the tropics (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 147; Schlesinger 2001: 181). Mating is reported from August to November in Honduras, however, and fawns are born from March to June. Antlers are renewed between February and March (Méndez 1984: 521). Mating takes place in the rainy season in Costa Rica, while the birthing season is February to May (Reid 2009: 289–290). The Mopan refer to the rut using the term b’axäl, which also means “to play” (Hofling 2011: 124). This term seems to relate most directly to the initial phase of the rut, in which members of buck groups briefly push against each other’s antlers, also known as “sparring” (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 148; Schlesinger 2001: 181). The buck groups start to break up in this phase, and mature bucks begin to chase after does, following their scent. During this period, social tolerance among bucks breaks down, as they compete for does. This may sometimes result in antler grappling until dominance (usually by the largest buck) is reasserted (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 150–152). The estrus period for a doe is brief, about twenty-four hours, during which she may remain still enough to be mounted by a buck who has successfully fended off his rivals. Bucks will tend the doe for several hours up to a day then leave in order to pursue other does. Does are polyestrous, with a cycle of about twenty-eight days (Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1117). Dominance of does by older and larger bucks may mean that younger bucks are only able to breed after 3.5–4.5 years, even though they may be sexually mature after only 1 or 2 years (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 153). After a gestation period of 195–212 days, a pregnant doe will deliver one or two fawns, licking them clean (Marchinton and Hirth

1984: 157; Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1117). Male fawns remain with their mother for six months to a year, though females may follow their mothers for two years, being temporarily banished when a doe prepares to deliver another fawn (Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1117; Schlesinger 2001: 182). Fawns nurse two or three times a day for the first week, but does initiate weaning by the second week. After about a month, the fawn becomes largely dependent on rumination (Marchinton and Hirth 1984: 160). After four months, young are completely weaned (Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1117). Remarkably for a large mammal, sexual maturity occurs during the first year, though first mating occurs during the second year (Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1117). Wild whitetails may live up to about ten years, though lifespans are shortened by half in regularly hunted areas (Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1117; Sauer 1984: 89).

b ro ck e t s : a ppe a r a nce , h ab i tat , a nd b e h av ior Of the two brocket deer native to the Maya area, the red brocket (Mazama temama) is the most widespread, found throughout the region.11 It is small bodied, with a rounded, arched back, and slim legs and neck (Reid 2009: 290–292). The red brocket measures 350–750 mm at its shoulder and weighs 8–32 kg (Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1123; Reid 2009: 290). Adult pelage is bright reddish brown on the back with a paler belly. The neck and head are dark gray-brown, and the throat, chest, and undertail are whitish. Its ears are relatively broad. Males possess a pair of short unbranched antlers, directed toward the back (Emmons and Feer 1990: 160). The young are reddish with white spots (Reid 2009: 290).

27

Looper_5982.indd 27

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

Red brockets are found in woodlands and forests up to 5,000 meters. It is estimated that they spend 60 percent of their time in mature forest, 30 percent in secondary forest, and 10 percent in wetland/swamp habitats (Emery and Thornton 2008b: 164). They are relatively sedentary animals, keeping to a specific territory that includes dense thickets, and are mainly solitary, coming together briefly for courtship (Nowak and Paradiso 1999: 1123). Brockets are frugivore-herbivores, eating fruit, leaves, and other plant material (Eisenberg 1981: 201). Feeding activity has been reported during day, night, and twilight, using the cover of darkness to feed in forest clearings.12 Brocket deer are adept at moving through and hiding in dense growth for protection but may also emit a loud whistling snort, raise their tails, and flee when threatened (Emmons and Feer 1990: 161; Leopold and Schwartz 1959: 514). Mazama pandora is restricted to the Yucatán Peninsula, north of Petén and Belize (fig. 1.3; Reid 2009: 291–292, map 273). Similar to M. temama in shape and weight (21 kg) (Reid 2009: 291), its coloring is gray-to-reddish brown on top, with gray brown underparts, patched with white. The antlers of M. pandora are unbranched and deeply ridged along their length. Both brocket species lack the facial marks typical of white-tails. Although data on brockets in Mesoamerica are very limited, it would seem that the two species have similar habitat requirements and behaviors (Leopold and Schwartz 1959: 514).

maya de er hunting in the colonia l and modern er as For the Maya of all periods, the social and religious significance of deer was closely tied to the procurement of these animals, especially

figure 1.3. The Yucatán brown brocket deer, Mazama pandora. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

white-tails, through hunting. Despite dramatic social and technological changes, it is important to recognize the threads of continuity between ancient and modern deer hunting practices. Hunting by the modern Yucatec shows the same species preferences as the ancient Maya, in which deer predominate.13 Similarly, white-tails and brockets (along with paca and collared peccary) are the species with highest harvest rates among the Lacandon and Tzeltal (Naranjo et al. 2004). Many rural people in Quintana Roo eat deer at least once every two weeks (Chavez 1980: 10). Deer are generally preferred for several reasons, including the large amount of meat per animal, their accessibility, and their gentleness compared to some species such as peccaries, which can be aggressively defensive (Jorgenson 1993: 97; Leopold and Schwartz 1959: 497). Among the Maya, deer hunting is principally a male activity (Jorgenson 1995: 668; Mandujano and RicoGray 1991: 177). Lacandon men tend to hunt in pairs (brothers, cousins, father and son), while older men hunt alone or with their wife, whose role is to carry the meat (Baer and Merrifield 1971: 233; March 1987: 51). Ethnographic evidence shows that communities vary in their designation of hunting

28

Looper_5982.indd 28

1/27/19 3:01 PM

d eer life

“seasons.” For instance, in Los Petenes, Yucatán, hunting is concentrated in the late dry season from January through April, with whitetails as a main target (León and Montiel 2008: 252). In Tixcacaltuyub, Yucatán, the dry season is also the preferred time for deer hunting, because the animals are easier to spot in the denuded forest and less time is required for agricultural labor.14 Similarly, among the Lacandon, the frequency of hunting expeditions is limited during the agricultural season, except when animals like brocket deer enter the maize fields (March 1987: 52). Likewise, the Ch’orti’ hunt deer mainly in the dry season, between February and April (Wisdom 1940: 463). In contrast, in X-Hazil Sur, Quintana Roo, the main hunting season for deer is May through July, when deer enter fields to consume highmoisture plants, and again in September– October, which the Maya identify as the rutting season, when bucks are distracted in their pursuit of does (Jorgenson 1993: 102, 2000: 261–262). The common practice of hunting for deer in and near the maize fields (often termed “garden hunting”) implies that these plots were not only a fundamental source of plant nutrition for both humans and animals but a major reservoir of animal protein and fats as well.15 The equipment used depends on the hunting method (see Ruz 1996). In the past the Lacandon used bows made of chicozapote and arrows tipped with wood or chert. These have now been replaced by guns, though the Lacandon still make bows and arrows as handicrafts (March 1987: 51; see Baer and Merrifield 1971). As Pohl (1977: 58) pointed out, the equipment and time involved in hunting represents a significant investment, leading to the conclusion that “hunters are by no means simply taking advantage of the bounty provided free by nature.”

A large number of hunting modes are known from the colonial and modern Maya. These include the drive hunt (batida), stalking, luring, night-light hunting, opportunistic hunting, waiting on a platform, and trapping.16 Most of these methods are well-known indigenous hunting practices in other areas of the Americas where deer are plentiful (see McCabe and McCabe 1984: 37–56). The batida is a diurnal hunt involving four or more hunters and four to eighteen trained dogs. The hunters form a semicircle around a particular territory where deer have been spotted, while other men with dogs drive the deer toward the waiting hunters.17 In certain Yucatec communities, the drive hunt is specified for acquiring the sacrificial animals needed for rainmaking ceremonies.18 The drive is also described by Diego de Landa for sixteenth-century Yucatán: “They also joined together for hunting in companies of fifty more or less, and they roast the flesh of the deer on gridirons, so that it shall not be wasted, and when they reach the town, they make their presents to their lord and distribute the rest among friends” (Tozzer 1941: 97). The Relaciones de Yucatán contains a brief mention of collective deer hunts using bows and arrows (Asensio 1898: 301). A variation on this hunting technique is known from early twentieth-century highland Guatemala, in which deer were driven into Lake Atitlán where they could be easily killed (Redfield 1945: 54). Similar tactics were used during the colonial period, in which dogs were employed to force deer into the water (Ximénez 1967: 56–57). Dogs are widely reported as hunting companions and assistants during the colonial and modern epochs.19 The technique of stalking uses tracking to follow deer and is especially useful when they are abundant (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 178). Sometimes a caller would be used

29

Looper_5982.indd 29

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

in this mode of hunting, which is typically diurnal (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 178). Whistles, made of horn or wood, were sometimes used to imitate the sound of fawns in order to lure does and were also used to call deer during the rut.20 In contrast, night-light hunting takes advantage of the strong reflection of light from the eyes of deer in the dark, making them easier targets (Pohl 1977: 54). In the early twentieth century split-pine torches were attached to hats for this purpose (Gann 1918: 24). Frequently, however, the hunt is not a planned or structured action but happens when weapons are in hand and prey appears. Such opportunistic hunting is commonplace among the Maya (fig. 1.4; March 1987: 52). Waiting on an elevated platform or hammock-like seat is also a well-known technique, often done at dawn or dusk or at night when deer are active.21 These are located adjacent to the fields, along game trails, or near water sources or fruiting trees, especially from April to July (Jorgenson 1993: 61, 110). Deer were hunted using this method after the fields were burned, when the deer were tempted to lick the saline ashes (Gann 1918: 24). Luring the deer with a burned log is a variation on this technique (Ingles 1956: 6). The Maya of San Antonio Rio Hondo, Belize, frequently burned savanna areas to attract deer as well (Pohl 1977: 54). Finally, nooses and snares are known from Maya ethnography and folklore, attached to bent saplings held in place with a cross stick.22 Various interesting Yucatec hunting spells are reported by Albert Muntsch (1943: 34–35). In one a hunter stakes out a personal hunting ground by killing a deer, decapitating it, and carrying it around the target territory. Afterward, the head and liver are buried. In another the hunter can render a rival’s hunting dogs useless by scraping the deer meat off

figure 1.4. Modern Guatemalan painting depicting opportunistic deer hunting near a clearing. Private collection.

of a bone and holding it to a fire or placing it in the branches of a tree. This will make the dogs unable to follow the scent of deer; nor will they be able to bring down the game. When a candle made of copal resin is lit in the bush, the flickering will reveal the direction in which game can be found. Finally, an enemy’s gun can be made useless by rubbing it with women’s garments or having a girl put her finger into the mouth of the barrel. When an animal is successfully killed, it is sometimes divided. In Tixcacaltuyub, Yucatán, the person who kills the deer receives one leg, the head, stomach, and liver, which is highly prized. The rest is divided among the hunting

30

Looper_5982.indd 30

1/27/19 3:01 PM

d eer life

party.23 This recalls the division of deer meat among friends and giving the meat as gifts to ranking lords mentioned by Landa in the sixteenth century (Tozzer 1941: 97). Among the recent southern Lacandon, meat is divided within the community, the exception being small game birds (Baer and Merrifield 1971: 235). Deer meat can be used to prepare a variety of dishes (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 179; Ucan Ek et al. 1983). Among the Lacandon the entrails are not eaten, but the liver and heart are roasted and eaten with lime juice. The rest of the meat is boiled, fried, or roasted. In quantity, deer meat can be made into tamales (Baer and Merrifield 1971: 237). The way in which deer meat is often distributed in a feast-like manner parallels the important role of deer hunting in socialization. Drive hunting in particular, as an organized activity among a group of men, fosters cooperation and friendliness, learning from experts, as well as the exercise of leadership skills (Montiel Ortega, Arias Reyes, and Dickinson 1999: 48–49; Redfield 1945: 54). Moreover, there are important psychological motivations for hunting, such as acquiring virtue or esoteric skills, the demonstration of good luck through successful hunting, and a break from the monotony of agricultural work (Mandujano and RicoGray 1991: 178; see also Beaglehole 1936: 4).

and white-tail), peccary (fig. 1.5), armadillo and paca, with white-tailed deer as the overall favored species.24 The remains of deer are particularly plentiful at capital cities and site centers (Sharpe and Emery 2015; Teeter 2004: 185). The iconography of hunting shows an emphasis on certain animals, particularly deer and peccaries, though bird hunts are also depicted. Although deer seem to occur largely in mythological and ritual contexts in art, several ancient Maya painted vessels depict parties of men pursuing deer (e.g., fig. 4.15). These images are suggestive of drive hunts, similar to those of the colonial and modern eras (see Pohl 1977, 1985: 139). They underscore the fundamental role of the hunt in male socialization (see chapter 5). The snaring of deer using the same bent-sapling technique as in modern traps is a frequent subject in the Postclassic Madrid Codex, though it is not shown in the Classic period (Franco C. 1955; see figs. 6.29, 6.32). A polychrome plate shows interlaced lines interspersed with running deer, possibly evoking a drive hunt in which the animals are forced into a net trap (fig. 1.6). Before the introduction of rifles, the Huichol also captured deer using this method (Lemaistre 1996: 312).

a ncie nt maya de er hunting While most of the details of deer hunting among the ancient Maya are unknown, evidence from archaeology and representational art documents many similarities with more recent practices. The hunt for wild game was of great importance in ancient Maya culture. Judging from the archaeological record, the major game mammals included deer (brockets

31

Looper_5982.indd 31

figure 1.5. Collared peccary (Pecari tajacu). Photograph by Nicholas Hellmuth, www.maya-ethno zoology.org.

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

As with the colonial and modern Maya, it is possible that the ancient Maya used dogs for hunting (Pohl 1985: 138). On one polychrome plate, a hunter wearing black body paint and a deer headdress holds a blowgun, a pelletshooting weapon usually associated with bird hunting (fig. 1.7). He is encircled by twelve barking dogs, whose role it may have been to flush out game. Another plate shows a hunter in a bowler-style hat grasping a bird by its neck (fig. 1.8). He is also surrounded by six dogs. While these images do not specifically illustrate deer hunts with dogs, they do provide some evidence for the association of dog packs with hunting, at least of birds. It is likely as well that the ancient Maya used whistle-lures similar to those of the modern Maya. A plate from Yucatán in the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City depicts crouching men with deer headdresses, interspersed with deer. The men hold short tubes—likely deer callers—to their mouths (Montolíu 1976: 153–154; Pohl 1985: 137–138, fig. 9.1). Another sonic device that may have been important to the deer hunt is the conch shell trumpet. These are sometimes thought to have been used to disorient animals (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 220, 264) or to call them (Zender 1999: 80), though top. figure 1.6. Painted plate showing deer inscribed within a net pattern. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K6804. middle. figure 1.7. Painted plate showing hunter with dogs. Hellmuth Photo Archive PC.M.LC.p2.109. Photograph by Nicholas Hellmuth, www.maya-ethno zoology.org. bottom. figure 1.8. Painted plate showing bird hunter with dogs. Hellmuth Photo Archive PC.M.LC. p2.111. Photograph by Nicholas Hellmuth, www .maya-ethnozoology.org.

32

Looper_5982.indd 32

1/27/19 3:01 PM

d eer life

images of such devices used in actual hunting scenes (rather than ritual events) are lacking. The conch trumpets seem to have been played mainly during hunting processions after animals were already dead, probably to announce the success of the hunting endeavor to the community or to the gods (figs. 2.8, 5.22).25 An inscribed conch trumpet from the vicinity of Cancuen bears a text that records the spearing of a deer by Aj Ola’ (Barrientos Quezada 2014: 749, fig. 11.69). This suggests the function of some conch shell trumpets as a means of commemorating successful deer hunts. Conch trumpets were also part of the iconography of various deities associated with deer hunting (see chapters 4, 6, 8). Deer were frequently depicted as either slung over a shoulder or butchered and bundled into nets, which the hunters (or porters) carried on tumplines to the home, temple, or market (figs. 1.9, 2.8, 2.9; Taube 1988b: 345). In Maya art, hunters are always male and have distinctive attributes, including dark patches of paint on the body or face (possibly camouflage), broad-brimmed or bowler-style hats, headdresses incorporating the heads of various animals, striated skirts and capes (possibly made of grass), conch shells, and weapons, usually spear-throwers, a typically longrange weapon (figs. 1.7, 1.8, 1.9).26 The use of headdresses depicting animals may relate to

33

Looper_5982.indd 33

stealth stalking tactics, in which such attire is worn to disguise the hunter, akin to hunting gear in some historic Native American cultures (see McCabe and McCabe 1984: 43–48; Montolíu 1976: fig. 7). But they also likely serve to symbolically identify the hunter with the prey, an important concept discussed elsewhere in this book (Olivier 2015: 322–324). Although bow and arrow technology is usually considered to have been introduced to the Maya area in the Terminal Classic or Postclassic period, the presence of small prismatic blade points in Early Classic deposits in the vicinity of Copán suggests that this weapon may have been introduced around this time.27 These points, however, constitute a very small percentage of the obsidian assemblages from Classic-period sites, and it is not clear if they were associated specifically with deer hunting (Inomata 1995: 563).

t h e c a s e f or de er m a nage m e n t Animal domestication can be characterized as a continuum of dominance over a species, beginning with husbandry or semidomestication (partial reliance on humans) and culminating in a lifelong reliance on humans (full domestication) (Reitz and Wing 2008: 297–315). Throughout the colonial period we come across scattered accounts that suggest various forms of management and semidomestication of

figure 1.9. Painted bowl showing hunters with game animals, including deer. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1373.

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

deer by the ancient Maya. Institutional management of deer is implied by Bernal Díaz del Castillo’s (2017: 251) account of zones in which deer were extremely abundant and unafraid of humans. This was attributed to religious taboos against hunting and frightening the animals on the part of the locals. On the other hand, household-level domestication is suggested by Landa’s sixteenth-century report that Maya women breast fed fawns in order to tame them (Pohl 1991; Pohl and Feldman 1982: 305; Tozzer 1941: 127). Later in the colonial period we also find mention of tamed and domesticated deer (Ximénez 1967: 57). Even now captive fawns may be fed sheep or goat’s milk and yearlings and adults fed leaves and corn (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 181). Such deer reared at home were called (ah) may in colonial Yucatec (Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 513). The texts of certain Classic-period vessels refer to sak chihj, literally “white deer,” though this could also be interpreted as “domesticated deer,” if the figurative meaning of the term sak was intended (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 108). However, there are no images of women suckling or holding fawns in Maya art. Images in which women expose their breasts or touch their breasts in the company of deer do so in front of mature bucks (see figs. 4.2, 4.17). These brief historical accounts have inspired numerous archaeologists to search for evidence of deer management among the ancient Maya, with limited success.28 Based on ethnohistories, skeletal remains, and the presence of stone circles at several sites, Nancy Hamblin (1984: 135) argued that peccaries could have been corralled (if not domesticated) by the Postclassic Cozumel Maya. Nevertheless, such structures have not been documented for managing deer. The appearance of high proportions of juvenile or subadult

white-tailed deer remains in some deposits has sometimes been taken to imply that the animals were either bred in captivity or managed in some other sophisticated manner (Masson and Peraza Lope 2008: 172–173; Pohl 1985: 140). High proportions of juvenile deer have been found in Postclassic deposits at Mayapán as well as other sites, including late Classic Altar de Sacrificios (36 percent juveniles), Late Classic/Early Postclassic Macanche (33 percent), Postclassic Flores (33 percent), and Classic Caracol (84 percent),29 though not at Ceibal (Pohl 1985: 138). While this could be evidence for domestication in some cases, the preponderance of juvenile and subadult deer in skeletal inventories could also be because older animals had become wary of hunters, because a decrease in population density resulted in increased birth rates, or because of selective hunting. Indeed, in other study areas, it has been observed that hunting can shift the populations of game animals younger (Leeuwenberg and Robinson 2000: 380). In addition, if large-scale semidomestication of deer had been taking place, their bones should preserve evidence of this. On the contrary, remains from various lowland Maya sites subjected to isotope analysis show that most were wild animals, although some might have been either fed maize or scavenging in fields.30

c onc lusions : de er h un t ing a nd t h e h u m a n c om m un i t y Although maize agriculture is usually noted as a prime Mesoamerican symbol of civilization and human identity, it can be argued that the hunt for wild animals—and particularly white-tailed deer—also plays an important role in the definition of the human community and its relationship with nature. Indeed, as one of the largest-bodied and most abundant game

34

Looper_5982.indd 34

1/27/19 3:01 PM

d eer life

animals in Mesoamerica, deer were widely considered to be a synecdoche for four-legged animals in general (Olivier 2015: 144). For example, the term for “hunter” in Yucatec (with related terms in other Mayan languages including epigraphic Mayan) is ah keh, literally “he of the [white-tailed] deer” (Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 308). Similarly, the Popol Vuh contrasts the “homes of the birds, both great and small,” with the domain of deer along riverbanks and in canyons, meadows, orchards, and forests—a shorthand way of describing the habitats of all terrestrial animals (Christenson 2003: 74–75). An analogous instance is documented in the colonial Yucatán, where the Maya referred to their territory as the “land of turkeys and [white-tailed] deer” (Tozzer 1941: 4). In both contemporary and ancient Maya society the contrast between humans and animals is sometimes highly marked.31 Deer, along with other wild animals, often represent an enemy or opponent of humanity. For example, for a Tzotzil informant of San Pedro Chenalhó: “The creatures of the forest are man’s enemies and seek to destroy his life. The wild resents his presence and is populated with evil” (Guiteras Holmes 1961: 287–288). This notion forms the basis for more complex ideas about the wilderness, such as the association of this realm with disease (see chapter 8). Hunting causes a double violation of the domestic/ wilderness boundary: the entry of hunters into the forest and the bringing of animal carcasses into the community (Brown and Emery 2008: 304). As a result, the hunt is surrounded by complex rituals of purification and appeasement (as discussed in chapter 6). Animals are presented as both precursors to humans and the enemies of humans in the Popol Vuh. After creating the earth, the gods populated it with animals, in the hopes that

they would offer praise. However, because the animals “only squawked and chattered and roared,” the gods cursed them: “Therefore their flesh was brought low. They were made to serve. The animals that were on the face of the earth were eaten and killed” (Christenson 2003: 76–77). The gods went on to create successive populations of humans, who were also destroyed when they failed to offer praise. As noted at the beginning of this book, the Popol Vuh also presents many animals as opponents of agriculture. This is a theme expressed repeatedly in narratives from other Maya groups, such as a Ch’ol tale in which a man, frustrated by animals that eat his crops, borrows a jaguar skin from a jaguar. Although this enables him to transform into a jaguar himself, it also causes him to see the marauding animals—including deer—in the form of fierce people (Alejos García 1988: 35). Because the man is afraid of them, the real jaguar kills the animals for him. Thus, this myth vilifies certain species (deer) at the same time that it acknowledges the power of others (jaguar). In the Popol Vuh, the Hero Twins are also described as hunters, who not only feed themselves by killing animals but also rid the world of monstrous creatures, often subduing them with the technologies of the hunt. They destroy the avian being Seven Macaw by shooting him with a blowgun, while the crocodilelike Zipacna is crushed beneath a mountain, similar to a deadfall trap (see Christenson 2003: 106). These activities pave the way for the twins’ epic struggle against the lords of the underworld, which metaphorically represents the cycle of maize agriculture (see Tedlock 1996: 42). In other words, the Hero Twins narrative in the Popol Vuh recapitulates the hunt as a prerequisite for the establishment of the human community, which subsists to a great extent on maize.

35

Looper_5982.indd 35

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

Maya attitudes toward deer (and other hunted animals) are therefore complex. The animals are sometimes viewed as antagonistic and clearly recognized as a threat to agricultural productivity. Yet they are also a precursor to humanity. Their curse becomes a blessing to humans, who are given the divinely sanctioned right to kill and eat them. In both myth and life, the cornfield represents an important domain where this complicated system of interdependence and exploitation unfolds, coalescing primarily on the figure of

the white-tailed deer, which frequents cultivated zones and the edges of forests in search of browse. As a liminal creature, this animal crosses the threshold between the wilderness and the human community, engaging in a game of survival. Seen as a realm where the agency of both nonhuman animal and human plays out, the cornfield becomes a place of energetic exchange, where the actions of both deer and humans over the long term benefit both species.

36

Looper_5982.indd 36

1/27/19 3:01 PM

chapter two

Bones to Picks The Classic Maya Use and Depiction of Durable Deer Remains

s they were excavating one of the most important structures of the acropolis of Copán, Honduras, Structure 10L-11, archaeologists chanced upon a cache containing a large and intricately carved deer tibia.1 The carving is oriented with the proximal end of the bone (the end closest to the midline of body) pointing upward, as in fig. 2.1, and wraps around nearly the entire surface. The composition shows the sixteenth Copán ruler Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat standing on a stepped sky-band with a large Venus/star motif (fig. 2.2). Perhaps the artist intended this to represent the step of one of the king’s architectural commissions, Structure 10L-21A, also located within the Copán acropolis, which is decorated with Venus/star signs (Looper

Looper_5982.indd 37

1998). The ruler gestures toward a woman who may be helping him dress, paralleling Maya mythology in which the Maize God is adorned by female attendants (see Quenon and Le Fort 1997; Schele and Miller 1986: 152). The framed inscription below includes an eroded sign, followed by the king’s name and titles. This impressive artwork is a particularly elaborate example of an important genre of ancient Maya art: carved deer bones. While bones from a variety of large mammals and even humans were carved,2 deer bone provided the raw material for many works of art. One example depicts a seated figure in profile above and a sequence of day names below (fig. 2.3; Von Winning 1968: cat. 484–485). This work, perforated at the top, is allegedly a deer bone from Jaina, Campeche, and measures 27.3 cm

1/27/19 3:01 PM

left. figure 2.1. Carved deer tibia excavated from Structure 10L-11, Copán, Honduras. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K2872. center. figure 2.2. Image from carved deer tibia excavated from Structure 10L-11, Copán, Honduras. SD-7620. Drawing by Linda Schele, © David Schele. right. figure 2.3. Carved deer bone, supposedly from Jaina, Campeche, Mexico. Drawing by Dana Moot II after Von Winning (1968: cat. 484–485).

Looper_5982.indd 38

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

long.3 Another technique that the Maya used to fabricate bone ornaments is illustrated by a deer femur distal end (the end that points away from the midline of the body) that had been partially split and fitted with a round, centrally perforated inlay of nacreous shell (MoholyNagy and Coe 2008: 61, fig. 207f). Like the Copán tibia, most of the known carved deer bones date to the Late Classic period. While their function is unknown, they were clearly valued and used for ceremonial purposes, as the Copán tibia illustrates. In this chapter I explore the many uses of deer body parts among the ancient Maya in an attempt to provide a material ground for the discussion of deer symbolism in Maya art. Although the Maya prized deer for its meat, every part of the animal carcass was utilized. The evidence for this comes mainly from artifacts, such as the Copán deer tibia, as well as a vast array of tools and ornaments made of deer bone and antler found by archaeologists. Several artistic representations also provide evidence for the use of deer parts. To some extent, these data sets are complementary, with artifacts providing material evidence for the use of deer bone and imagery documenting the use of more perishable components, such as hides. Moreover, physical evidence provides information concerning the use of deer parts in a full range of contexts, from domestic households to public ceremonies and from commoner to elite status. In contrast, Maya art that depicts deer parts pertains overwhelmingly to elite ceremonial contexts. Therefore, in only a few cases is it possible to coordinate evidence from artifacts with imagery. This chapter reviews the archaeological evidence for the use of deer parts, drawing parallels with visual representations where possible.

t e c h n iq ue s f or pro ce s sing de er r e m ains Deer, particularly the larger-bodied white-tailed deer, yielded an abundance of materials that the Maya could modify into an array of tools and ornaments. The larger bones of the animal include the cranium, teeth, ribs, vertebrae, scapula (shoulder bones), pelvis or innominate (hip bones), humerus (upper arm), radius and ulna (lower arm), carpals (wrist), femur (upper leg), tibia (shin), tarsals (ankle), metacarpals and metatarsals, and phalanges (feet) (fig. 2.4). The metacarpals and metatarsals are collectively known as metapodial or cannon bones. The hooves (toes or phalanges and nails or the keratinous coverings of the hoof) of the deer could also be used. The antler, which is harder than bone, was of particular value to the ancient Maya. So too must have been the tendons (sinews), which could be used for various purposes, such as sewing thread, bow string, and bindings for arrow points, and fats from body fat, marrow, and bone grease (for greasing, lighting, etc.). The deer hide was also processed and used.4 There are several problems with identifying the artifacts that the ancient Maya made from deer remains. First is the generally poor survival of bones in humid soils, and second is the differential preservation within and outside the protective barrier provided by stone constructions. Third, and perhaps most important, is the fact that zooarchaeologists are rarely given access to identify artifacts. Fortunately, deer bones are often relatively large and therefore readily recovered in excavations; however, in practice it is also often difficult for archaeologists to determine the animal species or particular bones from which an artifact was made (e.g., Moholy-Nagy and Coe 2008: 60). This parallels the problem of identifying the materials

39

Looper_5982.indd 39

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n vertebrae

ribs

pelvis scapula

femur

humerus

tibia

radius

tarsal (ankle)

ulna carpal (wrist) phlanges metatarsal

metacarpal

hoof (toe nail)

metapodial

used to create objects in artistic representations. For these reasons, the present analysis omits data concerning unidentified mammalian bone artifacts, some of which were probably deer. It also does not consider the vast array of material objects depicted in Maya art that could have been made of deer remains, but for which there is no secure evidence. Deer carcasses were processed in different ways depending on the context. For deer used in ceremonies, various parts of the animal were collected and manipulated in specific ways. For example, the sacrifice of young deer is mentioned in numerous early colonial sources, in which the heart is extracted and

figure 2.4. Diagram of white-tailed deer skeleton, showing major bones. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

the blood is used to anoint the faces of deity images.5 One of the most complete descriptions of an early colonial–period deer sacrifice was recorded by Diego García de Palacio (1985: 41; Tozzer and Allen 1910: 349). He reports that the Pipil of Izalco sacrificed a deer by throttling it, skinning it, and collecting its blood in a vessel. The meat and blood were cooked separately. The liver, lungs, and stomach were cut into small pieces, and the heart was burned in a brazier. The priests danced with the head and feet of the animal and then

40

Looper_5982.indd 40

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

of rainmaking ceremonies; Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934: 140; Villa Rojas 1945: 108). For feasts or for commerce, the Maya prepare deer meat in a variety of ways. It can be heated with rocks in a hole dug in the earth or stewed with achiote, chiles, and cacao (Burns 1983: 99–101; Olivier 2015: 330–339). Even meat that had been left to rot for a week could be parboiled (Gage 2005: 240). A special part of the deer used both as a figure 2.5. Deer haunch glyph from Motmot sacrifi ce and as a feasting food is the haunch. Marker, Copán, Honduras. Drawing by author. A painted bowl shows how haunches were harvested as part of hunting rituals. In the image, a man raises up this part of the deer by a cord (fig. 1.9). A deer haunch is also mentioned in the inscription of the Motmot capstone from Copán as being given along with other ceremonial offerings as part of an Early Classic periodending (calendrical) rite (fig. 2.5; Schele, Fahsen, and Grube 1995). Finally, a large Late Classic plate in the Gran Museo Mundo Maya in Mérida is designated as serving yook chihj “deer haunch/leg” (Konzevik and Veléz Paz 2014: 122). This is reminiscent of other plates labeled for serving deer (meat).6 Such references imply not only the ritualized way in figure 2.6. Deity impersonator with deer haunch which deer meat was served but also its imporoffering before directional tree image. Dresden Codex, p. 28c. After Förstemann (1880). tant role as a feasting food among the ancient Maya.7 scorched them in the fire as an offering. The One of the principal events for which deer body parts were taken to the house of the high haunches were presented was the New Year priest, where the meat and blood were eaten ritual (Pohl 1981, 1983). Referring to the early before the deity image. In modern San Miguel colonial Yucatán, Landa describes the setAcatán in the Guatemalan highlands, huntting up of an “idol” Kan Uayeb at the south ers also collect the blood of hunted deer in a entrance of town (Tozzer 1941: 141–142). gourd, as it is considered dangerous to spill the Another figure of the deity Bolon Tzacab was animal’s blood in the field (Grollig 1959: 161). installed in the house of a lord who hosted this The Yucatec boil or make bread or tamales ritual and subsequent feast. Offerings of maize with the meat of wild animals, including deer. and incense were made to Kan Uayeb, folThese are placed on altars as offerings to nonlowed by a procession to the house of the host, Christian deities (for example, in the context where the deity images were placed together

41

Looper_5982.indd 41

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

and offerings of food and drinks were made to them and to the guests. The officiating priest was given a haunch of venison, and the guests performed autosacrificial bloodletting, which they used to anoint the images. As scholars have long noted, in the Postclassic Dresden Codex a deer haunch is also offered before one of five directional trees, where it is associated with world creation (Taube 1988a; Thompson 1934, 1972: 89–93). In the image depicting the establishment of the world tree of the north, we see a deer haunch placed on a pedestal, before which a deity impersonator casts the blood of a sacrificed bird (fig. 2.6). A much earlier, Late Preclassic version of this rite is depicted on the west wall of San Bartolo Las Pinturas Sub-1A (fig. 2.7). Here a

spotted god (God S) makes an autosacrificial blood offering before one of five directional trees, corresponding to the four cardinal points and earth-center (Taube et al. 2010). A deer that has been subjected to heart sacrifice is draped over a tripod before the tree.8 Three flaming or smoking stones have been placed in the animal’s abdominal cavity: a reference to hearth stones and to the eventual role of the deer as a food offering. The sacrifice of this animal by heart extraction recalls that in sixteenth-century Yucatán bread made with deer hearts was offered to deity images as part of the New Year rituals (Tozzer 1941: 144). Perhaps similar offerings were made as part of the Preclassic rite. At San Bartolo, the deity carries a second sacrificial deer, trussed and tied to the back of figure 2.7. Mythic scene of sacrifice by God S, detail of west wall mural, Las Pinturas Sub-1A, San Bartolo, Guatemala. Artwork by Heather Hurst, © 2006.

42

Looper_5982.indd 42

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

deer jaws (and perhaps whole heads) were found in the plaza center at Late Preclassic Cuello (Robin, Hammond, and Gerhardt 1991: 226). A Late Postclassic altar found on top his belt. In contrast, two of the other images of a Classic period elite residence at Yaxuná of sacrifice elsewhere in the mural depict the included upper and lower jaw brocket teeth, offering of a fish by a deity who walks through indicating the presence of at least one manwater or mud and the presentation of a turkey dible and one maxilla (Götz and Stanton 2013: by a god who floats in the air and has birds 217–218). Finally, deer crania were deposited attached to his waist. These two images sugalong the southern base of the Kukulkan temgest the underworld and celestial realms of ple at Postclassic Mayapán (Masson and Peraza the cosmos. The firm attachment of the deerLope 2008: 176). These offerings were likely bearing deity to the ground-line signifies that the remains of deer that had been sacrificed this event represents the sacrifice of the arche- and eaten (Masson and Peraza Lope 2013: 238). typal animal of the earth (Taube et al. 2010: 27). Deer bones (some undoubtedly associated Palacio’s account (summarized above) with food offerings) have also been found in mentions the importance of the deer head burials, especially in Yucatán. For instance, as a sacrificial offering, which is confirmed more than half of the burials at Yaxuná by abundant archaeological evidence for the included deer tibia or long bones (Ardren ceremonial offering of deer crania. In Late 2002: 78; Götz and Stanton 2013: 212–213). Preclassic K’axob a cache from a patio space Three burials at Mayapán had offerings of consisted of four bowls containing faunal white-tailed deer bones, and similar practices remains, including fetal or newborn deer teeth are documented across the Maya area during (Harrison-Buck 2004: 71–72). These were the Postclassic (Masson and Peraza Lope 2013: found in all bowls, but most intact in the west- 261, 276). ern bowl. Similar caches of mostly juvenile The image of the sacrificed deer from San figure 2.8. Painted vase showing hunters carrying deer carcasses and sounding conch-shell trumpets. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K808.

43

Looper_5982.indd 43

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

Bartolo as well as ancient Maya representations of hunters in procession carrying complete deer carcasses (e.g., figs. 2.8, 2.9) suggest that in some cases carcasses were brought intact to site centers. This notion is confirmed by archaeological evidence as well (Montero López 2013: 343). However, if a hunter found it difficult to carry the carcass of a large deer killed far from home, he might have eviscerated the animal immediately, using a chert blade. Among the modern Lacandon, hunters often eviscerate the carcass of white-tailed deer and feed the entrails to the dogs to lighten the load (March 1987: 52). The butchered body parts of game animals, including deer, were sometimes contained in the large netted bundles carried by hunters on tumplines (figs. 1.9, 2.9). To dress the animal, the hunters might first cut along the belly, through the sternum, and remove the stomach and intestines. They would likely drain as much blood as possible, as this might amount to 20 percent or more of the body weight.9 The person responsible for skinning the animal might begin with cuts made on the inner legs, near the metapodials or even lower on the foot. These would extend along the leg up to the primary field-dress cut along the belly and chest. If the hide was going to be made into garments and other items, cutting would probably have begun on the lowest part of the leg in order to maximize the size of the hide as it was removed from the animal. One method for dealing with the animal’s head would be simply decapitating it. This is suggested by images of butchered deer and deer-hide garments (figs. 1.9, 3.6) as well as by the grapheme that the ancient Maya used to represent hides, K’EW, which shows a decapitated jaguar (fig. 2.10). However, ancient Mesoamericans sometimes left the complete head

attached to the deer skin (see below). After making the basic cuts, the hide would be carefully separated from the meat, using a sharp knife to cut through the connecting membrane. The initial dressing and skinning of a deer carcass is a relatively quick process for an experienced person, only taking a few minutes. An unusual sculpture stated to be from Tabí, now located in the Museo Regional de Antropología Palacio Cantón, may depict preparations for skinning a deer (fig. 2.11).10 This openwork monument has a peculiar oval shape, perhaps representing a cave. Within this enclosure, a deer is suspended by its forelimbs from a horizontal pole that is carried on the shoulders of two figures. Suspending the carcass from a horizontal bar would facilitate the process of pulling the skin downward after decapitating the animal and making the belly cut. After the skin was free, the meat could be cut into manageable chunks, slicing through muscle at the joints. Possible archaeological evidence for this procedure appears at Chinikihá, Chiapas, Mexico, where hack marks appear frequently on the leg joints (Montero López 2013: 332–333, table 3). Sinew would be prepared from the tendons that attach muscles to bones, especially those located in the lower legs and along the back. To remove the leg tendons, the skin is sliced along the back of the leg from the knee joint to just above the dew claws and peeled back. The tendon is found inside a membrane within the groove on the back of the metapodial bone. The membrane is opened, and a knife is slipped under the tendon to free it and cut it away from the bone at both ends. After drying in the sun, the tendons can be pounded with a smooth stone until they separate into white fibers (Hodge 1912: 575). Glue could be made by boiling various part of the deer, including sinew, hide, and antler tops.

44

Looper_5982.indd 44

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

figure 2.9. Polychrome plate showing hunters with net bundles. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K4805.

figure 2.10. Classic Maya grapheme K’EW, “skin, hide.” Drawing by author.

To prepare the hide, the remaining muscle and fat would be removed from the inner hide using a blade and/or a bone beamer (hide scraper). Among many Native American groups, beamers are made from deer metatarsals by removing a long curved concave section from the bone’s central shaft (Lapham 2005: 95). With the hide supported on a log or flat surface, the beamer is drawn forward and back over it until it is clean. If the animal’s hair is to be removed, it can be soaked in an alkali solution for several days, until the hair can be picked off. Alternatively, the hair can also be scraped off using the beamer. To dry the hide, it is likely that the Maya pegged it or stretched

figure 2.11. Monument from Tabí, Museo Regional de Antropología Palacio Cantón, Mérida, Mexico (Reg. No. MM-1988-69:1). Drawing by Alexander W. Voss.

it on a frame, judging from the common representation of hides with stretching points around their edges, especially as jaguar-pelt cushions (see fig. 4.12). Other steps in preparing the hide would depend on the final desired texture. The hide could be brained or treated with warmed mashed brains and then worked by pulling it back and forth across the fleshing beam to soften it. The hide could also be smoked for waterproofing and preservation (Lapham 2005: 10). There is some evidence of the exchange of deer hides as a form of tribute or taxation during the Classic period. A painted vase depicts a mythic scene in which the enthroned Maize

45

Looper_5982.indd 45

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

God holds court to visitors representing a deer (glyphically labeled as chihj “deer”) and three felines (fig. 2.12). The text is not completely understood but does make reference to juun pihk k’ewel “8000 skins,” suggesting that the figures in animal headdresses personify skins of diverse species. This scene seems to constitute the mythical prototype for the offering of hides to lords as tribute. Among the Aztec, deer hides are represented prominently in the tribute rolls contained in the early colonial Codex Mendoza. The province of Tepeacac, where the worship of the hunting god Camaxtli was of major significance, was required to pay a tax of 800 deerskins every eighty days (Berdan and Anawalt 1997: 88, 89, 98, 100). The primarily Huaxtec province of Tzicoac had to pay 400 deerskins (Berdan and Anawalt 1997: 138). In the manuscript, the deer skins are depicted with heads still attached. Interestingly, strontium isotope analysis of animal (including deer) teeth from various sites in the Maya area shows that these remains were sometimes exchanged over fairly long distances (see chapter 3). If the deer teeth recovered by

46

Looper_5982.indd 46

archaeologists were still attached to crania and skins as in the Codex Mendoza, then this might be interpreted as physical evidence of the longdistance exchange of deer hides among the Classic Maya.

a r t ifac t s m ade f rom de er r e m ains Archaeologists have found evidence in the Maya area for bone-working (some of which involved deer bones) at various sites, such as Colha, Cuello, and Ceibal.11 Detailed studies mainly in the Petexbatún region of Guatemala document the tools, techniques, and locales where deer carcasses were processed and bone tools manufactured. White-tailed deer is the preferred species for bone-working at Aguateca and Dos Pilas, and bones from this animal are found in almost all deposits and in both elite and non-elite contexts (Emery 2008a: 207). In all but the Palace Group at Aguateca, bones were consistently modified into artifacts, especially perforators (elongated thin implements with one sharply pointed end; Emery 2014: 197).

figure 2.12. Painted vase showing mythic scene. Los Angeles County Museum of Art M.2010.115.75. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K5062.

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

At Aguateca and Dos Pilas the preferred bones of the white-tailed deer for crafting were femurs, tibiae, and metapodials.12 The general preference of Maya craftspeople for these long, strong, and straight bones indicates that they selectively imported hind limbs, possibly preskinned (Emery 2008a: 208). In addition, deer crania were probably used to make disks and other flat artifacts (Emery 2008a). Chert bifacial points, rather than obsidian prismatic blades, were preferred for cutting deer bones (and shell) at Aguateca (Aoyama 2007: 11, fig. 3). Chert artifacts of a variety of forms (flakes, bifacial thinning flakes, oval bifaces, bifacial points) were extensively used for meat or hide processing, using techniques of cutting, sawing, whittling, and grooving (Aoyama 2007: 12). A major center for bone tool production at Aguateca was Structure M8-13, a lower-status elite residence.13 In addition, lithic and faunal remains from that site suggest that artisans associated with Structures M8-4 and M8-8 were engaged in manufacturing hide or leather goods as well as wood and shell or bone objects (Aoyama 2007: 24). Evidence from Aguateca suggests that craft production was not highly specialized, with men and women participating in multiple activities. Studies of Classic Maya sites in various regions found that boneworking is associated with middle-elite ranks at capital sites, though it was also done in the context of the royal court at Aguateca.14 In contrast, data from Postclassic Mayapán show that most craft production (including manufacture of tools and ornaments from bone) was the purview of “independent and affluent commoners” (Masson et al. 2016: 229). Excavation of a Late Terminal Classic bone tool production assemblage from Group L4-3, Operation DP1, at Dos Pilas documented the large-scale manufacture of mostly perforators (needles, pins, awls), spatulae (possibly bone

perforator blanks), plus a few tubes (some rasps), flat disk ornaments, beads, rings, and fishhooks made mainly using white-tailed deer bones (Emery 2008a: 210, 2010). These specialized artisans extensively used the “groove and splinter” (also called “groove and snap”) technique for rendering tools from bone, wherein a splinter is removed from between two cut grooves. They also used “longitudinal sawing,” in which bones are sawn lengthwise repeatedly, and “sawing and snapping,” in which the bone is sawn longitudinally or transversely and unwanted portions are snapped off. Less common is the “string/abrasive” method, in which a sand-coated string is wrapped around the bone core and pulled sideways to create curved abrasions (Emery 2008a: 210). All of these techniques are familiar from assemblages elsewhere in the ancient world, representing efficient ways to render bone implements using stone tools (see Clark and Thompson 1953; McComb 1989). Artifacts made from worked deer bone are found at diverse sites and throughout Maya history, from the Middle Preclassic to Late Postclassic periods.15 Representational art depicts some of these artifacts in use and also provides evidence for the use of perishable deer parts, especially hides. A discussion of these artifacts follows, comparing the archaeological record with ancient Maya art. The ancient Maya doubtless crafted more artifacts from deer bone than are discussed below, but they have not been securely identified by archaeologists.

c r a n i a a nd t e e t h Archaeological evidence of deer ceremonialism is abundant in the Classic period but is dramatically exemplified by a deer-cranium headdress found at Cerén, El Salvador (Brown and Gerstle 2002). Dating to about 650 AD,

47

Looper_5982.indd 47

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

this artifact consisted of a complete cranium of a male white-tailed deer, minus the lower jaw, that had been painted red and probably blue. Remains of twine adhering to the antlers seem to suggest its function as a headdress. The object was found in the front (east) room of Structure 10, a permanent ceremonial structure for the village. Many other items were stored in this building along with this headdress, including foodstuffs, ornaments that may have pertained to a ceremonial costume, and a large quantity of achiote, a red pigment possibly used as a food-coloring agent or body paint. An obsidian blade found in this structure also tested positive to human antiserum, suggesting that it was used for bloodletting. Taken in the context of these artifacts, the deer headdress from Cerén provides evidence for the use of the skeletal remains of deer in a manner similar to that seen in contemporary deer dances, in which performers wear deer crania or wooden headdresses with attached antlers (see chapter 6).16 It is likely that these ancient performances, like their modern counterparts, were accompanied by feasting. In ancient Maya art, deer headdresses are frequently worn, mainly by warriors, hunters, and ballplayers (see chapter 5). These headdresses are usually shown in a fairly naturalistic manner, though sometimes with exaggerated proportions, suggesting that actual deer heads (cranium plus skin) were sometimes used in their manufacture. Because deer headdresses in Classic Maya art are not frequently worn by rulers, it stands to reason that the deer is not principally a symbol of rulership, unlike the jaguar. The same contrast seems to be expressed in the perforated animal teeth of various species used as personal ornaments. For the lowland Maya, pierced deer teeth are found in lowerstatus burials, while feline (especially jaguar) teeth are associated with elites (Moholy-Nagy

and Ladd 1992: 131). An exception is a caiman tooth and deer mandible necklace, found in an Early Classic high-status burial at Copán (Fash 1991: 91). Also, in the Postclassic highlands, the Popol Vuh mentions deer as a prime emblem of K’iche’ kingship (Christenson 2001: 258).

a n t ler s Antlers of deer were extensively used by the ancient Maya, owing partly to their hardness and elasticity but also because they are shed annually and can therefore be gathered in the wild without having to kill an animal. One of the principal functions of deer antler was as stone-working tools and pestles. These are often in the form of fragments, identified as tools by abrasion to their tips.17 Relatively long sections of antler from both white-tailed and brocket deer, sometimes with charred tips to increase hardness, are likely stone-flaking tools, though some might be awls.18 The use of deer antler to flake chert is attested ethnographically among the Lacandon (Baer and Merrifield 1971: 236; Tozzer 1907: 61). Antler was made into spear-thrower spurs, perforators, punches, and tines at Colha, mostly dating to the Late Classic and Postclassic periods.19 Deer antler was sometimes carved into figural representations. These include Early Classic human figurines from Caracol and a Postclassic period sculpture from Colha— possibly a staff finial—representing a feathered serpent.20 A complete brocket antler at Aguateca was perforated, suggesting its possible use in personal adornment (Emery 2014: 175, 198). Finally, deer antler was fashioned into pins: an example from Altun Ha features a head carved in the form of a bird and a glyphic inscription (fig. 2.13). The text on this object begins with the grapheme pu, possibly short for puutz’ “needle” (see discussion below).

48

Looper_5982.indd 48

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

figure 2.13. Deer antler pin from Altun Ha, Belize. After Pendergast (1969: 19, fig. 9).

An important role of deer antlers to the ancient Maya was as drum beaters. These are pictured in various paintings during the Classic period. For example, the vase K3040 shows a trio of percussionists; the rabbit (impersonator?) in the center of the rollout has a turtlecarapace drum suspended from his neck (fig. 2.14). He beats the instrument with an antler (the cream-colored object with its prongs facing downward). A vessel in a related style (K5104) shows the rabbit playing the same type of drum, but with the beater oriented with the tines upward. At Late Classic Bonampak (Room 1), three musicians grasp large tortoise shells with their left hands and beat them with antlers held in their right hands (fig. 2.15). This imagery is prefigured in the Late Preclassic San Bartolo north mural, which shows the Maize God playing a turtle carapace drum using a deer antler (Taube et al. 2010: 76). Archaeological evidence from the Classic period occasionally aligns with these images. Deer antlers were sometimes found near turtle carapaces at Aguateca (Inomata and Emery 2014: 132). Similarly, certain pieces of deer antler at Copán were interpreted as drum beaters

figure 2.14. Painted vase showing animal musicians. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K3040. 49

Looper_5982.indd 49

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

because they were excavated near fragmentary turtle shells (Longyear 1952: 112). Turtle-shell drums beaten with deer antlers are reported in the Yucatán until the nineteenth century (López de Cogolludo 2008: 119; Saville 1921: 160). Among the modern Maya, turtle-shell drums are sometimes played but are usually struck with a wooden mallet or, in the case of the Tzeltal of Cancuc, a deer leg bone (Starr 1902: 72).

l im b bone s Diego de Landa mentions “whistles made of the leg bones of deer” in sixteenth-century Yucatán (Tozzer 1941: 93). Bone whistles have been found at ancient sites as well (e.g., Garber 1989: 57–58, fig. 17i), but their fabrication from deer bone is not certain (see also O’Brien 1983: 11). Maya musicians are often shown holding slender tubular objects to their mouths that are probably whistles or flutes, but the material from which they are made is unknown (K206, K791, K1838, K6995). They could just as well be reeds or bones from any number of species. Deer-bone rasps are known from the archaeological record, often made of radius bones modified with closely spaced parallel transverse grooves.21 These would be played by dragging a hard object back and forth along the length of the shaft. Interestingly, while gourd rasps are clearly depicted in Maya art (K1549, K3463, K5233, K6316), rasps made of bone are difficult to identify. One example left. figure 2.15. Detail of mural showing musicians with tortoiseshell drums and deer-antler beaters. Room 1, Bonampak, Mexico, Maya, 791 AD. Reconstruction, Yale University Art Gallery, Gift of Bonampak Documentation Project, illustrated by Heather Hurst and Leonard Ashby.

above. figure 2.16. Painted vase showing dance and music. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K4824. 50

Looper_5982.indd 50

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

may be shown on polychrome vase K4824, in which a musician cradles a curved rasp in one arm, about to strike it with a possible piece of turtle shell held in his other hand (fig. 2.16). Deer metapodial bones are sometimes used by contemporary Maya as handles for rattles (Hayden and Cannon 1984: 96, figs. 31, 32), but this is not clearly attested during the Classic period. Various images in Maya art depict rattle handles in the shape of a long bone (e.g., K2025), but it is not possible to identify the material.22

perfor ators: aw l s, p ick s, p ins, a nd ne edle s One of the most widely noted classes of deer bone artifacts in archaeological reports is the perforator. These handy tools come in a variety of sizes and forms, characterized by one sharpened end and a smoothed or minimally modified butt. Larger examples, ranging in length from about 10 to 14 cm, are generally called awls (fig. 2.17).23 Small unperforated examples are referred to as pins, while perforated pins are often called needles, though archaeologists classify and refer to these artifacts inconsistently. Such objects are found widely in the Maya area, in caches, cenotes (sinkholes), burials, construction fill, and trash heaps (middens) (Moholy-Nagy and Ladd 1992: 127). Data from Caracol indicate that bone needles, pins, and awls may be associated with both male and female burials and are not closely linked to status (Chase et al. 2008: 131, 138). Awls are frequently identified as having been made from metapodial bones of both white-tailed deer and brocket deer.24 A needle case made of brocket metacarpal was found at Barton Ramie (Willey 1965: 500, fig. 306a). The functions of these tools probably depended partly on size and shape, and many

figure 2.17. Bone awl from Cerros, Belize. After Garber (1989: fig. 18e).

were doubtless multipurpose (Chase et al. 2008: 131). Lateral pressure from prying action would easily break an awl, so they are usually seen as a device more suitable for puncturing. Indeed, archaeologically recovered awls are commonly identified as leather-working tools or hide perforators, though use-wear evidence from Aguateca faunal remains suggests that bone tools were only used occasionally for hide working (Emery and Aoyama 2007: 77). Another suggested use for some pointed bone implements with flattened tips was as weaving tools, specifically “brocading picks” or swords.25 These instruments, known from the modern Maya and other Mesoamerican groups, are sometimes used to select warp threads in a back-strap loom weaving in order to create an extra shed for inserting supplementary weft yarns and for certain gauzeweave techniques. Some are wooden implements flattened in the manner of the regular weaving sword but narrower and thinner, with sharpened ends (Sperlich and Sperlich 1980:

51

Looper_5982.indd 51

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

97–100). Others are made of short pieces of deer bone with pointed tips and sometimes ornamental finials (Cordry and Cordry 1968: 45, fig. 20). Some ancient slender bone tools (most not conclusively identified as deer) are glyphically tagged as puutz’ baak “bone sewing needle” (Houston and Stuart 2001: 64; see Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 678). Therefore, these are not precisely identified as brocading swords, though they are clearly associated with the production of textiles. Furthermore, clear archaeological evidence for supplementary weft textile weaving technique is lacking from the Classic Maya (Looper and Tolles 2000). Deer-bone perforators may have been used for a variety of fabric-related crafts. One activity that might have employed smaller bone awls is basket weaving (Chase et al. 2008: 131). These would be useful for inserting sewing strands into tight foundation bundles. Indeed, pottery designs based on basketry forms strongly support the existence of coiled basketry technique

during the Classic period (Houston 2014b: 33–35). A sherd impression of a coiled basket was also found at Tikal (Moholy-Nagy 2003: 91, fig. 152b). Needles made of deer bone could have been used for weaving agave fiber bags, perhaps on simple frame looms akin to those used by the historic Ch’orti’ (Wisdom 1940: 161). The Ch’orti’ also use needles to sew hats out of palm frond, and basketry hats are depicted frequently in Maya art (Wisdom 1940: 165). Hooked deer metapodial bones found at Cuello could have been used for sewing textiles, nets, or baskets (McSwain et al. 1991: 181, fig. 8.34). Another function of awls during the Classic period is suggested by Maya art. The relevant image appears on an incised travertine vase (K7749; fig. 2.18). This image depicts two men wearing the attire of captives stabbing each other with bone awls. The awls are being supplied by elaborately dressed men who supervise this event, probably a form of gladiatorial combat (see Taube and Zender 2009: 176,

52

figure 2.18. Incised vase. Los Angeles County Museum of Art M.2010.115.875. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K7749.

Looper_5982.indd 52

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

bones are known from Maya sites (e.g., Garber 1989: 57, fig. 18f). The perforation was likely used to suspend the tool from the wrist during the husking process, as among the modern Maya (Hayden and Cannon 1984: 84–85). Yet another function for some ancient Maya perforators is suggested by the modern Tzeltal use of deer bone as a spatula or needle for breaking up tobacco contained in gourds (Groark 2010: 12–13).

t ub e s

figure 2.19. White-tailed deer ulna (complete, two views). Photograph by author.

fig. 7.8a). The appearance of the butt of these awls bears comparison with awls known from the Maya archaeological record made from the proximal ends of deer ulnae. A Late Preclassic example found at Cerros has a similar butt, though it is shorter than the awls depicted on K7749 and use-wear suggests that it was used for boring, rather than poking out an opponent’s eyeball, as on the vase (fig. 2.17; see also fig. 2.19; Garber 1989: 57). Various pointed instruments found in ancient contexts may have been used as corn huskers (Moholy-Nagy 2003: 59). The modern Maya insert the tip of this tool between the husks and pull upward, in order to start the husk separation (Vogt 1969: 52). Modern Maya huskers are made of various materials, including deer long bone or antler.26 Similar short tools with perforated butts made of deer long

Tubes made of sections of deer long bone and antler have been found at many sites throughout Maya history.27 Early examples from Cuello Mass Burial 1 (400–300 BC), likely made of deer bone, were incised with mat designs and other motifs (fig. 2.20; McSwain et al. 1991: 181–182, fig. 8.35). Possibly these were meant to be suspended on cord and worn as pendants, as among some contemporary Maya. Or, like the longer bone tubes from K’axob (probably deer or peccary), they may have been fan handles or hair ornaments (Bartlett 2004: 361). In the middens of Ceibal were found a number of Late Classic short bone tubes cut from animal long bones, likely deer. These measure 1.8–2.7 cm long, with diameters of 1.2–2.5 cm. They have smoothed and polished surfaces, and one is perforated twice at the midpoint, on the transverse axis (Willey 1978: 169). Polished bone tube fragments made from white-tailed deer femorae were found in palace structures at Aguateca (Emery 2010: 239). Other miscellaneous implements made of deer bone include the long, broad, polished artifacts with a concavo-convex cross section that are commonly referred to as spatulas.28 These are of unknown function. In contrast, at San Jose, Belize, Thompson (1939a: 178) found a curtain-sash rod made of a deer tibia.

53

Looper_5982.indd 53

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

fe e t Deer hooves were a symbol of rulership and power to the K’iche’ authors of the Popol Vuh (Christenson 2003: 258). Similarly, among the Aztec, deer hooves were tied onto the left legs of captains using buckskin thongs for the Great Feast of Lords (Sahagún 1981: 100). Among the Classic Maya, related meanings are difficult to ascertain. Parts of deer feet do appear in some Classic-period Maya burials. For example, eleven deer phalanges modified by tapering, perforation, and various types of incision were found in chamber burials, minor burials, and other deposits together with human remains at Tikal (Moholy-Nagy and Coe 2008: 64–65, fig. 215n). Two burned examples have incised designs filled with red pigment. Group II Burial B at Holmul contained a group of nineteen deer tarsals with various incised patterns, found under the lower ribs of the tomb occupant, near the left humerus (Merwin and Vaillant 1904: 33, plate 36a). Although it has been suggested that the phalanges and tarsals could be associated with shamanic divination (Hamblin 1984: 142), this is speculative. On a final note, a finely carved bone pendant depicting a deer hoof was found in Uaxactún (Kidder 1947: 57, fig. 45).

figure 2.20. Bone tube from Mass Burial 1, Cuello, Belize. Length approx. 13 cm. Drawing by Dana Moot II after McSwain et al. (1991: fig. 8.36).

(Tozzer 1907: 51). Although this was used to make a maize drink, a similar solution might have been employed by the ancient Maya to dehair deer hides. The colonial and modern Maya have used deerskin for a variety of purposes. Colonial reports mention shields made of deer hide hide s (Tozzer 1941: 121). It is possible that the small We turn now to deer hides, which cannot be round shields shown frequently in Maya art directly attested archaeologically but are repwere made of the same material, but it is resented in art. The ancient Maya process for impossible to be certain. Both the Yucatec preparing deer hides is not known, but it could and Lacandon made drum heads of deer hide have been similar to colonial and modern prac- (Anderson and Medina Tzuc 2005: 138). In the tices. For example, the bark of a tree (probably case of the Lacandon, these were untanned nanche, Byrsonima crassifolia) was said to have hides of agouti (Dasyprocta punctata) and been used for tanning skins in colonial Yucabrocket deer (March 1987: 48). Drum heads are tán (Tozzer 1941: 199). The modern Lacandon often white or tan and unmarked in ancient produced lye from the ashes of mahogany bark Maya art and therefore of indeterminate origin,

54

Looper_5982.indd 54

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

but they are also sometimes spotted, suggesting jaguar pelt (fig. 2.14).29 The Lacandon also made bags out of tanned deer hide or scrota (Baer and Merrifield 1971: 237; Hofling 2014: 407). Another well-attested usage of deerskin is as the wrapping for the sacred bundle of the K’iche’ deity Tojil, described in the Popol Vuh (Christenson 2003: 235). Related uses of deerskins for rituals and dances are described in chapter 6. A clear artistic representation of deer hide is seen on polychrome vase K414 (fig. 3.6). The image shows five men in procession, three holding spear-throwers and spears and two holding a limp yet intact deer and a peccary. Four of the figures wear cloaks made of nearly complete deer hides painted with longitudinal stripes. Pointed extensions to the sides pertain to the legs of the animal, while the diagnostic white tail descends from the neck area of the cloaks of two of the men. When jaguar skins are worn as cloaks, they are configured in the same manner, with the neck facing downward and the tail emerging at the back of the wearer’s neck (see fig. 5.4). The lower ends of the capes are squared off, representing the cut made when the deer was decapitated prior to skinning. The men are wearing military headdresses rather than hunting gear, so it is likely that this image depicts a martial procession in which animal sacrifices are presented as offerings to rulers or gods. It suggests an important occasion for which white-tailed deer hide cloaks were appropriate.30 Another ritual occasion that likely merited the use of deer hide garments is the ballgame and related ceremonies.31 A number of Maya vessels depict ballplayers wearing painted hides, possibly of deer or some other very large mammal, wrapped around their waists, tucked into the belt (figs. 5.18, 5.19, 5.20; see

55

Looper_5982.indd 55

also K1921, K2803). The hides are either cut or folded and arranged so that they descend down the back of the legs, leaving the front open. The elongated tip that extends toward the back, probably pertaining to the long neck of the deer, seems to suggest the identification of these garments as hide rather than woven textile or some other material.32 In addition, some of the hides are rendered with a slightly scalloped or pointed edge (e.g., K1921 and fig. 5.20), indicative of the stretch marks resulting from the drying process for hides. On the marker from La Esperanza we see not only the deeply scalloped edge of the hide but also the long neck flap at the rear, here apparently providing protection to the player’s shin which rests upon it (fig. 2.21). On Dos Pilas Hieroglyphic Stairway 1, men wear ball-playing attire including hides descending from their belts (fig. 2.22). In this case the hides flare out stiffly from the figures, as if untanned. Some of the profile representations preserve the shape of the front legs as well as the neck. Deer hide is not the only material used in ballgame attire, however. In some cases, the hide descending

figure 2.21. Ballplayer wearing a hide thigh protector, detail of Ballcourt Marker, La Esperanza, Mexico. Photograph by author.

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

figure 2.22. Hieroglyphic Stairway 1, Step 3, Dos Pilas, Guatemala. Drawing by Stephen Houston.

from the waist is rendered explicitly as belonging to jaguar (fig. 5.19).33 Other players seem to wear textile skirts (e.g., K2882). Thus, deer hide hip protectors were an optional but fairly common element of ballgame attire. Indeed, Aztec ballplayers are also known to have used deerskin thigh protectors (Durán 1971: 315). Yet another significant ritual context in which deer-hide skirts were likely used was musical performance. This is represented in the east wall of Room 1 mural at Bonampak (fig. 2.15; Miller and Brittenham 2013: 116). All the musicians in this composition wear what look like deer hides, painted with various colors and designs, wrapped around their waists. As with the attire of ballplayers, the neck flaps dangle toward the back. Similar garments are also worn by musicians on painted ceramics (e.g., K206, K1549, and K5435). These images of musicians wearing deerhide skirts, coupled with the playing of conch trumpets during deer sacrificial rites and the common use of deer parts to manufacture musical instruments, suggest that deer were symbolically associated with music among the Maya, as elsewhere in Mesoamerica.34 The use of callers by the ancient and modern Maya (see chapter 1) may even have been conceived as attracting the animals through music. An analog is found among the modern Huichol who

use notched deer bone rasps to accompany the song of the hunters (Lumholtz 1973: 155). Moreover, deer (along with other animals) are depicted as musicians on vases in the Chamá style (fig. 2.14).35 Because music in Mesoamerica was often considered to be associated with the sun, it is conceivable that the musical symbolism of deer may be related to their use as a solar metaphor (see chapter 7) or to the association of deer with sensual pleasure (see chapter 4).

conc lusions: from sk ins and bone s to to ol s , or na m e n t s , a nd at t i r e Archaeological evidence provides detailed information concerning the use of deer bones and antlers. These were made into a wide range of tools using standardized technologies of long temporal duration. The manufacture of tools and ornaments from deer bones and antlers was widespread. Evidence from the various regions shows that the middle elite were often engaged in bone tool and ornament manufacture, while the fabrication of some objects, including bone artifacts, was the part-time occupation of affluent commoners and secondary elites at Mayapán. Detailed studies of artifacts at Aguateca show that the main bones on which the Maya concentrated were femurs, tibiae, and metapodials, which were processed principally with chert tools. From these bones, artists made ornamental and ceremonial

56

Looper_5982.indd 56

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b o n es t o pi c ks

objects such as the Copán tibia discussed at the beginning of the chapter. Headdresses made of deer crania (with skin and antlers) were employed for ceremonies involving hunting and warfare and have been found archaeologically. Detached and often modified antlers were used as tools and ornaments—in some cases, elaborately decorated implements. Deer antlers were used as beaters for turtle-carapace drums, and drum heads were probably also made of deer hide. Other instruments made of deer bone include rasps and probably whistles and flutes. One of the chief uses for deer bones was to manufacture perforators of different sizes for various purposes. These likely included leather working, weaving, sewing, basketry and other textiles, hat making, corn husking, and weaponry. Tubes made of deer long bones and antlers were polished and carved and likely used as ornaments and/or handles. Many of these forms and functions are attested only from artifacts, with the exception of deer headdresses, antler drum beaters, and perforators as weapons, which are also depicted in art. Deer-bone flutes/whistles and rasps are also

possibly represented in art as well as materially embodied as artifacts. In contrast, artistic renderings provide some of the best evidence for the production and use of deer hides, though perforators were also used for hide work. Hides were generally removed from the carcass and staked or stretched on a frame for drying. They were then worn for ceremonies involving animal sacrifice by warriors and by ballplayers and musicians. In sum, the artifacts recovered from ancient sites, combined with artistic depictions of deer parts used as attire and implements, paint a rich though far from complete picture of the myriad ways in which the Maya used deer for more than sustenance. As material studies advance and collections are reanalyzed, it is likely that more artifacts will be identified as having been derived from deer, thereby adding to the list of uses to which the animals were put and enabling additional comparisons with representational art. Even with the limited data at present, this investigation shows that it is beneficial to consider the artefactual record in detail when attempting to understand the significance of faunal representations in Maya art.

57

Looper_5982.indd 57

1/27/19 3:01 PM

figure 3.1. Incised conch-shell plaque, Cleveland Museum of Art, The Norweb Collection 1965.550. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K2880.

Looper_5982.indd 58

1/27/19 3:01 PM

chapter three

Big Bucks Deer and Social Status

reat tribute . . . to you, said the conch shell to the deer” (chak patan ? ta ha’at ya’alajiiy hub ti chihj) (Zender 2010: 85). Thus begins the inscription from a finely incised 16.5 cm–long unperforated plaque made from a queen conch (Lobatus gigas) shell, located in the collection of the Cleveland Museum of Art (figs. 3.1, 3.2; Schele and Miller 1986: 155, plate 59a). Although it has no inscribed date, stylistic details securely identify it as a Late Classic work. In the accompanying image, a male human wearing a deer headdress and smoking a cigar bends forward, gesturing elegantly toward a large conch shell placed before him. The serpent that emerges from the upward-pointing aperture of the

Looper_5982.indd 59

conch metaphorically embodies the shell’s “breath” that conveys the prophecy of wealth (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 264). The remainder of the inscription on the plaque is a “name tagging” expression, identifying the owner of the plaque as a man nicknamed Jewel Jaguar, who is an ajk’uhuun (Zender 2004: 330). This title, sometimes translated as “priest” or “guardian,” indicates a junior or secondary noble subordinate to the kings (Jackson and Stuart 2001; Zender 2004). Among the roles of an ajk’uhuun were the propitiation of deities and the writing of books and carving of monuments (see Jackson 2013; Zender 2004). They are also shown in scenes of tribute presentation, as on K8469 (fig. 3.3).1 Jewel Jaguar’s other titles indicate that he was from the

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

chak patan ? ta ha’at ya’alajiiy hub great tribute . . . to you, said the conch shell

ti chihj ujuhchil ? bahlam ajk’uhuun to the deer; it is the shell of Jewel Jaguar ajk’uhuun

figure 3.2. Drawing of incised conch-shell plaque, Cleveland Museum of Art, The Norweb Collection 1965.550. SD-7203. Drawing by Linda Schele © David Schele.

western Maya region, which also corresponds to the general area of the plaque’s manufacture (Doyle 2010: 114).2 Why would a junior noble own a plaque showing a well-appointed deer-man? While the inscription of the plaque implies the bestowal of wealth on a meritorious recipient, a more detailed analysis of its iconography and its complex text/image relationships serves as a starting point for discussing the way in which deer hunting and consumption were related to status during the Late Classic period. In addition to the text and image, the material of the

plaque itself participates in a discourse about wealth, which may be reflected in the attributes of the hunt in general. The associations of deer and hunting with wealth and status are also revealed by comparisons with scenes from painted pottery as well as archaeological data. This chapter, therefore, takes an approach similar to that of chapter 2 but focuses specifically on the way in which artistic and archaeological evidence allows us to interpret deer in relation to social status. While the evidence from the Classic Maya does not tell us much about the overall relationship between hunting and

60

Looper_5982.indd 60

1/27/19 3:01 PM

b ig b u ck s

ajk’uhuun figure 3.3. Painted vase showing tribute presentation scene involving two ajk’uhuuns. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K8469.

social class, art and texts do employ the deer hunt as a metaphor for elite male heroism. Further, the elites, including kings, were avid consumers of deer meat, a dietary preference that likely reinforced their socially dominant position. Nevertheless, deer as an insignia of identity seems to have been most closely associated with a junior-elite rank.

a rcha e olo gic al e vide nce f or e lite use of de er Various lines of archaeological evidence document the intense interest in acquiring deer by the Maya elite during the Classic period. Deer were the preferred animal food in most areas of the Prehispanic Maya lowlands.3 Archaeologists have found indications that the elites at numerous sites avidly consumed deer. It should be mentioned, however, that most sites that have been investigated provide far more

tribute bundles

data concerning the elites than commoners. In addition to consuming deer meat, the elite frequently employed deerskins, heads, antlers, and other body parts for ceremonial purposes and patronized workshops that converted deer bones into tools and works of art (see chapter 2). Deer were also sacrificed in rituals and interred as offerings, some of which were elite-sponsored. Evidence for the elite consumption of deer as food is found throughout the Maya area, especially during the Late Classic period and at the largest sites. Much of the evidence comes from the analysis of bone fragments found in middens, although patterns of consumption and distribution of animal meats, fats, and blood are only imperfectly attested by such remains (Emery 2003a: 42). At Late Preclassic Cerros, Belize, consumption of deer was significant for all classes but was particularly prominent among elites (Carr 1986). Evidence from Chinikihá also shows a higher proportion of deer in elite contexts, with “meatier” sections of the animals preferred.4 Elite refuse at Ceibal is likewise richer in deer remains

61

Looper_5982.indd 61

1/27/19 3:01 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

than peripheral contexts, and forelimbs were favored by the elite (Pohl 1985: 137, 140–141, 1990: 158). This pattern partly correlates with the later northern Maya sites of Isla Cerritos, Cozumel Island, Chichén Itzá, and Dzibilchaltún, where skull and leg bones are found in great numbers in elite refuse, implying the elite preference for these parts of the animal (Carr 1996). Similarly, upper-tier sites in the Usumacinta and Petexbatún regions show preferential portioning of deer forelimbs and hind limbs among top-ranking elite (Sharpe 2011: 182–183, figs. 5–6; Sharpe and Emery 2015: 290). In contrast, at secondary sites in these areas, forelimbs and hind limbs are not closely associated with the elite (Sharpe 2011: 102, 106). Another factor that may have influenced the elite consumption of deer limbs was the common use of limb bones (especially hind limbs) for crafting activities (see chapter 2; Emery 2008a). Remains at Caracol (Teeter 2001: 225) and Copán (Collins 2002: 284; Pohl 1994) document the Classic-period elite preference for consuming the meat of white-tailed deer and other large animal species. In contrast, isotopic studies of commoner remains at Copán suggest that deer were not a major part of the diet of this segment of the population (Whittington and Reed 1997a: 160). Faunal materials suggest that deer were also heavily consumed by individuals occupying the highest-ranking Late Classic residence (the palace) at Aguateca, though this was also the case for a Tier 3 (minor) noble residence (Emery 2003b). At Late Classic Motul de San José and the adjacent site of Chäkokot deer remains were also predominant in the highest-ranking elite deposits but were even more abundant in commoner refuse (Emery 2012: 296). Emery (2012: 324) proposed that the commoner households

at these sites were responsible for hunting and processing game, which was then given to the elites as a form of tribute or taxation (see also Emery 2003a). Again, this inference is supported by the high proportion of bone remains from quality meat cuts consumed by the toptier elites at Motul. The ancient Maya elite preference for consuming large-bodied animals is seen in many other cultures in which “big game” hunting and meat-eating is associated with status enhancement (Speth 2012). It has been suggested that a system of competitive feasting, in which various elite factions vied with each other for status by hosting lavish feasts, underlay the Maya elite consumption of venison during the Classic and Postclassic periods (Masson 1999; Shaw 1991, 1999: 95). This would explain not only the elite demand for large quantities of high-quality meat but also the greater diversity of animals commonly found in many elite deposits (see Emery 2003b; Pohl 1985, 1990, 1994). Circumstantial evidence in support of this theory appears in the broad correlation between hunting and political activity among various sites in the Petexbatún region. In particular, Emery (2008b) found that the larger sites of Aguateca and Dos Pilas had more white-tailed deer remains than other faunal remains compared to smaller sites, such as Arroyo de Piedra. Importantly, deer consumption peaked at capital sites during the early Late Classic period, when these sites expanded their political influence. Likewise, at intermediate-scale sites, such as Tamarindito, white-tailed deer use peaked during the Early Classic, when these sites were most politically active. One reason for this increase in deer consumption in tandem with human activity in these cases may be the preference of white-tailed deer for “disturbed” forest lands, including edge areas

62

Looper_5982.indd 62

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ig b u ck s

where fields and forest meet as well as secondgrowth bush (see chapter 1). However, it is also likely that proportionately larger populations of elites at these sites demanded large animals, which were consumed as an expression of status and power (Emery 2008b). The consumption of deer by elites may have implied their control of the territories from which the animals were procured. In addition to local hunting, there is significant evidence that elites acquired deer through trade and tribute or taxation, at least during the Postclassic period. For example, elite middens at Cozumel have abundant deer remains (Carr 1986, 1996). These include both meat cuts and bones such as antlers and metapodial bones that were used for tool making (Carr 1996: 255). Because the island was largely unsuitable as deer habitats, many deer carcasses had to be imported, presumably in exchange for marine products (Pohl 1990: 168). This economic pattern may reflect in part the symbolic symmetry of deer and conch shells, discussed below (see also chapter 6). Even inland, however, the Maya traded deer between sites. In one multisite study utilizing strontium isotope data from animal teeth and focusing on the Petexbatún region, Erin Kennedy Thornton (2011) found that nearly a quarter of medium-bodied and largebodied mammal remains (including deer) were nonlocal, many imported from over fifty kilometers away. Another study suggested that large animals including deer at several sites in the upper Belize River valley were procured from as far as 20–25 kilometers away (Freiwald 2010). This suggests that deer carcasses (at least the parts with teeth, possibly including skins) may have been an important component of the Maya elite trade network. Although deer carcasses were accessible to

all, as demonstrated by comparative studies of refuse, their preferential consumption by elites implies a control of trade in these valued commodities by the ruling class, probably through a tribute or tax system.5 The notion that deer were part of the tribute/tax system parallels the situation in the northern Yucatán at the time of the Spanish conquest. During this epoch, according to Landa (Tozzer 1941: 57, 87, 141), hunting parties were required to supply a portion of their catch to their lords and share the remainder with their friends. Analogously, in the economic system of Late Postclassic Central Mexico, the Huaxtec province of Tzicoac was required to pay tribute to Tenochtitlan in live deer (Berdan and Anawalt 1997: 138). In summary, white-tailed deer was a highly favored game for the elites of the Late Classic– period Maya lowlands, as in later periods. Not only were the remains of these animals used for tools and ornaments, but the meat was consumed in large quantities. Circulation of deer in the form of carcasses and skins was probably widespread, and redistribution of meat through tribute/tax payment and elite-sponsored feasts was likely an important element that helped shape the political landscape. The transportation of deer meat along with other durable materials deriving from the animal from the peripheral fields and forest edges to the elites residing in political centers is yet another example of the animal’s metaphorical embodiment of liminality. Moreover, the increased hunting of deer during the Late Classic period may be tied to an elite demand for nonfood species that were valued symbolically, such as jaguars, monkeys, and certain bird species (Emery and Thornton 2008b: 168–169). In other words, Maya elites valued deer for technological, nutritional, and ideological purposes.

63

Looper_5982.indd 63

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

the she ll sp e ak s While archaeological data provide an invaluable means of reconstructing the political economy of deer hunting in Late Classic Maya society, visual culture and hieroglyphic texts yield additional insight into the ideologies that underlay these socioeconomic processes. The Cleveland plaque provides a particularly vivid illustration of the value placed upon deer by Maya elites during the Late Classic period. As described at the beginning of this chapter, the inscription of the plaque (figs. 3.1, 3.2) reports a prophecy of wealth for a deer. Because the deer is personified in the form of a human male, it is likely that this work portrays a fragment of a lost mythic narrative in which the principal actor is an anthropomorphized animal or hero transformed into a deer. In this case, the deer is no ordinary creature but is shown as a high-status human being. In addition to having a band of flower-shaped tattoos or painted designs on his torso and upper arms, the man wears jewelry in the form of a necklace strung with a tubular bead (probably jade) and elaborate beaded ear pendants. Such lavish ornamentation associates him with the upper echelon of Maya society (see IshiharaBrito 2012: 271). His decorated hip cloth and loincloth may also suggest high rank and status. Two fabrics seem to be depicted: a wider panel constituting the inner hip cloth, which is woven in a herringbone pattern and has a stepfret border and fringe, and a narrower outer loincloth decorated in cross-hatched diamonds or rectangles. Although this exact combination of garments is unusual, it is worth noting that elites of cities in the general vicinity of the plaque’s origin (the western zone of the Maya lowlands) are shown wearing cloth with similar patterns. For example, the king Shield Jaguar III wears a herringbone-patterned hip

figure 3.4. Lintel 24, Yaxchilán, Mexico. Drawing by Ian Graham © President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, PM# 2004.15.6.5.21.

cloth on Yaxchilán Lintel 24 (fig. 3.4), and similar diamond-patterned loincloth termini appear on Piedras Negras Stela 12, worn by the king and two flanking lords (fig. 3.5; see Schele and Miller 1986: 187, 219). The man on the Cleveland plaque also has long fingernails that he displays through extravagant gestures. This suggests freedom from manual labor such as farming (Schele and Miller 1986: 155). Elite status is also implied by the elegantly thin cigar that he smokes, which relates to Maya concepts of consumption and leisurely life at court (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 116). A courtly context is also implied by the line

64

Looper_5982.indd 64

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ig b u ck s

that extends between the serpent’s mouth and the hip cloth, representing a step or throne top. This suggests an elevated position associated with high rank, illustrated vividly on Piedras Negras Stela 12 (fig. 3.5). The plaque image therefore casts this (probably) mythic personage as an elite male with numerous trappings of status, wearing a deer headdress similar to those donned by historical and mythical hunters, warriors, dancers, or ballplayers, discussed elsewhere in this book (e.g., fig. 6.2). The shell material of the plaque may also be considered to be an expression of wealth and status, because this class of objects was the work of trained full-time specialists, probably associated with royal courts (see Emery and Aoyama 2007; Velázquez Castro 2012: 439). Shells—along with jewelry, feathers, and fine cloth—pertain to the ensemble of materials and crafted items that conventionally represent tribute/taxes in Maya art.6 Inscriptions refer to tribute/tax offerings as patan, which literally means “something that is worked or made.” However, the term also has the more general meanings of cargo, office, work, or services rendered (Stuart 1995: 354, 370–373). The Cleveland plaque employs this very term to refer to the wealth promised to the deer-man. Both the text and image on the plaque therefore point to the economic value of this luxury object carved from shell. But additional meanings attributed to conch shells made them especially apt as prophetic media, as described and depicted on the Cleveland plaque. A close reading of the image together with the inscription suggests figure 3.5. Front of Stela 12, Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Drawing by David Stuart © President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, PM# 2004.15.6.19.38.

65

Looper_5982.indd 65

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

the mechanism through which this agency is activated, which is related to the associations of vital breath with speech (Looper 2018). Quotations in Maya inscriptions such as the one on the Cleveland plaque are not only attributed to humans. Using the quotative particle che/ che’en/chehen “so say(s),” texts also sometimes attribute speech to bones and sculpted panels as well as animate time periods (Grube 1998: 548, 553). As an indication of speech that is both narrated and written, these texts refer to the recitational aspect of ancient Maya literacy, in which texts were frequently performed orally (Houston 2000: 155). The quotative marker used on the Cleveland plaque is a form of the verb a’al “say,” which is usually employed to refer to the speech of mythic characters and gods as well as humans.7 In its context on the Cleveland plaque, however, the verbal expression ya’alajiiy hub “said the conch shell” has a more complex role in messaging than most other instances of these statements. As in other examples, it functions first as a quotation, anchoring spoken words through a written text. Second, through a visual association with the image of the conch shell, the text ascribes the utterance to the depicted shell with its breath-serpent. However, owing to the recitational qualities of the Maya script, the reading of the text in this case interacts with the plaque’s materiality, eliciting the speech of the shell medium itself (see Zender 2017b: 16). In fact, conch shells were frequently employed in Maya art as metaphors for breath (Taube 2010a: 236). Therefore, words inscribed on a shell fragment were closely analogous to spoken words, carried on bursts of air. The shell plaque itself continuously speaks the message conveyed in the text. Furthermore, the plaque was owned by an ajk’uhuun or secondary elite,

who, holding it in his hand, would perceive the image as if it were a mirror reflection. As he read (aloud) the text inscribed on the plaque, he would give life to the words latent in the materialized breath of the shell. The plaque therefore communicates wealth and status in the form of a representational image, a perpetually speaking prophecy, and a worked material object that is given voice through performance. The materiality of the plaque also communicates its message of wealth and status by metonymic association with other physical objects made of shell. These include shell ornaments used to fabricate elite costume, the susurration of an imported intact conch shell held near the ear, or even the resonating sounds produced by blowing conch-shell trumpets. Although the shell on the Cleveland plaque is not clearly depicted as a trumpet, its function as a sonic device is implied by its breath-serpent and glyphic text as well as the presence of the deer-man as audience. Conchshell trumpets were intimately associated with the deer hunt in ancient Maya art and especially with deer sacrifices (see chapter 5). Hunting-related deities are sometimes shown playing conch trumpets, and one extant Maya conch-shell trumpet is carved in the form of a hunting god (fig. 4.10). These examples support the identification of conch shells as material vehicles for the voices of hunting deities and as a means by which humans invoke these gods. Conch-shell trumpets were sounded in Aztec rites to announce divine presence (Sahagún 1981: 128). The Lacandon Maya blew conch trumpets to call the gods to partake of offerings (Tozzer 1907: 74). In the context of the Cleveland plaque, both image and material seem to make these sacred voices manifest.

66

Looper_5982.indd 66

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ig b u ck s

de er, h unting, and status in painted cer amic s

The second sign is a full pseudoglyph, while the main head of the third sign might include the downturned snout and ear of the peccary, The multiple and interwoven references to status communicated through the image, text, CHITAM. The glyphs in front of the peccarycarrier also include two possible peccary heads, and materiality of the Cleveland plaque paralfollowed by a block that seems to read 5 AJAW lel the association of deer and hunting with status on Late Classic–period painted ceramics. “five lords.” It is tempting to read this as a reference to the five depicted men using the A few polychrome vessels show elite processions involving hunting paraphernalia. One of standard elite title ajaw. Again, as in the case of K5857, the elaborate attire and formalized these is K414 (fig. 3.6). The elevated status of movement of the figures suggest a ritual event, these figures is suggested by their garments, rather than a quotidian hunt. which include long decorated loincloths and Another example of the association of deer especially feathered headdresses with “goggles” hunting with elite status appears on the polyworn by two of the figures. The hunt is also chrome painted vase K5857, discussed in chapexplicit in this scene, in that the three men ter 5 (fig. 5.1). The three taller male figures in with staffs (?) brandish spear-throwers and the composition wear elaborate costumes and wear deerskin capes. The other two men hold use spear-throwers to kill a deer that is held out two of the most prized fauna hunted by fast by a youth. These costumes, which include the ancient Maya: a peccary and a white-tailed jade jewelry, long hip cloths (some made of deer. The text of this vessel is interesting, as hide), and the feathered headdress worn by the it is half-legible, including a number of comprincipal figure with a frontally posed body, pounds that seem to make sense in the conimply high status. Furthermore, as on many text of the scene, but sprinkled liberally with elaborately painted Classic vases, the dedicatory linguistically meaningless pseudo-glyphic elesequence of this vessel cites its owner as a ch’ok ments. For example, between the men who “youth” (Houston 2009: 165, 2018: 58). There hold the animals are three signs, the first of seems to be an implied relationship between which includes the chi grapheme, probably the image depicted and the active life of a young derived from syllabic spellings of chihj “deer.”

5 lords?

chitam “peccary”?

chihj “deer”

figure 3.6. Painted vase showing procession with hunted mammals, K414. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

67

Looper_5982.indd 67

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

man in a Classic Maya court; more specifically, this vessel may commemorate the first public rites celebrated by an elite male child (see chapter 5). The vessel suggests the importance of hunting to male elites as a ritual rather than as an everyday subsistence-oriented activity. The elevated status associated with deer hunting among historical male lords is paralleled by the frequent depiction of hunting gods as high-status individuals. This is true for the aged hunting god as well as youthful male deer deities. In the codex-style “Dying God” scenes discussed in chapter 4, an aged deity with deer ears lies in his underworld palace (figs. 4.2– 4.6). Although his home is identified as a “wild” place filled with birds, its architecture includes decorated piers and an ample bench or platform upon which he reclines. Its lavish curtains are also a status symbol. These are made of elaborately woven textiles, one of the most frequently represented tribute/tax items in Maya art (see Stuart 1995: 363). The domicile of the aged god of the hunt is closely comparable to that of the underworld deity God L, which is clearly rendered as a court scene on the Princeton vase (K511; Miller and Martin 2004: 76). On the Dying God vase K2794 (fig. 4.2), a lidded vase rests in front of the bench. This vessel is also a status symbol, analogous to the pots used for cacao preparation in numerous court scenes, including on the Princeton vase. The young deities that appear in the Dying God scenes are identified as noble, largely through their jewelry. They appear as aspects of the Maize God in these images, with beaded necklaces and arm bands with pendant heads, ear spools, mosaic cuffs and anklets, belts and loincloths with elaborate beaded finials and pendants, and beaded crowns and hair ornaments (see figs. 4.2–4.6). In some examples, these youthful deities are depicted enthroned,

akin to a ruler. An example is K4012, where he appears seated on a platform, conversing with a deer (fig. 4.6). The polychrome plate K9260 features a more elaborate variant of the enthroned youthful hunting god (fig. 4.12). In this case, his back rests against a jaguar-pelt upholstered cushion, an explicit sign of high status. The conch shells that the young deer god and companion deer wear as necklace pendants in these images might also be status symbols, as they are decorated with beads (figs. 4.2, 4.5). Conch shell was part of a class of luxury goods, along with jade and elaborately painted ceramics, that were traded by the elite.8 It is likely that shell trumpets were unusual at inland sites, for they appear very rarely in burials of any type. We do not have enough archaeological data to make generalizations about shell trumpets and status. A shell trumpet was found in a lower-elite deposit at Aguateca, while two examples from Tikal come from non-elite or general contexts.9 Unprovenienced examples such as the trumpets in the Chrysler Museum of Art and the Kimbell Art Museum, both of which are embellished with elaborate imagery and hieroglyphic texts, indicate that some shell trumpets are of elite manufacture and ownership (Schele and Miller 1986: 84, 309). The figure on the Kimbell trumpet is probably an ancestor, and the inscription may include the royal titles k’inich (A3b) and ajaw “lord” (A4) (Schele and Miller 1986: 84). Although Maya art contains many examples of elites associated with deer costuming or hunting attributes, very seldom are the highest echelon of rulers (the k’uhul ajaw “holy lords”) shown in this manner. Even the owner of the Cleveland plaque is stated to be a priest or “guardian”—a man of elite status, secondary to a high king. The ownership tag is placed adjacent to the face of the depicted deer-man,

68

Looper_5982.indd 68

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ig b u ck s

suggesting the metaphorical relationship between owner and depicted figure. Indeed, an actual ajk’uhuun named Yawal Ch’o’ is shown wearing a similar deer headdress on K1606 (fig. 5.5). Other representations of males engaged in rituals wearing deer headdresses are probably not high kings (see chapter 5).10 The captive presented before Yawal Ch’o’ on K1606 also wears a deer headdress similar to the lord depicted on the Cleveland plaque, but this man, named Yuk Tzik’iin, has no titles at all. This pattern leads me to suspect that the prominent display of deer regalia might be a sign of junior-elite status. As mentioned in the last chapter, archaeological investigations in various regions have found that deer bone-working is often associated with middleelite households. Thus, it might be possible to interpret some deer insignias as referring metonymically to one of the economic roles of middle-elite persons: to process (or supervise the processing of) deer remains into tools, ornaments, and clothing. In the case of the Cleveland plaque, perhaps the liminality of deer was employed metaphorically to connote the middle-elite status of its owner, whose role was either to mediate between humans and gods (as a priest) or to serve as a court official, interceding between lower-status individuals and the king. If this is correct, it would be an example of how the metaphorical significance of deer was rooted in material processes and economic interactions that involved a broader segment of the population, not merely the highest elite tier.

conclusion: the hunger f or p ow er Hunting for wild game is well documented cross-culturally as an activity appropriate— though not exclusive—to the elite in stratified

societies.11 Elites hunted for a myriad of reasons far beyond satisfying subsistence needs, including health, military training, power display and intimidation, and establishing links with history and legend.12 As discussed elsewhere in this book, the Maya considered hunting to be a heroic activity, enshrined in myth and imbued with an aura of power. The image of the hunter is perhaps best embodied in the mythic Hero Twins of the Popol Vuh, who are consummate hunters (see chapter 1). We can hypothesize that when ancient Maya rulers slew deer, often in a ritualized context, they drew upon these rich associations, becoming embodiments of mythic hunters but also placing themselves at risk of being killed or injured by deer, other animals, or other hunters. In part, this explains the explicit metaphorical relationship between elite males and deer as represented on the Cleveland plaque. Elites also participated in ritual deer hunts elsewhere in ancient Mesoamerica. Among the Aztec, the principal context for these events was the Quecholli festival, when their major hunting god, Mixcoatl, received honor through collective bloodletting, fasting, offerings of arrows on the graves of the dead, sacrifice of captives and slaves trussed like deer, and a large-scale hunt (Sahagún 1981: 25–26; see Olivier 2015: 354–460). As described by colonial-period chronicler Fray Diego Durán (1971: 146), the noblemen had an important role during this feast as leaders of the ceremonial hunt. The evidence for deer hunting as a general noble pastime is equivocal, however; Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (1997: 207) merely states somewhat vaguely, “They shoot at things with bow and arrow.” He develops this slightly in the Florentine Codex, mentioning that the rulers’ hunting equipment consisted of bows and arrows as well as blowguns and nets, which they used

69

Looper_5982.indd 69

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

to kill and capture birds (Sahagún 1979: 30). Deer are not specifically mentioned. Hunting in Aztec society was generally the domain of professionals, who could achieve high status through success (Durán 1971: 456, 1994: 341). Although elite deer hunting in western Mesoamerica seems to be largely a ritual event, there is ample documentation for linking deer consumption with elite status widely across the region. For example, in the town of Teitipac in the Valley of Oaxaca at the time of Spanish contact, a carnivorous diet (including rabbits, turkey, and deer) was the purview of the Zapotec elites. In contrast, commoners had a

fundamentally vegetarian diet (Spores 1965: 967). A similar situation existed in the Nahua community of Teotitlán del Camino, which was allied with Tenochtitlan (Spores 1965: 975). In the Mixteca Alta communities of Tejupa and Tilantongo, deer were eaten exclusively by the Mixtec elite (Spores 1965: 980). Similarly, Sahagún (1979: 37) mentions deer (“venison sprinkled with seeds”) as a royal repast for the Aztec, listing it under “market food.” The early colonial sources repeatedly list venison as food fit for an imperial banquet (Carrasco 2012: 6; Durán 1994: 406). Deer meat—along with quail, rabbit, chocolate, and

figure 3.7. Early Classic modeled ceramic vessel, Hellmuth Photo Archive PC.M.EC.cb2.1 (front). Photograph by Nicholas Hellmuth, www.maya -ethnozoology.org.

figure 3.8. Early Classic modeled ceramic vessel, Hellmuth Photo Archive PC.M.EC.cb2.1 (back). Photograph by Nicholas Hellmuth, www.maya -ethnozoology.org.

70

Looper_5982.indd 70

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ig b u ck s

diverse breads—was also served to the Aztec army when warriors were feted as if they were rulers (Durán 1994: 166, 177). Because deer were probably scarce in the heavily populated Valley of Mexico, where the Mexica capital was located, the royalty acquired deer as a tribute item, tax payment, or gift (Durán 1994: 205, 270, 302). Deer carcasses were also mentioned as one of the contributions sent from the provinces to defray costs of coronation festivities in the capital (Durán 1994: 318). The central Mexican system by which the elites acquired deer meat therefore bears comparison with that of the ancient Maya, as both cultures integrated deer into the system of trade and tribute/ taxation. In sum, deer hunting for the ancient Maya elite was not principally a subsistence activity, though they must have eaten at least a portion of the game taken by their own hand. Rather, both archaeological and iconographic data point to deer hunting by elites as a ritual event which demonstrated their “predatory” social position. In other words, deer (and other browsing animals) were not employed as a prime symbol of royal identity but were instead killed and consumed by elites in part to represent sociopolitical domination. One image that seems to capture this concept quite eloquently is an Early Classic Maya modeled effigy vessel. The front of the vessel shows an enthroned lord, probably a king, flanked by images of jaguars, the principal embodiment of the king’s dominant status (fig. 3.7). On the back a deer or other mammal carcass, trussed and partly defleshed, hangs from a rope (fig. 3.8). This image of a prey animal connotes the king’s role as a sacrificer, as a similar trussed deer is attached to the rear belt of God S in the San

Bartolo mural (see fig. 2.7). Ritual hunts metaphorically represented victory in warfare (see chapter 5) but also legitimated the relatively heavy elite consumption of venison and other large game animal meat, which they acquired through a tribute/tax system. The image of the deer, which constituted a compact and highly desirable symbol of abundance and cyclic regeneration, naturalized the privileged status of the nobility. The Cleveland plaque expresses the ideological relationship between deer and wealth by showing a deer in the guise of an elite man. In contrast to the effigy vessel shown in figure 3.7, however, the Cleveland plaque figure’s identification with deer via a prominent headdress seems to reflect the junior-elite status of its owner. The text’s promise of great wealth is metonymically embodied in the trappings of the depicted figure and the shell before him as well as the shell material from which the object was manufactured. Many of these elements, such as the shell, jewelry, and textiles, were items of tribute, defined as materials that were transferred from distant locales to political centers. As we have seen in this chapter, elites also frequently imported deer to signify their dominance. By identifying themselves with the materials and products that flowed from the periphery to the center including deer, junior elites like the owner of the plaque highlighted their perceived economic role as mediators between lower social strata and rulers. Like deer, they were subordinate to the “predatory” kings. But just as deer frequently enter the fields to browse, the junior nobility were allowed to cross the palace threshold and benefit from its abundance.

71

Looper_5982.indd 71

1/27/19 3:02 PM

figure 4.1. Ceramic figurine depicting old man with deer headdress and young woman embracing. PC.B.95. © Dumbarton Oaks, Pre-Columbian Collection, Washington, DC.

Looper_5982.indd 72

1/27/19 3:02 PM

chapter four

Wearing the Horns Deer, Sexuality, and Fertility in “Dying God” Scenes

n the limited corpus of Maya erotic images, one of the most explicit and frequently depicted shows a young woman and an old man embracing. In one famous example of this theme, a ceramic whistle in the Dumbarton Oaks collection, a young woman wearing an elaborate coiffure touches the face of an aged man, while he lifts her skirt up, caressing her thigh (fig. 4.1; O’Neil 2012). Numerous plausible interpretations for this image have been suggested, owing to the whistle’s relatively nonspecific imagery. It is typically assumed to represent a mythic narrative. Some scholars see it as relating to stories of various aged gods pursuing the Moon Goddess, who is usually imagined as a woman with many sexual partners (Benson 1979: 99; Pendergast 1982). Others

Looper_5982.indd 73

relate it to a Q’eqchi’ mythic cycle in which the sun woos the moon (Cohodas 1974: 101; Miller and Martin 2004: 116). The old man’s deer headdress is thought to refer to the disguises he wears that give him access to the moon (Kubler 1984: 242; see chapter 7). More broadly, it is likely that the ancient Maya, like other Mesoamericans, utilized deer as a metaphor for lasciviousness (Taube 1980: 10). In particular, the scroll that commonly adorns deer in Maya art (see figs. 2.9, 7.9) signifies a strong or musky odor typical of white-tails (Houston 2010b).1 The scroll motif is very similar to the central Mexican glyph for excrement, possibly signaling that the Maya considered deer to be both physically and morally “filthy” (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 220; see also Klein 1993). If this interpretation is correct, then the

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

deer headdress may imply the dissolute moral quality of the old man and the generally salacious theme of the depicted myth. While it is not yet clear what myth or mythic cycle this figurine references, it does provide a vivid example of the topic of the present chapter, which is the connection between deer and sexuality in Maya art.2 This association perhaps arose from the aggressive antlergrappling by white-tail bucks during the rut as well as the cycle of antler growth, which reaches a maximum during mating and is followed by their loss. It was also likely inspired by observations of dominant bucks mating with multiple does during the rut (see chapter 1). But it also perhaps alluded to the extraordinarily rapid sexual maturation of white-tailed deer, which can occur within a year after birth. Maya literature and folklore from the colonial period to the present emphasize the link between deer and both male and female sexuality. For example, mythology explicitly compares the antler to the phallus, as in a Tzeltal tale in which the male deer loses its antlers annually by putting them under a woman’s skirt (Thompson 1970: vi). In a parallel ritual from sixteenth-century Yucatán a Maya priest was responsible for performing hymenotomy procedures using a chert blade or a deer antler (Olivier 2015: 275). According to Ramón Arzápalo Marín’s (1987: 419–420) translation of the colonial Yucatec compendium of esoteric lore, the Ritual of the Bacabs, the eroticism of deer hunting is graphically revealed. Part of the song to call deer is translated as follows: Remember the song of fornication that is sung ten times. Inciting is his masculinity and with the liquid of his member he lubricates the entrance. Transcend my songs. My songs are extended by the great winds. Here

they pass subtly next to the deer. Go through it to take away her virginity, the beauty of your little doe. Come and place yourself on the pleasures of your little doe until the tenth layer of the underworld, where the wind fades. Here is where you approach the deer. And you go through it, you take away the virginity, the beauty of your little deer.3

This text clearly visualizes the deer as a female object of male sexual desire. In the Classic period, the relationship of deer to heterosexual desire is suggested by scenes on a series of codex-style vases, which depict an aged deity ill or dying (figs. 4.2–4.6).4 These images may relate thematically to the Dumbarton Oaks figurine (fig. 4.1), as they feature young women as well as the aged male deity and may convey an erotic tone (Alexandre Tokovinine, cited in O’Neil 2012: 424). Most of these vessels are unprovenienced, but one was found at Calakmul (Boucher Le Landais 2012: 205, fig. 41). The so-called Dying God wears only a loincloth and simple jewelry and has deer ears and blackened patches on the front of his grotesque face. His weakened state is suggested by his umbilical hernia, twisted posture, clenched teeth, and in one case (K2794) a swarm of flies or other insects buzzing about his face (fig. 4.2). Lying on a bench with his head propped on a cushion, he is attended by young females as well as youthful male figures with deer antlers, deer ears, and conch-trumpet pendants. Full-bodied deer also appear in these scenes, usually wearing necklaces with conch-trumpet pendants. In some of the images, the young male and female adjust the fabric wrappings of the old deity, as if covering him or attempting to ascertain his condition. In one image (fig. 4.3), the old deity seems to be completely

74

Looper_5982.indd 74

1/27/19 3:02 PM

figure 4.2. Painted vase with Dying God scene. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K2794.

hunting garb

Maize-Deer God date

kuhchaj yatan huk xib the wife of Huk Xib is carried

ukuun juun ixiim it is the enchantment of Juun Ixiim

antler deer ear

Huk Xib

Moon Goddess

Chan Chihj Winkil?

figure 4.3. Painted vase with Dying God scene. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K8927; drawing by Dana Moot II.

Looper_5982.indd 75

1/27/19 3:02 PM

figure 4.4. Painted vase with Dying God scene. Museum of Fine Arts Boston 1988.1180. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1182.

figure 4.5. Painted vase with Dying God scene. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1559.

figure 4.6. Painted vase with Dying God scene. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K4012.

Looper_5982.indd 76

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

figure 4.7. Munich or Patterson vase with Dying God scene, detail. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

shrouded as if dead; however, his eyes are usually shown open, indicating that he could still be alive. The erotic undercurrent of these scenes is usually subtle, implied by the close proximity of the youthful male and female and the deer attributes of the male figures. However, on one vessel from a private collection in Munich, painted in the style of the Naranjo court and labeled the possession of the king K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Chahk, the female is seated on the lap of the youthful male in what may be a rare Classic-period representation of coitus (fig. 4.7).5 On the vase illustrated in figure 4.2, it is one of the deer that receives the woman’s attention, as she lifts a textile toward its head and gestures toward her bosom. Although only six vessels in total are known to depict this theme, an analysis of their hieroglyphic texts,

combined with a comparison of their imagery with other painted vessels as well as Maya mythology and folk performance, suggests that they concern an important mythological cycle that utilizes deer and hunting as metaphors for sexuality and fertility.

t h e h u m mingb i r d m y t h s The sexual symbolism of deer in Maya culture is expressed through modern folktales referred to as the Hummingbird myths, which tell of the seduction of the daughter of the Earth Lord by a hunter-warrior with magical abilities.6 These narratives, which include some syncretic European content, are distributed widely across the Americas (Braakhuis 2001, 2005, 2010). Some of the tales that offer the closest comparison to Classic period imagery were collected among the Q’eqchi’ Maya of Guatemala, who identify the young lovers with the male sun (called B’alam Q’e, “Hidden Sun”)

77

Looper_5982.indd 77

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

and the female moon (the weaver XT’actani or Po “Moon”). The young woman is jealously guarded by her father or grandfather, T’actani (the aged Earth Lord Tzuultaq’a) in a cavehouse. In order to seduce the woman, Sun first appears as a hunter, carrying a stuffed deer hide. However, his plan is foiled when he slips on maize-cooking water thrown into his path by the woman, following her father’s instructions. The deer hide bursts, thus revealing his deception. Sun then transforms himself into a hummingbird and begins to feed on the nectar of tobacco flowers that grow near Moon’s house. Moon asks the old man to stun the bird with a shot from his blowgun. She keeps the bird in a tobacco gourd until he becomes restless, whereupon she puts him inside her huipil (blouse). That night she takes the bird to bed, allowing Sun to assume his human form. Deciding to elope, the lovers make it to the seashore, hiding in a turtle carapace, crab, or armadillo. However, Moon’s father takes revenge by having Chac (Lord Thunderstorm) hurl a thunderbolt at the fleeing couple, killing the woman. The next day, B’alam Q’e collects the remains of Moon in thirteen hollow logs or gourds, which are left to incubate for thirteen days. When opened, twelve of the vessels contain venomous creatures, while the thirteenth holds the regenerated Moon, who lacks a vulva. In one of the most explicit symbolic equations of deer with sexuality among the Maya, a brocket deer uses its hoof to create her genitals. However, it is too small, so a whitetailed deer is engaged, enlarging her vagina. In another version Sun uses a deer antler to open Moon’s womb (Wilson 1995: 143). B’alam Q’e finishes his work by adding a touch of rat urine to cover the “floral” odor left by the deer. The story ends with the apotheosis of the lovers. In one version, Sun orders a stag to carry Moon into the sky (Gordon 1915: 121).

Other versions of the Hummingbird Myth are associated with the Ixil, whose territory lies slightly to the west of the Q’eqchi’ in highland Guatemala. In these narratives, the hero Oyew Achi “Fierce Warrior” must complete a series of tasks set by the Earth Lord in exchange for marriage with his daughter (Colby and Colby 1981: 180–181). These labors are never-ending, however, so Oyew Achi abducts the woman. The Earth Lord reacts by killing his daughter, whose bones are collected and stored by the hero. Later the bones are regenerated as wild animals, which are referred to collectively as the “wives” of Oyew Achi. In addition to oral recitation, this narrative was also conveyed through a dance called Tz’unun or Tz’unum (“Hummingbird”), also known as the Dance of the Baskets (fig. 4.8). It was once presented in Nebaj and Chajul, two Ixil communities, but was long ago discontinued.7 The only record of it is a brief series of notes and a recording of part of the music that accompanied the dance as it was performed in Chajul.8 The instruments used in the Dance of the Baskets included the slit-drum, turtle shell, and brass trumpet (Looper 2011). The dance itself was performed by dancers wearing costumes rented from Totonicapán but with the addition of large baskets partly wrapped in red fabric set atop long poles inserted into carved panels that were strapped over the dancers’ shoulders. The baskets, which enclose bells, are said to represent the baskets used during bird hunts. The dance dramatizes a folktale involving a powerful hunter and sorcerer called Matagtanic, whose daughter Mariquita is locked away because her womb holds precious maize seeds. Being in need of food, the townspeople select the heroic Tz’unun “Hummingbird” to abduct the young woman so that they will have access to the maize. He agrees and, together with

78

Looper_5982.indd 78

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

local girls, organizes the Dance of the Baskets to distract the jealous father long enough for him to seduce Mariquita. Upon discovering this crime, Matagtanic kills his daughter and curses Tz’unun. But it is already too late, for the maize sprouts and the people are saved from starvation. This drama is executed as a series of sones (traditional tunes), each of which dramatizes an episode of the tale (Yurchenko 1978: 5). It begins with a sequence in which hunters dance in a ring, imitating the call of the quetzal. They are accompanied by the daughters of Matagtanic, who are collectively called Malinches. In the second son the party enters the woods, along with Matagtanic. In the third son, called the “Hummingbird,” the character of Tz’unun (here called Oyeb) appears, waving a handkerchief representing the bird and crossing the path of the hunters as he flies among the trees. The fourth son illustrates the shooting of the bird by Matagtanic. However, before the bird can be devoured by scavengers, he utters the cries of the quetzal and is saved by Mariquita. The fifth son is a dance by the Malinches around Oyeb, who is called “sweet hummingbird, sweet deer” ( jun cap tzunun, jun cap mazat), after which he declares his love for Mariquita. In the sixth son, the “Son of the Blowgunner,” Matagtanic discovers the liaison and plots with the trumpeter, who plays the “spiritual head of the village,” to kill Oyeb. The seventh son illustrates the demise of Oyeb through the incantations of the trumpeter and the departure of Matagtanic to the hills. In the eighth son the daughters are reconciled with their father. The final son is a collective dance of celebration. The Q’eqchi’ narrative and the Ixil story/ performance express fundamental Maya concepts about the relationship of humans to the earth, humans to game animals, and males to

figure 4.8. Tz’unum “Hummingbird” dancer, Aguacatán, Guatemala. Author drawing after McArthur (1966: 151).

females. Prominent is the antagonism between the young hero and an Earth Lord, who withholds his daughter, representing fertility, from the hero. Through trickery and magic, however, the hero succeeds in seducing the daughter. The hero/lover (Sun) is disguised as a hunter in the Q’eqchi’ version, and hunters appear prominently in the Dance of the Baskets, dancing together with the Malinches. This motif reflects the widespread Mesoamerican notion of the hunt as a metaphor for the acquisition of wives (Braakhuis 2001, 2005). A prominent example of this concept appears in Nahua mythology, in which primordial hunters chase deer that transform into seductive women.9 In another part of this myth the hunting god Mixcoatl is confronted by the

79

Looper_5982.indd 79

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

naked jaguar-goddess Chimalman, who represents the earth. Mixcoatl shoots darts at her but misses and ends up impregnating her. In the process he loses his deer bundle that embodies his life force and dies. The goddess eventually gives birth to the ruler Quetzalcoatl.10 Among the Maya and many other Native American peoples, deer and women are interchangeable in dream imagery. Both hunters and their wives commonly perform rituals to attract deer (Braakhuis 2001: 392–393; Olivier 2014: 126–127). These rituals are sometimes conceived as a seduction of the animals. For instance, in certain Kaqchikel communities the wife of the hunt leader bathed in the lake, so that the deer would be attracted to the lakeside and could be ambushed (Redfield 1945: 54). Among the Nahua, love spells invoked the hunter’s wife, representing the goddess of female sexuality, Xochiquetzal, in order to lure deer and other animals (Ruiz de Alarcón 1984: 94–106). Sexual abstinence was also a prominent aspect of prehunt preparations, as this would increase the desirability of the hunter and his wife as “marriage candidates” for the animals.11 We may also emphasize the importance of the deer hide as a courting gift in the Hummingbird Myth, as deer hides have a similar function among other Native American groups, such as the indigenous peoples of Nuevo León, the Zuñi, and the Otomí (Olivier 2014: 129–130, 2015: 250–251). In the Hummingbird Myth the Earth Lord personifies the jealous father-in-law, whose sexual prowess is so great that he desires to possess all females (animals and humans) and who demands payment of bridal service in exchange for releasing his daughters in the form of deer/wives to the hunter/hero (Braakhuis 2001: 397). If rituals are conducted properly or if the hunter/hero is clever and

audacious, some of the bounty of the earth may be released to humanity. However, indigenous narratives also explain that the Earth Lord may punish offenses by turning the tables on hunters, sending his daughters to seduce males and forcing them to produce animal offspring (Braakhuis 2001: 398; López Austin 2011: 70). In this way the cycle of human fertility is disrupted. The Dance of the Baskets illustrates a more lethal outcome of the hunt/seduction, in which the hunter becomes the prey. This is explicitly portrayed in the death of the hero Oyeb, who is affectionately referred to as a deer. This motif resonates with a body of Mesoamerican lore that punishes moral transgressors—especially sexual deviants— with transformation into deer. For the Maya of east central Quintana Roo, for example, the souls of men who have sexual relations with their godmothers or their wives’ sisters first transform into the spring winds that fan burning fields—the kakal-mozon-ik—after which they become deer and are forever wounded and killed by hunters (Villa Rojas 1945: 150). Similarly, Nahua literature employs deer as a metaphor for sexual excess (Burkhart 1986: 118–121; see also Olivier 2014: 144–147). For example, the pleasure god Xochipilli or Macuilxochitl appears in the form of a deerskin in several central Mexican manuscripts (Boone 2007: 107–110). Likewise, the Aztec punishment for adulterers was arrow sacrifice, a rite that metaphorically compared them to hunted deer (Burkhart 1986: 120). An early sixteenthcentury Nahua account describes a transgressor using the metaphor of a deer that wanders blindly in the wilderness. Danièle Dehouve (2008: 12) argued that this is a description of a hunter who has “gone wild,” having received the punishment befitting a man who failed to

80

Looper_5982.indd 80

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

obey proper hunting etiquette. While the hunt could satisfy both sexual and alimentary appetites, it was also dangerous, with uncertain outcomes. It also taught important moral lessons. Because of the inherent hypersexuality of deer, the hunt represents a form of justice, in which the animals are forced to pay for their instinctual nature (Taube 1980: 10). If, however, the deer hunt was not conducted according to the rules of courtship and marriage and a “dowry” was not paid in the form of animal bones and other offerings, the hunter could forfeit his life. It is essential to note as well the importance of agricultural abundance as a theme of these narratives. This is most clearly seen in the Ixil Dance of the Baskets, in which the actions of the hero bring forth maize, embodied in Mariquita. The idea that the female carries maize seeds within her is symbolically equivalent to other versions of the story, in which the bones of the girl are transformed into game animals. In Mesoamerican thought, maize seeds are symbolically equivalent to bones; both contain life force and regenerate when treated properly (see Carlsen and Prechtel 1991: 28; Graulich 1997b: 111). Likewise, the connection between deer and maize is expressed in Nahua sources, personified by the deities Piltzintecuhtli and Xochipilli, both of whom have the calendrical birthname 7 Flower. According to colonial sources, Piltzintecuhtli, a solar aspect of the hunting god Mixcoatl, is invoked with reference to deer. His son, Xochipilli (or Centeotl), is associated with procreation and abundance in the form of edible plants, including maize (see Braakhuis 2009: 26–27; Olivier 2015: 213). In one mythic cycle with variants found widely throughout Mesoamerica, the maize deity seeks out the bones of his father and briefly resuscitates him. But he either reverts to

bones or transforms into a deer (see chapter 7; Braakhuis 2001: 393). This myth explains why the deer-father must be forever hunted, reduced to bones, and renewed. The symmetry between these two deities also illuminates the contemporary Nahua practice of making paired offerings of corn tortillas and venison (Braakhuis 2009: 26).12 The role of a hunting god (Mixcoatl-Piltzintecuhtli) as an antecedent of an agricultural god (Xochipilli-Centeotl) in Nahua myth closely parallels the role of deer as the guardians of maize among the Huichol. As Konrad Theodor Preuss (1996: 129) noted, “Without catching deer and without spattering the maize and the sacred objects with deer blood there will be no rain, no maize, and no health, the three things on which all Huichol endeavor is focused.”

t h e “d y ing g od” v e s s e l s Although the Classic Maya are separated significantly in time and space from the narratives and performances outlined above, Maya artists painted a series of ceramic vessels with scenes that convey many of the same themes as the Hummingbird myths and related lore (figs. 4.2–4.6; Braakhuis 2001, 2009). These shared themes include the seduction and abduction of a woman who personifies the moon and who is guarded by an elder male associated with the underworld, the equation of the hero with deer and probably the sun, and maize/fertility symbolism. The nondedicatory hieroglyphic texts of the Dying God vessels provide crucial information concerning the identity of the actors depicted as well as the nature of the event shown. The inscriptions usually include a Calendar Round date, though the exact dates are not consistent from vessel to vessel. On three vases, the verb

81

Looper_5982.indd 81

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

is kuhchaj, with a basic meaning of “carried” (figs. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4; Beliaev and Davletshin 2006: 31). The person who is carried is consistently rendered on each of these vessels as yatan huk xib “the wife of Huk Xib” (Houston 2009: 160; see also Robicsek and Hales 1981: 39). Thus, the event described in the texts corresponds to the scenes that often accompany the image of the Dying God, in which a female character either rides the deer (fig. 4.4) or appears adjacent to the animal, as if preparing to mount it (figs. 4.3, 4.5). In several Mayan languages, however, the verb kuch also means “to mate,” particularly with reference to the mounting action of animals such as deer (Zender 2017a). This lends a strong sexual connotation to the deer-riding scenes, though in an inverted form compared to the natural act of deer mating, in which bucks mount does. In each of these cases, the wife wears or holds a wide-brimmed hat (sombrero), signaling that she is undertaking a journey (see Stone 2014). The analogous scene on the Munich vase (fig. 4.7) also shows the female riding the deer, but not wearing the sombrero. Her hand is held to her head in a gesture also assumed by figures in states of distress, as on the incised bones from Tikal Burial 116, which depict the death of the Maize God (see Schele and Miller 1986: 270–271). In the Q’eqchi’ Hummingbird Myth, the Earth Lord’s daughter rides a deer into the sky to unite with the solar hero. In Classic period art, the wife may not have been a willing participant in this drama, judging from her gesture on the Munich vase, or perhaps she is expressing her distress at being carried from the underworld to the sky on the back of a deer. In the Q’eqchi’ Hummingbird Myth, the female protagonist is explicitly identified as the Moon. This leads one to question whether the

females depicted in the Dying God scenes and related ceramic paintings are also Moon Goddesses (Braakhuis 2001: 402; Zender 2017a). It is common for various figures to be identified as the Moon Goddess in Maya iconography, but it is difficult to be certain without a glyphic caption or obvious lunar symbol such as a crescent or a rabbit or gopher held in her arms. Moon Goddesses attested through associated lunar crescents or glyphic captions have few diagnostic features. Some have a coiffure topped by a large flower, sometimes with a hummingbird sucking its nectar, and others have a hair ornament consisting of a disk with beaded tassels.13 In the Dying God scenes, the flower hair ornament appears on the Munich vase (fig. 4.7), and the disk with tassels is worn by the female figure adjusting her husband’s shroud on K1559 (fig. 4.5). A few attested Moon Goddesses (K3462 and K5166) have a serpent motif attached to their noses, which can be compared to nasal adornments of several of the women in the Dying God scenes (figs. 4.3, 4.4, 4.6). In sum, despite their lack of lunar crescents, it is likely that the female figures on the vessels are an aspect of the Moon Goddess. The glyphic caption next to the youthful male on K2794 begins with the name of the Maize God, Juun Ixiim, followed by a conch trumpet and his half-darkened portrait head, indicating that the antlered males represent an aspect of the Tonsured Maize God (fig. 4.2; Braakhuis 2001: 404). This is signaled as well by his youthful features, the beaded ornaments on his neck, wrists, ankles, waist, and head, and his tonsured hairstyle in most images. Another variant of this Maize-Deer God may appear on a vase from La Corona in the Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 4.9; Looper and Polyukhovych 2018). In this case his body

82

Looper_5982.indd 82

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

left. figure 4.9. Painted vase with spotted MaizeDeer God holding Starry Deer Crocodile bundle. Art Institute of Chicago 2009.735. Photograph by author. right. figure 4.10. Incised conch trumpet with face of a deity. Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia, 86.457. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K519.

is marked with spots that link him to the solar God S. This association seems to represent an additional point of correspondence between the Dying God vessel narratives and the Hummingbird Myth, in which the male protagonist is the sun. If the youthful males are aspects of the Maize God, then, logically, Huk Xib must be a name for the reclining deity. This name rarely appears elsewhere in the Maya script. An important example is in the inscription of the conch trumpet now in the Chrysler Museum of Art (fig. 4.10).14 The inscription begins with a statement of ownership, naming the object as a “deity head” trumpet/shell, the deity head being a nonidealized human head with dark patches on the temples and cheeks and with a tassel on the end of its nose (fig. 4.11).

This corresponds exactly to the imagery of the conch trumpet itself: its spire is rendered in the form of a supernatural with a protruding tasseled nose, dark hair with tassels, and patches adjacent to the eyes and mouth (fig. 4.10). Although similar to the grapheme that sometimes reads u, this deity head probably has a distinct value. The inscription continues with “is the name of the caller,” a possible reference to the conch trumpet as a ritual device used for calling deer (Zender 1999: 80) or calling to other hunters and confusing prey (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 264, 220). It might also be a more general reference to calling attention to the hunters’ success or for invoking deities (see also chapters 1, 5, 8). Next is a prepositional phrase “in the grass(?),” and then the name of the owner “Huk Xib person,”

83

Looper_5982.indd 83

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

followed by the title “singer.” The inscription of this object links Huk Xib to the paraphernalia of the hunt. On the vases the reclining deity can be identified as a god of the hunt, with a role analogous to the Earth Lord in the Hummingbird myths (Braakhuis 2001). His features, including his grotesque visage, dark facial patches, and deer ear, are similar to those of Siip, an important Classic Maya hunting deity (see chapter 6). Like Siip, he possesses hunting garb, including a hat, staff, and grass skirt, which is depicted hung on the wall or on a post in his palace. Furthermore, his palace is located inside a mountain, as implied by mountain masks that appear adjacent to one of the pillars on K1559, K4012, and the Munich vase (figs. 4.5, 4.6, 4.7). This imagery is consistent with an identity as an Earth Lord and keeper of the animals, as described in modern mythology. The birds (including probably an owl) that are frequently represented beneath the bench may symbolize messengers of the Earth Lord, who communicate his will to humankind.15 The Maize-Deer God on the vessels plays a role similar to the solar hero in the Hummingbird myths, assisting in the escape of the woman while her husband lies ill or dying. The Classic Maya myth indicates that the Maize-Deer God is a seducer, who assists in the escape of the wife of the Earth Lord, rather than his daughter, as in the folktales. If we read the imagery of these vases as a series of two events, each more or less visible on opposite sides of the vessels, it becomes possible to recognize the outlines of a larger narrative. The palace scene on the codex-style vessels is usually paired with an image of the wife touching a deer or mounting it. She is also present at the bedside of her husband, so it is logical to assume that the purpose of the

figure 4.11. Detail of inscription on conch trumpet. Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia, 86.457. SD-6913. Drawing by Linda Schele, © David Schele.

first event in the sequence is to establish the condition of the ill/dying husband, prior to her escape. The Munich vase imagery is essentially the same, substituting an image of the MaizeDeer God’s cuckolding of the husband for the first scene (fig. 4.7). The escape of the wife follows, on the other side of the vessel. Importantly, the text of the Munich vase seems to refer to the female figure as the “wife of Juun Ixiim,” rather than Huk Xib, signaling her change of status (Zender 2017a). Comparison with other painted vessels allows us to explore diverse aspects of the narrative. One interesting scene appears on a painted plate (fig. 4.12). Here we see the Maize-Deer God seated on a royal throne with a buck before him, holding a spear-thrower and spear in one hand and a conch trumpet in the other. This might represent the conspiracy of the Maize-Deer God with the deer, ordering him to assist in abducting the wife of Huk Xib. Logically, this would happen prior to the meeting in the palace and the escape itself.

84

Looper_5982.indd 84

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

On K4012, instead of the escape scene opposite the image of the old god on his bench, we see another image of the Maize-Deer God enthroned, conversing with a deer (fig. 4.6). This time the deer has no antler. While this scene may be analogous to the image on the plate, it could also depict the transformation of the wife into a doe, along the lines of recent mythic episodes in which hunters are confronted and often seduced by the daughters of the Earth Lord in the form of were-does (see Braakhuis 2001: 398). In the context of the story of the Dying God, this image could be read as a metaphor for her seductiveness in the eyes of the Maize-Deer God.

Vessel K9118 is another painted vase that emphasizes the seductiveness of a female in the context of a deer (fig. 4.13). Here an anthropomorphized seated buck occupies one side of the vase, while on the other, separated from the deer by red columns painted with white circles, a plump woman rests against a cushion. A constricted-neck olla is placed in front of her, and her sarong has slipped, revealing her breast. The eroticism of this figure, combined with her elaborate makeup and link with consumption (signaled by the olla, frequently associated with alcohol and enemas), is consistent with a class of female representations that Stephen Houston (2014b, 2018: 175–176) argues represent courtesans. The overall scene, set within a palace, also recalls numerous ceramic images showing gods and rulers with their wives seated behind them (e.g., K2914, K4030, K4996, K5416, K5456). While not necessarily drawn from the narrative of the Dying God, this image of a buck partnered with a female human is the inverse of the scene on K4012, which shows a doe with a male anthropomorphic god (see fig. 4.6). The abduction of the woman by the deer on the Dying God vases is also referenced on other vessels. One of these is a plate, depicting a topless woman riding a deer (fig. 4.14).

figure 4.12. Painted plate showing Maize God with deer attributes enthroned. PC.M.LC.p2.48 (K9260), detail. Photograph by Nicholas Hellmuth, www.maya-ethnozoology.org.

figure 4.13. Painted vase showing deer and human female, K9118. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

85

Looper_5982.indd 85

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

figure 4.14. Painted plate showing woman riding deer. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K3069.

86

Looper_5982.indd 86

In the same manner as on K1182 (fig. 4.4), she looks over her shoulder, implying the existence of other characters and events in the narrative. A much more elaborate scene on the Actun Balam vase is also parallel to these images (fig. 4.15).16 This vessel depicts at least four warriors dressed as hunters and armed with spears and spear-throwers. They pursue two deer, one of which carries a woman on its back. The woman has her hand to her forehead in the same pose as the woman on the Munich vase, signaling her distress. Both deer have been wounded; the deer not bearing the woman has blood spurting from its shoulder and its tongue lolling out of its mouth. The mounted deer has a dart thrust into its leg, creating a bloody wound. It seems reasonable to assume that these hunters were sent by Huk Xib to stop the deer from abducting his wife (Helmke and Nielsen 2009: 76; Miller

figure 4.15. Fragmentary vase from Actun Balam, Belize, showing mythic scene. Drawing by Louise Belanger, after Pendergast (1966: 159).

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

figure 4.16. Painted vase showing mosquito attacking deer. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K8233.

aims its proboscis at the deer’s head (fig. 4.16). This scene parallels a number of painted images in which mosquitoes or hummingbirds and Taube 1993: 75). The horizontal bands on bite the breasts or faces of women. It is likely the lower part of the vessel depict steps, likely that these scenes relate to the Hummingbird indicating that this event took place in front Myth, depicting the hierogamy or union of the of Huk Xib’s palace at the dramatic moment sun (represented by the flying creatures) and when the deer bearing his wife the Moon leaps the earth or moon (represented by the woman) out of the underworld toward the heavens. (see Chinchilla Mazariegos 2010, 2017). InterThe copulation of the Maize-Deer God and estingly, K8233 seems to depict the overlapping the wife of Huk Xib shown on the Munich of two narratives: the escape of the wife of the vase is only one possible sexual resolution of Earth Lord made possible by the Maize-Deer this myth. One interpretation of this scene is God and her impregnation by a celestial being. that it represents the Maize-Deer God sexually Another vessel that may reflect the same regenerating game animals as well as vegetacombined narrative is K1339, which shows on tion (Braakhuis 2001: 403–405, 2009: 27). The one side an old man with insect wings touchregenerative symbolism of this act is suggested ing the breast of a woman and on the other a by the foliated deer antler that seems to sprout woman removing (or putting on) her sarong, from the old man’s head. The vessel implies exposing her naked body to a stag that rushes the close connection between hunting and toward her (fig. 4.17). The first image may agriculture, with the Earth Lord as the crucial be equivalent to the representations of birds source of fertility for both.17 However, in addior mosquitoes approaching women, as some tion to enlisting deer to abduct the wife or variants of the Hummingbird Myth state that wives of the Earth Lord, the Maize-Deer God the suitor is an old man.18 The image on the also may assist in her impregnation by a hum- other side of the vessel may represent the dismingbird or insect. This action may be shown play of the wife of Huk Xib, who manifests an on K8233, in which a young male wearing a erotic attraction for the deer that she will later hunter’s hat and headband holds a doe steady, mount (Braakhuis 2001: 399). Alternatively, while a stinging insect, probably a mosquito, the scene could depict a moment analogous to 87

Looper_5982.indd 87

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

deer is depicted on K1182 (fig. 4.4). In chapter 8 I discuss the interpretation of certain wahyob, including Ochiil Maax, as personifications of diseases. They are not usually represented in the Hummingbird Myth, in which the Moon’s narrative context but simply catalogued by artvagina is opened by a deer’s hoof (Chinchilla ists, probably with the aim of demonstrating Mazariegos 2010: 54–55). Either way, this vesknowledge of, and therefore control over, these sel may present two elements of the Dying entities associated with the wilderness and the God narrative: the initial erotic moment that underworld. On the Copán peccary skull (figs. causes the wife to be abducted or her reconsti- 8.1, 8.2) several wahyob including Ochiil Maax, tution as a fully sexual being and the climactic together with other asocial beings, gather act of impregnation by a celestial entity. around a cave opening, threatening to invade the human realm, but are restrained though royal rituals. The wahyob therefore personify sha ma nic attack and the dy ing shamanic powers to heal or harm that the rulgod na rr ati ve ers claimed to possess. Additional details of the Dying God images Recognizing that Ochiil Maax is a personiallow us to discern other relevant aspects of the fication of disease, it becomes possible to internarrative. Significantly, the deer that carries the pret this being’s presence in the context of the woman on the Actun Balam vase (fig. 4.15) has Dying God scenes as an agent of shamanic been identified by Christophe Helmke and Jes- attack.19 The deer could represent illnesses per Nielsen (2009: 76) as Ochiil Maax, a wahy that afflict Huk Xib in order to incapacitate or spirit associated with death and/or disease. him long enough to abduct his wife. Terms for According to these authors, this is indicated by “deer” in Mayan languages commonly refer what they thought to be its long curling monto various kinds of cramps (see chapter 8). In key tail as well as the branch of vegetation that fact, disease, disease-casting or sorcery, and it carries in its mouth (see chapter 8). The deer curing are fundamental themes expressed in are usually shown with naturalistic tails on the the Hummingbird Myth (Braakhuis 2005). In codex-style Dying God vessels; however, the Q’eqchi’ versions of the narrative, the angry telltale vegetation in the mouth of the mounted Earth Lord (the father of the abducted Moon) figure 4.17. Painted vase showing old man/insect, deer, and two women. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1339.

88

Looper_5982.indd 88

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

uses a magical mirror to locate the fleeing couple and a “sucking tube” to try to bring them back (Braakhuis 2005: 175). These devices are well known in traditional healing rites. The hero, however, puts red dye on the mirror and chile powder in the tube, thereby inflicting eye sores, whooping cough, and toothache upon the Earth Lord. Later, after the girl is killed, her remains are placed in jars that become filled with poisonous creatures. The hero B’alam Q’e therefore subverts a healing ceremony, and the daughter of the Earth Lord becomes disease herself. One problem with Helmke and Nielsen’s interpretation of the Actun Balam vase is that the area near the deer’s tail is missing. The S-curve above the mounted deer’s back is likely the vault of a cave opening and not an extension of its tail. The other deer in the scene has a naturalistic short tail. However, the idea that these vases refer to a form of attack shamanism is supported by the inscription of K8927 (fig. 4.3b). Here the two glyph blocks that follow the description of the “carrying of the wife of Huk Xib” may read u-ku-na JUN IXIM, ukuun juun ixiim. In Central Mayan languages *kuun means “curing power” (Kaufman 2003: 1360); in Yucatec kun means “enchantment, witchcraft, conjuration” and kunal keh means “conjuration of deer.”20 This crucial piece of information identifies the escape as a shamanic act of enchantment. The wife’s identification as a victim of shamanic attack helps to explain why she is sometimes represented as an unwilling captive, with her hand held to her forehead as if she is dying. Her husband, too, is presented as if he has been defeated and either ill or moribund. His reclining pose and sometimes frontal facial orientation correspond to a pose usually assumed by captives in Maya art (Braakhuis 2001: 405).21

The inscription of K8927 implicates Juun Ixiim as the agent of the enchantment. One interpretation would be that this is a shortened version of the name of the Maize-Deer God who appears in the Dying God scenes, whose name begins with these terms. However, the imagery from a black-background vase in the Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 4.18) suggests that Juun Ixiim might refer to the Tonsured Maize God himself. The scene includes a representation of a buck, which uses its foreleg to touch the back of the Maize-Deer God, as if engaging him in conversation. Like his counterparts on the Dying God vases, the Maize-Deer God sports a deer antler and deer ear; however, as on the vase shown in figure 4.9, he also has a spotted body, suggesting that he is a solar god. The interaction between the deer and the god on this vase is similar to scenes on Dying God vase K4012 (fig. 4.6) and the plate shown in figure 4.12. On the Art Institute vase illustrated in figure 4.18, however, the Maize-Deer God holds a curved object in one hand, possibly a deer antler, which he extends toward a tree growing from a personified mountain on top of which is perched a bird. This detail seems to imply a forest setting, perhaps the location where the god and the deer conspire. To the right of the tree is the Tonsured Maize God, identified by his hairstyle, red body paint on his face and shoulders, and forehead ornament consisting of a bell-shaped jewel with an emerging stylized serpent. The Tonsured Maize God looks toward the tree and the Maize-Deer God. If we view this vase scene as related to the myth of the abduction of the wife of Huk Xib shown on the Dying God vases and other ceramics, then it suggests that the ultimate agent of the abduction is the Tonsured Maize God, Juun Ixiim. Perhaps it is he who in his aspect as Maize-Deer God “conjures” the deer to abduct the Moon Goddess.

89

Looper_5982.indd 89

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

c onc lusion : erot ic is m , pow er , a nd t h e m a le ga ze

a

b

c

The analysis of the Dying God ceramic images provides a new perspective on an important aspect of ancient Maya sexual ideology. These images illustrate a mythic cycle in which the Maize God, through his surrogate the MaizeDeer God, abducts the wife or wives of a hunting deity. She represents both the Moon and generalized fertility. The Maize-Deer God, as well as mythical mosquitoes and hummingbirds, copulate with her, resulting in the conquest and appropriation of these powers for the use of humanity. The mode of his action is possibly one of shamanic attack, employing deer spirits that fulfill three roles. They cause the husband to fall ill, seduce the wife, and transport her out of the underworld and into the sky, where she becomes the wife of the Maize God. Among the ancient Maya, erotic imagery has been associated with morality, often in the form of a comical criticism of excessive sensuality (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 191– 193). In contrast, sexual domination has been discussed with reference to the (male) treatment of male captives, rather than the depiction of power relationships between males and females (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 209–218). The Dying God images provide an opportunity to investigate other dimensions of eroticism, power, and gender in Maya art. In most of the images related to the Dying God narrative, the female character seems to be a co-conspirator with the Maize-Deer God. On the Munich vase she caresses the head of her partner, and on the codex-style vessels figure 4.18. Painted vase showing a, deer and Maize-Deer God; b, tree; and c, Tonsured Maize God. Art Institute of Chicago 1991.480.

90

Looper_5982.indd 90

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

she embraces or touches her deer-mount in a seductive manner. A related representation may appear on a carved shell that shows a nearly nude woman embracing the Maize God (fig. 4.19; Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 208). This image shows them both with an arm about the shoulder of the other, while the Maize God caresses the woman’s breast. Such images suggest the wife’s complicity in her escape from the palace of her husband, an interpretation that is consistent with the tenor of the modern Hummingbird Myths, which

figure 4.19. Carved shell showing Maize God and nude woman. Drawing by Karl Taube, after Houston, Stuart, and Taube (2006: fig. 6.5).

emphasize the “inconstancy” of the Moon. In this context, male-female eroticism is symbolically associated with the “domestication” of fertility power, tied especially to agriculture. In contrast, when the Maya represented the coupling of the woman with a mosquito or other insect deity, she is either passive or reacts negatively, presumably because her “suitor” has taken the form of a blood-sucking insect. Sometimes she recoils (K1339) or swats at the insect (fig. 4.17; Chinchilla Mazariegos 2010: fig. 1). On K8233 the woman, now transformed into a deer, is restrained by a hunter (fig. 4.16). The resistance of the woman in these cases calls to mind the likely non-mythical image of male-female coupling on Monument 148 from Toniná (fig. 4.20). Here a male, shown on the right side, grabs a likely female captive on the left (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 207– 208). Even though her garment slips off her body, she struggles against her captor, yanking his hair with her left hand and possibly aiming a weapon at him in her right hand. This image suggests one meaning of rape among the ancient Maya as a symbol of political domination (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 208– 209). As Houston, Stuart, and Taube (2006: 208–209) argued, such monumental representations of the capture of high-ranking women may have been a critique of enemy rulers for being unable to protect their palaces, where the women lived, as well as an implicit statement of the disruption of dynastic bloodlines. In the case of the mosquito-copulation scenes, a mythical rape is presented using the metaphor of an unpleasant assault by an annoying animal. However, because the ultimate outcome of these mythic couplings is the harnessing of fertility forces, both the trickery of the male and the receptivity of the female are justified.

91

Looper_5982.indd 91

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

In contrast to the Dying God scenes, the insect-copulation images underscore women’s submissive role as erotic objects. Eroticism therefore can have different meanings in various contexts in Maya art. These two examples illustrate the difficulty of making categorical assertions regarding power and gender via eroticism in ancient Maya art. Nevertheless, there is something to be said for contextualizing these images within the “masculine gaze” of Maya artisans (see Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 42). Dedicatory inscriptions indicate that many elaborately painted vessels such as those that depict the Dying God mythology were made for male patrons of the higher echelon of Maya society within contexts of male competition and initiation (see Houston 2009, 2018).22 At least one vessel in the set, the Munich vase, is labeled

figure 4.20. Monument 148, Toniná, Mexico. Drawing by Ian Graham © President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, PM# 2004.15.15.2.64.

as the property of a king. In this general context, these vases present youthful males and females alike as images of beauty and erotic power. The viewer is strongly encouraged to identify with the male hero, the Maize-Deer God, whose deer ears and other hunting attributes highlight the heightened sexual libido of white-tailed deer during rut as a metaphor for human male virility. The enchantment that the Maize God works on the Earth Lord can be read as a model for love magic, though in this case it is possibly an illness that is unleashed in order to free the wife. The woman is explicitly the “wife” of Huk Xib, which also presents a mythic model for cuckoldry. In European traditions the husband who has been deceived is sometimes described as “wearing the horns,” an allusion to the competition of stags over harems of does (Brewer and Room 1995: 1142). However, in the Maya case, it is usually the Maize-Deer God who proudly wears the “horns,” not Huk Xib. Not merely legitimating collective male competition over women, the form of cuckoldry referenced in these scenes is explicitly age-graded: the youth tricks and cuckolds the old man. The rhetoric of these images therefore not only asserts the necessity of women to further the male line from the perspective of young male elites but also their competition with and victory over the previous generation, in this case with the help of deer. The triumph of youth is a major theme in Maya mythology, embodied most famously in the Popol Vuh story of the Hero Twins, but it also appears in other myths depicted in ancient Maya art, such as the humiliation of the aged Paddler Gods and God L by the Maize God, this time with the assistance of a rabbit (see Martin 2015: 202). Despite their renowned abilities as sorcerers and sages, old gods like the Earth

92

Looper_5982.indd 92

1/27/19 3:02 PM

w ear in g th e h o r n s

Lord can be defeated through the sorcery of the youthful Maize God, supported by deer or rabbits. In sum, the Dying God scenes, like other erotic imagery in Maya art, have moral content. Rather than offering a carnavalesque critique of sexual norms, however, they invoke the imagery of deer to highlight the ability of young males to use sorcery to attract females and thereby perpetuate their bloodlines and, more generally, to control fertility. The liminal symbolism of deer is fundamental to its sexual roles in these vases and related images. As Taube (2003a: 485) noted, human males are associated with the field and the forest, while women are tied to the household and village, so the ritual penetration of the community by denizens of the forest may represent conception and regeneration. However, this only represents the human side of the metaphor. Because hunters enter the wilderness, they become complicit in the act of fertilizing the forest. The merging of deer with hunters expresses their symbolic equivalence. Both represent liminal beings that invade complementary realms, resulting in fertilization. The phallic symbolism of both entities (deer with antlers and hunters with spears) underscores the sexual interpretation of this complementary penetration of domains. It is important to recognize, however, that the myths and pictorial art that represent these narratives may also characterize aspects of sexuality in quite negative terms. In particular, from the point of view of the old man, his illness and death are tied directly to sexual transgression. His palace has been infiltrated not only by animals representing excess but by youthful beings who steal his wife. As Michel Graulich (1983) noted, Mesoamericans— including the Maya—place emphasis on the

punishment of sexual misbehavior. Among the Nahua, garbage, excrement, sexual immorality and death were closely related and tied to the myth of the blinding and expulsion of the gods from the paradise of Tamoanchan. A key moment of the story comes when the god Tezcatlipoca disguised as an animal seduces a forbidden woman, Xochiquetzal, who gives birth to Centeotl, the maize deity. A crucial metaphor for this act is the plucking of the flowers of a sacred tree or the breaking of its branches, causing it to bleed. This myth, which is cognate with the Hummingbird myths discussed in this chapter, highlights the transgressive nature of this act and the resulting introduction of death into the world (see Graulich 1983: 577–578). According to Graulich (1983: 578), the narrative conveys the Mesoamerican conception of sexuality itself as problematic because it denies immortality and usurps the position of gods as the ultimate creators. Because it engenders superfluous life, the gods mete out death as punishment. In both the Nahua and Maya myths, as well as the narrative of the Dying God vases, sexual transgression leads to both death and new life, in the form of agricultural fertility. Deer and deer gods on the vessels personify the corrupting aspect of sexual libido. In this sense, the liminal symbolism of the deer relates to its stereotypical role as a carrier of filth, modeled on its penetration of the maize field from the wilderness. Just as the gods commit a sexual offense in Tamoanchan by plucking the flowers of a sacred tree (representing copulation), deer enter the maize fields and feed on leaves and buds, thereby causing crop damage. Of course, the price the deer pay for these “immoral” acts is death by spear, noose, or (nowadays) bullet.

93

Looper_5982.indd 93

1/27/19 3:02 PM

figure 5.1. Painted vase showing ritual deer hunt by youth with three older males. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K5857.

Looper_5982.indd 94

1/27/19 3:02 PM

chapter five

Locking Horns Deer Hunting, Warfare, the Ballgame, and Male Rites of Passage

maya artist creates what appears to be a prosaic hunting scene on a painted vase. A buck, bleeding from a spear thrust through his neck, struggles to break free from a young male who holds him by one of his rear legs (fig. 5.1). The youth, who wears a hide skirt around his hips tied with a sash, a round-topped hat, and a pendant and ear ornaments, readies another spear. Behind him are three companions. They are taller than the youth, signifying that they are older than him, and also wear hide skirts, sashes, and jewelry. The taller men hold spearthrowers and spears. The one closest to the youth wears a deer headdress with a vertical spine upon which three clusters of feathers are mounted. The other two males wear matching

Looper_5982.indd 95

basketry hats in the form of mammals, facing backward on their heads. This vessel, a drinking cup for cacao owned by an unnamed ch’ok “youth,” might be viewed as simply a representation of a Classic-period deer hunt conducted by friends or family members. Yet it raises several questions about the event depicted. What is the occasion for this hunt? Why is the figure who grasps the struggling animal shown as a youth rather than an older male? And why does this particular scene appear on a vessel owned by a youth? In this chapter I discuss the symbolism of this scene especially as pertains to other male group activities depicted widely in ancient Maya art, particularly warfare, the ballgame, and childhood ceremonies.

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

wa rfa re a nd the hunt in the postconque st er a The underlying identification of the hunt with warfare among the Maya is expressed in rituals, literature, myths, and folklore from the colonial era to the present. The analogy appears in colonial Yucatec descriptions of sacrifice by arrows. For example, in the Chilam Balam of Chumayel, men who are called ah-cehob “hunters” conduct a sacrifice of captives in this manner (Roys 1967: 76–77; Taube 1988b: 334). The men who are about to sacrifice the victim by arrows are also explicitly compared to hunters in the Cantares de Dzitbalche’. This includes the application of oils from a male deer to their bodies, which is likely part of a transformational hunting technique designed to lure female deer: Spy, spy among the trees on one, on two let us hunt at the edge of the trees a quick dance up to three. With forehead raised and alert eye make no mistake in taking the prize. Make your arrow sharp string well the cord of your bow; use good catsim resin for the feathers at the end of your arrow shaft. Apply well the grease of the male deer to your biceps, your muscles, your knees, your testicles, your ribs, your chest (Barrera Vásquez 1944, 1965: 77)

In another song from the same source, the victim of arrow sacrifice is compared to various animals, including the deer: “Soften your spirit, beautiful man; you will see the face of your Father on high. No more will you return here on earth in the plumage of the little hummingbird or the skin of the beautiful deer or jaguar, of the little blackbird or the little curassow” (Barrera Vásquez 1965: 26). In the Rabinal Achi, a dance-drama performed from Prehispanic times to the present in highland Guatemala, the captive K’iche’ Achi is addressed by his captor as kanab’ teleche’ winaq “hunted game, captive man” (Akkeren 2000: 388).1 A closer analysis of the Rabinal Achi, however, suggests a much more systematic relationship between hunting and warfare. As Ruud van Akkeren (2000: 380–480) pointed out, the Rabinal Achi narrative draws extensively from an important corpus of Maya folktales referred to as the Hummingbird Myth (discussed in chapter 4). This myth involves the abduction of the daughter of the Earth Lord by a hero, B’alam Q’e, who transforms into a hummingbird. In the Rabinal Achi the king Job’ Toj symbolizes the Earth Lord, who remains “tied up in the interior of the earth, reigning at the center” (Akkeren 2000: 348). In contrast, the hero K’iche’ Achi represents the stereotypical intrusive warrior or foreign invader. Indeed, K’iche’ Achi is also addressed as Oyew Achi “Fierce Warrior,” which is the conventional name for intrusive warriors across the highlands as expressed in the Hummingbird Myth (see chapter 4). The episode in the Rabinal Achi in which K’iche’ Achi is given an intoxicating drink parallels the motif in which B’alam Q’e, as a hummingbird, is stunned after sipping tobacco nectar. The hummingbird’s courtship of the Earth Lord’s daughter is likewise embodied in the duet that

96

Looper_5982.indd 96

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

K’iche’ Achi performs with the wife of Rabinal Achi, U Chuch Q’uq’ U Chuch Raxon. Finally, the death of K’iche’ Achi is symbolically parallel to the death of B’alam Q’e, in that his final speech compares his demise to that of a squirrel or a bird falling from the branch of a tree. In the Q’eqchi’ versions of the Hummingbird Myth, B’alam Q’e was temporarily killed by a shot from the blowgun of the Earth Lord, while he was in the form of a hummingbird. In the Ixil version the Hummingbird is also shot by the Earth Lord. Chapter 4 discusses how the Hummingbird Myth is couched in the symbolism of the hunt, which is also a metaphor for the acquisition of women. It can be argued, then, that the Rabinal Achi narrative is based on a parallel premise, rooted in the symbolism of hunting, in which a hunter/warrior intrudes into foreign territory, belonging either to the Earth Lord or to an enemy king. In one scenario the invader/ hunter makes proper obeisance and secures his prey in the form of deer, wives, or captives. In another he remains confrontational and is killed by predatory animals or the enemy. Just as hunters are identified with their prey, warriors are identified with their captives (see Olivier 2015). We can also see that both the hunt and warfare express fundamental notions of civilization. As discussed in chapter 1, the Maya believe that there is a marked contrast between settled life and the world of nature, with the forest seen as a dark and dangerous realm identified with great superhuman power (Taube 2003a). But the wilderness is not devoid of humans, or at least part-humans, conceived as “primitive hunters.” This mytho-historical notion is most familiar in the central Mexican form of the Chichimec, the ancient ancestors of the Mexica, who are stereotyped as itinerant

hunters wearing animal skins (see Smith 1984). This class of “primitives” also existed for the colonial-period highland Maya, as illustrated by the Historia quiché de don Juan de Torres: “they were naked, without coats or clothing. . . . They killed deer and hunted hares and ants in their burrows, while making the cries of the gray fox and the coyote in the darkness and at night” (Recinos 1984: 27–29). In the Rabinal Achi the Rabinal people themselves play the role of primitives, who are hunted by K’iche’ Achi as they collect wild honey (Breton 1999: 159–161, 321). To the highland Maya, then, the “civilized” warrior does battle against “primitive hunters.” These primitives are partly animal, wandering about naked like deer. Nevertheless, as in the Western trope of primitive man, the Maya primordial hunter is also a historical predecessor, from whom the civilized hunter/warrior obtains technology and knowledge. The sacrifice of prisoners as deer expresses the inheritance of hunting techniques from these primitives, who were in intimate contact with the powers of the wilderness. Thus, the narrative invoked in both hunting and warfare presents a basic mytho-historical model for human existence, illustrating the paths of migration of ancient peoples and leaving a legacy of lifeways and ritual practice.

t h e a nc i e n t m aya h un t , wa r fa r e , a nd r e ne wa l During the Maya Classic period, as elsewhere in ancient Mesoamerica, deer hunting was equated with warfare and sacrifice.2 This is documented mainly through small-scale artworks, such as painted pottery and figurines. Several images show captives ritually transformed into deer prior to their sacrifice. Some

97

Looper_5982.indd 97

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

are bound and wear deer headdresses. For example, a figurine from Jaina shows a captive, reduced to a quadrupedal pose akin to a deer and wearing a deer headdress, tied to a scaffold (fig. 5.2; Taube 1988b: 333). On the Leiden plaque, an important Early Classic representation of royal authority, the captive located behind the feet of the standing ruler wears a deer antler attached to a “Jester god” atop his head (fig. 5.3). Elizabeth Benson (1997: 36) suggested that deer may have been employed as a metaphor for warriors because of their

keen senses and rapid movement as well as their use of antlers and hooves as weapons. The images mentioned above, however, assign deer specifically to defeated warriors, probably emphasizing their “weakness” and prey status. Deer headdresses are also worn by victorious warriors in images of captive presentation, as in the Room 2 mural at Bonampak (fig. 5.4).3 For example, the knife-wielding lord in the incised travertine vessel K1606 wears a wide-brimmed hat topped with a deer head (fig. 5.5; Looper and Polyukhovych

left. figure 5.2. Jaina-style figurine depicting captive tied to a scaffold. Drawing by Karl Taube, after Taube (1988b: 333). right. figure 5.3. Jadeite plaque, portrait of ruler. Museum Volkenkunde, Leiden RV-1403-1193. SD-2007. Drawing by Linda Schele, © David Schele.

98

Looper_5982.indd 98

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

top. figure 5.4. Detail of mural showing assembled warriors. Room 2, Bonampak, Mexico, Maya, AD 791. Reconstruction, Yale University Art Gallery, Gift of Bonampak Documentation Project, illustrated by Heather Hurst and Leonard Ashby. bottom. figure 5.5. Alabaster vase depicting captive presentation. Princeton University Art Museum 2000-441. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1606.

forthcoming). The main text of this vessel refers to this man as the captor of the man he faces, a courtier named Yawal Ch’o’. The headdresses worn by the two figures equate warfare with the hunt. Moreover, because both the captor and his main captive wear similar headdresses, the message of this scene seems to underscore the uncertainty of the hunt or warfare, in which the hunter/warrior may suddenly become the victim of either wild animals or enemy warriors.

It should be noted, however, that in most martial scenes high kings do not wear deer headdresses. In the Bonampak mural, for example, the men wearing jaguar headdresses are located on the right-hand side of the composition, signaling their relatively high status (see Palka 2002). Glyphic captions indicate that these men were likely sons of the Bonampak king Yajaw Chan Muwaan, who stands at the center of the composition, wearing costume and holding weaponry sheathed in jaguar pelt (Houston 2012a). Before the king stand six more warriors, wearing deer, peccary, and perhaps other nonpredatory animal headdresses. Not only does the composition suggest their lower or visiting status, but most of their glyphic captions do not name them, referring to them only as the “guardians” of various captives.4 The image thus indicates superior status by using jaguars, while the prey animals

99

Looper_5982.indd 99

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

identify lower-status individuals. Deer imagery in this context refers to predation as a metaphor for status. The exception that proves the rule is El Kinel Monument 1, which depicts a Yaxchilán king dancing while wearing a headdress that includes a deer head (fig. 5.9).5 However, the remainder of the king’s dance costume indicates that he is performing as a humble penitent or captive, thereby temporarily inverting his status. Hunting and warfare also merge in certain images such as K414, which shows a party of men draped in painted deer hides, two of whom hold the main symbolic game animals of the ancient Maya: a deer and a peccary (fig. 3.6). The other three figures hold spearthrowers and staff-like objects that may be double-pronged spears. The figures who hold the deer and the spear-thrower at the far right wear headdresses incorporating jaguar-skin goggles, an attribute elsewhere associated with military costume (see Schele 1984a: 30–33). Possibly this is an image of a military rite in which two principal game animals are offered as sacrificial surrogates for human captives. The Jaina-style figurine shown in figure 5.2

vividly illustrates the ritual comparison of captive sacrifice to the binding and butchering of deer and other game animals. Similarly, on painted bowl K1082 bleeding captives appear with their upper arms, thighs, and ankles bound (fig. 5.6). Other captives have been dismembered, leaving a haunch and a head, which is placed in a large bowl, like an offering of food. This treatment can be compared to images of deer butchering, in which bound haunches and heads are displayed like trophies (see figs. 1.9, 5.22; Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 220–221). Other captives are depicted in belly-down poses, with their feet and hands or elbows thrust upward, as on the Leiden plaque (fig. 5.3; see Clancy 1976; Schele 1984a: 18–19). This pose can be compared with that of the captive deer carried on the back of the young sacrificing deity shown on the west wall of San Bartolo (fig. 2.7). The Aztec Florentine Codex contains a direct comparison of sacrificial victims to deer carcasses: “At the landing at the foot of the pyramid they bound their feet and hands. The four [priests] carried each one of them; they went pulling them by their arms [and] their legs; [the captives] went bobbing

100

Looper_5982.indd 100

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

their heads up and down; their heads went hanging toward the ground . . . it was said: ‘Thus they slay them as deer; they serve as the deer, who thus die’” (Sahagún 1981: 139). The fastening of captives to scaffolds prior to their sacrifice illustrated in the Jaina figurine (fig. 5.2) is also seen in other art works (Taube 1988b; Taube and Ishihara-Brito 2012). For example, the sacrificial victim shown on a polychrome vase at Dumbarton Oaks (K2781) assumes the same position as the captive in the Jaina figurine (fig. 5.7). Furthermore, the victim’s hair is gathered atop his head, like deer antlers. This complex scene shows the scaffold attended by a large number of ritual participants, whose identity contributes to the overall significance of the image. There are six musicians playing maracas, trumpets, an upright drum, and a turtle-carapace drum. Music is often associated with ritual violence in Maya art, including warfare and sacrifice (Coe 1973: 17; Miller 1986: 100, 142). The four warriors stand at attention holding weapons. Two of their headdresses depict carnivorous wild fauna: a puma and vulture (Taube and Ishihara-Brito 2012: 355). Some of them wear

trophy heads. The long “stacked bow” type of bib that the warriors wear is associated with ritual bloodletting through captive sacrifice. In front of the bound captive, standing on the lower level of the scaffold, is a man in a broadbrimmed hunting hat, holding a possible incense burner in one hand. With his other hand, he holds a burning torch to the back of the captive, as does the white-painted man behind him. The plaited headdresses and other regalia associated with the two white-bodied figures suggest that they may be solar impersonators, as the man seated at the base of the scaffold probably is. The role of these figures in the ceremony is to consume the blood of the victim following his torture by fire (Taube 1988b; Taube and Ishihara-Brito 2012: 357). The structure of the scaffold sacrificial rite evoked agricultural renewal (Taube 1988b: 333). According to this analogy, the torching of the back of the sacrificial victim signified the burning of the fields prior to planting, while the downward flow of the victim’s blood induced rain. In sixteenth-century Yucatán the springtime rituals during the month Mak opened with a hunt, followed by the sacrifice

101

figure 5.6. Painted bowl showing captive sacrifice. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1082.

Looper_5982.indd 101

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

which feathered bundles have been inserted. Other images illustrate that these scaffolds had been previously occupied by bound captives.7 In effect, the king replaces the captive, whose of the animals and the burning of their hearts sacrifice serves as a catalyst to achieve the (Tozzer 1941: 162–163). After this, the fire rebirth of the ruler into his new status as king was extinguished with four pitchers of water. (see Taube 1994). The Classic Maya images Hence the name of this ritual: Tupp Kak, of scaffold sacrifice provide an important “Put Out Fire.” In more recent times the example of the Mesoamerican identification Yucatec rainmaking ceremony or Ch’a’ Chaak of rulers with captives (Olivier 2015: 624–625). also began with a deer hunt and involved a According to the model of accession as a rite scaffold-like altar to which four boys, chirping of passage, the deer-captive and the ruler as like frogs, were bound (Mandujano and Ricopredator-captor become one in the liminal state Gray 1991: 179; Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934: of sacrifice. Another good example of this con140–143). cept is El Kinel Monument 1, which shows a The ancient Maya drew upon the associaking already in power performing a deer dance tion of scaffold sacrifice with the agricultural in the guise of a captive (fig. 5.9). In this case, cycle and renewal when they employed scaffold the occasion is a period-ending rite, in which a structures as royal thrones of accession. These calendrical threshold is crossed. are most clearly depicted in the famous “niche” The sacrificial rite depicted on the Piedras stela series at Piedras Negras (Stelae 6, 11, 14, Negras monuments can be compared to the 25, and 33), which show successive rulers of Postclassic central Mexican New Fire certhe city seated on scaffolds and beneath fabric- emony, which took place at the end of a 52-year draped canopies as an image of royal accession calendrical cycle. In this ceremony a victim (fig. 5.8).6 A bowl containing a belly-up sacrifi- was killed by heart-extraction, and a fire was cial victim is placed at the base of the scaffold. kindled in his chest (Sahagún 1977: 25–26; The victims have cavities in their abdomens Taube 2004: 273). An analogous ceremony is (probably the effect of heart sacrifice) into referenced on the Late Preclassic west wall

figure 5.7. Painted vase showing captive sacrifice on scaffold. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, PC.B.594. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K2781.

102

Looper_5982.indd 102

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

figure 5.9. Monument 1, El Kinel, Guatemala. Drawing by Stephen Houston.

figure 5.8. Stela 11, Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Drawing by David Stuart © President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, PM# 2004.15.6.19.35.

mural at San Bartolo, discussed in chapter 2 (fig. 2.7). This painting shows a sequence of genital bloodletting rites performed before braziers set on tripods placed in front of four directional trees. Each of the braziers has a different animal; a deer, a fish, and a bird are clearly visible. The presentation of each sacrificial offering involves the opening of the animal’s belly, within which a fire is kindled, framed by three hearth stones. The San Bartolo scenes can be interpreted as New Year ceremonies that mark the passage of the last 5-day sequence of the 365-day year (see Taube et al. 2010). The same ritual is shown in the Postclassic Dresden Codex, in which deity impersonators make offerings before stone trees wrapped with snakes

103

Looper_5982.indd 103

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

(fig. 2.6). The presentation of sacrifices before directional trees in these images is also an important part of the New Year rites described in the Cantares de Dzitbalche’ (see Barrera Vásquez 1965). In the San Bartolo mural the fire ceremonies are juxtaposed with images of rulers or gods seated on scaffold-thrones. This presents a prototype for the ceremonies depicted on the Late Classic stelae at Piedras Negras. The only difference is that a human victim has been substituted for the animals that appear in the early painting. While the San Bartolo mural suggests a basis for this ceremony in New Year rites, the Piedras Negras stelae indicate that scaffold sacrifice could be used for political purposes independent of the 365-day cycle. Nevertheless, the ceremony drew upon the symbolism of sacrifices for the purpose of cosmic renewal. In these cases, the captive is sacrificed as a deer, the ultimate animal metaphor for the liminal state.

the sta rry de er c ro c odile While the equation of deer with captives is not explicit in the Piedras Negras stelae, several of the monuments employ one of the most important supernatural creatures with deer features in Maya art as a frame for the ruler. This being, known to Mayanists as the Starry Deer Crocodile (Stuart 2003), is probably the

most common configuration for cervid imagery in Maya monumental art. This mythic creature’s diagnostic features include a reptilian head, Venus-signs as eye pupils, striated eyelids, deer ears with a bivalve shell below, a scaly crocodilian body with scutes and back ridges, water-scroll marked joints, and deer hooves rather than reptilian claws (figs. 5.10, 5.11; Spinden 1913: 53; Stone 1985). The creature’s body commonly takes the form of a skyband or segments emblazoned with celestial symbols such as the glyphs for sky, sun, moon, and darkness (Carlson and Landis 1985). The Starry Deer Crocodile appears in Maya art from the Classic to Postclassic periods, in both iconographic and hieroglyphic contexts. In the Maya script its front head substitutes for the day sign Lamat, which is usually rendered as a Venus glyph and also functions as the patron for the month Yax (fig. 5.12; Macri and Looper 2003: 230). On the Piedras Negras stelae (fig. 5.8) we can see the creature’s front head and shoulders on the left side of the scaffold, below the level of the ruler, while its sky-band body frames the king. A motif known as the Quadripartite Emblem or Badge is often carried on the haunches of the Starry Deer Crocodile (usually to the right of the kings at Piedras Negras; Schele and Miller 1986: 45). This complex symbol consists of a bowl marked with a “sun”

figure 5.10. Starry Deer Crocodile, detail of stucco ornament from interior of House E, Palenque, Mexico. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

104

Looper_5982.indd 104

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

star deer hooves

eye with “star” sign fluid emerging from mouth left. figure 5.11. Starry Deer Crocodile, detail of stucco ornament from Rosalila Structure, Copán, Honduras. Drawing by author. right. figure 5.12. Starry Deer Crocodile as the day Lamat, from Hieroglyphic Stairway, Copán, Honduras. Drawing by author.

glyph supported by a skeletal head. The bowl contains an erect stingray spine flanked by a Spondylus (spiny oyster) shell and a foliated element marked with crossed-bands (Robertson 1974; Schele 1976: 17–18). The Quadripartite Emblem is interpreted as a personified burner for blood and incense offerings made by penitential rulers as well as a headdress worn by an important aquatic deity known to Mayanists as GI (“God one”) (Taube 1998: 464). For years scholars have recognized the celestial symbolism of the Starry Deer Crocodile.8 In architectural contexts it is frequently oriented on an east-west axis. Because its body is sometimes shown studded with stars (fig. 5.11), it seems to be associated with the night

sky. In the example from Copán Structure 10L-22, seven S-shaped cloud scrolls along the length of the creature’s body led various scholars to propose that the Starry Deer Crocodile symbolizes the Milky Way in an east-west configuration.9 The Quadripartite Emblem may signify the rising sun at the eastern horizon, using the metaphor of a bowl for burning offerings (Stuart 2005b: 167–170; Taube 2009: 99–105). In contrast, the opposite head, elaborated with the ear and antler of a deer, could symbolize the setting sun, given the associations between the deer and the sun in Maya and Mesoamerican culture (see chapter 7). Alternatively, because it substitutes for the day sign Lamat, representing Venus, the

105

Looper_5982.indd 105

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

which a deer head peeks out of a Venus/star motif (fig. 5.13). A codex style vase illustrated by Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos (2017: fig. 111b) also shows a deer emerging from a Venus/star sign. An Early Classic ceramic effigy vessel in the Cleveland Museum of Art depicts a deer with Venus/star motifs on the figure 5.13. Deer emerging from star/Venus sign, cheek and ear (fig. 5.14). In this case, the deer’s detail of Stucco Pier B, Temple of the Inscriptions, tongue lolls out of its mouth, which often indiPalenque, Mexico. Drawing by author. cates death in Mesoamerican art. This image might exemplify the concept of a sacrificed front head of the Starry Deer Crocodile may deer as a metaphor for the vanquishing of the signify the stars and planets. Its appearance stars by the rising sun. on the front of the creature could refer to the In addition to its celestial symbolism, the “chasing” of the stars by the sun at dawn, sigStarry Deer Crocodile is a major character in nified by the rear head, or to a general oppothe lore of creation. Classic-period texts and sition between the planets/stars and the sun imagery as well as colonial-era documents (Schele and Miller 1986: 45). Among the Cora demonstrate the widespread Maya belief that of Nayarit, Mexico, and the Huichol, stars are the Starry Deer Crocodile was the source of understood as deer (Preuss 1996: 104, 123). a great flood that resulted in the destruction According to the Huichol, the Sun or his assis- and renewal of the previous cosmos.11 Two tant the Morning Star slays or chases the stars colonial-period Maya documents, the Chilam away each morning (Preuss 1996: 129, 130). In Balam of Tizimín and Codex Pérez, state that central Mexican lore the stars are conceptualthe destruction of the universe was caused by ized as deer and the Morning Star as a hunter the inversion of sky and earth, whereby the ter(Seler 1996: 218). Moreover, Nahua mythology restrial crocodile Itzam Cab Ain “Iguana Earth characterizes the stars as wicked. In a myth the Crocodile” was thrust into the sky, unleashFour Hundred Mimixcoa are commanded to ing a flood.12 The inundation came to an end serve the Sun by providing sacrificial victims, when Bolon Ti Ku “Nine as God” cut the throat but they disobey and act immorally by sleepof the crocodile and formed the earth from ing with women and getting drunk. So the Sun its remains, painting its back with the creahas them killed, transforming them into stars ture’s blood. This imagery directly parallels the (Graulich 1997b: 160–161, 254; Seler 1996: Nahua myth of cosmogenesis, in which the 51–55). This myth, which explains the disapgods Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca dismember pearance of stars in the morning as a triumph the body of the great caiman Tlaltecuhtli and over immoral cervid warriors, seems to parallel use the pieces to create the universe (Taube the Maya image of a star-studded deer that is 1993: 69–70, 73–74). It also bears comparison pursued by the sun from east to west.10 to an episode from the Popol Vuh in which the Hero Twins defeat a crocodilian “maker Classic-period iconographic evidence for associating deer with Venus or stars in general of mountains” by entombing him within the earth and turning him to stone (Tedlock is found in a sky-band from the Temple of the 1996: 94–99). The deer imagery that forms a Inscriptions at Palenque (Stucco Pier B), in 106

Looper_5982.indd 106

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

prominent part of the Classic-period Starry Deer Crocodile may specifically refer to the sacrificial aspect of this being, as the deer was a prime animal offering of the ancient Maya. The inscription of the Palenque Temple XIX platform documents the existence of this myth during the Classic period. This text relates a series of important events that laid the foundation for the current cosmic creation in 3114 BC. In one of these episodes from 3297 BC, the decapitation or dismemberment of the Starry Deer Crocodile released a torrent of blood (Stuart 2005b: 68–77, 176–180). This act is presumably the rationale for the common depiction of streams of fluid that flow from the mouth of the Starry Deer Crocodile and out of the Quadripartite Emblem (figs. 5.8, 5.10, 5.11).13 The Temple XIX text refers to the “hole-back crocodile, painted back crocodile” as an agent of flooding and new fire, thereby tying the Starry Deer Crocodile to Maya and Mesoamerican mythic themes of apocalyptic floods followed

by the rebirth of the sun through the kindling of fire using a drill (Velásquez García 2006: 4). In colonial Yucatán the cosmic flood and fire were re-created in rituals in which a painted caiman representing the flood was heaped with wood and burned to coals, over which the ritualists walked to commemorate the destruction of the world (Thompson 1970: 217). Although the liquid that pours from the Starry Deer Crocodile probably represents its blood, the stream is painted blue in the Dresden Codex version of this being, indicating that it is also rain. This detail points to yet another likely dimension of the significance of deer imagery in Maya art, which associates the animal with rain (see Olivier 2015: 291–298). The link between rain and deer is also manifested in a glyphic compound reading chihj ha’(al) “deer rain” that appears on a painted ceramic vessel located in the Museo Arqueológico, Santa Bárbara, Petén (fig. 5.15) and the mural of Río Azul Tomb 1 (see Acuña 2015: fig. 15;

figure 5.14. Deer Effigy Vessel, 250–600. Mesoamerica, Maya style, Classic Period (250–900). Earthenware; overall: 22.8 × 24.7 × 18 cm (815∕16 × 911∕16 × 71∕16 in.). The Cleveland Museum of Art, Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. Fund 1997.60. Photograph © The Cleveland Museum of Art; detail drawing of head by Dana Moot II. 107

Looper_5982.indd 107

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

Gronemeyer 2010). Significant ethnographic evidence connects deer to heavy rains. For example, in colonial Kaqchikel a hurricane was termed r’atin quhay or r’atin al queh, “because the little deer took pleasure in the water of the first showers” (Coto 1983: 281).14 Tzotzil folklore tells of a creature called sulum’con “the horned animal” that takes the form of a small red deer and causes heavy rains and flooding (Köhler 1995: 133). Perhaps related to this creature is the well-known chijchan of the Ch’orti’, a horned serpent which also causes thunder and violent rainstorms.15 An interesting indigenous explanation of the biological basis for the association between deer and rain is documented among the (non-Maya) Mixe of San Juan Guichicovi, Oaxaca: “It rains a lot in a deer year because deer urinate a lot” (Weitlaner-Johnson and Weitlaner 1963: 44). The great floods of moisture that pour from the Starry Deer Crocodile represent the mythical prototype for heavy rainstorms, possibly known to the Classic Maya as “deer rains.” In sum, the Starry Deer Crocodile is consistently represented as a sacrificial victim in ancient and colonial-period texts. As an object of violence, dismembered or otherwise subdued by other gods in order to create the cosmos, the cosmic crocodile conforms to the

notion of deer as the earthly sacrificial offering par excellence. Used as a frame for the scaffold of sacrifice and royal accession, the imagery of the Starry Deer Crocodile sanctifies the rite, implying that the accession of the new king brings about order out of cosmic cataclysm.16 In addition, the Starry Deer Crocodile expresses the association between deer and stars, which are “sacrificed” by the rising sun. The deer element of this creature may also connote its mythic role as an agent of flooding, as aspects of their behavior may have caused the Maya to associate deer with heavy rain.

t h e b a l l ga m e a nd t h e h un t In Maya culture the ballgame was sometimes an extension of warfare, in that war captives were sacrificed in the context of ballgame ritual.17 Thus, like warfare, the ballgame frequently employs the trappings of the hunt.18 For example, ballplayers depicted in pottery painting and figurines often wear deer headdresses, usually of the white-tailed deer.19 While many of these scenes seem to depict actual ballgames played by humans, others such as K1288 suggest a supernatural or mythic event (fig. 5.16). The ballgames take place in front of stairways or stepped platforms

figure 5.15. Detail of “deer rain” glyph from painted vessel, Museo Arqueológico, Santa Bárbara, Guatemala. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

108

Looper_5982.indd 108

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

(Miller and Houston 1987). The players in these scenes can be identified by their heavy padded belts or deflectors, which often extend to their underarms. They also wear pads or bands on one arm and/or one leg and halfskirts made of hide that extend from the back of the belt, covering the buttocks and rear thighs. Handball players lack most of these attributes (fig. 5.16). The players are often positioned facing black balls of various sizes. Some of the deer headdresses worn by ballplayers in these images are of exaggerated size and may or may not have antlers. Some have feathered crests (figs. 5.17, 5.18). In a few

cases a feathered flower is shown emerging from the deer’s mouth or its neck (figs. 5.18, 5.19; K1921). The deer headdresses alternate with those of other players, which depict a variety of mammals, birds, and supernaturals. Other players wear nonrepresentational hats, such as narrow-brimmed derbies or bowlers or wide-brimmed feathered hats (figs. 5.16, 5.17; K1921). Hunters (ritual or mythological) are also shown wearing derbies or sombreros (see Hellmuth 1991: 141–143). In many cases a man wearing a deer headdress is the focal player of the composition, shown in an inclined position preparing to

top. figure 5.16. Painted vase showing handball game. Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia, 86.404. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1288.

bottom. figure 5.17. Painted vase showing ballgame with figures presenting feathers. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K3842.

109

Looper_5982.indd 109

1/27/19 3:02 PM

Looper_5982.indd 110

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

strike the ball (figs. 5.17, 5.18, K1921, K2022, K5435), while in others the deer-player is standing and not necessarily the compositional focus (figs. 5.16, 5.19, K2803). K1871 features four players in four different deer headdresses (black, red, yellow, and white) who converge on a focal kneeling player (fig. 5.20). The kneeling ballplayer wears a headdress that depicts a black grotesque face, possibly representing a hunting deity (Hellmuth 1991: 146–147). The composition implies a cosmological symbolism in which the four deer players symbolize the four corners of the universe and the grotesque face-bearing player personifies the center. It is notable that in monumental ballgame scenes the highest-ranking rulers do not wear deer headdresses but rather the headdresses of a host of deities. Perhaps this is because the players in these scenes are typically kings, one of whose major roles is the impersonation of deities (see Houston and Stuart 1996). In addition, because these monuments broadly concern the dedication of buildings, the events shown probably relate to a different context that emphasizes captive sacrifice, thereby necessitating the intervention of powerful gods (Tokovinine 2002). In contrast, the ceramic images of the ballgame depict neither high kings nor captive sacrifice, suggesting that the deer and other zoomorphic headdresses were worn in ballgames played by lower-ranking men or deities, which seem to be the subject of these vessel paintings. This link between deer top. figure 5.18. Painted vase showing ballgame. Los Angeles County Museum of Art M.2010.115.589. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K5937. center. figure 5.19. Painted vase showing ballgame. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1209. bottom. figure 5.20. Painted vase showing ballgame. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1871.

imagery and junior-elite status is seen elsewhere in Maya art, as discussed above in relation to martial scenes and in chapter 3. In addition to the headdresses worn by ballplayers in painted pottery and figurines, there is other evidence for associating the ballgame with the symbolism of the hunt. For example, conch-shell trumpets are an important attribute of ballgames as well as the hunt and captive sacrifice. K1288 from the vicinity of Naranjo (fig. 5.16) shows a mythical handball game played between a black-bodied deity and another being with grotesque features and a deer headdress. Although the two players face off in front of a stepped stone platform, indicating a settlement or ceremonial center, we see a flock of four birds to their right. Behind the birds is another bird perched in an anthropomorphic tree with palmate leaf clusters, indicating the forest (see Taube 2003a; cf. Cohodas 1991: 265). Behind the black ballplayer, God D is seated on a throne with the features of a skull of stone. He converses with a white-spotted black-bodied deity who stands upon the back of God S. Another image of a supernatural ballgame, on the south marker of Copán Ballcourt A-IIb, shows a deer-eared supernatural (Tokovinine 2002: 4). These images suggest the importance of gods of the hunt and the wilderness as ballgame patrons. The wilderness spatial setting of the ballgame shown on K1288 (fig. 5.16) is consistent with the overall symbolism of ballcourt architecture as a representation of the cave-like portal to the underworld.20 However, it is mixed with elements suggesting (human) construction, thereby strengthening the liminal associations of the game and, by extension, the hunt and deer. Another important correspondence between the ballgame and warfare and the hunt involves the procedure for processing game and captives.

111

Looper_5982.indd 111

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

Captives in war were frequently bound as balls and are even shown in monumental art inscribed within balls, tumbling down stairways (Miller and Houston 1987; Schele and Miller 1986: 249). The ritual is clearly indicated in the inscription of La Amelia Panel 2, which depicts a ritual dance following a ballgame (Schele and Grube 1990: 3–5). The text of this panel says that the victim is “thrown” as “the wrapped thing” of Lachan K’awiil Ajaw Bot, the local king (Tokovinine 2002: 3). The tying of captives into a rolled shape like a ball is akin to the binding of deer by their legs, as depicted on the back of the god’s belt in the San Bartolo mural (see fig. 2.7). It can also be likened to the wrapping of deer carcasses into bundles, secured with ropes. The ritual compares the tree sap from which rubber balls were made to the blood of deer and captives. All three of these substances were acquired from the wilderness, associated with risk as well as sacred power, and served as sustenance for the gods. For the ancient Maya, the act of “rolling” and then binding with rope signaled the sacrificial status of rubber, deer, and captives. If hunting ideologies informed the meaning of actual ballgames played by the ancient Maya, then how did this relate to the political significance of the game? One of the main political functions of ballgames appears to have been the cementing of alliances. Most ballgame scenes in monumental art seem to have commemorated alliances between rulers and their overlords, especially those of Calakmul (Helmke and Andres 2015; Stuart 2013). For example, La Corona Ballplayer Panel 1 features the La Corona ruler Chak Ak’ Paat Kuy playing ball in a Calakmul ballcourt (Martin and Grube 2008: 110). His opponent here is a spokesperson for the Calakmul ruler Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ahk’. Unfortunately, because most

of the ballgame scenes on painted pottery have unreadable texts, the political significance of the scenes cannot be determined. One important exception is K2803, which is stated to have been owned by a Hix Witz (Zapote Bobal) lord, but the caption of one of the ballplayers shown on the vessel identifies him as a Motul de San José lord (Tokovinine 2002: 5). This allows us to interpret the vessel as commemorating ties between these two sites (Just 2012: 70–73, 76–87). Other images suggest that the giving of gifts or tribute or feasting may have also accompanied these ballgames. For instance, K3842 shows figures holding feather bundles out to a pair of ballplayers, while the upper register depicts more figures offering fans, vessels, shells and other items (fig. 5.17). Perhaps this imagery signals the exchange of gifts or the payment of tribute that accompanied ballgames conducted by members of allied kingdoms. The depiction of vessels in the context of the ballgame recalls archaeological evidence of feasting wares and animal remains found in association with ballgame middens at various Maya sites (see Fox 1996). The symbolism of the hunt may have heightened the significance of these ballgames in several ways. It may have identified the context of the game as “foreign relations,” owing to the associations of the hunt with the wilderness and the zone outside of home territory. It may have celebrated the players’ hunter-like bravery and athleticism as a metaphor for the strength of the alliance and, more specifically, as a promise of military assistance. But because the overlord and sublord are often shown playing against each other, the ballgame may also have referenced the uncertainty of the hunt. During play, the ballgame destabilized the identities of the players as hunter and prey. Nevertheless, because these are games, rather

112

Looper_5982.indd 112

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

than actual conflicts, the survival of both players upon concluding the ritual demonstrates the lack of “real” animosity between polities.

“first pe nance ” and the ritual de er hunt To the ancient Maya, the ballgame, the hunt, and warfare were metaphorically interwoven rituals. These activities served as a means for testing men’s bravery and physical prowess in a group context. There is even some evidence that young men participated in ritual deer hunts as part of a childhood ceremony called yax ch’ahb “first penance.” The term ch’ahb was used by the ancient Maya with reference to autosacrificial bloodletting ceremonies,

figure 5.21. First penance ceremony, detail of Panel 19, Dos Pilas, Guatemala. Drawing by David Stuart and Stephen Houston.

such as that shown on Yaxchilán Lintel 24 (fig. 3.4). The yax ch’ahb was the inaugural ceremony performed for young males (and in one case a female) at around five years of age (Houston 2018: 101–110; Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 131–132). Part of the ceremony is depicted in detail on Dos Pilas Panel 19, in which the youth stands before a kneeling priest who holds a stingray spine (fig. 5.21). As he lets his blood drip into a bowl, he is attended by his parents and guardians. The text explains that the event was witnessed by twenty-eight lords, either human or divine. Pottery texts also sometimes mention the first penance ceremony (Houston 2012b, 2018). Nearly all of these reference Hix Witz (Zapote Bobal) or can be stylistically attributed to this center. Many incorporate the term directly into the dedication phrase stating that the vessel is for the first penance of someone. At least three bowls are known to have been dedicated for the first penance of a Hix Witz lord perhaps named Aj Wichan Ahk: one for sweet potato atole (Museo Vigua de Arte Precolombino y Vidrio Moderno, La Antigua 1.2.75.225), another for tzihil, an unknown drink (Museo Popol Vuh, Guatemala City 1188), and a third for sour atole (K9244). Another vessel from the Hix Witz polity in the San Diego Museum of Man (2010.1.19) also held sour atole and is designated as a first penance vessel (Judith Green, cited by Houston 2018: 108). Yet another Hix Witz–style vessel, this time a plate, also commemorated first penance but is more suitable for serving solid food, possibly venison, rather than beverages (fig. 5.22). Unlike the other Hix Witz vessels listed above, the imagery of the New Orleans plate is elaborate and relates closely to the hunt. It depicts eight figures wearing the familiar

113

Looper_5982.indd 113

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

hunting attire of bowler hats. One figure blows a conch trumpet, while others smoke cigars or train spears at animals. One of the figures bends over, presumably to butcher game, while another holds what might be a deer haunch aloft. Yet another uses a tumpline to carry heavy remains, presumably also deer meat. The imagery of the plate is comparable to that of bowl K1373 (fig. 1.9), suggesting that this bowl as well might depict a hunting component of the first penance, probably a ritual sacrifice and dismemberment of game animals, even though this vessel is uninscribed. The hunting ritual shown on the New Orleans plate is related to another elaborately painted Hix Witz–style first penance bowl, K1116 (fig. 5.23; Houston 2018: 108). This bowl depicts a group of males gathered around a crossed-spears and shield icon similar to the “war stack” seen on the panel of the Temple of the Sun at Palenque. One of the characters lifts up the decapitated head of a deer, while the animal’s carcass lies before him. In front of him is another character holding a shield in one hand and a flaming torch in the other. The faces of many of the figures have Roman noses, protruding upper lips, facial dotting, and eye “crullers” suggesting identification with the Jaguar God of the underworld, a fire deity whose face is emblazoned on the shield that forms the main icon of the tablet from the Temple of the Sun at Palenque. However, we also observe the presence of a youth at the far left of the rollout, who is passing a spine through his genitals to let blood. This vessel therefore depicts the bloodletting component of this ceremony, seen on the Dos Pilas panel (fig. 5.21), although in a supernatural context. It is likely that this image presents a mythic prototype for the first penance ceremony, in which not only autosacrificial bloodletting but

figure 5.22. Painted plate showing ritual hunt. New Orleans Museum of Art, on loan from Edward J. Howell EL.1990.157. Drawing by author.

also the killing and butchering of animals such as deer take place (Houston 2018: 110).21 In addition, the vessel shows the gods as warriors with shields, thereby equating the hunt with war. The military aspect of the first penance is also strongly implied by the imagery of yet another Hix Witz–style vessel, K3092, which pairs a textual yax ch’ahb event with an image of a male in an elaborate feathered costume topped with the mosaic headdress associated with war (fig. 5.24). He holds a zigzag staff and an incense bag, indicating that this is also an occasion for kindling fire (see Houston and Stuart 1996: 299). Accompanying him are two figures, one of whom plays a trumpet, suggesting a war dance. In sum, K3092 and especially K1116 define the first penance ceremony as not only the first bloodletting of a royal heir but also his first hunt and symbolic war.22

114

Looper_5982.indd 114

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

In conclusion, if we return to the painted vase image with which this chapter began (K5857; fig. 5.1), we can hypothesize that this seemingly straightforward image of a hunt by a party of males may actually represent part of the first penance ceremony of a ch’ok. Perhaps he is the very youth who holds firmly to the deer’s leg in the painting. The presence and participation of older males in the ritual hunt depicted on K5857 suggest his supervision by elders. These men may be analogous to the guardians mentioned on Dos Pilas Panel 19. They may also belong to an older cohort of males who direct the ritual training of younger boys.

The first penance ceremony served as an elite male’s inaugural public performance of a number of important elements of the royal office, including bloodletting. It also indicated his fitness to become a warrior, symbolized by his participation in a ritual deer hunt. The appearance of imagery relating to the first penance ceremony on painted ceramics is consistent with the fact that many of the elaborately painted vessels of the ancient Maya are glyphically tagged as being owned by ch’oktaak “youths” (see Houston 2009, 2012b, 2018). We can speculate that some of the vessels, such as the ones made for Aj Wichan Ahk of Hix Witz, may have been presented upon successful

top. figure 5.23. Painted vase showing first penance bottom. figure 5.24. Painted vase commemorating first penance rite. Kislak Collection, Library of rite, including deer sacrifice. Photograph by Justin Congress, Washington, DC, PC0018. Photograph by Kerr, K1116. Justin Kerr, K3092. 115

Looper_5982.indd 115

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

completion of his first penance. Or they may have been commissioned later, commemorating his first penance as a pivotal rite that placed him on the path toward adulthood. The concentration of these ceremonies during youth is consistent with other huntingrelated ceremonies among the Maya, such as the ballgame. Although we know much about the mythic dimensions of this sport from the Popol Vuh, we have surprisingly little data on its social role as reported in early sources. Nevertheless, Diego de Landa does mention it briefly, indicating that a kind of ballgame was played in association with young men’s houses (Tozzer 1941: 124). As Landa describes them, each town had one of these structures that served as a dormitory for unmarried men as well as a center for their games. Scholars have identified various Classic Maya structures as potential young men’s houses, though usually with limited evidence for what activities took place inside them (see Houston 2009: 169–173, 2018: 117–124). Nor is it apparent exactly how these institutions might have provided training for autosacrifice, hunting, or other activities in which youths participated, such as tribute assessment, ball playing, dancing, sculpture, and music. What is clear is that hunting and warfare were highlighted as activities appropriate for young males, partially expressed through the first penance ceremony of childhood. Later training in other activities such as the ballgame would have prepared the youths for their puberty or coming-of-age ceremony, probably involving the grinding of their teeth and the insertion of jade or hematite inlays (see Fitzsimmons et al. 2003: 460; Houston 2009: 169, 2018: 110–113). In ancient Maya society warfare and the hunt reinforced ideologies of male dominance. In Maya lore the essence of male power

embodied in the figure of the hunter-hero can be partly characterized as the achievement of ritual purity through penance, leading to the right to exact violence on the “other,” in the form of enemies or game animals. The ideology also highlights the bravery of the penitent, who triumphs over pain and fear, to bring sustenance to the people and the gods. These tropes sustained male power in Mesoamerican culture from ancient times to the present. The image of the victorious warrior/hunter/ ballplayer as a model for masculinity in Mesoamerica is well known. It is obvious that the dramatic rendition of hunting and sacrifice through dance and other rituals described in this chapter served to reinforce this ideology for the general audience but especially for the men who performed—and in some cases still perform—these rites. The politics of masculinity embodied in these narratives is ambiguous, however, in that the actual events of the ballgame, warfare, and the hunt place men in risky situations in which the distinction between winner and loser, victor and captive, or hunter and game is not predetermined. In fact, on vase K5857 (fig. 5.1) the young initiate grabs the deer by its leg. This indicates his status as captor/hunter but also places him in direct contact with the animal and, consequently, in the line of fire of his companions.23 The ambiguity of the hunt also informs rituals of war and sacrifice, in that rulers may dress as captives (as on the El Kinel monument) or be placed in the position of captives (as on the Piedras Negras niche stelae; see figs. 5.8, 5.9). In such cases deer imagery references the identification of the hunter with the hunted. The Nahua mythic cycle in which a god associated with the hunt, Piltzintecuhtli, transforms into a deer (discussed in chapter 7) also expresses this comparison, suggesting

116

Looper_5982.indd 116

1/27/19 3:02 PM

lo ck in g h o r n s

that the Maya rituals may reflect a common Mesoamerican ideology of reciprocity in which nature must be compensated for providing sustenance to humans. The association between the deer and the initiate on K5857 locates him in a transitional state between childhood and adolescence. Likewise, deer headdresses may function in an analogous manner when they are worn by ballplayers on pottery and men in martial scenes, probably in order to indicate junior-elite status. The comparison of these men to game animals such as deer places them in a subordinate relationship to the metaphorical jaguars, the high kings. In addition, the dangerous element of chance inherent in these activities doubtless accounts in part for the dramatic flair and continued appeal of performances that employ their imagery. This ambiguity also makes such narratives ideal as a framework for certain forms of political rhetoric, in which the actions of either invading warrior or ensconced ruler are legitimated. The transposition of these human power relationships into the framework of natural reciprocity elevates them to a sacred status worthy of reenactment in ritual from ancient times to the present. The ritual deer hunt in the context of yax ch’ahb ceremony also drew upon the significance of deer as a liminal animal. In the

ceremony the child established his connection to and dominance over a deer as a rite of passage, signaling his transformation from one status to another. More than this, the ceremony in which the child let blood from his genitals and hunted deer cast him in the guise of the youthful God S. As shown at San Bartolo, this god pierces his penis as he delivers game animals including deer as offerings in front of directional trees (fig. 2.7). These trees demarcate the border between the human world and that of the animals. In the myth and the ritual that reenacts the myth, a border “patrol” kills the animals that threaten human livelihood and the penitent’s blood is shed like a game animal. The ritual of yax ch’ahb introduced the youth as a royal and priestly person, bringing order through violence and feeding the gods and (by extension) the human community. The performance of this ritual presented young males as border mediators, readying them for war. It also prepared them for accession rites in which they ascended a scaffold, like a captive in the guise of a deer. The ritual personification of deer by elite males placed them on the border itself, between human and animal and between predator and prey. The ideal result was the triumph over the animal, in which it was thrust upward or downward, replaced at the center by the victorious ruler, the ultimate predator.

117

Looper_5982.indd 117

1/27/19 3:02 PM

figure 6.1. Madrid Codex, p. 50c, detail. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870).

Looper_5982.indd 118

1/27/19 3:02 PM

chapter six

Hart’s Devotion The Siip in Classic and Postclassic Maya Society

ne of the early chronicles of the invasion of Mexico by Spanish conquistadores that stands out is by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera in 1520, who describes Maya codices that he probably saw when he examined shipments sent back to Spain from Veracruz.1 Today only four of these precious screen-fold manuscripts are known to exist; the longest is a book of almanacs known as the Madrid Codex, dating to the Late Postclassic period (Anders 1967). Made of fig bark coated with stucco and consisting of 56 leaves painted on both sides (112 pages), this manuscript contains a wealth of information about ancient

Looper_5982.indd 119

Maya religion, linguistics, material culture, calendars, and astronomy.2 Among the many deities it depicts is a curious god with a projecting lower lip, black body paint, and a deer headdress. On page 50c he brandishes a spear and a hooked device, aiming at some invisible prey (fig. 6.1). This chapter explores the identity and significance of this god of the hunt, examining his importance within the Madrid Codex but also tracing his heritage to the Classic period. I begin, however, with a summary of the information regarding hunting deities from the recent Maya, including the complex offering ceremonies and dances performed in their honor.

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

gua rdia ns of game animal s and the ir shr ine s

Landa describes the rites performed by hunters in colonial Yucatán on the seventh day of Like many Native American groups, the Maya the month Zip (Tozzer 1941: 155).4 This was of both the colonial and more recent periods done in honor of the hunting gods Acanum, believe in supernatural patrons of the hunt. Suhui Dzip “Sacred/Untouched Siip,” and While these beings are known by various Tabai, among others (Scholes and Adams 1938: names and domains of influence, they are typi- 1: 63). Colonial dictionaries mention other cally considered to be the owners or guardians hunting-related gods, such as Ku Bolay “God of game animals.3 Among many groups, deer of the Game” and Ceh Lac “Deer Pottery Idol” have a particularly close connection to Earth (Thompson 1970: 308). The name Ceh Lac Lords, which seems to reflect the supreme underscores the fact that many of these deiimportance of deer as a game animal. This ties were worshipped through images (Caso relationship is clearly expressed in a Tzotzil Barrera 1999: 173). Another deity of the hunt, myth that is closely cognate with the Popol Vuh Ah Uuc Yol Zip “(He) Seven Heart of Zip,” is episode in which the Hero Twins punish the mentioned in other colonial-era documents animals that cause their fields to be overgrown associated with hunting rituals (Thompson (Gossen 2002: 456–469; see the introduction). 1970: 309).5 Yet another hunting deity menThe hero, Our Father, tries to clear his field, tioned in colonial Yucatán is Aquehe, probably but the chanting of the deer and rabbits regen- Ah Keh “Hunter” (Scholes and Roys 1938: erates the weeds and trees. After he catches 608–609). The names of some of these deities them in the act, his punishment is to cut off are recorded in recent ethnographies as well. their tails and elongate their ears by pulling The Dzip/Zip gods correspond to the Yucatec on them. He considers eliminating the aniMaya guardians of the deer called Zip, which mals completely but is dissuaded by the Earth cause hunters to miss their targets when huntLords, who declare themselves to be their spe- ing.6 In some areas the principal Zip spirits cial patrons. Other animals—specifically the are specifically associated with the brocket insects that also caused the weeds to grow—are deer (Götz and Stanton 2013: 229). They are not given any protection and therefore belong believed to carry wasps’ nests between their to a distinct class. Along with armadillos and antlers; if the Zip is mistakenly pursued, the rattlesnakes, deer and rabbits are the familwasps attack the hunter (Thompson 1970: 308– iars and servants of the Earth Lords, therefore 309). In contrast, Tabai is related to the Yucatec obligating hunters to ask special permission evil spirits that inhabit ceiba trees (Thompson before killing them (Gossen 2002: 1058). This 1970: 309). The female versions of these tree myth eloquently and concisely portrays the spirits are temptresses, who lure men to madstruggle between nature and humans and the ness and death (Saville 1921: 171–172; Thompcompromises between enmity and respect that son 1930: 110, 157–160). are required in order for humans to hunt deer In other areas the animal guardians have (Gossen 2002: 1057). different names and associations. For the In Yucatán some of the guardians of aniMopan, the Morning Star is the animal guardmals are specifically associated with deer, othian, to whom hunters burn copal incense ers with wild animals in general. Diego de offerings (Thompson 1930: 142). J. Eric S.

120

Looper_5982.indd 120

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

Thompson (1970: 250) posited that this belief was influenced by the Q’eqchi’, who refer to the Morning Star as Xulab, the patron of wild animals.7 Among the Itzaj, the lord of the deer is an old man who maintains his ranch of wild animals at the base of a hill (Hofling 1991: 136–153; see also Muntsch 1943: 33). For the Tzotzil, the protector of animals is the rain and lightning god called ‘Anhel, who is also associated with sustenance (Guiteras Holmes 1961: 287, 290–291). An important K’iche’ guardian of the animals is Saqi K’oxol, a lightning spirit who is also associated with divination.8 In the Popol Vuh this being guards the animals of the previous creation that had been turned into stone (Christenson 2003: 229). Zaquicoxol is referred to in the Annals of the Cakchiquels as the spirit of the Fuego volcano (Recinos, Goetz, and Chonay 1979: 61). In an eighteenth century account the lord of the deer in the department of Huehuetenango has a related name: Xaqui Coxol (Cortés y Larraz 1958: 120). The Q’eqchi’ deities known as Tzultakaj (Tzuultaq’a) are also mountain-dwelling owners of wild animals who control water and thunder (Cabarrús 1998: 47; Thompson 1970: 273–275). The Ch’orti’ deer guardians are dually sexed, with the males protecting does and the females watching over the bucks (Wisdom 1940: 400). Animal protectors have often been assimilated into various Christian saints in both the lowlands and the highlands.9 In sum, Maya protectors of animals have numerous names and associations, including deer, wasps, the Morning Star, ceiba trees, thunder, lightning, and hills or mountains. Because the animals are believed to be protected by spirits associated with powerful natural forces, the prospective hunter must engage in a process of negotiation and appeasement (Brown 2005; Brown and Emery 2008).10 In

San Miguel Acatán, in highland Guatemala, a twenty-day deer hunting period called Ucteche was preceded by a lengthy cycle of prayer of either forty or sixty days.11 Hunters in the Yucatán let blood from their tongues as a form of penance preceding the hunt (Scholes and Adams 1938: 1:61). In many areas the animal guardians are conceived as watching over herds of corralled animals from inside their hill or mountain abodes.12 Divine gamekeepers control the reproduction of game animals, particularly deer. Therefore, the hunt itself is often preceded by rituals in which the owner is petitioned to release game from his corral. Among the Huaxtec the hunter ritually opens a small corral erected around a deer skull, thereby magically releasing the deer from the mountain corral (Alcorn 1984: 88). Similarly, the Ch’orti’ offer copal incense to the deer guardian, who inhabits a hill, in order to gain permission to hunt and to divine the location of the animals (Wisdom 1940: 72, 400). Hunters in the Lake Atitlán area conduct prehunt rites at a shrine every twenty days, during which the animal guardian is given offerings of roosters, sheep, or beef. If the offerings are accepted, the animal guardian appears to the hunter in a dream as an assurance that the hunt may proceed (Sexton and Bizarro Ujpán 1999: 67–70; see also Redfield 1945: 54). A ceremony called Loojil Ts’oon or Loj Ts’oon (Carbine Ceremony) is performed in Quintana Roo in order to persuade the lords of the animals, especially the evil wind spirit Sip, to give access to game (Santos-Fita et al. 2015). In Yucatán a special altar to the Sipo’ob is set up on the ground, consisting of various plants preferred by deer as well as ceremonial beverages, surrounded by a circle of vines (Gabriel 2006: 95). Following the hunt, the remains of the animal are often curated or honored in specific

121

Looper_5982.indd 121

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

ways. Often these rituals are structured to represent the metaphorical marriage of humans with game animals (see chapter 4). In colonial Malacatán, in Huehuetenango, Archbishop Pedro Cortés y Larraz (1958: 2: 119–120) mentioned that the antlers of a hunted buck were adorned with ribbons, and a handkerchief was placed on the head of a doe. When the animal was brought to the house, the sex of the animal was signaled by a whistle so that a man would come out to receive a buck, and a woman would emerge in the case of a doe. After the carcass was censed, it was placed on a mat with lit candles and prayers were offered. Following the butchering, cooking, and eating of the animal, families guarded the bones of the deer. The Ch’orti’ ceremony for honoring game has a similar structure, though with complementary gender symbolism, in that a man’s hat is placed on the head of a killed doe and a shawl onto a buck (Wisdom 1940: 73). They also offered incense to the carcass and sometimes hung the antlers of the buck from the rafters of the sleeping house. Elsewhere gender is not stressed; yet the remains are treated with care in anticipation of the regeneration of the animals and the propitiation of the guardian. The Tzeltal and Q’eqchi’ burned copal incense before the head of a hunted deer as an offering to the animal guardian (Sapper 1897: 268). Similarly, the Q’anjob’al of San Miguel Acatán put deer bones on their home altar and made offerings before depositing them in a nearby cave (Grollig 1959: 162).13 After killing a deer in the Yucatán, the hunters briefly hung the liver, head, and stomach from a tree as an offering to the hunting deities (Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934: 127). In Quintana Roo the mandibles of hunted deer and peccaries are deposited in the wilderness in places where the masters of

the animals are likely to find them (Santos-Fita et al. 2015). Practitioners explained that this ceremony assuages guilt for killing and results in a feeling of being cleansed (Santos-Fita et al. 2015). One of the most officially regulated methods for curating deer remains is the placement of deerskins and crania in the ceremonial house of the confraternity of San Juan in Santiago Atitlán (Brown and Emery 2008: 319). In this community San Juan is considered to be the protector of animals (Rjawal Pek’chila Chkop; Carlsen 1997: 98). These remains serve as costuming for dances and ceremonies carried out by the confraternity, described later in this chapter.14 Prehispanic formal masonry hunting shrines roughly analogous in function to the confraternity of San Juan are mentioned in the accounts of Francisco Hernández de Córdoba’s exploration of coastal Campeche (Scholes and Roys 1948: 88–89). In the Yucatán, as in many other areas, the final destination for the skeletal remains of animals including deer is a wilderness shrine located outside of the domain of the community and cultivated fields (Redfield 1945: 54–55). Because of the equivalence of bones and seeds in Maya thought, the deposition of bones at hunting shrines facilitates the regeneration of game.15 In some communities the belief that individual bones are regenerated as animals results in the meticulous collection and interment of remains (Brown and Emery 2008: 313). One of the earliest colonial accounts of such a possible shrine comes from Yucatán in 1562, when Franciscan friars in charge of the community of Maní were informed of the presence of “idols” associated with hunting and rainmaking ceremonies inside a cave (Clendinnen 1987: 73; Tozzer 1941: 76). After a hunter’s dogs pulled from the cave the carcass of a deer that had

122

Looper_5982.indd 122

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

been subjected to heart sacrifice, the shrine was found to contain images and altars that had been anointed with the deer’s blood and censed with copal incense (Lizana 1988: 175; López de Cogolludo 2008: 428). Such accounts of propitiatory offerings made in hunting shrines led to an infamous inquisitorial campaign in which many Maya people were imprisoned, tortured, and killed (see also Scholes and Adams 1938: 1:58–63). The survival of hunting shrines to the present is well documented in the Lake Atitlán area of the Guatemalan highlands.16 The correct locations for the shrines are revealed to hunters in dreams (Brown and Emery 2008: 312). They are usually situated a short distance from inhabited areas, often at locales where boulders occur together with alcoves into which the bones are deposited (Brown and Emery 2008: 315). Altars are set up near the alcoves for the placement of candles and gifts of food as well as burned offerings (Brown and Emery 2008: 316). White-tailed deer bones are the most abundant species in these shrines, but brocket deer are also found at very low rates (Brown and Emery 2008: 318). Some shrines were dedicated specifically to deer, and some of these are characterized by the deposition of specialized parts, such as crania and mandibles (Brown 2005: 136). Other shrines located in the K’iche’ area elsewhere in highland Guatemala include the cave at Kumarcaaj and various shrines in the vicinity of Momostenango, such as C’oyabaj “Spider Monkey Stone,” where deer bones are placed and dancers perform rites to strengthen themselves in preparation for the Spider Monkeys Dance, as discussed below.17 The frequent utilization of grottoes or caves as hunting shrines by the Maya attests to the liminal functional aspect of caves in Mesoamerica as sites for communication with

deities (see Stone 1992: 113). Another type of hunting shrine is documented among the Lacandon, in which lower jaw bones of animals including deer were inserted into the inner thatch of the temple.18 The evidence for ancient Maya equivalents of hunting shrines is indirect and equivocal. Because deer crania are generally lacking in ancient Maya site deposits, it seems likely that they might sometimes have been deposited in caves.19 A few caves have been identified as including possible ancient Maya hunting shrines, based on bones found therein (Brown 2005; Brown and Emery 2008). One is Eduardo Quiroz Cave in Belize, which contained partial skeletal elements of select species including white-tails and brocket deer (Pendergast 1971: 78–79, 82). Another is Actun Balam Cave, Belize, which contained the skull and long bones of a white-tailed deer (Pendergast 1969: 57). It is noteworthy that a vase with a painted scene relating to deer mythology was also found in the same chamber of Actun Balam (see chapter 4). Cueva de los Quetzales in Guatemala also contained faunal remains, including white-tailed and brocket deer, often juveniles and emphasizing elements from the left side of the body (Emery 2004a). It is interesting that many musical instruments (whistles, rasps, and possibly turtle-shell drums) were also found in Cueva de los Quetzales (Brady and Rodas 1995: 24). These objects had been cast into a skylight in the cave from a plaza above and may have been used for dances similar to those that sometimes take place before modern hunting shrines (see Brown and Emery 2008: 313, 317). Naj Tunich, Guatemala, is another cave site with possible evidence of hunting ceremony as it contained skeletal remains of animals, mostly white-tails, brockets, and peccary, and a disproportionate number of

123

Looper_5982.indd 123

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

long bones (Brady 1989: 376). Naj Tunich Cave also had a painting depicting a dancer wearing a deer headdress and holding a rattle (fig. 6.2; Stone 1995: 141). Depictions of fauna are also found in other caves, such as Bombil Pec in Alta Verapaz (monkey and feline figures) and Tixkuytún, Yucatán (deer image).20 Nevertheless, analysis of faunal remains from lowland Maya cave sites shows a great deal of variation over time and space, such that there is no clear archaeological “signature” for ancient hunting shrines in caves (Anderson 2009). To summarize, the Maya, like many other Native American groups, believe that wild animals including deer are owned by powerful spirit protectors. Hunters must engage directly with these beings through propitiatory ritual both prior to the hunt and afterward, when the skeletal remains of the animals are honored in various ways. This may include the adornment of the animal carcass, incense offerings made to the remains, and the enshrining of the carcass or its component parts on altars or trees or within ceremonial buildings or caves. Although numerous examples of such shrines are known from the colonial and recent periods, they have been difficult to identify archaeologically in the ancient Maya context.

modern maya hunting dance s Although the placement of the bones of animals in shrines is an important way of honoring the spirit owners of animals, this is only one technique by which the reciprocity between humans and the animal owners is maintained. One of the most important ritual manifestations of this ideology in the Maya area appears in the form of dances with hunting themes, plots, or characters. Many of these dances clearly belong to a related group,

figure 6.2. Deer dancer, Drawing 71, Naj Tunich Cave, Guatemala. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

generally referred to in the literature as “deer dances.” This term of reference is apt, in part because indigenous names for the various dances that compose the group include a word for deer (sometimes using the indigenous terms keej or masat) but also because the performances frequently reenact myths related to deer that express ideologies associated with deer hunting. Twentieth-century surveys documented the existence of these performances in at least forty-four municipalities in highland Guatemala (Rodríguez Rouanet 1992; Vásquez Castañeda 1971). Deer dances are also reported for San Luis Petén, Guatemala, and San Antonio, British Honduras (now Belize) in the early twentieth century (Thompson 1930: 103–104). Like many modern Maya dances, deer dances express meaning through complex layered metaphors. On their deepest level, the

124

Looper_5982.indd 124

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

performances honor spirit beings associated with the hunt, particularly the god frequently called Maam, who is considered to be a deer owner. Maam, whose name literally means “grandfather,” is also an Earth Lord, a potent being presiding over mountains, plains, thunder, lightning, rains, hunting, fishing, and agriculture (Thompson 1930: 57). He is also a bringer of disease and has close associations with snakes, whom he may send to bite human victims (Sapper 1897: 282). The indigenous origin of the hunting dances, however, does not preclude significant Spanish influences. It has been argued that the Spanish-language scripts commonly used in most deer dances now performed by the Maya were originally written by Catholic priests or non-Maya devotees.21 Frequently these dances are dedicated to the Virgin Mary, such as an example published by Ramón Salazar in 1896, variants of which were widely performed in the highlands in the early twentieth century.22 In this dance six Spanish hunters and a woman attempt to capture a deer for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. The hunters offer praise in honor of the Virgin, with a comic interlude in which the woman accuses one of the hunters of seeing other women. The deer and dogs then recite poetry praising the Virgin. Finally, the hunters go to an old man, who sets traps for the deer. After they capture the animal, more praise is offered to the Virgin. Such dances suggest the profound impact of non-Maya culture on this genre of Maya performance. The influence of such dances was not unidirectional, however, as the performance retains many Maya themes, including the deer hunt itself, the character of the old man, which is based at least in part on the Maya deity Maam, and the comic interlude involving

the woman, which may be rooted in Maya notions of the hunt as a metaphor for sexual conquest (see Braakhuis 2001 and chapter 4). Thus, it is difficult to argue that one group of dances is the source of influence and the other is a recipient. This is further suggested by the collaboration of Maya and non-Maya performers in some dances. The assumption that all Spanish-language deer dances were composed by non-Maya people is countered by the possibility that some scripts may have been composed by bilingual Maya. Because of the dynamic, creative, and collaborative nature of dance performance traditions, as well as the wide circulation of dance scripts and traveling performers, there is a clear pattern of mutual influence between Mayan-language and Spanish-language deer dances.

b’ a l a m k e e j in r ab ina l Because they are often publicly performed, deer dances are reported fairly often in the ethnographic literature. Accounts vary significantly, however, in their attention to details of context, performative features, and especially choreography. The most complete documentation of a public deer dance concerns the B’alam Keej (Jaguar Deer) of Rabinal, Baja Verapaz.23 This dance is performed in Rabinal, though the published K’iche’-language text of the dance is from the hamlet of Chuateguá (Janssens and Akkeren 2003). The dance celebrates the Day of the Cross, May 3, and takes place on the patio of the house of the organizer, in front of the Calvary chapel and the church, and on the patio of the confraternity house.24 Music is provided by a slit-drum and flute. Prophylactic rituals are done both before and after the dance, when sugarcane liquor and candles are offered to the dance masks,

125

Looper_5982.indd 125

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

out of respect for the spirits of the ancestors that they embody. All performers are men, who dance to express devotion to the saints and ancestors. But their participation is also as a form of financial sacrifice, owing to the work days consumed by practice sessions. The cast of the B’alam Keej of Rabinal includes ten characters: deer (keej), who is hunted; an old man called Maam, who represents the Earth Lord and owner of the spirits of the game animals and supreme ritualist; his female companion Tiana, who is also a magical adept; a jaguar; and a dog. There is also a party of hunters: Yub’uur or Yawaa’, a personification of disease,25 who is the counterpart of Maam; Valiente (or Caliente) and his monkey companion (K’oyotzin or Ch’ipaal); Tamio (or Estanquero), who carries the snare with which the deer is to be caught;26 and his partner Jochanilla (or Juchan). The performers all wear masks and special costumes appropriate to their roles (Janssens and Akkeren 2003: 93–94). Deer wears a deerskin on his back, and a wooden deer mask with real antlers (decorated with ribbons and bells) is placed atop his head. This dancer blows a whistle as he performs. Maam wears a black or sometimes pink mask, a wide-brimmed hat, a kerchief, and a blanket like that used by the confraternity. He carries arrows, a bow, and a rattle in his hands. The rattle is shaken when he performs magic. Tiana has a pink face mask and female attire consisting of a huipil (tunic) from Cobán decorated with Rabinal-style embroidery. She holds a kerchief, which is her magic instrument. Monkey wears a black face mask and dark costume, while the dog’s mask is white. Jaguar wears a yellow costume and “tiger” mask and makes whistling sounds as he dances. Valiente is armed and wears an animal skin on his back, while Yub’uur wears

a yellow mask and a large hat and holds a walking stick with an animal head finial. In contrast, Tamio and Jochanilla wear formal clothing and hats with a mirror attached to the upturned brim. Jochanilla has an animal skin tied on his back, while Tamio carries a pole with a squirrel with an ear of corn in its mouth attached to the end. The plot of the B’alam Keej involves the men’s preparations for a hunting expedition. This is portrayed through a circle dance of the hunters with Tiana at the center, alternating with declamations offering the dance to various earth spirits, including the Earth Lord. Maam first tests their knowledge of the dance then, mediated by his companion Tiana, gives the hunters their instructions. Their plans, however, are interrupted by the jaguar, who paralyzes the hunters one by one. But the spells are broken by Maam, using his rattle, assisted by Tiana and her handkerchief. Finally, Tamio unties the rope of his snare preparing to set the trap. However, the deer grabs the end of the rope and snares the hunters who pass beneath it. Only Maam avoids capture and scolds the others. The hunters all kneel, point their guns at the jaguar and deer, killing the deer (fig. 6.3). The hunters collect their arms and touch the deerskin. In the conclusion of the performance the troupe forms two opposing lines, with the deer and Tiana dancing at the center.27

spa n is h - l a ng uage de er da nce s The B’alam Keej of Rabinal basically represents Maam, the animal owner, as the ultimate guarantor of the success of the hunt. While this dance is often touted as being the most “authentic” extant Maya deer dance, other performances using Spanish-language

126

Looper_5982.indd 126

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

figure 6.3. B’alam Keej performance, Rabinal, Guatemala, showing episode in which hunters kill the deer. Photograph by Ed Carter.

scripts exhibit considerable similarity to it in plot, characters, costumes, and other features. These are performed across the Guatemalan highlands and formerly in Petén and Belize.28 The three characters that occur most frequently in these deer dances are the deer, old man, and jaguar. The deer number from one to ten, while the jaguar is invariably single. The old man is usually also single, though he is doubled at Comalapa and San Antonio, Belize. The role of the deer is inevitably to be pursued and killed, while the jaguar both pursues the deer and distracts the other hunters from their goal, as in the B’alam Keej of Rabinal.29 In almost all cases the old man appears in his capacity as an expert hunter and trapper who is consulted by other hunters for permission to hunt. A related role for this character, seen in Jacaltenango, is as the owner of the deer spirits. As we have seen, at Rabinal the character of Maam fulfils both of these roles. Most hunting dances also feature an old woman, who is the companion of the old man.

In the B’alam Keej we saw this character elaborately developed as a magician, but a more commonly reported role is preparing and carrying food for her husband.30 Otherwise, she accompanies her husband on the hunt. The diverse cast of hunters seen at Rabinal also appears in most other performances. These characters, numbering from four to fourteen, are variously known as “captains,” zagales/segales/sibales, or “Spaniards.”31 Only in the Chitimazat of Comalapa and the deer dance of San Antonio, Belize, are these characters absent. Aside from the deer and jaguar, other animal dancers appear occasionally and have varied roles. For instance, a character representing a lion appears in about half the known hunting dances. His role and action match those of the jaguar, chasing the deer and diverting the hunters. Though he appears in most performances, the role of the monkey is particularly varied. Represented by one to six dancers, the monkey sometimes plays the role of a hunter but may also distract the hunters or even side

127

Looper_5982.indd 127

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

with the deer against the old man and woman. On other occasions the monkey mainly has the task of entertaining the audience. The dog also appears in most dances, where he is single or doubled. In contrast to the B’alam Keej, his role is usually to assist in the hunt or to protect the old man. The plots of the hunting dances are often closely comparable. For instance, two motifs are nearly essential in all performances: consultation by the hunters with the old man and the hunting, trapping, and killing of the deer. Other motifs have more regional distribution, such as the image of the old woman bringing food. The deer dances documented in Alta and Baja Verapaz also form a coherent group, sharing the distinctive motif of animals resisting the hunting party. These patterns suggest the importance of regional interactions at least on the level of plot development. It seems reasonable to suppose that the texts for these dances were adapted from a few locally circulating prototypes, which in turn resulted in similar plot structures (Mace 1970: 56–58). The costumes used in deer dances in highland and coastal Guatemala generally conform to standard formulae, associated with regional workshops (see Paret-Limardo 1963: 18–35). However, certain elements are distinctive. For example, the performers wear actual animal skins in some performances. These include deer hides as well as pelts of jaguars (ParetLimardo 1963: 38; Schultze Jena 1954: 119). The significance of this is clearly rooted in the basic function of the deer dance as a means of paying homage to the spiritual owner of the animals, through the revivification of animal remains in the dance. In the case of the Chitimazat, a deer dance formerly performed in Comalapa, the dancers were all renowned hunters who wore pelts of the animals that they had personally killed.

The purpose of hunting dances as a way of honoring the spirits of the hunt is also reflected in the widespread incorporation of actual deer antlers into the wooden mask, which is usually worn atop the head. In addition, ribbons or strings strung with bells are often threaded between the antlers. This detail is likely related to rituals by which the carcasses of bucks were honored by decorating their antlers (Cortés y Larraz 1958: 2:119; Paret-Limardo 1963: 16). However, the ribbons may also symbolize the snare in which a deer is caught. For example, in San Cristóbal Cucho, the deer dancers act out their entrapment by tangling their antlers in ribbons that are suspended from a cross set up near the marimba (Paret-Limardo 1963: 144–145). Although many hunting dances are scheduled during the festival in honor of a town’s patron saint, in the vicinity of Rabinal the dances are particularly prominent on the Day of the Cross. Carroll Edward Mace (1970: 58) reported that an Achi’-language deer dance was performed in several hamlets of Rabinal, sometimes on Corpus Christi but more often on May 3.32 A possible explanation for this association has to do with the notion of deer as an agricultural symbol among the Maya. In Rabinal this symbolism is most clearly expressed in the name of one kind of deer dance, which is sometimes called Maíz “Maize” or Ixim Kiej “Maize Deer.” Mace (1970: 62) also noted that the walking stick carried by the old man in the B’alam Keej had a snake-head finial, which both symbolizes and attracts rain. The comparison of maize with deer probably has to do mostly with a metaphorical equation of the annually produced, elongated cob of corn with the annual growth of deer antlers. It is hardly surprising that ideal maize growth would be compared to white-tailed deer antlers, which are one of the most rapidly growing

128

Looper_5982.indd 128

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

animal tissues known to humans. As pointed out by Braakhuis (2001: 404), a sixteenthcentury Yucatec dictionary includes a term for “nascent maize” (xulubye’n), which bears comparison with the term for “antler” (xulub; Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 955–956).33 In fact, early May traditionally marks the beginning of the rainy season, a time when the maize fields are planted and rain rituals take place. On the Day of the Cross rituals are performed at holy sites throughout highland Guatemala to promote adequate rainfall during the growing season. Mace (1970: 59) speculates that the deer dance may have been adapted from Prehispanic rituals in which people danced for rain in rural areas at the beginning of May. An agricultural symbolism for the deer dances may also explain their prominence during Corpus Christi, celebrated in May or June (fig. 6.4; Morales Hidalgo 1988: 134; ParetLimardo 1963: 37–39). This is a time when the maize is in full growth and requires regular

rainfall. In the context of Corpus Christi, the deer dances were likely allowed because this converged with Spanish traditions in which dancers accompany the processions. Thus, Archbishop Cortés y Larraz (1958: 2: 96) noted “nothing reprehensible” in a noisy masquerade—possibly a deer dance—that preceded the Corpus Christi procession in Patzún in the early eighteenth century. Even dances performed during the dry season may relate to rainmaking, as illustrated by a Q’eqchi’ tale. In this story the animals gather one summer to find relief from the heat but are unable to climb the mountain Xukaneb’ in order to do a rain ceremony, owing to the jaguars that lurk there. Their solution is to have the monkeys distract the jaguars long enough so that the deer may make their offerings (Doctolero 2002: 51). A parallel ritual may be the ceremonial deer hunts that take place in Yucatán in conjunction with rainmaking rituals (Ch’a’ Chaak) (Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 179). figure 6.4. Deer dance during Corpus Christi, Patzún, Guatemala. Photograph by Frank Lee Mays.

129

Looper_5982.indd 129

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

spider monkey dances in the local fiesta, which culminates on Novemmomostenango and san andrés xecul ber 30. Participation in this dance is open to all In some K’iche’ communities hunting dances men and boys in the community, who commit develop certain characters and narrative elefor a period of one to three years. The dance is ments, while suppressing the role of the deer dedicated to a spiritual collectivity composed of and the hunters. For example, in MomosteGod, San Andrés, the Earth, and the ancestors nango, a dance called C’oyab (k’oyab’ “spider who initiated the dance. monkeys”) is performed in July in honor of the The main characters in this dance are an local patron saint, Santiago (Cook 2000: 55–62, old man named Ri’j Mam, his wife, Candelaria, 107–118; cf. Lothrop 1929: 2–5). It includes an and their children, Ri’j Mam Pequeño and Canelderly couple that performs a hunting skit, delaria Pequeña. There are also four Spaniards accompanied by two dogs, four deer, and four (sometimes called zagales), two dogs, and a Spaniards (segales). This is followed by a kind deer. Separate from these characters are thirof acrobatic high-wire act by dancers dressed teen animals: four jaguars (tigres), four lions, as monkeys, a lion, and a jaguar on a rope and five monkeys (figs. 6.5, 6.6, 6.7). The fifth stretched from the top of a pole erected in front monkey, called Ch’ipo K’oy “Littlest Monkey,” of the church façade to the ground in front of is the leader, because he is the cleverest. Most it. The arrival of the animals on the plaza floor of the costumes are rented from Chichicasmay signify their descent from the mountains tenango or San Cristóbal Totonicapán, while (Ed Carter, personal communication, 2005).34 those pertaining to the monkeys and other In addition to the standard rites of ancesanimals are locally made. Masks are rented tral invocation and protection that precede or purchased from a local workshop or out of these dances, certain distinctive rituals are town. As a locus for supernatural power, the performed by the animal dancers. Every morn- masks are sometimes afforded special treating before the Dance of the Monkeys is to be ment. For example, the leader in charge of the held, the dance leader conjures the spirits of rites for the deer dance insists on storing his the animals that possess the dancers from K’oy mask out of sight of women to prevent it from Ab’aj “Monkey Stone,” a large boulder located being burned by the evil eye. at the edge of a cliff (Cook 2000: 109, 114–115). Initial meetings of the dancers begin in This stone is believed to be the place where the January, with more intensive training taking dance costumes originated and, as mentioned place every two weeks on Sundays, from Febabove, is a hunting shrine in which deer skulls ruary through August. Ceremonies relating to are cached among the offering hearths.35 the dance, which include prayer and burning An even more elaborate version of this of offerings, are held in the house of the dance dance, preceded by nearly a year of preparatory sponsor starting in May. There are five cerrites, is performed in the K’iche’ community emonies in total, with others performed in July 36 of San Andrés Xecul, near Quetzaltenango. and August as well as on November 1 and 12. This performance is sometimes called the deer During each of these rites, participants renew dance but is also known as the Dance of the their commitment to the dance. The ceremony Spider Monkeys (k’oy). Pending adequate spon- on November 12 blesses the rented costumes, sorship, this dance is presented annually for which are brought to town on this day.

130

Looper_5982.indd 130

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

left, top. figure 6.5. Ri’j Maam from Spider Monkeys Dance, San Andrés Xecul, Guatemala. Photograph by Frank Lee Mays. left, bottom. figure 6.6. Monkey from Spider Monkeys Dance, San Andrés Xecul, Guatemala. Photograph by Frank Lee Mays. right, top. figure 6.7. Deer from Spider Monkeys Dance, San Andrés Xecul, Guatemala. Photograph by Frank Lee Mays.

During the entire month of November the animal dancers live in a rented house, which is off limits to all but the participants and their guardians. This experience constitutes a classic rite of passage, in which the dancers sleep during the day but eat and train during the night. They are not allowed to eat sugar or salt during this period; nor may they bathe or wash their hands or costumes. Each night the animals and their guardians visit shrines in the mountains, performing ceremonies until about 4 a.m. and returning to their house before dawn. The ceremonies rotate around the different mountains in succession. All of this is designed to assist the men in acquiring the magical powers of animal spirits, which they will later manifest during the festival itself.

131

Looper_5982.indd 131

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

On November 10 the animals and their guardians fetch a tall tree trunk from the mountains, setting out at 8 a.m. Ceremonies are performed as the tree is selected and cut and branches are removed. By 5 p.m. they are ready to bring the tree back to town. During the entire process, women are not allowed to look at the tree because if they do, the tree will lean over during the festival. As the tree is hauled into town, the dancers use their whips to keep the women away. By 9 p.m. the tree reaches the town and is gradually pulled upright. On November 12 the monkeys begin to train using the tree. They stretch a cable between the top of the church and the tree and then launch themselves along it using a ring strapped to their hips. This part of the training must also be done from 8 p.m. to midnight, so that it remains out of the sight of women. During the week leading up to the fiesta, the Deer Dance is finally performed on the plaza in front of the church, to the accompaniment of marimba music. The story of the dance involves Candelaria, who prepares a meal of two chickens for her husband, Ri’j Maam, and the animals. However, the main action in front of the church takes place high in the air on the taut cable, where the monkey, lion, and tiger dancers cavort, now fully possessed by the animal spirits. Some perform somersaults, while others dance on the wire, testing their courage. Meanwhile, on the plaza below, the monkeys put other magical skills to work by extracting money from the audience. The ability to find money among the audience is one of the most valued esoteric skills (secretos) that the dancers learn during their training. The money collected is used to defray part of the considerable cost of this dance performance.

de er da nce in sa n t i ag o at i t l á n Another dance, which has a hunting theme but is distinct from other dances in many ways, is performed in the Tz’utujil community of Santiago Atitlán. This is a dance of deer and jaguar impersonators. It has been observed on the feast of San Martín in November; however, it also occasionally occurs on Thursday of Holy Week as well as during the festival of San Juan in June.37 In contrast to the publicly performed deer dances such as the B’alam Keej, the deer/ jaguar dance of Santiago is secretive, performed in conjunction with the opening of a sacred bundle by the nab’eysil (the principal shamanic religious specialist).38 The dance takes place inside the confraternity house of San Juan as well as on its patio. Because this saint is understood to be the patron of wild animals, equivalent to the Earth Lords mentioned above, the ceiling of his shrine is adorned with leaves, fruit, and various animals preserved by taxidermy. This decoration symbolizes the interior of a mountain or volcano, where the spirits of the animals reside (Christenson 2001: 166–168). It is thus a liminal space, equivalent to a cave. The most important object located in this structure is a bundle containing clothing associated with Martín, whom Edward Michael Mendelson (1958, 1965) interpreted as a deity of fertility, partly converged with the Catholic St. Martin of Tours.39 In Santiago Atitlán the deer dance immediately precedes the dance of the nab’eysil in charge of the Martín cult; hence the two dances are relevant to each other. Here is Mendelson’s description of the performance that he witnessed in 1952: The marimba played and the four dancers moved in circles, hopping from foot to foot and swaying from side to side, occasionally

132

Looper_5982.indd 132

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

whirling round in one spot, the “tigers” emitting long whistles and sharp cries and pawing the backs of the “deer” with the squirrels. Four times the group knelt abruptly, one behind the other, and crossed themselves, thus saluting the four cardinal directions at threeto four-minute intervals in the dance. They then went into the courtyard, performed again, returned, kissed table B [on which the costumes had been placed; fig. 6.8] and lit a candle in front of the drum, took off the costumes and danced again, this time saluting eight directions. All the while, one individual said to be the leading “tiger” and “very wise in the dance” swung an incense-burner over and around them. This man, with one assistant, now repeated the dance as the “deer,” and, in the courtyard, a real battle was enacted, the “deer” striking with his horns and the “tiger” assistant with teeth and paws. Eventually the “deer” died, climbed onto the “tiger’s” back and was carried into the cofradía. Costumes were taken off and the leader danced once again alone, more leisurely, with knees flexed and legs passing

alternately in front of each other, arms held outstretched, palms held straight and facing inwards. (Mendelson 1958: 122)

After this dance is completed, the nab’eysil prepares for his performance, first shutting all the doors and windows of the confraternity house. Next he removes a beige shirt with hair-like painted designs from the Martín bundle and puts it on. As candles are distributed and lit by assistants, the nab’eysil kneels to the four directions, invoking Martín and the great nab’eysils of the past. Then, to the cadence of a slit-drum, he begins a slow, deliberate dance, which consists of “small, purposeful steps taken with the knees slightly bent, the arms held downward and away from the body, and the body rhythmically leaning from side to side” (Christenson 2001: 164). After circling the room clockwise three times, the nab’eysil strikes a pose against the central table, spreading his arms wide, crossing his legs at the shins, and head lolling to the side, as if crucified. One by one, the participants approach the nab’eysil, kissing his belly three times, then his hands and feet. figure 6.8. Table holding deer-hide dance costumes, Santiago Atitlán, Guatemala. Photograph by Linda Brown.

133

Looper_5982.indd 133

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

After this the assistants kiss each altar saint, while the nab’eysil takes off the shirt, crosses himself to the four directions, and repeats the entire sequence wearing a second shirt also taken from the Martín bundle. The extraordinary dance sequence that takes place in the confraternity of San Juan in Santiago Atitlán, which apparently differs from the public deer dances such as the B’alam Keej, in fact shares many features with them. We may note, for example, the similarity of the costumes used, especially those worn by the deer dancers, which include the skull and hide of the deer and the antlers decorated with strings. The sequence in which the deer are chased by jaguars is seen both at Santiago and in other deer dances, especially in the central Guatemalan highlands near Santiago. The whistling sound of the jaguar dancers at Santiago is also heard in Rabinal. In addition, the motif in which stuffed squirrels are used to attack the deer dancers also appears in the Chitimazat of Comalapa (Paret-Limardo

1963: 38). It also shows up in the deer dance performed for Corpus Christi at Patzún and the B’alam Keej of Rabinal, where poles with squirrels attached to them are used to beat or capture the deer (fig. 6.9). One difference between the deer/jaguar dance as performed in Santiago and the more public deer dances is the absence of the character of the old man. However, this character may in fact be implied through the performance in the confraternity of San Juan, the saint understood by the Maya to be the owner of the spirits of the wild animals. As noted above, the confraternity house itself is designed to represent the interior of a mountain or volcano, which is the underworld home of the deer guardian. The setting for the deer dance in Santiago is therefore comparable to a ritual cave, in which the bones of hunted animals are deposited in order to rejuvenate game. Yet another close correspondence between the Santiago performance and the public deer dances can be observed. As we have seen, the figure 6.9. Deer dance during Corpus Christi, Patzún, Guatemala. Photograph by Frank Lee Mays.

134

Looper_5982.indd 134

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

deer dance immediately precedes the dance of the nab’eysil wearing the sacred attributes of Martín. Martín is in fact a supremely important deity associated with agricultural fertility and maize. The “crucified” pose of the nab’eysil during his performance can also be interpreted as a representation of a growing maize plant (Christenson 2001: 166). In contemporary local cosmology Christ is widely understood to be a symbol both of the sun and of maize, with the drama of the Crucifixion and Resurrection interpreted as a metaphor for the maize agricultural cycle. Thus, the deer/jaguar dance as performed in Santiago may invoke agricultural fertility in a manner that closely parallels the public deer dances done in other communities, such as Rabinal. Taken together, these performances recall the way in which the Hummingbird Myth and corresponding Classic-period ceramic images discussed in chapter 4 present the deer hunt as a necessary precursor to agricultural fertility.

deer skulls were anointed with blue pigment. The next day the hunters assembled in a house with their wives, purified themselves, and used incense and fires to invoke the hunting deities. Then some of them danced with the deer skulls while others let blood from their tongues and ears. Following this, the participants consumed a copious amount of alcohol. Although different in many respects from the modern dances previously described, this ritual pertains to this group by virtue of its basic purpose of honoring the gods of the hunt. It also involves dancing with the skulls of deer, which parallels the use of deer hides and antlers in modern deer dances, such as those celebrated in Patzún and Santiago Atitlán. The restricted site of this dance differs from most of the modern dances, though it is consistent with the dance performed in the San Juan confraternity in Santiago. An even closer parallel to the contemporary deer dances comes from the opposite end of the Maya world. This appears in a report made by the Franciscan friar Francisco Vásquez colonia l - p eriod hunting dance s describing events witnessed by the friar FranUnlike the modern hunting dances, the inforcisco de Colmenar, who worked in Guatemala mation that survives concerning deer or hunt- in 1545–1580. Once, when visiting the coastal ing dances during the colonial period is very community of Mazatenango, Colmenar found scarce. Nevertheless, a few surviving accounts the town curiously empty; the only sound came of dances seem clearly to refer to performances from distant flutes and raised voices. Following related to the modern dances. The best known the sound, the friar stumbled upon a scene takof these was included in Landa’s description ing place beneath a large tree: of the calendrical festivals of the Yucatec Maya at the time of contact (Tozzer 1941: 155). The [A]t the base of this tree was an altar formed dance that Landa described took place on the like one of ours, but made of reeds and seventh day of the month Zip, which correbranches, and with a backing like a seat sponds to the name of an important Prehisof honor, and all interwoven with flower panic god of hunting, Huk Siip “Seven Siip,” petals. On the altar—like a box made of discussed below. The rites began in the previcane and covered with flowers—was a deer ous month, Uo, when priests made predictions which had that day been caught, and which for the year. Sacred bundles were opened, and was being adored and made a cult-object,

135

Looper_5982.indd 135

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

with the entire town offering it perfumes and candles, the Indian women seated on the ground with the boys and girls, and the Indian men dancing in a circle to the tune of the sad flutes. (Vásquez 1938–1944: 1:94–95)40

Though brief, this account is strikingly similar to contemporary public deer dances in its outdoor venue and overt purpose of honoring the remains of hunted animals. Also interesting is its reference to a circular figure danced by men, which is seen in the choreography of the B’alam Keej of contemporary Rabinal and the deer dance of Santiago Atitlán. The placement of the deer carcass on an altar is highly evocative of contemporary rites in which the animal costumes of the dancers are placed on an altar to be blessed. The flute music mentioned by Vásquez is also heard in several contemporary performances. Unfortunately, this description does not elaborate further on the costumes or roles of the dancers, which might suggest even more direct parallels with modern deer dances. A third and slightly later colonial account of a Poqomam hunting dance is given by the traveler Thomas Gage. The instruments used in the dance are said to be a small slit-drum and tortoise shells or “pots covered with leather” and flutes.

and axes, wherewith they threaten to kill the beast they hunt after. (Gage 2005: 269)

This account is particularly interesting for its reference to lions, tigers, and wolves as well as its explicit hunting connection, which parallels the modern deer dance cycle. The key characters of Maam and the deer are unmentioned, however, which makes it difficult to relate to any particular modern variant of the deer dance complex. It is possible that the kind of performance that Gage describes pertains to the cycle of captive sacrificial dances, in which hunting symbolism is prominent (see chapter 5).

a nc i e n t m aya h un t ing de i t i e s

Given the prominence of deer dances in recent times, it is perhaps surprising that ancient Maya art contains few images that can be clearly identified as depictions of deer dances, with known contexts and meanings. One image already mentioned is of a dancer holding a rattle and wearing a deer headdress from Naj Tunich Cave (fig. 6.2). As argued above, this image may relate to one of the possible functions of this cave as a hunting shrine. Another deer dance is depicted on El Kinel Monument 1, this time performed by a king of Yaxchilán for a calendrical rite (fig. 5.9). Other images showing individuals wearing deer headdresses [I]n this dance they use much holloaing and might also represent hunting-related dances, but we cannot be sure without clear icononoise and calling one unto another, and graphic or textual evidence (e.g. fig. 1.9). speaking by way of stage play, some relatNevertheless, there is much evidence for ing one thing, some another concerning the existence of deities associated with the the beast they hunt after. These dancers are hunt in the Classic period. One of these is all clothed like beasts, with painted skins of lions, tigers, wolves, and on their heads such God CH, who is sometimes shown receiving homage from game animals and whose youthheadpieces as may represent the head of ful face and body are marked with jaguar pelt such beasts, and others wear painted heads (fig. 6.10). These characteristics suggest that of eagles or fowls of rapine, and in their hands they have painted staves, bills, swords, he may have served as the “king of the forest”

136

Looper_5982.indd 136

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

deer (K3413), and is also shown mounting deer or peccaries (figs. 7.9–7.12).42 Another aged sky-bearing mountain deity, God N, also someor owner of game animals in Maya mythology times assumes a role similar to the deer owner (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2017: 177–183; Taube or Earth Lord, as on K3049, in which a white2003a: 472–474). God CH is sometimes paired tailed deer presents him with bowls of maize with the death-spotted youthful solar deity, tamales (fig. 6.11; see Hellmuth 1978: 182). In God S.41 Together, these two deities are somereturn, God N offers the deer an antler. This times referred to as the Headband Gods, after is evocative of the theme of game regenerathe paper or cloth headbands that they often tion, in which humans “plant” the bones of wear, and have been compared with the Hero animals in caves in exchange for food. Here Twins of the Popol Vuh, Hunahpu and Xbalanimals do the reverse, exchanging food with anque (Coe 1989a). In contrast to God CH’s an Earth Lord in return for their bones. Given association with game animals, God S is frehis associations with mountains and thunder quently shown in Maya art as a hunter, either and hunting lore, God N bears comparison to of animals or of mythical monsters (Chinchilla Tzotzil, Q’eqchi’, and K’iche’ animal owners, Mazariegos 2017: 174–175). In the San Bartolo discussed above. This vase image exemplifies mural (fig. 2.7) multiple incarnations of God yet again the reciprocal relationship between S are depicted carrying hunted game as well deer and maize in Maya (and Mesoamerican) as fish. As pointed out by Karl Taube (2003a: art and myth. 472), the two characters may express the dyadic Another important hunting deity was first contrast between the human community (God identified in the Postclassic codices but also S) and the wilderness (God CH), though they existed during the Classic period. In the codimight also represent the contrast between the ces his name is Huk Siip “Seven Siip,” Zip day (the solar God S) and night (God CH, who being the name of the third month.43 Based presides over the largely nocturnal animals). on Landa’s description of early colonial-period Another deity closely connected to game hunting ceremonies, it is likely that the god animals is the aged God D. He sometimes bears the name of the day on which these rites receives offerings from animals, including took place. Huk Siip is named twice on page figure 6.10. Painted vase showing God CH receiving tribute from animals. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K5001.

137

Looper_5982.indd 137

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

figure 6.11. Deer exchanging maize for an antler, partial view of painted vase K3049. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

50 of the Dresden Codex, with reference to a Venus god (Grube 2012: 140). This association resembles the Mopan and Q’eqchi’ veneration of the Morning Star as a patron of animals, as mentioned above. Huk Siip is depicted on page 13c of the Dresden Codex in profile, seated crossed-legged, wearing a loincloth and an eyeball-collar associated with death (fig. 6.12; Taube 2003a: 473–475). His black body and face striping recall the camouflage worn by hunters in Classic-period art. He also has aged or grotesque features with a projecting lower lip, evoking that of feeding white-tailed deer. His head is crowned with a branched deer antler and curly hair rendered in a form similar to the glyphic icon for “musk” that adorns many deer. He grasps the foreleg of a doe that kneels in a human manner facing him. The doe raises her other hoof to her forehead in a gesture of woe. The text above names the doe as Chan

figure 6.12. Huk Siip and deer, Dresden Codex p. 13c. After Förstemann (1880).

Chihj Winkil(?) “Four Deer Person(?),” the wife of Huk Siip, a bad omen (see Colas 2006: 83). The same name seems to appear in the caption adjacent to the buck upon which the wife of the ill or dying hunting deity Huk Xib is about to be carried (K8927; see chapter 4, fig. 4.3b). Chan Chihj Winkil(?) is possibly a designation for various kinds of supernatural deer that take part in the mythology of the hunting deity. The Classic-period version of this deity shares many characteristics with his codical counterpart, including aged features, black facial and body markings, a protruding lower lip, and a deer antler and deer ear positioned over his human ear (Taube 2003a: 473–475). He also has a spiral eye associated with underworld gods and frequently wears the attributes of a hunter, including a broad-brimmed hat, a striated fibrous skirt, and a conch trumpet (see fig. 7.14). These qualities suggest his

138

Looper_5982.indd 138

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

identification as the Classic-period deity whose main role is similar to the animal guardians of postcontact Maya folklore and myth. One example of a portrait of Siip from the Classic period is a tiny painting in Room 3 at Bonampak (fig. 6.13; Taube 1997). This image depicts the deity’s head, including grotesque aged features, deer ear and antler, and hunter’s hat, placed atop what looks like a bundled object. The context of this image is difficult to determine, owing to damage, but it may be part of a larger scene of deity bundles assembled on a stairway to bear witness to a rite of human sacrifice and dance dedicated to solar deities (Miller and Brittenham 2013: 131–132). The presence of Huk Siip in this company is justified given the symbolic equivalence of hunting and warfare (see chapter 5).44

figure 6.13. Siip, from Microimage III-C4a, Room 3, Bonampak, Mexico. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

siip in cl assic-period inscriptions In the Classic period the deity Siip is invoked in three distinct textual environments. One is in the poorly understood sequence that reads te’ kuy siip (Grube 2012). This is used as a title for rulers at Yaxchilán and its environs.45 Another important context is in the partially deciphered name of a deity mentioned in multiple ceramic texts. The deity’s name begins with Huk Siip, followed by Yax “First/ Blue/Green,” then possibly Xook. Mythological accounts of Huk Siip Yax Xook refer to three distinct episodes. First is the birth of this deity, together with a manifestation of the rain god Chahk, recorded on numerous vessels.46 As shown on K1813, the twin newborn gods are bundled and enthroned, with an incense burner placed before them (fig. 6.14). On K1645 the offerings are more elaborate, consisting of a book, tortoiseshell, two captives, and an infant sacrifice. In these images the deity nearest the burner has the face of Chahk, while the other bundled god has the glyphic name Huk Siip in his headdress. The face of this deity has features similar to those of the Sun God K’inich Ajaw, with a Roman nose and crossed eyes; however, coming out of his mouth is a leafy element. In front of the throne is an image of the god K’awiil with his leg transformed into a great serpent, out of the mouth of which emerges God N wearing a padded bib. He reaches toward the breasts of a woman, an image related to a broader comic theme of aged or grotesque males fondling young females in Maya art (see fig. 4.1; Taube 1989b: 371–372, 375). The context of this image in the ceramic paintings suggests that this scene may represent the impregnation of the female by the old god, which results in the birth of the twin gods, who are deities

139

Looper_5982.indd 139

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

of rainstorms (Chahk) and forests (Huk Siip). On the vessels that depict only the “snake lady” theme, the textual reference to the birth of the gods calls attention to the results of the hierogamy. On two vessels (K2715 and K4114), instead of the birth of the gods, the texts refer to the “throwing of” or the “image of” K’awiil Huk Siip Yax Xook. In these scenes, a lord holds a long tube threaded with the K’awiil-serpent out of which God N emerges. On K2715 the god is approached by the Moon Goddess holding a bloodletter, suggesting that these scenes are a variant on the “snake lady” theme, depicting the copulation of deities that results in the birth of twin gods (fig. 6.15). Another important set of vessels also refers to the “throwing” (yal), or occasionally the “conjuring” (tzak) of K’awiil Huk Siip Yax Xook.47 As shown on a famous vase in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (K521), the event is paired with a scene of the dancing or leaping rain deity Yax Ha’al Chahk “First Rain Chahk” on the left, the reclining Baby Jaguar on a mountain-altar, and

140

Looper_5982.indd 140

a death god with his arms outstretched toward the Baby Jaguar (fig. 6.16). From comparison with other images, it is clear that it is the death god who “throws” the Baby Jaguar, who therefore must be a transformation of Huk Siip Yax Xook (see Grube 2012: 140). In some examples (K2213, K4013) the K’awiil serpent with emerging God N is also present, thereby tying the scenes thematically to the “birth” images such as K1813. Because of inconsistent chronologies among these vessels, it is not clear how the two scenes relate to each other as a narrative. Logically, though, it seems reasonable to assume that the “throwing” of Huk Siip in the form of the Baby Jaguar would follow his birth. Although it could be interpreted as representing the death of this deity, his throwing into the mountain could indicate a moment when this deity was installed (trapped?) inside the mountain, where he would remain as a patron of wild animals. Alternatively, these scenes could depict the transformation of Siip into various jaguar forms at a particular time of the year (Grube 2012: 140–141).

figure 6.14. Painted vase showing bundled gods and “snake lady.” Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1813.

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

top. figure 6.15. Painted vase showing mythic scene. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K2715. bottom. figure 6.16. Painted vase showing mythic scene. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1978.412.206. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K521.

Another significant context for references to Siip in the Classic period is in the 819-day count, a calendrical cycle based on the product of the numbers 7, 9, and 13.48 Occasionally appearing as a parenthetical clause within Initial Series texts, the 819-day cycle counts backward from the initial date to a date beginning

with a coefficient of one. The dates in the clause fall within a cycle of 819 days (Thompson 1943). The typical formula for the 819-day count clause is [verb] yook [direction] [color] siip [Glyph Y] k’awiil winkil(?) juun ch’ok “was erected [his foot] in the [east/north/west/south], the [red/ white/black/yellow] Siip ? K’awiil person(?), one sprout/youth” (fig. 6.17). These expressions refer to K’awiil deities coming to rest at directional stations, analogous to the erection of directional stone trees associated with New Year events in the Dresden Codex.49 The noteworthy element here is that these deities are named as directionally colored Siipob.

141

Looper_5982.indd 141

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

While we have no known direct representations of these beings from the Classic period, two important inscriptions refer to rulers impersonating Siip deities. One is Dos Pilas Hieroglyphic Stairway 4 Step 5, which mentions the impersonation of Ihk’ Siip Chahk “Black Siip Chahk” followed by Glyph Y, in a similar manner to the 819-day count (fig. 6.18). Although it is not stated, the Black Siip would be associated with the west. In fact, the 819day count station before the date on which this event took place was 9.12.4.13.7 1 Manik’ 10 Pohp, which corresponds to the Black Siip of the west. This inscription provides evidence

seventeen and twenty days

that rulers could personify 819-day count deities. Moreover, the inscription of the stairway explains that the impersonation of this god was conducted on the same day as the defeat of rival Tikal (see Houston 1993: 108). That detail establishes the martial theme for the impersonation of a Siip by a ruler. This is further evidence of the Maya association of the hunt and its gods with warfare (see chapter 5). Another important reference to a Siip impersonation by a king is on Stela B at Copán (Taube 2003a: 474). The inscription of this monument, dedicated for the 9.15.0.0.0 period ending, actually mentions two royal

and one year since

the First of Ch’en

One Ben

in the east

was erected

red Siip

?

K’awiil person?

one sprout/ youth

it is his image impersonating

black Siip Chahk

figure 6.17. 819-day count expression. Lintel 30, Yaxchilán, Mexico. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

[titles of ruler]

figure 6.18. Impersonation of 819-day count deity by Dos Pilas ruler. Hieroglyphic Stairway 4 Step 5, Dos Pilas, Guatemala. Drawing by Stephen D. Houston.

142

Looper_5982.indd 142

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

impersonations: the first is of mo’ witz ajaw “Macaw Mountain/Hill Lord” (fig. 6.19). This refers to the overall image of the stela, which depicts the king Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil standing within the maw of a personified mountain or hill topped by two huge macaw heads (fig. 6.20; Stuart and Houston 1994:

it is his image impersonating Mo’ Witz

Ajaw

completed

fifteen k’atuns

it is his image impersonating

K’ahk’ Siip

? K’awiil

[title]

he scatters incense Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil

[title]

figure 6.19. Impersonation of Mo’ Witz Ajaw and K’ahk’ Siip ? K’awiil by Copán ruler. Stela B, Copán, Honduras. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

23–26). The reverse (west) side of the monument again depicts the mountain face, which bears the “Macaw Mountain” sign in one of its eyes. The second impersonation phrase on this monument identifies the represented deity as K’ahk’ Siip ? K’awiil. The name of this deity is interesting, as it includes the unusual k’ahk’ “fire” element preceding the “Siip.” However, like the 819-day count deities, “Siip” is followed by Glyph Y and “K’awiil.” Unlike the Dos Pilas example, the Copán text lacks the color designation and therefore any tie to a specific directional K’awiil. However, the inclusion of Glyph Y and K’awiil in the deity name does seem to invoke the 819-day count deities in general. The imagery of Copán Stela B is worth considering in light of its textual reference to deity impersonations. Overall, the figure’s garb is standard for portraits of Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil; the exceptional element is the so-called shell diadem and beard that frame his face. These attributes of the rain deity Chahk are appropriate to the king’s guise as lord of the mountain (Newsome 2001: 136; Schele and Mathews 1998: 161–163). In other images the god Chahk is shown seated within or otherwise associated with caves and mountains (e.g., K530, K1250). Thus, the portrait of the ruler on Stela B seems to depict the first impersonation, the ruler as the Macaw Mountain lord, rather than as a deity of the hunt.

t h e m ad r id c ode x h un t ing a l m a nac s In Classic period images Siip is polymorphic, sometimes appearing as an aged grotesque man with a deer antler and ear but also manifesting as a bundled deity with solar features or as the Baby Jaguar. Looking now to the Postclassic codices, we note a similar approach to

143

Looper_5982.indd 143

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

figure 6.20. Front of Stela B, Copán, Honduras. Photograph by author.

the representation of Siip. This is conveyed in the various almanacs that concern hunting (Förstemann 1902: 82–103; Tozzer and Allen 1910: 293). The Madrid Codex is a lengthy screen-fold manuscript that was used by daykeepers (ah k’in) primarily for the purpose of divination. Accordingly, it is structured as a number of almanacs, which typically give the auguries for rituals and activities conducted on specific days. Many of the almanacs are composed of a series of frames that include texts (some with images), coefficients, and distance numbers. These are coupled with a column of tzolk’in days and coefficients on the left. To calculate the dates associated with the frames, the reader must add the distance numbers to the days moving from frame to frame. The texts and images contained in the frames reveal the prognostications for various activities scheduled for these days. Many almanacs continue across multiple pages. Because Siip and the hunting-related almanacs of the Madrid Codex have been discussed at length by others, the following discussion is a brief summary of this content and what it specifically reveals about the nature of Maya hunting deities and about hunting ideology in general. Pages 38a–39a (fig. 6.21): Much of the information regarding Siip in the Madrid Codex is embedded in almanacs relating to hunting rituals (Tozzer and Allen 1910: 348). These appear on many pages of the codex, starting on pages 38a–39a. Here we see an image of a hunter grasping spears, followed by a hunter holding a deer (Förstemann 1902: 83; Vail 2013: 105). The almanac continues on page 39 with an image of a hunter holding an unidentified object, a hunter holding a spear and carrying a deer carcass on his back, and a hunter with spears and (once again) an unidentified object.

144

Looper_5982.indd 144

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

top. figure 6.21. Madrid Codex, pp. 38a–39a. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870). middle. figure 6.22. Madrid Codex, p. 39b. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870). bottom. figure 6.23. Madrid Codex, p. 39c. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870).

Page 39b (fig. 6.22): The middle register of page 39 shows, on top, a deer with a scorpion tail. The tail terminates in a human hand that holds a spear plunged into the body of a deer below. This scene is closely related to those appearing on pages 44–49 and may have astronomical and seasonal significance (Vail 2013: 107; Vail and Hernandez 2013: 308–309). Alternatively, because the agents of the animal owners in Mesoamerica are often scorpions (Olivier 2015: 254), it is possible that these images may also encode the punishments for ritual transgressions, such as failure to obey hunting protocols including fasting and sexual abstinence. Page 39c (fig. 6.23): On p. 39c we encounter a detailed image of Siip or his impersonator wearing a full-body costume with only his face protruding from the mouth. Three of the limbs terminate in hooves, but one transforms into a hand that he uses to cast incense. The identity of the animal represented by the hide is uncertain, as it has the nose of a deer or other animal but the small ears and pelt of a peccary.50 In fact, it may relate to the shape-shifting qualities attributed to this god, as discussed below. The god’s action in this scene corresponds closely to hunting rites in early colonial Yucatán, as well as among numerous historic Maya groups, as discussed above (Colas 2006: 83–84).

145

Looper_5982.indd 145

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

Pages 40a–41a (fig. 6.24): The almanac on these pages shows a hunter holding a deer, accompanied by a caption that refers to the spearing or arrival of the deer as an offering.51 The second depicts a vulture devouring the entrails of a deer. Perhaps this image relates to Maya hunting strategies in which they looked for vultures to track deer that had been wounded and lost (see Tozzer 1941: 202). The third frame shows a hunter grasping a captive by his hair as he holds him down with his foot. The caption for this image refers to the hunter (aj chihj) as a warrior (tok’ bah te’). The comparison between the hunt and warfare has already been mentioned and is a major theme in the Classic period (see chapter 5). The almanac continues on page 41a with a depiction of the hunter carrying a spear in his hand and a deer carcass on his back. The inscription refers to the capture of the offering.52 The next two frames show a deer ripped in two and a speared jaguar, while the final frame depicts a hunter grasping a deer. Pages 40b–41b (fig. 6.25): The almanac on these pages begins with a frame showing a rattlesnake biting the foot of a hunter who prepares to club it (Förstemann 1902: 88; Vail 2013: 109). Again, it is likely that this represents the divine retribution for a nonpenitent hunter. The second frame illustrates

the capture of a game offering with the image of a hunter binding a deer carcass. Next is a hunter with possible deity facial features, holding a spear-thrower (Vail 2013: 109). On the next page the almanac continues with an important frame showing a hunter carrying his spear and the deer carcass on his back. The caption reads matan huk siip chuhkaj aj chihj “[This is] the offering [ for] Huk Siip that the hunter captures” (Grube 2012: 140). This frame clearly explains the context for this and probably many other depicted ceremonies as being in honor of Huk Siip. The next frame shows a hunter grasping spears and an unknown object. Next is a probable altar upon which three deer heads are placed. The legend of this image refers to the hunter and the capture of offerings. It seems likely that this depicts a ceremony in which the heads of deer were venerated and given offerings, similar to rites among the modern Tzeltal and Q’eqchi’. It is possible that the next frame, which depicts a partially skeletal splayed deer supported by two animal skulls, may also be a hunting altar, as its text seems to be parallel to the previous legend. As discussed above, various contemporary Maya deposit the bones and other remains of hunted deer in household or confraternity shrines as a way of honoring the spirit owners of the animals.

figure 6.24. Madrid Codex, pp. 40a–41a. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870). 146

Looper_5982.indd 146

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

top. figure 6.25. Madrid Codex, pp. 40b–41b. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870).

partaking in hunting ceremonies in which a deer carcass is placed on a celestial altar or “in the sky,” as the legend states. The image recalls bottom. figure 6.26. Madrid Codex, pp. 40c–41c. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870). Landa’s description of hunting rites in which both hunters and their wives participated. The Pages 40c–41c (fig. 6.26): The first frame of last frame on page 40 shows a hunter holdthe almanac on page 40c depicts a jaguar ing an unidentified object, while the caption apparently threatening a deer in the adjacent refers to a jaguar offering. On the next page frame. The second frame shows the deer atop the almanac continues with an image of the a sky-band in front of which various sacrifihunter holding “deer bread/tamale” (Colas cial bowls have been placed. At the bottom of 2006: 86; Vail 2013: 111). Similar breads are the frame a woman pierces her tongue to let used as offerings by the colonial and contemblood (Förstemann 1902: 89; Thomas 1882: porary Maya.53 The next scenes also refer to 101). Landa mentions this rite as taking place offerings but of deer. In the first image the as part of hunting ceremonies in the early colo- hunter grasps the legs of a deer but has his nial period (see above; Colas 2006: 86). This hand to his forehead in a gesture of distress. woman probably represents a hunter’s wife The second frame shows the hunter tying a

147

Looper_5982.indd 147

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

deer carcass, while the third frame shows the hunter again with his hand to his head, crying. The lack of a deer in this scene suggests that he has not been able to produce a deer offering. Again, the implication is that this is probably owed to ritual transgressions. Page 42 (fig. 6.27): This page consists of three almanacs that also relate to hunting rites. In the first frame of 42a, a hunter holding a spear faces a platform upon which a deer reclines. The abdomen of the deer has been pierced by a blade tied with knotted cloth and

is bleeding (von Nagy 1997: 56–57; Vail 2013: 113). This image bears comparison with the mythic scene of deer sacrifice in the San Bartolo west mural and likely represents the ritual heart sacrifice of a deer (Colas 2006: 82). In the early colonial period springtime ceremonies were inaugurated with a hunt, followed by the sacrifice of the animals and the burning of their hearts (Tozzer 1941: 162–163). It is likely that the codical image depicts a similar rite, rooted in mythic narratives such as that shown at San Bartolo. The next frame shows

figure 6.27. Madrid Codex, p. 42. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870).

figure 6.28. Madrid Codex, p. 43. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870).

148

Looper_5982.indd 148

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

once again a vulture feeding on the entrails of a dead deer (Thomas 1882: 100). Almanac 42b consists of numerals distributed around the splayed body of a deer with its genitals exposed, while on 42c another almanac features snared deer (Vail 2013: 113). Page 43 (fig. 6.28): This page has three registers that may also relate to hunting. The upper almanac features two figures with the heads of predatory animals holding spears and shields. These might be priests (Colas 2006: 86). The other two registers consist mostly of text but do include small images of a jaguar on the right of 43b and a deer on the left of register 43c. The highly repetitive texts associated with these almanacs may contain references to sabak “ink, charcoal, black pigment” (Colas 2006: 86–89). This might refer to ritual pigments used in hunting rites (to blacken the body?) or to soot-covered incense burners. Pages 44–49 (fig. 6.29): Six pages of the Madrid Codex feature almanacs that show trapped deer, together with day names, coefficients, and distance numbers (von Nagy 1997; Taack 1973; Vail 1997). In most of the scenes the deer’s foreleg is caught in a noose that is attached to a bent sapling. These represent snare-type traps that have been successfully sprung. The lack of antlers in the depicted deer on these pages and elsewhere in

the manuscript has been interpreted as a reference to the season in which snare-trapping occurred, from February to May, when bucks may have shed their antlers (Vail 1997). In a few cases the sapling is replaced by a large scorpion whose tail transforms into a human hand holding the noose. These have sometimes been interpreted as astronomical images (Vail 1997) but might also refer to punishments for violating hunting protocols (see above).54 In one of the deer trapping scenes Siip is depicted at the base of the tree from which the noose is suspended (p. 45c; Colas 2006: 83). With one hand he reaches upward to grasp the tree, as if emphasizing the supernatural power that lures the deer and causes the sapling to snap upright when the deer springs the trap.55 Pages 50c, 51c (figs. 6.1, 6.30): The Madrid Codex also contains several representations of Siip as a hunter with a spear and hooked implement (Vail 2013: 130, 133). In these scenes, which have no accompanying caption with augury, the deity wears a deer headdress and a netted tunic-like garment. A Postclassic ceramic representation of the same god was excavated from a cache at Cerro Maya, Belize (fig. 6.31; Milbrath and Walker 2016: 209–211). This effigy incense-burner shows the deity with one hand raised, wearing a tunic and a

figure 6.29. Madrid Codex, pp. 44–49. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870). 149

Looper_5982.indd 149

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

headdress topped by a deer head. A related deity is also shown in the Postclassic mural at nearby Santa Rita Corozal, seated on a scaffold (Walker 1990: 388–397). Yet another image of this deity appears in the Paris Codex page 10, where he is associated with a glyphic caption referring to Siip (Grube 2012: 139). In the Santa Rita Mural and Paris Codex, the Siip deities are associated with endings of 360 days (tuns), suggesting that the Cerro Maya censer may have been used in comparable calendrical rites (Milbrath and Walker 2016: 210–211). Pages 91a, 93a (fig. 6.32): Siip is mentioned two more times in the Madrid Codex, in revealing contexts. These are in two separate almanacs on pages 91a and 93a. The first shows an armadillo with a cervid head underneath a deadfall trap, but the caption refers to the animal as Huk Siip. On page 93a the snared animal mainly has the form of a peccary but with a peculiar serrated crest along its spine, like an iguana. The legend in this case merely

identifies the creatures as Siip, without the coefficient. It is likely that these animals are shown in composite form because they are shape-shifting manifestations of Siip (Grube 2012: 140). According to the modern Yucatec, game animals sometimes transform from one into another in order to elude hunters. “It is generally believed that during the month of September, all animals of certain kinds change their forms into those of other animals. In September the deer are in heat and act boldly and strangely, sometimes entering the villages. It is believed that in this season the deer turn into snakes, and the snakes into deer” (Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934: 208; see also Anderson and Medina Tzuc 2005: 138). The truth of these transformations can sometimes be revealed: for example, putting honey on a false agouti causes it to return to its original form as a small snake. Likewise, peccaries and rattlesnakes, mice and bats, armadillos and vultures, tortoises and parrots will transform into each other in September.

left. figure 6.30. Madrid Codex, p. 51c. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870). right. figure 6.31. Ceramic effigy incense burner depicting Siip, from Cerro Maya, Belize. Drawing by Kathy Roemer, after Walker (1990: 448, fig. 5.11c).

150

Looper_5982.indd 150

1/27/19 3:02 PM

h art ’s d e v o ti o n

esoteric context of royal deity impersonation, sometimes linked to calendrical cycles. Nevertheless, in addition to sharing common physiconclusions: the p ersiste nce of cal attributes such as facial features, deer anthunting g ods ler and ear, black body markings, and hunting In summary, alongside their strong agriculgear, the codices and Classic-period inscriptural tradition, the Maya have maintained an tions agree on the relationship of Siip and elaborate complex of belief and ritual surhunting to warfare. rounding the acquisition of game and the Another fundamental dimension of the regeneration of animal bones, despite the veneration of Siip and other hunting gods that introduction of various domesticates of forpersisted from ancient times to the present is eign origin, such as sheep and goats (see the use of animal remains, especially crania, Dehouve 2008: 4). The abundant data on hunt- as sacra. In traditional Maya ritual practice, the ing lore from the Madrid Codex reveal numer- deer owner is compensated for the death of the ous points of continuity with modern beliefs, animal by prayers, incense, and adornments including the polymorphous nature of the that are offered in front of the animal’s body. hunting god Siip and the importance of makFrequently these devotions take place in caves ing offerings to the gods of the hunt in the or grottoes and involve the deposit of skeletal specific forms of breads, incense, blood drawn remains of hunted game, especially the crania from the tongue, and animal hearts, blood, of large animals. The Maya may consider these heads, and bodies. The manuscript also illusbones to be the seeds through which animals trates the participation of women in hunting are regenerated, and the caves are a prime topceremonies, consistent with early colonial and ographical expression of liminality. These rites modern accounts. The manuscript includes may be closely compared to hunting lore and unique content as well, such as evidence that rites documented throughout the Native Amerthe sapling used in a tree-spring snare-type icas and are probably part of a very ancient trap was deified as a form of Siip. The Madrid preagricultural ritual complex that served both Codex data on hunting gods and rites are parto protect hunters from the dangers of the ticularly important, as they largely complement hunt and to enhance the abundance of game. the data that we have on Siip from the Classic This chapter has suggested that these rites also period. In Classic times Siip is invoked in the existed in Prehispanic times, documented in figure 6.32. Madrid Codex, pp. 91a, 93a. After Brasseur de Bourbourg (1869–1870).

151

Looper_5982.indd 151

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

the images from the Madrid Codex hunting almanacs, and possibly also through art and remains found at cave sites dating to earlier periods. It is even possible that the carving of animal bones with glyphic captions and imagery in the Prehispanic period may have been conceived as a way of honoring gods like Siip. In sum, the widespread Maya rituals and

myths concerning hunting are not only useful for interpreting ancient Maya images and texts but constitute evidence of the continued importance of hunting as a complement to agriculture. The following chapter explores yet another facet of this relationship through a discussion of deer as a metaphor for aspects of the sun.

152

Looper_5982.indd 152

1/27/19 3:02 PM

chapter seven

A Sinking Hart The Solar Symbolism of Deer

ne of the most famous and frequently published Maya ceramic vases depicts a complex scene in which several deer and deerlike beings are prominent (fig. 7.1).1 Sometimes known as the Cámara vase (after its former collector) or Calcehtok vase (after the location where it is supposed to have been found), the vessel is now in the collection of Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC. Its complex imagery is organized into two discrete scenes. In the first, a white-tailed deerlike creature is confronted by two spearwielding hunters with black circles on their limbs, one blowing a conch trumpet. The other hunter grasps a branched white-tailed deer antler, holding it above the head of the

Looper_5982.indd 153

animal. The deer has a tiny human ear located below the deer ear threaded with a strip of what might be paper. Its back is draped with a fringed black mantle marked with three crossed-bone motifs, and it also wears a fabric ornament around its neck. More fabric seems to be rolled up behind or beneath the deer. Completing this scene is a white, long-beaked bird, possibly a vulture, which dives toward the deer. The bird wears a white cloth or paper headband. On the opposite side of the vessel is a personified tree wrapped by a snake. Around the tree several characters gather, including a deer, a deer or peccary effigy perhaps made of bundled grass or fiber, and two spotted humans wearing white capes, seated on the upper branches. The humans have one wrist to their

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

track deer that they had wounded and then lost (see Tozzer 1941: 202). Moreover, the vultures’ behavior of sunning their backs at the top of trees in the morning could have inspired the foreheads in the “woe-is-me” gesture associated motif in which the Sun is carried by a vulture. with imminent death in Maya iconography. While Thompson’s reasoning for relating the Completing the scene is yet another spotted Calcehtok vessel to the myth of the Sun, Moon, hunter playing a conch trumpet, who faces the and Vulture is somewhat vague, the association tree. between deer and the sun is one that merits During the many years that the Calcehtok further consideration (see Benson 2001: 321).3 vessel has been known, researchers have proAbout a half-century later a very different posed numerous interpretations of its syminterpretation of the vase imagery emerged, bolism. Some decades ago, Thompson (1970: which has been particularly influential among 368) related the vessel’s imagery to a Q’eqchi’ archaeologists (e.g., Brady and Prufer 2005a: myth that tells of a feud between Sun and his 5; Masson 1999: 96; Sharpe and Emery 2015: brother after Sun’s wife, the Moon, commit289). This is Mary Pohl’s (1981: 516) suggestion ted adultery with him.2 After the lovers are that the first scene depicts a deer sacrifice adjaseparated by the Sun, the Moon has another cent to a tree. These two elements were comaffair, this time with the king of the vultures. In pared to modern cargo (civic office) transfer order to get his wife back, Sun hides beneath ceremonies that she terms “cuch [kuch]” ritua deerskin. Blowflies settle upon it, which in als, which involve a bullfight and tree or poleturn attracts vultures. When the vultures arrive raising. Likewise, Taube (1988b: 338) inferred to feed, the Sun seizes one and rides it to the that the vase scenes are sacrificial in content, home of the king vulture. Sun magically inflicts based partly on the deer’s humanlike ear, which the vulture king with a toothache but then is perforated and threaded with paper, similar cures him and persuades the Moon to come to the presentation of human captives. Like back to him (see Braakhuis 1987: 239). This Pohl, Taube thought that the gesture of holding myth relates to hunting behavior in that the the antler symbolized capture or execution and Maya were stated to have looked for vultures to that the scene as a whole enacts “the capture figure 7.1. Calcehtok vase, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, PC.B.203. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K2785.

154

Looper_5982.indd 154

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a s in k ing h a r t

and sacrifice of the victim in the metaphoric context of the hunt” (Taube 1988b: 338; see also Asensio Ramos and Martín 2006: 623). Again, the relationship between the image and the ritual that it supposedly references is rather vague. In addition, as Hattula MoholyNagy (1981) and Michael Coe (1989a: 175) observed, the large black spots on the bodies of the five hunters identify them as aspects of God S, not humans.4 Moreover, even though the youths on the Calcehtok vase are armed, Chinchilla Mazariegos (2017: 231) noted that they are not harming the deer and could be either removing or presenting the antler. Because no known episode in Maya mythology clearly explicates the imagery of the vase, Chinchilla Mazariegos turned to other Mesoamerican sources for clues.5 In these myths the deer serves as both a progenitor as well as an imperfect being from a previous creation (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2017: 230; Olivier 2015: 306–310). Most tellingly, in a set of cognate myths found widely throughout Mesoamerica, a maize-hero attempts to resurrect his deceased father.6 For the Nahua, the father is Piltzintecuhtli and the son is Xochipilli or Centeotl. Tragedy ensues when the father transforms into a deer and runs off, frightened either by a falling leaf or by his wife’s weeping. In the Popol Vuh and

other myths the transformation of the father into a deer is not mentioned; however, the narratives are comparable, in that the father One Hunahpu dies before his heroic son is born and the hero’s unsuccessful attempt to revive him introduces death into the world (Graulich 1997b: 186). As pointed out by Thompson and other scholars, the Calcehtok vase imagery is closely related to several other painted and carved images, some of which allow for the elucidation of the greater context for the myth depicted on this vessel.7 One of these is a mural excavated at Ek’ Balam (fig. 7.2). Unfortunately, only the lower section is preserved. Nevertheless, two personified trees frame the scene. In the center of the composition is a deer wearing a mantle marked with crossed bones and disembodied eyeballs, suggesting “ominous, mortuary connotations” (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2017: 231). The deer turns its head back, looking toward God S, who is identified by his black body markings. One of God S’s heels is raised in an attitude probably signaling dance. The other human figure might be God CH, but it is too fragmentary to be certain. Another vessel, the carved Finca Esquipulitas vase, found near Tiquisate, in the department of Escuintla, Guatemala, depicts God

figure 7.2. Mural fragment excavated at Ek’ Balam, Yucatán, Mexico. Courtesy of Proyecto Ek Balam, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 155

Looper_5982.indd 155

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

top. figure 7.3. Vase from Finca Esquipulitas, Guatemala. Drawing by Dana Moot II after Chinchilla Mazariegos (2011: 159). bottom. figure 7.4. Carved vase from the region of Escuintla, Guatemala. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K4599.

CH interacting with the draped deer (fig. 7.3; Chinchilla Mazariegos 2011: 158–159, fig. 63). In this image he holds a bunch of grass in one hand, while his other hand grasps a snakelike cord that wraps around the head of a dead buck (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2017: 233). The back of the deer is marked with crossed bands, replacing the crossed bones of the mantle seen on the Calcehtok vase. Behind the deer is a small animal (possibly a coati or agouti) that holds an oblong object with two leaf-like projections. The young male behind the animal is presumably God S, though his body does not bear the usual dark spots. He also holds a cord

in one hand. The Finca Esquipulitas vase also parallels the Calcehtok vase in that a bird lands on the back of the deer. On the Calcehtok vase and Ek’ Balam mural, Chinchilla Mazariegos (2011: 168– 169, 2012b, 2017: 230–231) viewed the tree as emblematic of the wilderness in which the hero drops his father’s bones (see Taube 2003a: 470–471). In the narrative presented on the vase the interaction of the death-marked, draped anthropomorphic deer with paired God S figures represents the transformation of the dead father into a deer. He also offered comparisons to a series of Early and Late Classic molded vessels from the Escuintla region of Guatemala, which show males interacting with deer, possibly merging with or transforming into them (fig. 7.4; Chinchilla Mazariegos 2017: 233). It might also be possible to compare the bird imagery of the Calcehtok vase and the Finca Esquipulitas vase to the narrative

156

Looper_5982.indd 156

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a s in k ing h a r t

of the Aztec Legend of the Suns, which contains another example of the “father” myth. After Quetzalcoatl’s uncles, the Four Hundred Mimixcoa, kill his father Mixcoatl, a vulture reveals the location of his burial (Bierhorst 1998: 154). Very tentatively, the bird (likely a vulture on the Calcehtok vase) might possibly correspond to this avian messenger. Overall, according to this reading, the Calcehtok vase images metaphorically refer to the death and transformation of a mythical paternal figure. In addition to the deer, this interpretation helps to explain the funereal tone that pervades the scene, especially as implied by the hunting equipment, the bone-marked mantle on the deer, and the woeful gestures of the figures seated in the tree. It also helps explain why the protagonists are aspects of God S, a solar deity, who corresponds to the dutiful son in the Popol Vuh. The abundant fabric adjacent to the deer in the Calcehtok vase might represent the father’s shroud in which his bones had been bundled, now fallen away to reveal a deer. This compels us to abandon the term kuch in relation to the scenes because they do not depict a ritual. Moreover, the ancient Maya mainly used the term kuch to refer to the mythic abduction of the Moon or to gods carrying other deities (see chapter 4; Knorozov 1955).8 Nevertheless, the reading of the vessel’s imagery in terms of the “death of the father” narrative does leave certain significant details unexplained—in particular, the emphasis on the detached antler on the Calcehtok vase. To this end, this chapter expands the interpretation of the images, using Chinchilla’s reading as a foundation but extending it to explore further the hypothesis that deer sometimes served as solar metaphors. To begin, it is worth analyzing the mythic cycle of the father in more detail. It has already

been noted that the Sun God Piltzintecuhtli, an aspect of Mixcoatl, who is transformed into a deer in Nahua mythology, is equivalent to the Popol Vuh paternal figure One Hunahpu. When One Hunahpu and his brother Seven Hunahpu are summoned to the underworld to die, they are tricked into taking the black road of the west, which identifies them with the setting sun (Christenson 2003: 122; Graulich 1997b: 180). When the head of One Hunahpu is later hung in a forbidden tree, it is associated with the Evening Star (Tedlock 1991). In the culmination of the myth, the Hero Twins attempt to resurrect their father but are unsuccessful and become the sun and moon themselves. In Huichol mythology, the sacred Deer Person Kauyumári plays a role equivalent to Mixcoatl in Nahua legends and One Hunahpu in the Popol Vuh (Graulich 1997b: 179–180). In one story, he wounds several deer that then transform into women. Attempting to get his arrows back, he is led toward the west and the underworld, where he eats food and is turned into a deer (Preuss 1996: 129). By comparing these mythic narratives, we can see that the deer is a metaphor for both the setting sun and the death of the father. In the Maya narrative, this sets the stage for the apotheosis of the son as the rising sun. The connection between deer and the “dying” sun is clearly articulated elsewhere in Nahua and other western Mesoamerican mythologies. Louise Burkhart (1986: 118) argued that in Nahua cosmology the deer signified the “weak, tainted, feminine, almost lunar sun of the west.” The cardinal direction assigned to the day Mazatl “Deer” was the west. One Deer was the calendrical name of one of the Cihuateteo, the goddesses who escort the sun from zenith to the west. In Maya folklore the equivalent of the Cihuateteo is the

157

Looper_5982.indd 157

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

seductress-demon Charcoal Cruncher of the Tzotzil community of Zinacantán (Burkhart 1986: 118). This horrifying being has a head that separates from her body and attaches to a deer (Hunt 1977: 105–106; Vogt 1969: 332– 340). In the Late Postclassic central Mexican Codex Borgia (page 33) a deer bears the sun, in contrast to the moon, which is linked to a rabbit (fig. 7.5). However, scholars disagree regarding the directional associations of this image (see Boone 2007: 186; Seler 1963: 2:22). In Maya art, the imagery of symbolic solar portals represents the correlation between deer and the sun on the horizon. One of the ways of symbolizing the underworld opening for the sun or an ancestor apotheosized as the sun is a frame marked with centipede heads at the corners (fig. 7.6).9 In some cases the centipedeportal heads have a large spotted deer ear, as on an incised bone from Tikal (fig. 7.7).10 A polychrome plate in the Portland Art Museum shows a deer with the same large spotted ears, seated on a black-topped mountain, perhaps representing the solar aperture on the western horizon (fig. 7.8). The merging of deer with centipedes in this context may relate to the mutual association of these creatures with filth in Mesoamerican thought (see chapter 4).

Sexual activity is described as earthy and filthy in colonial Nahua literature, and modern Maya myths mention poisonous creatures that emerge from female genitalia and menstrual blood (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2017: 103, 128). There is good comparative evidence from Mesoamerican data as well that supports the argument that the deer represented not only the “dying” sun of the west but also the “weak” sun of the dry season, near the time of the vernal equinox (March 21) when the sun was believed to descend into the underworld (see Montolíu 1976: 156–157). The sun seems to rise due east and set due west on this day, and the day and night are of nearly equal length. The rainy season in the Maya area corresponds to approximately May through October, when the days are relatively long, while the dry season extends from November to April, when the days are shorter. The Aztec conducted various rites near the vernal equinox, when the sun is still “weak.” In their ceremony for the day 4 Movement, a war captive was sacrificed to the descending Sun God. The movements of the captive were carefully choreographed so that his body represented the sun descending into the underworld (Cohodas 1976: 158; Durán 1971: 186–193).

figure 7.5. Conflation of deer with the sun, detail of Codex Borgia, p. 33. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

figure 7.6. Detail of House A stucco, Palenque, Mexico. Drawing by author after Maudslay (1889– 1902: 4: plate 6).

158

Looper_5982.indd 158

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a s in k ing h a r t

left. figure 7.7. Incised bone from Tikal, Guatemala, 4P-113(31)/2. Drawing by author. right. figure 7.8. Painted plate showing deer on mountain. Portland Art Museum 2005.29.24. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

Three days after 4 Movement was the day 7 Flower, when a hunting festival was celebrated. This festival was dedicated to Xochiquetzal, the goddess of sexuality, and to her male counterpart Chicome Xochitl (7 Flower) (Sahagún 1979: 4–7, 1981: 35–36). According to Hernando Ruiz de Alarcón (1984: 105–106), Piltzintecuhtli, the young Sun God, is equated with a deer and with Chicome Xochitl. The deer are so named because their branched antlers symbolize seven flowers and they were created on the day 7 Flower (López Austin 2011: 48; Paso y Troncoso and de la Serna 1953: 294– 295). Nahua deer-hunting incantations likewise invoked Chicome Xochitl as well as other

deities (Ruiz de Alarcón 1984: 94–106). Finally, Xochiquetzal is associated with deer, as seen in her epithets: “One Deer” and “Deer Goddess” (Thompson 1939b: 150). Among the Maya, the day equivalent to 7 Flower was 7 Ajaw. Diego de Landa described a three-day ceremony that began on this day in sixteenth-century Yucatán, which fell during the month Zac. Like the cognate Aztec ceremony, this rite appeased the gods for the blood of animals spilled during the hunt: “And on this account, whenever they went hunting, they invoked the god and burned their incense to him, and, if they could, they anointed his face with the blood of the heart of whatever game

159

Looper_5982.indd 159

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

they had killed” (Tozzer 1941: 162). Although Landa does not mention a connection with the equinox, because of the close correspondence between the Aztec and Maya hunting ceremonies and the fact that the Aztec rites were tied to the equinox, Marvin Cohodas (1974: 96–97) argued that the 7 Ajaw ceremony involved a deer hunt that symbolized the descent of the sun near the equinox. Importantly, elements of this ritual sequence were conducted by the twentieth-century Ch’orti’. Near the vernal equinox the ritual specialist extinguishes the fire in the agricultural temple and starts a new fire from which domestic hearths are relit (Girard 1962: 55–71). This rite announces the time when the fields are to be burned in anticipation of planting. As noted in chapter 1, this would be the first time when deer would actively enter the fields, in order to lick the salty ashes. For the Ch’orti’, as for many other Maya groups, the main deer hunting season is between February and April, centering on the vernal equinox, March 21. Among the Huichol, for whom elaborate deer-hunting rituals are well documented, major rites of deer hunting come during the feast of toasted maize or peyote, in March. Preuss (1996: 130) stated that the fields were cleared for the next planting prior to the feast and that the fields were “readied for the fire god himself by everyone encircling the temple for about an hour, making the motions of cutting down the trees, the grass, and the brush.” In the ceremony the deer hunt of the sun is acted out by driving deer impersonators into noose traps. The hunt for real deer follows. The deer’s blood is required to sanctify the maize seed that will subsequently be planted (Preuss 1996: 129–131). In light of widespread Mesoamerican mythology and ritual relating deer hunting to

the dry season and especially the vernal equinox, we might expect that the Calcehtok vase and related images would make references to these concepts as well. Indeed, several details of these vessels seem to have parallels in hunting rituals that express the analogy between the dying father/deer and the dry season, when the sun was located in the underworld. One may be the grass held by God CH on the Finca Esquipulitas vase, which might refer to the cutting of the fields during the dry season (fig. 7.3). We also see a bundle of grasses on the Calcehtok vase, this time shaped into the form of an animal, seated on the right side at the base of the tree. This effigy is probably a whitetailed deer, judging from the whitish pigment used to accentuate its chin and belly areas. It is paired with a figure of a normal-bodied whitetailed deer, on the left side of the tree. The role of these two animals is difficult to discern, as they are merely seated in an anthropomorphic manner on either side of the tree. However, it could be that the contrasting animals represent the alternating seasons of the agricultural year, with the fleshed deer symbolizing the rainy season and the bundled-grass deer symbolizing the dry season (Taube 1980: 17, 1988b: 343–344). A more explicit reference to seasonality appears in the form of the antler held by God S. This gesture could have several meanings, including offering the antler to the deer (see Chinchilla Mazariegos 2012b: 392). In Huichol mythology the primordial deer hunt of the gods becomes possible precisely when Kauyumári in the guise of Morning Star receives his deer antler (Preuss 1996: 129). The gesture might also relate to the way in which antlers are sometimes incorporated into hunting shrines, in order to assure regeneration of game animals (see chapter 6). However, the

160

Looper_5982.indd 160

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a s in k ing h a r t

simple fact of the separation of antler from animal may identify the mythic episode as transpiring in the period when antlers are shed, which is the dry season. The snakelike cord that the god loops over the head of the deer on the Finca Esquipulitas vase and the mantles worn by the deer in all of these scenes are reminiscent of the ribbons and handkerchiefs with which hunted deer are adorned in colonial and modern Maya hunting ceremonies (see chapter 6). The looping of the cord over the head of the deer also evokes a hunting snare. In Huichol myth Morning Star allows himself to be shot with arrows and entangled in a noose as a way of teaching the gods how to hunt deer. The deferential attitudes of the two gods on the Finca Esquipulitas vase toward the deer may signify that the animal has allowed himself to be caught, in order that the new sun, embodied by God S, may be born. The actions of Gods S and CH in these images seem akin to the rites conducted by hunters to honor hunted animals. For example, the possible dancing shown in the Ek’ Balam mural may be analogous to the dances that are conducted before modern hunting shrines (see chapter 6). Perhaps the myth depicted on these vessels and the mural served as the template for the ritual protocols to be followed by human hunters, in addition to presenting the young gods as models for the pious veneration of the father. Additional evidence that supports a seasonal association for deer among the Maya was recorded by Otto Stoll (1886: 275) among the Kaqchikel, who explained the differences in seasonal day-length in terms of distinct creatures that were believed to accompany the sun across the sky. On the shorter days around the winter solstice (December 21) the sun is drawn across the sky by two fast-moving deer,

whereas near the summer solstice (June 21) it is pulled by a pair of slower peccaries (see also Thompson 1939b: 150, 1967: 38). This conceptualization relates solar movement to the behavior of animals not only with reference to their relative speed but also through their habitats. Whereas white-tailed deer are found only about half the time in forests, peccaries are much more at home in dark, forested environments. Collared peccaries (Pecari tajacu) spend 66 percent of their time in forests, while whitelipped peccaries (Tayassu pecari) are exclusively found in mature forests (Emery and Thornton 2008b: 164, table 3). In Tzeltal ethnozoology the meat of deer is considered to be “hot,” while the meat of peccaries is “cold” (Hunn 1977: 227, 228; see also Guiteras Holmes 1961: 31). Thus, deer are associated with relatively warm and sunny zones, tied to the dry season, while peccaries are linked to the cooler, dark forest, symbolizing the rainy season. Each of these animals metonymically embodies contrasting behaviors and realms, which metaphorically represent weather patterns. Taken together, the dyad of these animals and their associations refers to the complementarity of the two main seasons of the year.11 Numerous Classic period works of art seem to employ deer and peccaries in the same manner, as seasonal symbols. In particular, a painted ceramic vase, K8622, depicts a deer and a peccary as the mounts of God D (fig. 7.9; Asensio Ramos 2007). The vase positions the animals on opposite sides of a bundle marked with long-lipped deity heads that may personify the winds that propel these beings through the sky, represented by the starry skyband above.12 The paired glyphic forms at the base of the bundle align the deer with the K’IN “sun” sign, while the sign on the peccary’s side has the form of crossed bands. The placement

161

Looper_5982.indd 161

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

throne-stone” (Freidel, Schele, and Parker 1993: 66; Looper 2003: 158). This important scene is related to several of the deer on the “sunny” side seems to evoke other images in Maya art, including a painted the modern Maya conceptualization of deer plate in which God D mounts a deer (fig. 7.10). bearing the sun during the dry season. The In contrast, an Early Classic lidded vessel in vessel contains two dedicatory inscriptions, the Dallas Museum of Art shows God D ridone around the rim and the other on the pecing a peccary (fig. 7.11).13 Through comparison cary side of the composition. Neither of these with K8622, it seems likely that these images relates to the content of the scene. The text in constitute seasonal symbols, tied to the dry front of the deity mounted on the deer records and rainy seasons, respectively.14 God D riding his speech as he asks the Paddler God who a peccary also occurs on a Late Classic codexstands before him where a personage possibly style vessel, K1991, in which the Gods S and named Mook Witz “Maize-Flower Mountain” CH, attired as warriors, pursue God D, who has fled (see Beliaev and Davletshin 2006: 30). rides a peccary (fig. 7.12). It is possible that this Although the precise meaning of this text is may have been an important mythic episode elusive, the juxtaposition of God D and the in which God D, attempting to go somewhere, Paddler in this scene may imply that the narra- first rides a peccary. Because it is too slow, tive has something to do with the mythology of however, the youths capture it and call a deer, creation, in which the Paddlers ferry the Maize which allows God D to travel more swiftly. The God to his place of resurrection, a sacred text on K1991, in fact, states that a deer is capmountain (see Freidel, Schele, and Parker tured or mounted (uchukuw/ukuchuw chihj).15 1993: 92). God D is mentioned on Quiriguá It is important to recall that the cosmic stones Stela C as one of the main gods of creation, erected by God D, the Paddler Gods, and probwho erects one of three cosmic stones, a “water ably a wind god described on Quiriguá Stela C figure 7.9. Painted vase showing mythic scene. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K8622.

162

Looper_5982.indd 162

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a s in k ing h a r t

constitute a hearth in which new fire would be kindled. As explained previously, Mesoamerican fire-drilling rituals represent the rebirth of the sun during the dry season and are accompanied by deer hunts. This interpretation of the deer/peccary dyad as symbolic of alternating seasons helps to illuminate the meaning of another carved Chocholá-style vessel, K196 (fig. 7.13; Coe 1973: 126–127, cat. 66). On one side of this

vessel a male—possibly God S—reverently cradles the dead draped deer. Below is a fish-like creature, possibly alluding to the underworld.16 The other side of this vessel features an image of a peccary with the “sun” glyph on its back. Above it is a celestial serpent. I concur with Coe (1973: 126–127) that these two images likely express complementary rainy (peccary) and dry (deer) seasons (see also Milbrath 1999: 269). What is important about this image in

left. figure 7.10. Painted plate, Hellmuth Photo Archive PC.M.LC.p2.128, detail. Photograph by Nicholas Hellmuth, www.maya-ethnozoology.org. right. figure 7.11. Lidded bowl with a man riding a peccary, 250–550 AD. Ceramic 9⅛ × 63∕16 × 63∕16 in. Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas Art Association purchase 1972.10.

163

Looper_5982.indd 163

figure 7.12. Painted vase showing mythic scene. De Young Art Museum, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco 2002.84.1.13. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1991.

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n figure 7.13. Carved bowl showing paired deer and peccary imagery, K196. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

the present context, however, is that it suggests that the related image on the Calcehtok vase might also express mythology related to the dry season. One enigmatic feature of the caped deer shown on K196 hampers our understanding of the scene. This is the odd gourd-shaped object marked with three circles, strapped to the animal’s back. The ovoid object presented by the small animal to the deer on the Finca Esquipulitas vase might represent the same motif, prior to its binding to the deer, as shown on K196. However, its specific identity is unknown. It does call to mind a similar oval object shown strapped to the back of a tiny caped deer that sits before a torch-bearing Siip deity on the carved vessel K4336 (fig. 7.14).17 The gesture in which Siip sounds a conch trumpet on this vase may signal the funereal context in which the draped deer appears, as discussed above in relation to the Calcehtok vase. At the upper left of the scene on K4336 is a possible personified mountain (Chinchilla

Mazariegos 2012a: 388), while the personified tree in the lower right probably identifies the forested setting of the event and also corresponds to the tree seen in the Calcehtok vase and related images discussed above. The biting of Siip’s leg by the tree could refer to punishment for this god associated with the amoral wilderness (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2012a: 389). The gesture of raising the torch in his left hand is unusual and perhaps relates to the burning of fields in preparation for planting (Chinchilla Mazariegos 2012a: 388). This could be construed as another piece of evidence that the draped deer scenes in Maya ceramics and murals relate to mythology associated with the dry season, especially around the spring equinox, when fields are burned and the deer/sun is in the underworld. The scene carved on the opposite face of K4336 may support this interpretation. It shows a human wearing the wings and headdress of a vulture. The severed deer leg held in the vulture’s beak implies the scavenging

164

Looper_5982.indd 164

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a s in k ing h a r t

figure 7.14. Carved vase, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, PC.B.582. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K4336.

activity of the bird. Below and behind the vulture is a recumbent creature with deer hooves and a skeletal face, protruding fangs, and a large spotted deer ear, symbolizing death and putrefaction. K’awiil deity heads rest on its head and terminate the spotted cord that likely represents the long tail of this creature. This is probably a full-bodied version of the deer-centipede, a mythic being that symbolizes the juncture of the sun with the horizon. The interaction of the vulture with the deercentipede could be another way of depicting the motif in which a bird notifies the hero of the location of the dead father. Or it could be some other story that relates vultures to deer. For example, in Huichol mythology Morning Star is transformed into a deer and pursued by the gods, who wound him with an arrow. But a vulture (also known as Bead Boy) removes the arrow and treats the wound, allowing him to escape to the east (Preuss 1996: 130). Without additional ancient Maya images for comparison or relevant inscriptions, however, it is difficult to come to firm conclusions regarding the significance of this panel of K4336. One final vase features particularly elaborate imagery that brings together many of the works discussed above and helps us to

understand the broader narrative to which the transformation of the father into a deer belongs (fig. 7.15; Chinchilla Mazariegos 2017: 231).18 Its pictorial field is divided into two registers, suggesting sequential parts of a narrative. The lower scene unfolds beneath a skyband, signaling its celestial location. On the left is the mouth of a cave, in which is seated a small creature, possibly the agouti or coati shown on the Finca Esquipulitas vase. Gods S and CH, wearing hunters’ attire, hold branches toward a buck that has been draped in a mantle adorned with crossed bones and eyeballs. On the right a bat looks on, suggesting that this event takes place at night. This scene condenses imagery seen on the Calcehtok and Finca Esquipulitas vases, as well as the Ek’ Balam mural, clearly showing the participation of both youthful gods in the story as well as the display of cut vegetation, possibly alluding to field preparations and subsequent deer hunting. The scene in the upper register on the vase is framed by a band of eyeballs at the top, implying an underworld location. In the image the two young gods, wearing their hunting skirts, kneel in homage to God D, who is seated on a large cushion and wears his diagnostic shell pendant. Behind the god is the Moon Goddess. Before the deity is a legged offering plate holding bloodletting equipment and a small branching tree. This scene is

165

Looper_5982.indd 165

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

Zoomorph B at Quiriguá represents the crocodile tree and is an image of the stone of creation set up by God D (Looper 2003: 172–178). It is possible, therefore, that the scene in which important because it suggests that the youthGod S appears before God D and the Moon ful gods’ appearance before the draped deer Goddess in the upper register of the vase in figwas related to a larger narrative that involved ure 7.15 depicts an episode in which the gods making offerings to God D. The cave mouth petition him to act as a creator deity. The venthat appears in the lower scene could represent eration of the draped deer in the lower register the portal through which the Headband Gods may show another part of this myth, in which passed after their meeting with God D in the Gods S and CH capture the weak yet swift underworld, locating them at the horizon. sun, in the form of their transformed father, to This vase is of particular importance, as its serve as the mount of God D. imagery ties the “father” myth to narratives concerning God D. As discussed above, God D c onc lusion : de ad fat h er , rides deer and peccaries in other images, posbur i ed sun sibly in a creation context. On another vase, God S, wearing the hunter’s hat, meets with In this chapter I argue that the complex imagGod D, before whom is placed a sacrificial ery of the Calcehtok vase is related to a series plate (fig. 7.16). From the plate sprouts a of stylistically diverse images, mostly from “crocodile tree,” a metaphor for the earth.19 pottery. Most of these images are monoscenic figure 7.15. Polychrome vase showing mythic scenes. Drawing by Diane Griffiths Peck, courtesy Michael Coe.

166

Looper_5982.indd 166

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a s in k ing h a r t

narratives or depict two events (sometimes compressed), making it difficult to identify the larger myths from which these scenes were derived. The two main scenes of the Calcehtok vase imbricate thematically with other images. Through overlapping thematic associations and supported by comparisons with Mesoamerican mythology, it is possible to suggest that the image of the draped deer attended by God S figures on one side of this vessel is indeed illustrative of a myth in which the hero’s attempts to collect the remains of his father result in the father’s transformation into a deer. However, in this narrative, the deer is treated as an honored game animal, draped with a mantle. It also seems to imply a relationship between the transformation of the father and the weakened state of the sun at sunset and during the dry season when the solar path shifts toward the south and the intensity of sunlight is weaker. The generalized ascription of weakness and timidity to deer in Mesoamerican thought probably motivated this metaphorical usage (see Burkhart 1986: 120). But it was also likely suggested by the timing of the hunt in the dry season, around the vernal equinox, when deer were encouraged to

enter the burned fields to be hunted. As such, deer represented a complement to the usual diet of maize but also symbolically prepared the way for planting. The spilling of the animals’ blood during the hunt might have been thought to induce rainfall and sanctify the fields prior to planting, as among the Huichol. The shedding and regrowth of the deer’s antlers, metaphorically embodied by the god holding the antler on the Calcehtok vase, was also likely interpreted as a fundamental expression of the release of the animal’s fecundity upon the earth, given the associations between antlers and fertility and sexuality (see chapter 4). Although it is difficult to say exactly why these myths would have been chosen to adorn ceramics and even a mural painting, it could be that they identified the owners/patrons of the vessels with the virtues of the heroic deities depicted, especially God S, who was closely allied with rulership. The prominent mortuary theme of the “father” myth might also resonate with the presumed contexts of at least some of these vessels, which would have been ultimately funerary. As usual, our interpretation of the iconological significance of these images is hampered by a general lack of archaeological

figure 7.16. Painted vase showing mythic scene. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1607. 167

Looper_5982.indd 167

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

context but also by poor documentation and in particular a paucity of readable inscriptions. The analysis also points to a second symbolic function of the deer in this and related contexts, as a reference to the rapid movement of the sun during the dry season. This is commonly manifested in Maya art through the use of deer (as an alternative to the plodding peccary) as a mount that may speed God D to the places of cosmic renewal. This chapter therefore suggests that observation of deer behavior by the Maya, as well as their close interaction with the animal in hunting contexts, nourished

the metaphorical elaboration of deer to represent a major cosmological concept. This metaphorical usage was apparently rooted in the typical spatial liminality of white-tailed deer, which tend to browse in border zones such as edges of forests and fields. But the deployment of the deer as a symbol for the setting sun also likely points to the typical time for maximum feeding activity, which is crepuscular. The usage of deer as a solar metaphor in mythic contexts, therefore, interprets deer as both spatially and temporally liminal creatures.

168

Looper_5982.indd 168

1/27/19 3:02 PM

chapter eight

Deer Departed Cervid Spirits of Death and Disease

ore than a century ago archaeologists excavated a Late Classic elite tomb in the court of the South Acropolis of Copán, known as Tomb 1 (Gordon 1896: 29–32; Longyear 1952: 40–41). Included among the offerings in this tomb was an heirloom carved peccary skull, now held in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (fig. 8.1).1 Dated to the Early Classic period based on stylistic and paleographic criteria, this unusual object was fashioned out of the upper part of a peccary cranium. Its exterior surface is delicately incised with images of animals and anthropomorphic figures as well as glyphic captions (fig. 8.2). The composition focuses on a quatrefoil cartouche that frames a pair of elaborately

Looper_5982.indd 169

dressed human figures who face a stela and altar. The caption records a period-ending ceremony in the form of a stone-closing/binding or dedication (Stuart 1996: 156). These human figures may be interpreted as participants in a ritual complementary to that shown outside the cartouche. On the planar space on one side of the skull’s parietal bone is a herd of three running peccaries. On the other side are a jaguar character and an anthropomorphic figure in a netted costume holding a rattle marked with three small cruciform motifs. The nasal bone below the cartouche is inscribed with a dedicatory text for the object that functions as a ground line upon which two figures are placed. The figure on the left has the long snout, cloven hooves, and tiny antler of a deer. However, this is no natural creature

1/27/19 3:02 PM

left. figure 8.1. Incised peccary skull, Tomb 1, Copán, Honduras. Peabody Museum Expedition, M. H. Saville and J. G. Owens, 1892. © President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, PM# 92-49-20/C201. right. figure 8.2. Drawing of incised peccary skull, Tomb 1, Copán, Honduras. Drawing by Dana Moot II.

Looper_5982.indd 170

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

of the forest but is anthropomorphized, standing on its hind legs and wearing a netted cape. It also has the long curled tail of a spider monkey. The caped deer-monkey being faces a larger figure with a skeletal head, deer antler, and emaciated body carrying a bulging hunting net on a tumpline and sounding a conch trumpet.2 The sound does not seem to affect the bird behind the skeletal being, which flaps its wings and turns back to look toward the rattle player. The two beings standing on the ground line at the lower end of the composition can be identified as representatives of an important class of Maya supernaturals. These are the wahyob, spirits of death and disease. What was the significance of these two spirit beings to the ancient Maya, and how do they relate to the other images and texts incised on this object? Why do these two beings have characteristics of deer? In order to answer these questions, we must consider the social and religious functions of wahyob for the ancient Maya.

wahy sp i ri ts in maya art Maya texts and representational art preserve much information regarding wahyob. These beings often combine human, animal, and death imagery, though they may sometimes include other elements, such as rubber balls, winds, and fire. They were first discussed in relation to pottery painting, which is the principal context in which they appear, often filling the pictorial field with an array of distinct characters. Linda Schele (1985, 1988) speculated that they might represent the spirits of dead rulers or rulers impersonating deities as part of funerary rites. However, after the term used by the Maya to refer to these beings was deciphered as wahy, the interpretation of them changed dramatically. In many Mayan

languages, wahy and its cognates refer to “sleep,” but also “dream,” “wizard,” and “coessence.” Given the widespread Mesoamerican belief in spirit companions of individuals, also known as nagualism, some scholars postulated that the wahyob referred to the spiritual coessences of rulers, similar to the companion spirits of some contemporary Maya groups (see the introduction; Grube and Nahm 1994; Houston and Stuart 1989). This made sense: according to some ethnographic sources, the co-essence emerged from a person’s heart while sleeping. However, hieroglyphic texts never associate wahyob with specific individuals but only link them to places in the ancient Maya political landscape or state that the wahyob are owned by the “lords” of these places (Calvin 1997). Based on this fact, as well as their decidedly macabre iconography, more recent interpretations of the wahyob consider them to be personifications of diseases associated with different locales that may have been manipulated by ancient Maya rulers as a way of terrorizing their enemies.3 The names of some of these beings, such as Sitz’ Chamiiy “Gluttony Disease/Death,” refer explicitly to disease and death (Stuart, cited in Taube 2003a: 477; Grube and Gaida 2006: 57). Moreover, their iconography corresponds closely to the terminology for diseases that appear in the Ritual of the Bacabs, a colonial-period document that includes a large number of medical incantations.4 This source reveals that the colonial Yucatec Maya personified many illnesses in the form of animals, such as the deer, jaguar, macaw, monkey, insects, and certain birds and reptiles (Roys 1931, 1965: xviii). Moreover, the names of several of these personified ailments include the root way (uay), such as chac uayab cab “red sleeper bee” and chac uayab xoc “red sleeper

171

Looper_5982.indd 171

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

shark” (Helmke and Nielsen 2009: 56–57). In these contexts, “sleeper” might better be translated as “disease-spreader”: in addition to referring to sleep, dreams, and sorcery, the term way in Yucatec also means “contagion,” “infection,” “stink of sweat,” and “spread disease.”5 Spider monkeys, armadillos, and gophers are invoked in other Yucatec medical sources to refer to rashes, sores, or poxes (Thompson 1972: 50). A myriad of other animal names appear in Yucatec dictionaries as terms for various ailments (e.g., keh “deer” for ringworm, k’uch “vulture” for scabs, lukum kan “earthworm” for a “blood” that causes abdominal and dental pain, kok “small turtle” for asthma, and kitam “peccary” for epilepsy; Thompson 1972: 50–51). The Yucatec also believe that sorcerers may conjure illnesses from the underworld (metnal) via cenotes in the form of nocturnal insects and snakes (Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934: 178, 208). Certain birds flying over houses at night vomit a substance that may fall into sleeping children’s mouths and cause death (Redfield and Redfield 1940: 63; Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934: 169). Indeed, throughout the Maya area, we find ethnographic accounts of disease as embodied in wild animals. For example, the Pedrano Tzotzil of Chiapas consider that human individuals possess animal soul companions (wayhel), to whom their destinies are tied (Guiteras Holmes 1961: 299–303; Holland 1964: 303). They further believe that at night their wandering animal souls hunt down and attack one another, resulting in illness or death (Guiteras Holmes 1961: 134, 300–301). Similarly, the Zinacanteco Tzotzil understand the wilderness to be a source of sickness and death, which is announced by birds of ill omen (Vogt 1969: 374). In the Guatemalan highlands the Kaqchikel also believe that cats and toads are sources of disease (Warren 1978: 79). The

Ch’orti’ think that disease originates from underworld naguales (Fought 1972: 331–333). It seems possible that the display of diverse wahy figures on ancient Maya ceramics may be analogous to the listing of personified illnesses in colonial-period documents. Their careful depiction, naming, and attribution to particular places may have been intended to harness or neutralize these powerful entities (see Just 2012: 132). The wahy, as an important category of supernatural beings, also relates closely to ancient Maya notions of the hunt. Looking at the category as a whole, it is noteworthy that many wahyob are based on wild fauna that were hunted extensively by the ancient Maya, and several were major sources of food. These include the jaguar (bahlam), other felines (hix), deer (chihj), snake (kaan), spider monkey (maax), howler monkey (baatz’), tapir (tihl), coati (tz’uutz’), rat (ch’o’), fox (waax), toad (amal), owls (kuy and ikiin), peccaries (chitam/ kitam and k’ek’en), gopher (baah), bat (suutz’), and turkey (see chapter 1; Grube and Nahm 1994). As other scholars have discussed, the Maya conceived of the forest or wilderness as an important natural metaphor for the underworld (see Stone 1992; Taube 2003a). This domain was perceived as a place of peril, darkness, disease, and death, contrasting with the village, the realm of the living, light, and security. The hunt therefore implied a dangerous journey to the land of the dead and back, with the potential for confronting the forces of disease and death, embodied in diverse wild animals. Space does not permit a full analysis of wahy imagery and texts in Maya art (see Asensio Ramos 2015; Grube and Nahm 1994). Instead, I focus here on the wahyob that possess deer imagery and in particular the two deer wahyob that are depicted on the Copán

172

Looper_5982.indd 172

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

peccary skull. The deer-monkey hybrid character on the left can be identified as the important being known from other examples as Ochiil Maax (fig. 8.3; see Grube and Nahm 1994: 694–696; Helmke and Nielsen 2009: 73–74). Although Ochiil Maax is depicted with deer and monkey features fused in a variety of ways, the manner of portrayal as a bipedal deer with monkey tail on the peccary skull is similar to various pottery representations (e.g., fig. 8.3a–d). Some of these beings have foliage in their mouths; some wear scarves tied around the neck, eyeball-collars, and a flower-like emblem on the tip of their tails.6 We also see monkeys and deer carrying each other (K1558, K7152), monkeys with deer antlers and/or ears (fig. 8.3e), and deer with monkey heads and tails (fig. 8.3f). Given the great variation in spider monkey–deer hybrid wahyob, it is not clear to what degree the Maya distinguished

these beings. However, it should be noted that the mixture of deer and monkey features varies considerably in the four cases in which the name of this being is written syllabically as o-chi-la MAX or ma-xi and which therefore represent the same being. Thus, on K7525 we see deer hooves and head with a monkey body and tail (fig. 8.3b). Vessels K1203, K2010, and K3392 depict monkeys with deer ears.7 K9291 renders the being with monkey paws and tail and a deer head. Further, in at least two instances (fig. 8.3b, c), deer-headed figures are associated with Ux Witza’ (Caracol), while on K927 a monkey-headed wahy is connected to the same location (fig. 8.3f). In my view it is probable that all of these beings depict the same entity, visualized in diverse ways by different artists. Although typically the deer monkey appears in “inventory”-type compositions with a variety of other wahyob, on the Actun

a

b

d

e

c

f

figure 8.3. Ochiil Maax, from a, K3061; b, K7525; c, K2023; d, K3459; e, K8733; f, K927. Photographs by Justin Kerr. 173

Looper_5982.indd 173

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

Balam vase a deer with vegetation in its mouth carries a woman on its back as it flees from hunters (fig. 4.15) (Pendergast 1966, 1969: 1–3, 6, 41–52, 66–67). This important example might suggest a specific mythical role of the deer-monkey wahyob in the abduction of the wife of the hunting god Huk Xib (discussed in chapter 4). The wahy on the peccary skull below the cartouche with a skeletal head is known from other inscriptions as Ukuhil Chihj Chamiiy or Utuunil Chihj Chamiiy “?/Stone of the Deer Death/Disease” (fig. 8.4).8 This being often has the general characteristics of a rotting corpse,

a

though he is sometimes represented in youthful form, as on K791 (fig. 8.4a). Like the hunting gods Huk Xib and Siip, he sports a deer antler and wears comparable hunting gear, such as the staff, grass skirt, hat, and conch trumpet. He is also commonly shown carrying a deer carcass in a net, as on the peccary skull (fig. 8.4b, c, e, f). On one vessel Utuunil Chihj Chamiiy is said to be the wahy of Pa’chan, identified with the site of El Zotz (fig. 8.4c; see Houston 2008). On K791 he is associated with Ib(il), a location also mentioned in the context of a visiting lord on Bonampak Room 1 Caption 4 (fig. 8.4a). On K771 he is associated with

b

c

d

f

figure 8.4. Utuunil Chihj Chamiiy, from a, K791; b, K771; c, K2023; d, K1901; e, K3924; f, K4922. Photographs by Justin Kerr. e 174

Looper_5982.indd 174

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

figure 8.5. Chihjil Hix, detail of painted vase. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1379.

the “legs” place, a mysterious location cited in inscriptions from across the Maya realm (fig. 8.4b). Utuunil Chihj Chamiiy on the Copán peccary skull is accompanied by a nondescript bird of unknown significance that hovers above his bundle. At least five additional wahyob with deer attributes appear on Classic Maya ceramics, though in some cases deer characteristics are secondary, as in the example of Ochiil Maax. One is Chihjil Hix “Cervid Feline,” depicted on K1379 (fig. 8.5). This being sports a jaguar pelt, tail, paws, and ears but has an elongated snout like a deer. Another wahy with a deer body has a snake wrapped around its torso, sometimes with a vine emerging from its empty eye socket (fig. 8.6; see Helmke and Nielsen 2009: 73). The name of this wahy includes T533 (possibly MOK) and CHIJ “deer.” Another deer wahy referred to as Hutis Chihj “Eye-Deer” or possibly Uhut Chihj “Eye of the Deer” has extruded

eyeballs but no snake iconography (fig. 8.7; see Grube and Nahm 1994: 692). The fact that these beings have different nominals indicates that they are distinct beings, though related. Two wahyob fuse deer features with snakes, a concept possibly related to ethnographic accounts of supernatural horned serpents called chijchan “deer-snake” (Grube and Nahm 1994: 693–694; Schele 1989). One is Chihjil “Rope” Kaan, “Cervid ? Snake,” associated with Calakmul (fig. 8.8). This creature, like Ochiil Maax, is shown in a variety of ways: as a snake with deer ear and antler (fig. 8.8a); a deer with a conch trumpet bound by a snake (fig. 8.8b); a net-bundle, deer head, conch trumpet, and snake emerging from or wrapped around some body part (fig. 8.8c–g); or as a deer with a snake head holding a net (fig. 8.8h). The common qualities of this being suggest that it is an animated form of the net in which the deer carcass was carried after butchering. The

175

Looper_5982.indd 175

1/27/19 3:02 PM

figure 8.6. Mook? Chihj, from a, K1230; b, K1389; c, K8733. Photographs by Justin Kerr. a

b

c

a

b

figure 8.7. Hutis Chihj, from a, K1743; b, K1811; c, K3312; d, K9254. Photographs by Justin Kerr.

c

Looper_5982.indd 176

d

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a

b

c

d

e

f

figure 8.8. Chihjil “Rope” Kaan, from a, K1256; b, K3924; c, K927; d, K1901; e, K5454; f, K8262; g, K9254; h, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 210.1985. a–g, Photographs by Justin Kerr; h, drawing by Dana Moot II.

g

h

Looper_5982.indd 177

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

“rope-snake” component of its name seems to refer to the snake that often binds the deer. The other deer-snake wahy is the snake with deer ear and antler that belches out a figure of a hunting god (figs. 8.9, 8.10).9 This wahy is commonly found on codex-style ceramics and is sometimes stated to be owned by lords of Calakmul. On some vessels the being is associated with the event ya’alaw k’awiil “K’awiil speaks” (figs. 8.9, 8.10), apparently a metaphor for the transformation of this serpent wahy from the leg of the god K’awiil. The name of this wahy is difficult to interpret, as it includes a curling initial grapheme, followed by chi and la(?), then KAN “snake.” This wahy is yet another example of the fundamental ancient Maya association of the hunt with disease.

The variety and careful delineation of wahyob related to deer in ancient Maya art may reflect a need to classify similar ailments. Indeed, it is possible that the wahyob based primarily on deer (Utuunil Chihj Chamiiy, Hutis Chihj, and Mook Chihj) are associated with incantations for cramp-like ailments, owing to the prevalence of “deer” in terms for cramps in various Mayan languages, including Yucatec, Lacandon, Ch’ol, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Awakateko, Tz’utujil, Kaqchikel, Uspantek, K’iche’, Q’eqchi’, Poqomchi’, and Mam.10 Colonial Yucatec literature also contains references to “deer” in a related context; for instance, the Chilam Balam of Kaua uses the term lotħ cehel “clench deer” as a metaphor for cramping (Bricker and Miram 2002: 373–374). While

top. figure 8.9. Painted vase showing mythic scene. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 2007.1776. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1384. 178

Looper_5982.indd 178

bottom. figure 8.10. Painted vase showing mythic scene. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K1882.

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

there is no clear indication as to which particular wahyob represented specific cramps, it is possible that the deer with dislodged eyes may signify cramps of the eye or eye socket (Helmke and Nielsen 2009: 73). Other wahyob for which deer characteristics are secondary may represent other classes of ailments, analogous to cim cehil “deer death” mentioned in the Chilam Balam of Tizimín (Edmonson 1982: 187).11 Perhaps the general association of deer with diseases may be partially explained through epidemiology. Landa (Tozzer 1941: 4) mentions that October to March (the dry season) is the time when colds and fevers peaked in Yucatán.12 Coincidentally, this is the season of maximum hunting activity (see chapter 1). This might have led the Maya to interpret illness as having been caused by contact with animals during the hunt.

jagua r and ne tted music i an We now turn to the identification of the paired jaguar and net-costumed musician on the side of the peccary skull (fig. 8.2). The jaguar holds a globular object with a point at one end; this is a clyster or funnel, used for administering rectal enemas (Taube 1989b: 365). Enema taking was a prominent theme in Maya art, either selfadministered or with the help of an assistant.13 Made of rubber or gourds, the syringes or funnels were often paired with constricted-neck jars labeled as mead or pulque containers, indicating that alcoholic drinks were administered using this method (Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 116–117). It is also speculated that hallucinogenic substances were consumed through enemas for the purpose of achieving altered states of consciousness, perhaps in order to increase effectiveness and/or to avoid foul tastes (Stross and Kerr 1990: 351). The jaguar

character may therefore be identified as yet another well-known wahy, the so-called Enema Jaguar (Grube and Nahm 1994: 689). On many painted ceramic vessels this being indulges in drinking, enemas, and smoking (figs. 8.11, 8.12).14 He often wears a padded bib, which may have been used to mop up vomit, shown spewing from the spirit’s mouth in some instances (fig. 8.11a). Such paraphernalia may suggest the symbolism of this being as an illness brought on through excessive consumption. In Mesoamerican cultures immoderate sexual behavior and drunkenness were thought to cause disease (Miller and Taube 1993: 72, 79). Unfortunately, the nominals of the Enema Jaguar are difficult to decipher. In some cases his name includes an undeciphered grapheme representing a darkened mirror followed by xiw hix “fright feline” (fig. 8.11b, c and K1376). Elsewhere his name begins with ch’ok “youth” followed by undeciphered signs and then hix chan “feline, snake/sky” (fig. 8.11d, e). Importantly, the text of K1442 states that the Enema Jaguar is a wahy pertaining to Chatahn, a toponym associated with the Calakmul polity (fig. 8.11b). On the peccary skull the glyphic cartouche adjacent to the Enema Jaguar reads ti chatahn “at Chatahn.” Although the cartouche does not seem to specifically name the Enema Jaguar (it is out of alignment with the scene and is probably read together with the two adjacent cartouches), the reference to Chatahn in this text supports the interpretation of the feline on the peccary skull as the wahy “Mirror” Xiw Hix, with ties to the Calakmul polity. To the left of the Enema Jaguar and slightly overlapping his body is the image of the netcostumed rattle-player, who wears a headband, necklace, and hip cloth. His netted attire has circular apertures around his eyes and mouth, mimicking the appearance of a spider monkey.

179

Looper_5982.indd 179

1/27/19 3:02 PM

a

b

c

d

e

figure 8.11. Enema Jaguar, from a, K3312; b, K1442; c, K1973; d, K4922; e, K7525. Photographs by Justin Kerr.

Looper_5982.indd 180

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

This is no spider monkey wahy, however, but a distinct character referred to as a “pa clown” by Karl Taube (1989b). The glyphic caption adjacent to him includes K’AN “yellow,” WINIK “person,” and a pa syllable. The pa syllable in this name could be interpreted as a shorthand rendering of paw “net bag.”15 Frequently depicted in Maya art, K’an Winik Paw is sometimes shown as a performer wearing a netlike garment or body paint but also as a true supernatural being, blending simian and grotesque human features (Taube 1989b: 366). Although he is never explicitly identified as a wahy himself, in Maya art K’an Winik Paw appears together with other wahyob, including the Enema Jaguar, indulging in drinking and smoking (fig. 8.12; K505, LC.cb2.285). He is often shown with a distended belly, suggestive of excessive consumption. K5010 shows a longlipped net-attired being with cutouts around the eyes and mouth—probably K’an Winik Paw—who interacts with textually indentified wahyob, including a monkey and a rubber ball wahy (fig. 8.13). On K774 K’an Winik Paw or

his impersonator plays a rattle and probably a whistle, analogous to the peccary skull image (fig. 8.12). Rattles have close associations with dance in Maya art, appearing in the Bonampak murals as well as other well-known dance contexts, including images of dancing wahyob, such as K791 (Looper 2009: 58–59). On K4824 a K’an Winik Paw impersonator wearing black face paint with cutouts around the mouth and eyes dances facing a jaguar impersonator to the music of rattles and a rasp (fig. 2.16). Performances such as these, which combine music, dance, and intoxication through drink and enemas, are the referent of the paired jaguar and monkey characters on the Copán peccary skull (Taube 1989b: 365–366). Owing to K’an Winik Paw’s associations with drinking, enema consumption, dance and music, as well as his grotesque appearance, Karl Taube (1989b: 360–367) suggested that he belongs to a class of ritual clowns. This is supported by comparison with ethnographic sources, in which similar characters appear in festivals of cosmic renewal. Best documented

figure 8.12. K’an Winik Paw with Enema Jaguar, detail of painted vase. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K774. 181

Looper_5982.indd 181

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

monkey impersonators make fun of religious officials, mock the social order, and harass spectators, threatening to abduct them (Blaffer Hrdy 1972: 19–54; Bricker 1973). In Zinacantán and Chenalhó the Blackmen appear among the contemporary Tzotzil, the annual together with jaguars, representing social devifestival of Carnival represents the period when ance (Bricker 1973: 48, 151). This pairing is demonic beings briefly take control of the strongly reminiscent of the imagery of K’an world (Bricker 1973; Gossen 1986). In Chamula Winik Paw and Enema Jaguar in ancient Maya the Carnival is identified with the last five days art and in particular in the context of the pecof the year, the unlucky “lost days” (č’ay k’in) cary skull, where his appearance together with (Bricker 1973: 8; Gossen 1986: 229–230). In animal spirits embodies the amoral or immoral Chamula and Chenalhó this period is characwilderness (Taube 2003a: 483). terized by drunkenness, disorder, and obscenity and is an important occasion for ritual t h e h er d of pe c c a r i e s humor, while in Zinacantán the analogous ceremonies occur during the feast of San SebasIncised on the side of the skull opposite the tián, which falls in January (Bricker 1973: 9). In K’an Winik Paw and Enema Jaguar pair is an Zinacantán, Chenalhó, and Huistán one of the image of a herd of three peccaries. Their bodmost prominent demonic beings that appears ies overlap each other in a complex manner, in masquerade is the evil cave-dwelling Blackand their poses suggest that they are running. man (hˀik’al). In Chamula this figure is merged Peccaries appear in a variety of contexts in with the monkey, which also represents evil Maya art, often mythological (e.g., figs. 7.11, (Bricker 1973: 93, 150–151). The costume of 7.12, 7.13 and K3413). A cluster of peccaries the Blackmen reflects their associations with with attached “star” motifs appears as an astromonkeys. In Zinacantán the Blackmen may nomical image in the upper register of the wear masks with white circles around the eyes Room 2 mural at Bonampak, but stars are lackand mouth, while in Chenalhó they wear mon- ing on the Copán peccary skull. Logically the key fur headdresses (Bricker 1973: 150, plate animals should constitute a wahy, and indeed 9). Known for their hypersexuality and for livpeccary wahyob are featured on several vesing in caves, during festivals the Blackmen and sels.16 However, most of these are K’ahk’ We’ figure 8.13. K’an Winik Paw with various wahyob, detail of painted vessel. Los Angeles County Museum of Art M.2010.115.412. Photograph by Justin Kerr, K5010.

182

Looper_5982.indd 182

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

ajaw.” K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ bears this title in other inscriptions (Stuart 2008b). His subordinate position in this image may relate to the date of the event, which occurred about fifty years prior to his accession as king at Copán (Stuart 2004: 223). This image may amount to a semimythical scene in which K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ pays fealty to another ruler. Rituals conducted by Maya rulers in association with stela-altar complexes were replete the ce n tr al quatre f oil with political and religious significance. The The scene that is the focus of the peccary skull basic function of the ceremony shown on the composition, framed by the quatrefoil carskull was to commemorate a k’atun-ending or touche, shows two humans seated on opposite the completion of a 7,200-day cycle. We also sides of a stela and an altar. The stela is bound know from comparative evidence that such by cloth bands, a ritual act described in the text monumental groups were highly symbolic, the above, in association with the date 1 Ajaw 8 stela (or lakamtuun “great stone”) representing Ch’en, which most scholars place at 8.17.0.0.0, an axis mundi or world tree associated with October 21, 376 (Beyer 1932: 115; Stuart 2004: cosmogenesis (Looper 2003; Newsome 2001). 223). The person responsible for this rite is Stelae were also typically employed as political Leaf Ajaw, who may be the man depicted to the symbols, depicting the ruler and aligning him right, wearing a zoomorphic headdress.18 Judg- or her with the orderly passage of time (Stuart ing from the style of the peccary skull, which 1996). Altars are represented in Maya art as likely dates to the late Early Classic period, the the loci for the placement of sacrificial offerevent shown probably preceded the carving of ings designed to sustain the gods. Accordingly, the object by many decades and perhaps by as Maya inscriptions refer to such monuments much as a century. using terminology such as we’bnaal “plate” (litThe relatively early date of the depicted erally “thing for eating tamales”) and possibly event seems to be reflected in the identity of k’ojbil “pedestal” (Callaway 2012; Zender, Belithe figures. The frontal torso and higher posiaev, and Davletshin 2017: 45–46). As a site for tion of the figure on the right indicate the ritual sacrifices and often placed in relatively superior status of Leaf Ajaw compared to his accessible locales in plazas, the stela-altar pair counterpart on the left. Moreover, in Maya served as a focus of ritual and pilgrimage. If art the dominant person in a scene is usually this is the case, then how can the appearance 19 shown to the viewer’s right (Palka 2002). The of this scene on the inside of a quatrefoil portal subordinate personage shown in profile on the be explained? left wears a macaw headdress. This attribute In Mesoamerican art quatrefoils represent may identify him as K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, who cave openings. Scholars typically interpret founded the Classic-period dynasty of Copán. the scenes taking place inside the quatrefoil The glyphic cartouche next to him may also as occurring inside or at the mouth of a cave signify this, as it reads Ux Witza’ ajaw, “Caracol (Bassie-Sweet 1996: 66; Tate 1982). However, Chitam “Fire-Eating Peccaries” and have fiery snouts as well as other typical wahy iconography, such as scarves. In contrast, the Copán peccary skull peccaries are quite naturalistic. Because several Mayan languages use the term kitam/chitam “peccary” for a kind of epilepsy, it is possible that these represent disease-bearing animals.17

183

Looper_5982.indd 183

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

because stelae and altars were not generally set up inside caves, it seems most reasonable to interpret the image within the cartouche as a historical scene taking place outside of the cave.20 The viewer is positioned from a vantage point within the cave, accompanied by the wahyob and other underworld characters, looking out through the portal. Possibly this positioning is related to the choice of the skeletal medium, taken from the “inside” of an animal. The space of the wahyob and K’an Winik Paw envelops the “hidden” surface of the cranium fragment, complementing the more public political rites of stela dedication and oathtaking, which are only glimpsed through the quatrefoil aperture. In this way the ancient Maya cleverly employed material and compositional devices to signal the complementarity between the sociopolitical world structured by properly conducted royal ritual and the chaotic, amoral dimension of the underworld, populated by agents of disease (wahyob) and clownlike beings such as K’an Winik Paw. The rhetoric of the image seems to indicate that without ceremonies of fealty and monument dedication the proper order of the universe would fail and agents of chaos would be released into the human community.21 It is interesting that the other offerings from Tomb 1 in which the peccary skull was found intersect with several themes expressed in the imagery of the skull. For example, various musical instruments were found in this tomb, including a pottery whistle and a turtle carapace with deer bone beater. This relates to the rattle played by K’an Winik Paw on the skull. Animal imagery also appears on several of the painted pottery vessels found in this tomb as well as a remarkable brown ware effigy vase representing a canine (Clancy, Gallenkamp, and Johnson 1985: 171, cat. 115;

Longyear 1952: 40–41). Although this vessel may serve as an effigy guide to the underworld (Clancy, Gallenkamp, and Johnson 1985: 171), we should consider the possibility that it relates to the themes of wild animals portrayed on the peccary skull. It is difficult to explain exactly why the artist who carved this work chose to depict this particular population of wahyob and other beings in the context of the ritual depicted in the central cartouche. Since K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ may be explicitly cited as a lord of Caracol, it is possible that Ochiil Maax, the deer-spider monkey wahy, was included because this being is also associated with Caracol. Perhaps this wahy was depicted in order to suggest that K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ brought with him to Copán the spells and ritual knowledge needed to control this dangerous being associated with his place of origin. However, there is no obvious reason why the other wahyob, which are associated with El Zotz or Ibil (Utuunil Chihj Chamiiy) and Calakmul (Enema Jaguar), are shown. Perhaps these beings represented a wider supernatural domain over which the patron of this object wished to exert dominance or influence or were understood to have been controlled by K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ and/or Leaf Ajaw. The interpretation of the peccary skull imagery as a statement about the relationship between kingship and personified diseases prompts us to reconsider the concept of shamanism as a component of royal ideology during the Classic period. When the glyph for WAY was first deciphered, scholars noted the associations of this term with witchcraft and transformation (Houston and Stuart 1989: 5). This led Linda Schele and David Freidel (1990; see also Freidel and Schele 1988) to suggest that rulers were able to transform into these spirits through ecstatic techniques of dance

184

Looper_5982.indd 184

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

and bloodletting. However, some scholars criticized the characterization of Maya kingship as involving shamanic concepts, owing partly to the association of shamanism with Siberian cultures (Klein et al. 2002). The term “shaman” was considered exclusive to Asian cultures, and its use outside of this context was therefore inappropriate. Nevertheless, most scholars who study indigenous South American shamanism have no problem calling it by this name and observe the mutual “symbolic analogies and indications of historical relatedness” that characterize performances of ritual specialists throughout Amazonia (Whitehead and Wright 2004a: 2). Similarly, many Maya ethnographers refer to various classes of religious specialists as shamans, whose ritual roles include maintaining solar movement, divination, care of sacred bundles, healing and herbalism, midwifery, sorcery (infliction of disease and death), ensuring agricultural fertility and success in hunting, and communication with spirits and who are often incorporated into community hierarchical institutions (see Prufer 2005: 194–198). Calling certain ecstatic rituals “shamanic” does not automatically imply identity with Siberian religious concepts but suggests a fruitful field for cross-cultural comparison particularly among tropical American peoples who share not only similar environmental conditions but also forms of culture, despite differences in social complexity (Wilbert 2004: 42–43).22 Another argument against the characterization of Maya kingship as involving shamanic elements focuses on the lack of evidence for clear ties between individual rulers and typical tropical American shamanic activities, especially the achievement of altered states of consciousness through the use of hallucinogens (also called entheogens; see Stuart 2005a:

263–264).23 However, altered states of consciousness are understood to be a fundamental aspect of Mesoamerican religions and entheogens were frequently a part of general religious practice (Furst 1994: 16–24; Furst and Coe 1977). The most commonly cited entheogens in Mesoamerica are psilocybin mushrooms (Psilocybe mexicana), morning glory seed (Turbina corymbosa), peyote, and bufotenine, derived from the toad Bufo marinus (Miller and Taube 1993: 90–91; Robicsek 1978: 48–58). For the Classic Maya, evidence of the use of these substances by rulers is scarce. This does not immediately disqualify Maya kingship as shamanic, however, as not all cultures that practice shamanism use entheogens (Ripinsky-Naxon 1993: 142). In the tropical forest areas of South America tobacco (Nicotiana rustica), in the form of smoke, juice, or snuff, is “the principal and nearly universal intoxicant used” (Wilbert 1987: 4). Not merely a narcotic, tobacco is used to achieve visionary states in many indigenous South American societies, either alone or in combination with entheogens.24 Thus, even though it is not a “true” hallucinogen, as used by South American shamans “tobacco is often conceptually and functionally indistinguishable from them” (Wilbert 1990: 55). In many societies tobacco is thought of as sustenance for both the practitioner and the spirits and is used in curing (Gregor 1977: 334). According to one Cashinahua informant interviewed by Elsje Lagrou (2004: 263): “Pure tobacco, we use to heal illness. . . . These are really strong ashes mixed with the tobacco powder. If you have illness in your body, any kind of illness, and pain in your bones, you sniff tobacco powder, get drunk, and you can cure. You pass your spittle on the person and spread it out over his body.” Among the Warao of Venezuela, three different

185

Looper_5982.indd 185

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

classes of shamans, including the “darkshamans” (hoarotu) who “kill” victims using magic projectiles, employ tobacco smoke “as their principal ecstatic and therapeutic vehicle” (Wilbert 1990: 60; see also Wilbert 2004). Tzeltal and Tzotzil Maya in the highlands of Chiapas ingest tobacco snuff prepared from ground mixtures of raw tobacco leaves and slaked lime (Groark 2010). Swallowing the juice produces sensations of burning and restricted breathing, followed by mild vertigo and tingling of the scalp, then calm and enhanced concentration (Groark 2010: 10–11). In highland Chiapas tobacco is used both to treat a variety of bodily ailments and to protect against evil forces, including a class of fetid foxlike supernatural animals called potzlom (Groark 2010: 15–20). We know that ancient Maya elites also consumed tobacco in the form of snuffs, cigars, and cigarettes (see Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 114–116; Robicsek 1978). Some native tobacco varieties were very strong, so it is possible that the ancient Maya used tobacco to achieve trance states, though it seems likely that psychotropic substances might also have been added (McKenna 1992: 196–197; Robicsek 1978: 58). This may be suggested by the visionary imagery that appears before the smoking lord on the Cleveland plaque (see chapter 3, figs. 3.1, 3.2). It seems unlikely that the Maya would deviate from the normal pattern of Native American tobacco use, which is almost always ritualistic (see Wilbert 1990: 55). Nevertheless, it is clear that rulers were far from the only consumers of tobacco in Maya society. How then is it possible to study “shamanism” in a culture when there is no clearly defined individual or office that can be equated with a shaman? Writing in the Native North American context, Esther Pasztory (1982) made a useful contrast between shamanic societies,

centered on individuals identified as specialists in altered states of consciousness, and societies that incorporate shamanic elements or symbolism. The ancient Maya evidence is more consistent with the latter category, in which rulers incorporated shamanic trance and healing/ harming elements for purposes of political aggrandizement. Shamanic trance practices also pervaded society, in the general and collective use of tobacco. It can be compared with other tropical American cultures, such as the Achuar (Jívaro) of Ecuador, among whom shamanic activity is possible for almost any adult and about one in four men becomes such a practitioner (Harner 1973: 17).25 In the context of tropical Native American cultures, of which the Maya are one, shamanism may be defined as a transformational process that mediates the world of humans and spirits through several basic steps (see Shepard 2004; Vitebsky 2001). First is the separation of individuals from the community through mysterious illness or an apprenticeship including extensive purification rituals. Through this experience, which involves altered states of consciousness and ecstatic flight to celestial and underworld realms, spirit contact is achieved, resulting in the bestowal of powers that may be used for both good and evil (healing and harming). Next is reintegration with the community, followed by recurring spirit contact. For example, among the Achuar, gifts are presented by an initiate to a practicing shaman in exchange for spirit helper “darts” (tsentsak). Using a brew made from Banisteriopsis vine (also known as ayahuasca), green tobacco juice, and Datura potion, the novice learns to manipulate the tsentsak, shooting it into victims’ bodies to sicken or kill them or at other times to suck enemy tsentsak from the bodies of persons who have fallen ill from shamanic

186

Looper_5982.indd 186

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

attack. The shamans also enlist other spirit helpers such as wakani (spirit birds) and pasuk (personal helper spirits) to assist them in their work. The abilities of the shaman do not simply endure but become weak over time and must be periodically tested and renewed (Harner 1973). The aggressive “attacking” form of shamanism seen here is a salient quality of South American societies.26 In order to see how Maya kingship may have functioned within a shamanic framework, it is useful to consider the approach of John Hoopes and David Mora-Marín (2009), which looked at tropical Native American ideologies in terms of a fundamental ritual process that employs metaphors of healing and harming. In their view, ritual violence in ancient tropical America, such as warfare and blood sacrifice, is a form of medicine, enacted in order to rectify cosmic imbalances brought on by immorality, including sorcery. Their model is rooted in indigenous conceptions of immorality and its consequences: “In Amazonia illness, ill-fortune and ill-weather are never natural events but always moral ones deriving from the transgressions of oneself or enmity of others and so only to be averted through shamanic action, especially by experienced and politically senior men.”27 Because it was perceived as medicinal, Hoopes and Mora-Marín argue, ritual violence was crucial to the perpetuation of health and fertility of the social and cosmic realms. Moral transgressions are expressed as macro-illnesses, conceived as personal disease on the scale of a community. These might involve outbreaks of similar illnesses among a number of people or disasters that affect the community as a whole, such as floods or droughts (Hoopes and Mora-Marín 2009: 296– 297). Such notions of the symmetry between microcosm and macrocosm underlay much

Mesoamerican ritual magic, such as the offering of blood for rain (Hoopes and Mora-Marín 2009: 297). According to Hoopes and MoraMarín (2009: 298), being at the top of the social hierarchy, it would have been the responsibility of Maya kings to divine the causes of macroillness (sorcery) and to combat it through magical and physical warfare. In other words, the Maya ruler’s role is that of a community healer. They point to the narrative sequence of the Popol Vuh in which the Hero Twins, who are models for rulership, are able to defeat the lords of the underworld, who represent diseases, by naming them (Hoopes and MoraMarín 2009: 300–301). The meticulous cataloging of wahy spirits on Classic-period ceramics may relate to the desire to identify and thereby dominate the agents of macro-illnesses. In defining the ritual procedure for diagnosing and treating macro-illnesses, Hoopes and Mora-Marín (2009: 299–300) outline a sequence of seven steps. The first step is to undergo trance or conduct divination in order to determine the cause of illness. Following this are five other steps: (2) determining ancestry of the illness; (3) treatment often initiated as a snake dance; (4) transformation into an animal predator; (5) capture and sacrifice of the responsible agent (sorcerer, warrior); and (6) celebration of the power of the victor. The last step is the commemoration of the ritual cycle through monuments and narratives that enhance the healer’s power. This is a critical stage, for it enshrines the actions of the ruler within the community memory as a sacred and terrifying series of events: “It was in this process that both the myths and the imagery ‘came alive’ and played a role in self-perpetuation” (Hoopes and Mora-Marín 2009: 300). The Copán peccary skull essentially condenses this ritual sequence of community

187

Looper_5982.indd 187

1/27/19 3:02 PM

t he b eas t b e tw e e n

healing into two elements, which correspond to the first and last steps. The first step, in which the causes of illness are visualized, is analogous to the peripheral imagery on the peccary skull, which shows personified disease agents. In contrast, the scene within the quatrefoil represents the dedication of calendrically significant monuments, which permanently memorialize the ruler’s power. But even this ostensibly tranquil image belies a ceremony of monument dedication that was steeped in sacrificial symbolism. Not only would it have involved bloodlettings and the burning of incense that symbolized blood, but the very essence of stone monuments as temporal markers commemorated the origins of time, which the Maya believed to have resulted from the sacrifice and dismemberment of a cosmic crocodilian. Maya day signs are often shown with bloody cartouches that symbolize the origins of the calendar in blood sacrifice (see Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006: 93). Moreover, the cloth that binds the depicted stela is akin not only to the crowning of a ruler with a white paper headband but also to the swaddling of a newborn child (Looper 2003: 177). The treatment of stone monuments as newborns ties the period-ending ceremony to the symbolism of childbirth, which is a bloody business, akin to warfare in Mesoamerican thought (Hoopes and Mora-Marín 2009: 316–319). Just as women give birth to children, so the analogy goes, rulers give birth to gods through bloodletting and to monuments through dedication ceremonies. The rituals restore cosmic and community health, as new life is created out of spilled blood. The Copán peccary skull provides some of the best evidence for a shamanic role for certain Maya rulers. While not necessarily identifying them generically as “shaman-kings,”

the texts and images of the ancient Maya show that some rulers did in fact concern themselves with achieving community health through supernatural means, enabled by trance or dreams.28 It is one of the few Maya artworks that juxtaposes images and narratives about historical rulers with representations of wahyob. The deer-wahyob incised onto the nasal bone of the skull represent specific illnesses that are associated with the Maya political landscape. At least one of the wahyob depicted, the deer-monkey Ochiil Maax, is linked to Caracol, the place of origin of the ruler depicted on the left side of the cartouche, K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, while the others are associated with various locations elsewhere in the Maya world. Although only some wahyob are based on deer, this animal may be prominent as a bearer of illness precisely because it commonly intrudes into human constructed space, through the liminal zone of the maize field. It is important to emphasize that this representation of wahyob in relation to historical rulers is unique to a particular time and place (Early Classic Copán) and should not be generalized to apply to the Classic Maya as a whole.29 The constellation of diverse wahyob that is invoked here may be for the purpose of demonstrating the terrifying spiritual powers that K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’ could manipulate. While they cavort freely, it is only within their defined space on the undulating, cave-like peripheral surfaces of the cranium, symbolizing the dangerous, fearful, and chaotic underworld/ wilderness. In contrast, the central medallion, its four lobes anchored conceptually to the four cardinal directions, establishes the cosmic axis at the center of the world, through which communication between diverse realms is achieved. The boundaries between the underworld and the world of the village or

188

Looper_5982.indd 188

1/27/19 3:02 PM

d eer d epa r te d

ceremonial center are demarcated and sealed by the lordly heroes. The ceremony that makes this all possible is the period-ending ritual, in which a stela, identified with the world axis and the king’s body itself, is planted. Before it a zoomorphic altar grins, hungry for the sacrifices of blood and incense that will allow cosmic healing and rebirth. Because the depicted

ceremony commemorates the historical transition of power from old dynasty to new, there is an implication that the old dynasty is soon to expire, followed by one that will be born out of its blood. At its head is the heroic shamanic king K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, a lord from a distant and powerful kingdom, who holds the wilderness and its demons in check.

189

Looper_5982.indd 189

1/27/19 3:02 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

epilogue

Out of the Woods Deer and Borders

ike other mesoamericans, the Maya generally consider the wilderness and its denizens—including deer—to be associated with chaos, immorality, and disease. As such, deer can be viewed as a symbol around which the Maya constructed their basic definitions of identity and social order. The more specific imagining of deer as a foe derives directly from the role of this mammal as one of the principal game animals of the Maya. Emerging from this concept are several of the major aspects of deer symbolism as outlined in this book, especially the deer in relation to warfare, the ballgame, and sacrifice. As prey animals, images of deer were manipulated in order to enhance the “predatory” role of elites during the Classic period, asserting

Looper_5982.indd 191

their dominance over society. The preferential consumption of venison by elites, as well as the display of ornaments, costumes, and ritual objects made of durable deer parts, such as the carved tibia from Copán (fig. 2.1), expressed the same ideological concern. As prey animals, deer also took on a gender symbolism, encoded as a “female” element that males tried to dominate. This is expressed through the general presentation of hunting as an activity in which males were cast as predators as well as through the first penance ceremony, which involved bloodletting and a ritual deer hunt by young males (see chapter 5). This ceremony signified the alignment of male gender with an enhanced social status. In general, the function of deer as a prime game animal underlay its social significance as a symbol of status as

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

well as defined the interaction of diverse social groups through marriage and warfare. Many other aspects of the deer’s symbolism for the Maya also seem to derive from observed behavior, particularly of white-tails. These include its cosmological associations. In particular, as one of the largest terrestrial vertebrate animals known in the region, it was viewed as representative of the earth and a metonym for quadruped mammals in general. Its symbolic connections to the dry-season sun likely relate partly to the animal’s ability to move quickly and its relative weakness, analogous to the perceived rapid movement and lower intensity of the sun during the shorter days of the dry season (see chapter 7). A dry-season solar symbolism was also probably rooted in observations of the deer’s taste for the ashes of burned fields as well as to the general complementarity of hunting and agricultural seasons. The association between deer and sexuality may also stem from observed behavior during the rut, in which males compete for females, mount them, and then move on in search of other does. It is likely that most of these metaphors associated with deer emerged long before the artworks discussed in this book were created, perhaps during the period when agriculture was introduced into the Maya area, around 2400 BC (see Estrada Belli 2011: 38–39). Unfortunately, because visual culture from this epoch is scarce, there is no direct evidence that would corroborate this supposition. Yet another important aspect of Maya deer lore may extend even further back in antiquity, to the period of Archaic hunting. This is the enduring belief in powerful spirits deemed responsible for replenishing the deer population. Again, there is no direct evidence for this belief in the Maya area during this period. As outlined in chapter 6, however, the belief in

spirit “owners” of animals is extremely widespread and enduring in the Americas and seems likely to have been part of the worldview espoused by the earliest Native Americans, who subsisted exclusively on hunting and gathering. Importantly, in Mesoamerica the belief in animal spirit guardians did not diminish after the transition to agriculture, partly owing to the continued importance of hunting of a variety of game species but also because the practice of “garden hunting” (see chapter 1) may have encouraged the symbolic synergy between agriculture and the hunt (see Dehouve 2008: 5–7). It is indeed possible to point to numerous homologies between agricultural and hunting lore among the Maya (and elsewhere in Mesoamerica). For example, both involve a spirit owner, often cast as a grandfatherly figure; both game animals and maize are sequestered within mountains; and both involve a symbolic marriage (farmer to maize; hunter to animals).1 Probably the most obvious instance of the merging of hunting with agriculture in the Classic period is the Maize God with deer attributes who appears on the Dying God vessels (chapter 4). The complementarity between hunting and agriculture is also expressed profoundly through the generational mythology of a figure associated with hunting who fathers a hero associated with agriculture (see chapter 7). This myth is an important metaphor for the compatibility of the two subsistence technologies. In sum, many of the images discussed in this book likely reflect a very widespread and ancient worldview. Because it was situated at the nexus of a number of fundamental domains of Maya culture, particularly subsistence, social status, gender, sexuality, and political power, the deer’s symbolic potency has

192

Looper_5982.indd 192

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

endured to influence a wide body of contemporary beliefs and practices. Owing to its high level of cognitive and emotional saturation, the deer might even be said to be a “condensed” symbol for the Classic Maya, especially the elite (see Turner 1967; Vogt 1976: 10–11). A focus for feelings of desire, hunger, and aggression, the deer metaphor could be manipulated in myriad ways by artists sponsored by the Maya elite to represent their unique perspective on the world.

crossing boundari e s: de er as a limina l me taphor Although Claude Lévi-Strauss (1963b: 224) believed that a core general purpose of myth was to resolve structural oppositions (see the introduction), deer were uniquely ascribed this symbolic function by the Maya, serving in multiple mythic and ritual contexts as liminal embodiments. In particular, deer played an important role in various rites of passage in the terms of van Gennep (1960), representing the threshold between different social statuses or identities. Cervid symbolism was involved in accessions, calendrical ceremonies, and boyhood rites. Liminal states were often manifested through the image of the sacrificed body of the deer as well as by fusing images of hunter and game, human and deer, and captor and captive (chapter 5). Images of sacrificed deer or cervid supernaturals often were relegated to peripheral zones in artistic compositions, implying the disorder that is controlled and marginalized by the ritual action of the virtuous ruler or triumphant hunter/warrior. Hunting symbolism also pervaded the ballgame, a profoundly liminal ritual complex that embodied the border zone between community and wilderness. The ballgame frequently

employed deer symbolism partially to erase individuality among the participants but also to present them as liminalized penitents. One vase even employs four ballplayers with colorcoded deer headdresses to identify them with the four corners of the cosmos (fig. 5.20). As a ritual process, the ballgame neutralized political rankings during play, only to reconstitute them upon completion. For this reason, it was an ideal means for affirming political alliances, delicately negotiating the space between cooperation and domination (chapter 5). Like the ballgame, the hunt and warfare had indeterminate outcomes. Even if these activities were not conceived by the Maya overtly as “games,” the ballgame, with its extensive hunting and martial symbolism, presented them as such. The yax ch’ahb ceremony mainly for boys can also be characterized as a rite of passage, in which the deer hunt played an important role. In this ceremony the boys were placed in a liminal state not only by separating them from the community but by transferring them into the realm of the field and forest, where they became one with the prey animal. The ceremony probably concluded with a deer sacrifice, which reasserted the domination of the hunter over the game as a metaphor for personal status enhancement. The sacrificial division of the animal into component parts (heart, haunch, head, etc.) in the rite metaphorically embodied the liminal separation of the initiate. This is followed by the cooking and consumption of the animal, which signified reincorporation into society or at least into the upper class. In addition, elements of the yax ch’ahb are analogous to the mythic rites depicted in the San Bartolo mural, in which the young God S sacrifices animals (including deer) in front of directional trees (fig. 2.7). The ritual in which blood is drawn from the penitent’s body paral-

193

Looper_5982.indd 193

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

lels the killing of the animal, unifying the sacrificer and victim within the liminal state. In addition, the deity carries out the sacrifice before directional trees, which locates the event on the spatial boundary between the human and nonhuman worlds. By burning the offerings, the heat (life-force) of the animal is transferred vertically through the tree, thereby uniting the diverse realms of the cosmos. The recognition of the role that the hunting and sacrifice of the deer plays in yax ch’ahb and New Year rites underscores the way in which this animal served both as a conceptual and spatiotemporal liminal metaphor. In fact, van Gennep (1960: 18–21) expressly modeled his concept of rites of passage upon religious rituals associated with doorways or portals (limen, Latin for “threshold, doorway”). Van Gennep (1960: 15) also defined boundaries with reference to sacred natural features or objects that have been consecrated. Scholars frequently invoke this concept when discussing specific Mesoamerican places/spaces as liminal in nature, particularly caves, sweat baths, ballcourts, and tombs. These spaces and structures are the junctures between various cosmic zones and states of existence or “portals to the Otherworld,” to use the terms of Freidel, Schele, and Parker (1993). For the ancient Maya, the liminal significance of deer was likewise strongly rooted in spatio-temporal concepts, often linked to behavioral observations. For instance, the crepuscular feeding habits of white-tailed deer likely served as the basis for the elaboration of various astronomical metaphors, such as the deer as a metaphor for the setting sun (chapter 7) and the occasional association of hunting deities with the Morning Star. Deer also play a prominent role in certain dance rituals documented in recent times. These are often temporally

liminal, occurring during the transition from the dry to the rainy season (chapter 6). Observations of the white-tailed deer’s tendency to browse at the edges of forests, occasionally crossing into cornfields, seem to have inspired a great many metaphorical permutations (chapter 1). This basic metaphorical grounding was extended through deer procurement practices, in which humans moved deer carcasses, skins, and body parts from peripheral, liminal hunting zones of the fields and forest edges to households and other “centers,” where they were processed into tools, ornaments, and attire (chapter 2). Deer meat was also transported from peripheral zones to centers, where it was often consumed by elites. This economic pattern parallels the association between deer and second-tier nobles and certain courtly officials, who may have had the role of mediating with the gods and between various levels of society (chapter 3). Other expressions related to the spatial liminality of deer include practices in which deer remains are frequently interred within hunting shrines in liminal spaces located short distances from habitations or in caves or grottoes (chapter 6). The return of select remains from home to forest complemented the movement of hunted animals from forest to household. As a prominent wild animal, deer were commonly employed to personify illnesses, which the Maya consider to intrude into the human community from peripheral areas, such as caves, cenotes, and the wilderness in general (chapter 8). Interpreted through mythology and ritual, the spatial liminality of deer also served as a metaphor for fertilization, which was conceptualized as the interpenetration of the forest and the human community (chapter 4). This facet of the metaphor pointed to the association between deer and vice or filth that is

194

Looper_5982.indd 194

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

required in order for fertilization to occur. In this context, deer represent a natural substance akin to dirt that is “out of place” (see Douglas 1966). Yet, like the deer’s symbolic complement of a farmer who dirties himself working in the fields (a sexual act, from the Mesoamerican point of view; see Monaghan 1995: 115–117; Taggart 1983: 186), such soiling of the threshold was a prerequisite for agricultural productivity. Indeed, the spiral motif that frequently appears on the bodies and ears of deer in Maya art is similar to other Mesoamerican symbols of excrement, which, though it has a rank smell, is highly desirable as agricultural fertilizer (see figs. 2.9, 7.9).2 In sum, the close association of deer with agricultural fertility in Maya (and Mesoamerican) mythology constitutes one of the fundamental expressions of the liminality of this creature, specifically referencing the blurring or merging of the categories of nature and culture, embodied in the hunt and agriculture.

borders : conce p tual , phy sic al , or performati ve Useful new ways of thinking about liminality in terms of physical space, ideology, and performance are provided by the interdisciplinary field of border studies, which has grown dramatically over the last several decades. Border studies as a field is typically conceived with reference to the modern world, especially the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Accordingly, “frontier” is the general term, referring to an intermediary region, while “boundary” refers to a more formal line of demarcation. “Border” is the intermediate term, with borders usually seen a product of modern state-building and the global state system (Anderson and O’Dowd 1999; Baud and

Van Schendel 1997: 214). Much of border studies grapples with historical transformations between the national state period to a more globalized world, such as the borders that are created in the form of ex-territories located in foreign airports (Newman 2006: 178–179). Nevertheless, I believe that border studies provides categories and concepts that allow us to reset the parameters used to frame old questions, especially concerning the precise correspondence between nation, state, and territory in the ancient Maya context. At this juncture I assert that it is not my intention to impose models developed for other borders, such as the Mexico-US border, onto marginality in the ancient Maya realm and thereby compare the Maya state to a modern nation-state. In fact, one of the goals of border studies is to question the “classic” definition of a polity as a center with a well-defined border, preferring to theorize borders as “processes, as floating signifiers, as waypoints and conduits in the flow of peoples, ideas, goods, capital and threats to the body politic” (Wilson and Donnan 2012: 17). Richie Howitt (2001: 243) defines liminal spaces as “ambiguous and (at least) bi-polar spaces within social discourses where multiple influences and positions need to be considered as shaping cultural landscapes.” Accordingly, this perspective encourages us to question the way in which different political segments of the Maya populace defined themselves in relation to each other and to the cultural and natural landscape. Indeed, borders are not confined to interstate divisions or even physical geography but are more broadly defined as the separations between the self and the other (Newman 2006: 172). The social process of “othering,” expressed in binary contrasts (here/there, us/them, inside/outside, culture/ nature), bears no necessary relationship to

195

Looper_5982.indd 195

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

territory or physical space (Newman 2006: 176). A border perspective allows us to examine these dyads and to try to understand how they are constituted. Borderlands have often been conceptualized in anthropology as an in-between zone of culture contact and the blurring of identities (Chan and Womack 2016). They are therefore sites and spaces that join as well as separate. As Mark Salter (2012: 740) observed, because the border is a place of both connection and distinction, “[i]t renders visible the raw power that must be exerted to hold the two together and apart.” This point underscores the importance of understanding borders as politically constituted and therefore contested and fluid spaces (see Howitt 2001). They are places of negotiation, movement, and exchange as well as narrative competition and even physical conflict. The networks of contact and struggle that typify borders are defined with reference to political power and are constitutive of it. This observation reframes Turner’s utopian and fundamentally apolitical liminal space as politically saturated (see the introduction and Weber 1995). The idea of borders as dynamic and politicized spaces also allows us to theorize them as processes rather than patterns or products (see Newman 2006: 175).

components as (1) formal, meaning the definition and demarcation of the border; (2) practical, referring to the sealing and/or regulation of the border; and (3) popular (or rhetorical), referring to the dissemination and contestation of narratives relating to the border. Evidence from colonial and modern Maya communities shows that the principal mode of demarcating and regulating borders is ritual, often in the form of border walks by the involved parties. These perambulations are documented in both highlands (Breton 1999: 323; Carmack 1973: 358–359) and Yucatán (Restall 1999: 189–225). The polity in Yucatán was conceived as a series of concentric circles with the governor’s patio (with a well and ceiba tree) at the center. This is surrounded by the cah (municipal community), the territory of the cah, then the larger polity consisting of other communities subordinate to the center, and finally the Yucatán peninsula (Restall 2001: 336–337). The borders of the cah were marked by stone mounds, arranged in lines or placed at the corners (Restall 1999: 105). Stone markers were also set up around the part of the forest that was designated to be used for subsistence agriculture (Restall 1999: 171). Trees were also parts of the boundaries, representing the transition to the k’ax or wilderness. Colonial Yucatec town councilors used both stationary land descriptions and descriptions maya border p erf ormati vi ty presented as ambulatory border walks to assert The recognition of the processual nature of ownership of lands. In addition, the power borders is particularly important in the Maya of the elite was supported by a mythology of case, given the strong ritual component of poli- foreign origins through the equation of geotics. What processes did the Maya employ to graphical distance with supernatural power.3 imagine and socially construct borders? How Thus, these border walks also demarcated did they manage borders? Further, how did sacred space by reenacting myths of ancestral borders structure life (see Newman 2006: 173)? migrations (Restall 1999: 198–200). Natural Salter (2011: 66) provided a useful way for ana- landscape features in the highlands, particulyzing border performativity, defining its three larly mountains, delimit the sacred space of

196

Looper_5982.indd 196

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

communities or regional states, whereas fields are bounded with plants such as henequen as well as stone walls (Jones 2009: 204, 222). As in Yucatán, the K’iche’ measured borders and described territorial boundaries by walking them (Jones 2009: 216–227). Among the Tzotzil, annual ritual circuits reaffirmed the fundamental dichotomy between human and wilderness zones (Vogt 1969: 374). It is important to recognize that the placement of physical border markers in these cases was subordinate to the ritual acts that defined territory.4 Both hieroglyphic texts and archaeological investigations reveal that the ancient Maya were also very much concerned with sociopolitical boundaries and similar concepts of territorial borders. While the colonial Yucatec spatial model for the polity was circular, the Classic Maya conceived border performativity formally as a quincunx, a figure with four corner points and a center. The quincunx is ideally replicated at varying levels through a series of four-sided structures: the house, courtyard group, town, plaza, field, and world at large (see Coggins 1980). Representing humanly constructed space carved out from a chaotic forest, the spatial contrast of inside the quincunx versus outside it served as a metaphor for categorical oppositions in character and morality (Taube 2003a: 461–464). The home and agricultural field were the model for the polity as a bounded space, with the site core and its enthroned ruler as the metonymic “head.”5 Hieroglyphic texts allude to the courtly city and polity using the agricultural metaphor of the maize field (Davenport and Golden 2016: 192). In contrast, the wilderness represented the inversion of the values characteristic of human inhabited spaces (Stone 1992: 112). It is likely that these notions of human identity were linked historically to the development

of permanent nucleated settlements in Mesoamerica (Stone 1992: 116). The opposition between periphery and center represented not only morality and identity but a temporal boundary, in which the forest wilds are associated with the ancient, mythic past (Gossen 1974: 29; Stone 1995). Periodically, the community order had to be overthrown (as during the Wayeb or Carnival festivals), followed by its rebirth. In Mesoamerica this renewal process was articulated through creation myths and their ritual reenactment (see Christenson 2016). As part of this primordial renewal of the cosmos, certain gods or heroes like the opossum measured out time and created the calendar, effectively establishing the boundary between the mythic and the current eras (López Austin 2011: 47). The Yucatec referred to this temporal bounding as kalac kin “closing of time” (Álvarez 1980: 43).6 In the Classic period the Maya used a related expression k’ahlaj tuun “the closing of the stone,” in which time is represented in the form of a physical object—a stone monument (see fig. 8.2). The placement of the stone metaphorically represents the separation of time periods. Temporal movement begins at the points where celestial and underworld forces intersect, which are the four corners of the cosmos, embodied in four directional trees (López Austin 2011: 53). Thus, the assertion of control of the border (the four cosmic trees) implies the control of time. At ancient Quiriguá the king K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat stressed the analogy between the bounding of time and of space through the erection of massive stone monuments in a roughly rectangular arrangement atop a platform (fig. E.1).7 Each monument was set up on a five-year anniversary of the creation of the world. This signified the separation of the

197

Looper_5982.indd 197

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

current era from the past as well as the border between the ordered realm of the kingdom and the disorder that lay beyond. Emblazoned with colossal royal portraits, these monuments ritually embodied the ruler’s identification with and control over time (see Stuart 1996). Moreover, several of the monuments depict the ruler performing at distant locales and in remote times in the past (Looper 2003: 122–157). The representation of the ruler as a visitor to a mythic realm located in a sacred space beyond time contributed to his persona as a supernaturally endowed hero. The arrangement of the monuments likely marked the corner points

of a counterclockwise ritual circuit, akin to ritual processions attested in colonial Yucatán (Looper 2003: 182–183; see also Reese-Taylor 2002). In sum, the monuments themselves formally constituted the border; rituals of sanctification regulated it; and the texts and images of these monuments performed the border rhetorically. In addition to stone monuments, other types of boundary-marking constructions expressed aspects of authority and territorial claims for the ancient Maya. On the level above the individual household are the small stone walls that served as house lot borders at Chunchucmil and other northern Yucatán sites.8 Whether or not southern lowlands sites widely employed similar structures is not clear (Becker 2001). Household walls were replicated at the city level at various sites, such as Cobá, Chunchucmil, and Aguateca.9 Sometimes these walls supported palisades for defensive purposes, as at Punta de Chimino (Demarest 2004: 253–254). A surrounding wall clearly demarcated social class in Postclassic Mayapán. Within this enclosure were the main temples and residences of nobles, while the houses of commoners were located outside (Tozzer 1941: 25–26). Mayapán also had gates at the four directions that served to regulate the boundary (Roys 1933: 69). In early colonial communities these thresholds were marked with piles of stones (Tozzer 1941: 139–140). Scholars have argued that natural features such as rivers, swamps, escarpments, and so forth served as borders in many cases, sometimes connected to human-made structures like canals (Demarest 2004: 141–143; Garrison 2007). Also frequently mentioned as marking a border of some kind are the earthworks located figure E.1. Arrangement of monuments on Platform to the north, east, and west of Tikal, consist1A-1, Quiriguá, Guatemala. Drawing by author. ing of deep trenches with the fill piled into embankments, located on the interior.10 198

Looper_5982.indd 198

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

The material traces of border regulation are particularly well documented in the Usumacinta basin during the eighth century, where a series of walls and defensible hilltop sites such as La Pasadita and Tecolote demarcates the northwestern border between the Yaxchilán kingdom and its rival Piedras Negras.11 Hieroglyphic texts document that, in exchange for help in controlling this border, the Yaxchilán ruler Bird Jaguar IV allowed the governors (sajalob) of these smaller sites to display status symbols such as inscribed monuments in a style associated with the patron court (Golden 2003; see also Schele and Freidel 1990: 262– 305). Because the monuments commemorating the rituals through which the borders were maintained (dancing, presenting captives, scattering offerings) embodied the essence of the participants depicted, they effectively perpetually enacted the border (Davenport and Golden 2016: 194). Differences in degrees of bordering through walls and other means at various sites suggest variation in the ways that the Maya thought of the boundedness of their communities as well as differing ritual protocols for establishing and maintaining borders. Walls, earthworks, palisades, and other structures of stone, earth, and wood probably meant different things at different times and places. These structures can be interpreted as the physical residues of rituals of construction, commemoration, and sanctification (see Davenport and Golden 2016).

cave s a s borders and ce nters Although walls and similar structures seem to have been important in defining ancient Maya borders of various kinds, they are only rarely referenced in the inscriptions. Instead, the most salient entity that is treated as a border in Maya inscriptions is the ch’een, often

interpreted literally as “cave” (Vogt and Stuart 2005).12 Ch’een actually has meanings beyond simply “cave” in Mayan languages, including “hole, grave, well, and canyon” (Tokovinine 2013: 25). A detailed contextual analysis of ch’een in Classic contexts by Tokovinine (2013: 25–55) indicates that it was frequently used metaphorically to refer to a settlement or city, encompassing caves, temples, and other holy grounds. In the Classic texts ch’een is used similarly to kah in colonial documents, as a term of political reference (Tokovinine 2013: 35). In the inscriptions a ch’een could be owned by gods or humans, and rulers were buried in them. A ch’een might be burned or “chopped” as a metaphor for warfare. “Entering” a ch’een was also often used as a metaphor for an attack against a particular polity, though some ch’eenentering events were not martial in nature and may have referred to enshrining deities in temples (Tokovinine 2013: 33).13 The referencing of temples or shrines using the metaphor of a cave underlines the widespread symbolic equivalence of pyramids with mountains and their associated shrines or temples with caves.14 In Mesoamerica caves are the prototypical liminal spaces where the various realms of the cosmos meet: sky, earth, and underworld.15 They are places of transformation: physical sensations are altered upon entering them, and objects deposited within them become sacrifices (MacLeod and Puleston 1979). Their liminality was also extensively exploited as a setting for rites of passage, such as funerals and accessions to political office.16 The political associations of caves were probably connected in part to the symbolic control of water resources, as caves usually contain water.17 Examples of the political use of caves in Mesoamerica include the transformation of Chichimec chiefs into tlahtohqueh (rulers) through a nose-piercing ceremony in

199

Looper_5982.indd 199

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

the ancestral cave Chicomoztoc “Seven Caves.” For the K’iche’ Maya, the investiture of rulers also took place in Wuqub’ Pek, Wuqub’ Siwan “Seven Caves, Seven Canyons” (Christenson 2003: 210). The liminality of caves motivated their use as sites for political negotiations between rival polities and social groups (Colas 1998). These functions underscore the general principle that for the Maya, control of a ch’een was tantamount to control of a supernatural and political border.18 As Andrea Stone (1992) argued, the ancient Maya did not merely assert control over cave shrines in the wilderness. Rather, their ceremonial architecture replicated these “topographic shrines” (Stone 1992: 116). Rulers also took control of actual cave sites by building ceremonial centers atop cave systems, as at Dos Pilas (Brady 1997). Alternatively, artificial caves were excavated or built in the site core, as at numerous sites including Zaculeu and Utatlán (Brady 1991, 2002, 2012). In other words, the Maya did not merely set boundaries that partitioned the world into two domains of inside versus outside but replicated the liminal spaces of the periphery (topographic shrines) through the construction and/or ritual use of natural or artificial caves in the center. In my view, this practice motivated the metaphorical use of the term ch’een “cave” for constructed temples. For the Classic Maya elite, this transposition of the border/edge constituted an act of political domination. The ancient Maya quincunx pattern for conceptualizing community and asserting the human control of space expressed not simply the boundary between the poles of nature and culture but the transfer of aspects of the wilderness into the center through the act of setting the boundary. The basic strategies for territorial expansion would be to bring new pieces of wilderness under control through the establishment of a new ch’een or to take

over another polity’s ch’een through burning or other rituals of desecration. Andrea Stone’s recognition of the “otherness” of shrines created by rulers in site centers relates to a broader ideological program that used difference as a status metaphor. Maya rulers in the Classic period frequently made reference to foreign symbols, places, and individuals as political capital that expressed their categorical difference from commoners (Stone 1989). The foundation of political power was sometimes expressed as an ancestral journey. For example, the text of Copán Altar Q tells of the bringing of deity images from a distant locale to Copán (Stuart 2004). The altar itself has a square shape, which may refer to the idealized four-sided border of the polity that this journey conceptually mapped out. It was placed in front of Structure 10L-16, which served as an axis mundi and symbolic center of the polity. The façade of this pyramid featured carved imagery that related to distant Teotihuacan, in central Mexico (Taube 2004). Thus, the ceremonial center expressed difference not only in the form of the temple-mountain with its portal-cave (ch’een), which signified elite control of topographic shrines, but also in the origins of rulers from the world “out there.”19 The association of leadership with foreign origin is a well-known political trope in Mesoamerica (see Stone 1989). Modeled on the image of the migrating ancestor, the hunter pursuing game animals, and the farmer clearing his field, the ability to define the polity is based on the control of the periphery as well as the distinction between the one who creates the boundary and the rest of society. The construction of topographic shrines in the site center implies the control of the boundary between society and what lies beyond. Rulers frequently employed animal metaphors,

200

Looper_5982.indd 200

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

especially jaguars, crocodiles, and raptors, in an analogous manner of concurrent distancing and centering. By wearing the attributes of and sacrificing these animals, Mesoamerican rulers simultaneously identified with the most powerful carnivorous species of land, water, and sky and also conveyed their dominance over them. This pattern can be seen as early as the Middle Formative period, for example, in the

Olmec-style Las Limas figure (fig. E.2). In this image tattoo-like designs on the figure’s legs and arms represent predatory creatures of the distant cosmological realms of sky and water (Reilly 1987, 1991). Metaphorically, these creatures embody the periphery that is controlled by the ruler, while the infantile jaguar-being that he holds represents the terrestrial center. As in the later Maya case, the rhetoric of the

figure E.2. Olmec-style Las Limas figure, showing quincunx arrangement of incised designs on body and “were-jaguar.” Drawing by Dana Moot II.

201

Looper_5982.indd 201

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

image asserts the control and distancing of the wilderness zone through the establishment of a perimeter. At the same time, the wilderness is “centered,” through the identification of the ruler with the feline, as illustrated by the Classic Maya vessel in fig. 3.7 or the Bonampak murals (fig. 5.4).20 In Maya art the deer represented the symbolic inversion of the jaguar, embodying the herbivore versus carnivore, weakness versus strength, and timidity versus fierceness. And yet, like jaguars, the deer’s metaphorical meaning was modeled primarily upon hunting, which expressed the predator-prey relationship simultaneously in terms of opposition and identification. Because game animals are considered to be the property of a supernatural owner, their death has to be compensated through self-sacrifice as well as the return of blood and body parts. Owing to the personal relationship between hunter and animal owner, the hunter must acknowledge his status as a potential victim, with the penalty for improper conduct being enslavement or even death. In such cases, instead of deer “becoming” human through killing and consumption as food, the human becomes deer. The ritual transformation of captives into deer therefore presents them as immoral beings. The accession ceremony of rulers frequently drew upon this metaphorical association of deer, in which the ruler is represented as a humble penitent prior to his assumption of a new, purified status (see Olivier 2015: 461–632). Examining this relationship from a spatial perspective, as metaphors for immorality that would be vanquished by victorious warriors, deer (and captive surrogates) were identified with the periphery. At the same time, as metonymic embodiments of wealth and privilege, deer were brought to the center, in the material

form of meat, skins, captives, or ritual items made of deer body parts. These material metaphors contributed to the persona of the ruler as an agent who could not only control the border but identify with it, drawing upon its power centripetally. The frequent rhetorical “othering” of the ruler in Mesoamerica through identification with wild animal species prompts a reconsideration of the dualistic conception of humans versus nonhuman animals and culture versus nature. In Mesoamerica the border between animal and human was a “zone of translation” in which the “ecological site is perceived as a coded reference for the rationalization of human society” (Shepard 1993: 277). While the polarity of this contrast is supported by abundant Mesoamerican ethnographic and mythological data, the relationship between nonhuman animals and humans is extremely complex. As discussed above, the parallel between human and nonhuman animal worlds was often mediated in Mesoamerica through concepts of reciprocity. It is also clear that this opposition occludes indigenous categorizations that express more complex values, such as the Tzotzil view of some animals as “food” while others are “souls” (Köhler 1995: 131). There are also distinctions between the ontological status of various classes of animal, such as “actual” animals such as a jaguar and a jaguar soulcompanion. The blurring of human and nonhuman animal is expressed in myriad ways: for example, through the representation of deities as human-animal composites, the frequent anthropomorphism of mythical animals, and the use of zoomorphic headdresses and masks, which affirms the ambiguity of the wearer being two entities at once (see Napier 2010). In sum, the relationship between human and nonhuman animal is not simply oppositional.

202

Looper_5982.indd 202

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

Instead, certain animals such as deer had complex metaphorical meaning, rooted in ethology and subsistence patterns and communicated through ritual, which suggests identification as well as distinction. As Max Black (1981) pointed out, some metaphors function better as models of cultural reality than others. Sherry Ortner (1973: 1339–1341) called these pervasive analytical tools for expressing meaning and interpreting feelings “elaborating symbols,” while James Fernandez (1986: 21) referred to them as “kernel metaphoric statements,” underlying organizing images that transform into diverse ritual performances. Maya art and inscriptions provide evidence of how deer were deployed extensively in rituals and mythology, often as expressions of liminality. In these narratives deer served as a vehicle that broached the classificatory boundary between animal and human and therefore between nature and culture. This interpretation is elegantly expressed in the Popol Vuh narrative in which the tails of deer were shortened by the Hero Twins (see the introduction). It seems most likely that this structural role of deer derives largely from the ecological niche in which white-tailed deer are most easily observed (forest borders) and their frequent entry into fields to browse. Indeed, in the Popol Vuh myth, the “humanizing” of the deer occurred as punishment for its intrusion into the cornfield. These metaphorical associations likely accrued specifically to deer because they were pervasive, familiar, compact, and had major economic, technological, and nutritional value. Their significance endured and acquired numerous symbolic permutations because the animal is linked to ecology, gendered labor, and economics in relation to social status. In conclusion, deer—modeled mainly on the image of the white-tail—can be interpreted

as key expressions of border performativity, as defined by Salter (2011: 66). They defined the border, through their embodiment of the edge or periphery between the human and wilderness and their habit of peak feeding activity near dawn and dusk. They also materially manifested the border when translated to the center, through images of rulers dominating deer or deerlike captives or performing as cervid penitents. As metaphors for junior elites, deer also performed mediating functions by monitoring the flow of tribute/taxes from periphery to the center and by occupying the position between lower elites and rulers and between humans and the gods. Deer also played an important role as a metaphor for border regulation when they were hunted or when their remains were placed within caves, the ideal model of a liminal space. These actions represented human interventions and expressions of mediating power vis-à-vis the animal. It may even be possible to connect the prominence of this animal in Late Classic period art and inscriptions to political history. Over the course of the Late Classic period, as populations grew, the influence of rulers in population centers waned, as authority shifted to the hinterlands and border communities (Golden and Scherer 2013). Maya polities interacted in a number of ways, including through war, trade, and diplomacy. As wealth funneled into these regions, their nature as borderlands diminished: they were rhetorically “de-bordered.” A classic example of this is the historical trajectory of the small center of Quiriguá, which through alliance and warfare during the early eighth century was able to assert its independence from Copán and henceforth present itself as a paramount kingdom (see Looper 2003). Likewise, deer cross borders, in some contexts becoming identified with the

203

Looper_5982.indd 203

1/27/19 3:02 PM

ep ilo g u e

center as they symbolically merge with maize. In other contexts they remain classified as the “other,” associated with the wilderness, death, disease, and the enemy. In hunting ideology, the transformation of the other into the self is enacted by the killing and consumption of game, whereas the reverse process, the journey from self to other, is mediated by copulation with deer-daughter of the Earth Lord or animal owner. Hunting and its symbolic inverse, illicit sex, therefore were crucial for maintaining the border between self and other. An emphasis on deer in art during the Late Classic period may thus reflect elite concerns about the status of sociopolitical borders. Deer metaphors in images and texts could be interpreted as constituting a discourse of border definition and redefinition and hence an important dimension of border performativity during this period. In particular, the prominence of deer imagery in small-scale works of art may represent a form of border discourse by which secondary elites, young males or

their adult sponsors, and lords of small centers attempted to assert their identity and bolster their socioeconomic status in relation to the rulers of larger centers. Although deer imagery identified them with the paradigmatic prey animal, it also associated them with wealth, agricultural fertility, sexual power and the acquisition of women, and the potential to become a new political center. For paramount rulers, deer often represented domination, whereas for junior elites deer imagery could be used to represent their intermediate social rank, their attempt to acquire prestige through ball playing or hunting, their control of deerrelated economy through crafting and tribute, and even their role as priestly intermediaries with the gods. Young males in general may have employed deer and hunting metaphors as an expression of social mobility. To the Classic Maya elite of diverse statuses, deer were thus not only “good to think” but profitable to perform as expressions of identity and power.

204

Looper_5982.indd 204

1/27/19 3:02 PM

notes

in t roduc tion 1. Furst (1972); Lumholtz (1900); Myerhoff (1970); Preuss (1996: 128–129). 2. Gerry and Krueger (1997: 202); Taube (1985, 1989a); Wiseman (1983). 3. Hamblin (1984); Montero López (2009); Olsen (1978); Pohl (1985); Sharpe (2011); Shaw (1995); Wing and Steadman (1980). 4. Miller and Martin (2004); Schele and Freidel (1990); Schele and Miller (1986). 5. Fernandez (1986: 28–72); Ortner (1973); Turner (1974); see also Lakoff and Johnson (1980); Tilley (2000). 6. Fernandez (1986: 13) characterized the semiotic approach to culture as topographical, defined by multidimensional axes of semantic continua. 7. “Metaphor and its aptness are quintessentially embedded in social situation, cultural context, and textual traditions” (Friedrich 1991: 41). 8. See also Lévi-Strauss (1981: 79), who referred to animals as “zoemes,” semantic units reducible to clusters of differential elements: “Oppositions taken from real life suggest others of a symbolic nature.” 9. Benson (1997); Coe (1972); Reilly (1987); Stocker, Meltzoff, and Armsey (1980); see also Hultkrantz (1966). 10. Benson (1997: 13, 108–109); Houston (2010a: 76); Joralemon (1976); Paredes Maury, González, and Cardona (1996); Sault (2016); Werness (2000: 306). 11. Van Gennep (1960); Turner (1974, 2011); see also Thomassen (2006). 12. Proskouriakoff (1960); Schele (1976); Schele and Miller (1986: 9); Stuart (1988). 13. Braakhuis (1987); Chinchilla Mazariegos (2017); Coe (1978: 58); Kubler (1969: 32); MoholyNagy (1981); Thompson (1939b: 150, 151, fig. 3). 14. E.g., Braakhuis (1987, 2001); Chinchilla Mazariegos (2011, 2017); Taube (1988a, 1993, 2003a).

Looper_5982.indd 205

15. Chinchilla Mazariegos (2017); Coe (1978, 1982, 1989a). 16. Aguilera García (1985: 25–27); Benson (1997: 13, 2001). 17. In this book I conform to the usage of scholars such as Michel Graulich (1997b: xii) who use “Mexica” to refer to the people of MéxicoTenochtitlan; “Aztec” to refer to the people of Late Postclassic central Mexico; and “Nahua” to refer to speakers of Nahuatl and related languages, especially after the conquest. 18. Asensio Ramos (2009); Chinchilla Mazariegos (2010); Zender (2017a). c h ap t er 1 1. A number preceded by a “K” (here “K5204”) designates images in the Justin Kerr photographic archive, online at research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya .html. 2. Escobedo-Morales et al. (2016); Leopold and Schwartz (1959: 513–518); Medellín, Gardner, and Aranda (1998); Méndez (1984); Reid (2009: 288–292, plate 44). 3. Escobedo-Morales et al. (2016); Gilbert, Ropiquet, and Hassanin (2006); Smith et al. (1986). 4. Aulie et al. (1978: 51, 140); Hopkins, Josserand, and Cruz Guzmán (2011: 33, 146, 259). 5. Aulie et al. (1978: 48); Kaufman and Norman (1984: 118); Keller and Luciano G. (1997: 92, 251, 413). 6. Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores (1980: 513); Bricker, Po’ot, and Dzul de Po’ot (1998: 181); Hofling (2014: 223); Hofling and Tesucún (1997: 432). 7. See Asensio Ramos and Martín (2006); Benson (1997: 35, 2001); Montolíu (1976).

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 2 6 – 3 7 8. See Beach et al. (2006); Emery and Thornton (2008b); Ford and Emery (2008); Ford and Nigh (2016). 9. “C3” and “C4” refer to photosynthetic pathways that determine the relative proportion of stable carbon isotopes in plant tissues. Because most wild forest plants in the Maya area are C3 plants while tropical grasses (including maize) are C4, the relative carbon isotope ratios in bone collagen can be used to indicate the proportions of these plants consumed by herbivores such as deer. See Emery and Thornton (2008a: 133). 10. Marchinton and Hirth (1984: 142–143); Nowak and Paradiso (1999: 1117); Schlesinger (2001: 181). 11. This animal is referred to as Mazama americana in much of the literature cited but was distinguished from M. americana (a South American species) by Geist (1998). See Nowak and Paradiso (1999: 1123); Reid (2009: 290–292, map 272). 12. Leopold and Schwartz (1959: 514); Nowak and Paradiso (1999: 1123); Reid (2009: 290). 13. Barrera-Bassols and Toledo (2005); Ingles (1956: 6); Jorgenson (1998: 185); Pohl (1977: 56). 14. Mandujano and Rico-Gray (1991: 177); see also Pohl (1977: 54). Thompson (1950: 270) makes note of the Yucatec expression cim-cehil “when the deer die” as a reference to drought (see Roys 1933: 122). 15. Jorgenson (1993: 88, 102); Linares (1976); Pohl (1977: 53); Reina (1967). 16. León and Montiel (2008: 252); Mandujano and Rico-Gray (1991: 178); Montiel Ortega, Arias Reyes, and Dickinson (1999: 45). 17. León and Montiel (2008: 252); Mandujano and Rico-Gray (1991: 178); Montiel Ortega, Arias Reyes, and Dickinson (1999: 46–47); Pohl (1977: 53); Rodríguez et al. (2012). 18. Montiel Ortega, Arias Reyes, and Dickinson (1999: 46); see also Mandujano and Rico-Gray (1991: 179); Redfield and Villa Rojas (1934: 140–143). 19. Brown and Emery (2008: 312–313); Jorgenson (1993: 94); Lizana (1988: 175); Mandujano and RicoGray (1991: 178); March (1987: 51); Olivier (2015: 192–193); Pohl (1977: 53); see also Koster (2009). 20. Gann (1918: 24); Ingles (1956: 6); Tozzer (1907: 75). 21. Burns (1983: 107); Mandujano and Rico-Gray (1991: 178); Tozzer (1907: 56).

22. See chapter 6; Baer and Merrifield (1971: 234– 235); Gann (1918: 24); March (1987: 51); Ruz (1996: 96). 23. Mandujano and Rico-Gray (1991: 179); see also Montiel Ortega, Arias Reyes, and Dickinson (1999: 47); Pohl (1977: 56–57). 24. Buttles (2002: 201); Emery (2004b); Pohl (1990); Pollock and Ray (2009: 541); White (1999); Wing and Steadman (1980: 327). 25. See also K4808, chapter 8, and Hellmuth (1987: 330–331). This suggested use of conch trumpets might be compared to the musical festivities performed by the Arara of Brazil prior to the return of hunters from an expedition. These rites are intended to give animal spirit owners notice that the hunters have killed their animals (Teixeira-Pinto 2004: 232). 26. See K1788 and Museum of Fine Arts Boston 2003.776; Coe (1989a: 169); Hellmuth (1987: 303); Houston, Stuart, and Taube (2006: 220). 27. Aoyama (2005); cf. Rice (1986: 340); Weaver (1981: 407). 28. See Ardren (2002: 80–81); Carr (1996); Emery (2004a: 107); Masson (1999); Masson and Peraza Lope (2008); Pohl (1985: 138–140); Sharpe and Emery (2015: 287); Teeter and Chase (2004: 164, 166); White et al. (2001: 94); Wing (2004: 252). 29. Pohl (1990: table 3); Teeter and Chase (2004: 165); see also Emery and Brown (2012: 108–109). 30. Emery and Thornton (2008a); Gerry and Krueger (1997); Tykot, van der Merwe, and Hammond (1996); White, Healy, and Schwarcz (1993); White and Schwarcz (1989); White et al. (2001); White et al. (2004). 31. Gossen (1986: 230); Guiteras Holmes (1961: 223, 287–288); Hanks (1990: 306); Redfield and Villa Rojas (1934: 121); Stone (1992, 1995: 15); Taube (2003a); Vogt (1976: 33); Wisdom (1940: 426). c h ap t er 2 1. Measurements: 24.6 cm × 5 cm; Longyear (1952: 111, fig. 15i, j); Schele and Miller (1986: 152, plates 50, 50a); Schmidt, de la Garza, and Nalda (1998: 606, cat. 348). 2. See Coe (1959: 63, fig. 57h); Moholy-Nagy and Ladd (1992: 130–131, figs. 5.43, 5.44); Schele and

206

Looper_5982.indd 206

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 3 9 – 5 3 Miller (1986: plates 49, 61). An evaluation of the relative frequency of carved deer bones versus other species is precluded by a lack of detailed analyses of preserved examples by zooarchaeologists. 3. Another 12.7-cm fragment, possibly of deer bone, shows a figure in profile holding a spear and may also be from Campeche (Von Winning 1968: cat. 486). 4. The colonial and modern Maya also greatly value “deer stones” or bezoars (stone concretions found in the stomachs of deer), using them for healing and as amulets, though there is little evidence for this among the ancient Maya (see Anderson and Medina Tzuc 2005: 89, 138; Bricker and Miram 2002: 413; Burns 1983: 102–109; Mandujano and Rico-Gray 1991: 178; Villa Rojas 1945: 103). On Dresden Codex p. 25c appears an isolated glyphic compound reading yu-ta, possibly yuut “bezoar,” but its precise decipherment and purpose in the scene are not clear (see Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 983–984; Velásquez García 2017: 45). 5. See Christenson (2001: 235); Scholes and Adams (1938: 1:59, 63, 104, 163); Tozzer (1941: 76, 115, 155, 165); see also Tozzer (1907: 53). A Lacandon myth describes the origins of this practice in the first deer hunt, in which a god killed a deer, extracted its heart, and ate it (Bruce 1974: 50–51). 6. See K5460 and K6080 (Zender 2000) and Fralin Museum of Art 1988.63.1 (Looper and Polyukhovych 2016). 7. See also Kozelsky (2005), Montero López (2009), Pohl (1985: 138), White et al. (2004). 8. An eroded Terminal Classic stone relief from Ek’ Balam may depict a heart sacrifice of a buck upon a stepped altar (see von Nagy 1997: 34, fig. 2-2). 9. The deer blood could even be drunk by the hunters, as among the Tohono O’odham (Papago) (Underhill 1946: 88). 10. Gann (1924: 237); Pollock (1980: fig. 385); Voss and Kremer (1998: fig. 1). 11. Buttles (2002); McSwain et al. (1991: 182–183); Shaw (1991: 231); Stock (1979); Willey (1978: 168–171). 12. Emery (2008a: 208, 2010); Inomata and Emery (2014: 127).

13. Aoyama (2007: 16); Emery and Aoyama (2007: 81–83); Inomata et al. (2002: 321). 14. See Emery (2008a: 218, 2010: 242–243); Emery and Aoyama (2007); Sharpe (2011: 184). 15. Moholy-Nagy and Ladd (1992: 143, 144, table 5.1); Piña Chan (1964: 73); Pollock and Ray (2009: 544–545). 16. Some nearly complete or unworked deer antlers found in Aguateca Structure M8-4 may also have been part of a headdress or mask (Inomata and Emery 2014: 129). 17. Buttles (2002: 294); Emery (2010: 251–252); Inomata and Emery (2014: 127); Proskouriakoff (1962: 378, figs. 40o, v–x); Stock (1979: figs. 38b–d); Taschek (1994: 120, figs. 38b–d); Thompson (1939a: plate 29a1); Willey (1978: 171); Woodbury and Trik (1953: 277, fig. 284g). 18. See Coe (1959: 63, figs. 57b–f); Garber (1989: 57, figs. 19a, b); Longyear (1952: 112); Moholy-Nagy (2003: 61, fig. B: 126f–i); Pendergast (1974: 59); Proskouriakoff (1962: 377, figs. 40r–t); Ricketson (1931: plates 16e, 18); Ricketson and Ricketson (1937: 207, plate 69d1); Scott (1980: 317, figs. 1h, i); Taschek (1994: 121, figs. 39a–c); Willey (1965: 503, 1972: 239, fig. 200j); Woodbury and Trik (1953: 277, figs. 284g, h). 19. Buttles (2002: 293–310); Scott (1980); Stock (1979). 20. Scott (1980: 320, fig. 2); Teeter (2004: fig. 11.7); see also Merwin and Vaillant (1904: plate 36: o). 21. Emery (2010: 251); Hammond (1975: 364, figs. 143a, c); Moholy-Nagy (2003: 61, fig. B: 124e); Willey (1972: 234, fig. 201k). 22. A pair of glyphically identified rattle handles from Naranjo are made of bone but of unidentified species (Grube and Gaida 2006: 213, cat. 38). 23. Kidder (1947: 54); Taschek (1994: 113, figs. 33a–h); Willey (1978: 168, 169, fig. 169a–c). 24. Bullard and Bullard (1965: 34); Hamblin (1984: 142); Kidder (1947: 54); Moholy-Nagy and Ladd (1992: 127, fig. 5.40d–f); Olsen (1972: 245); Taschek (1994: 113). 25. Chase et al. (2008: 131); Hendon (1997); Taschek (1994: 114). 26. Guiteras Holmes (1961: 42); Hayden and Cannon (1984: 83–86, fig. 28); Mandujano and Rico-Gray (1991: 179); Steggerda (1941: plate 21d).

207

Looper_5982.indd 207

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 5 3 – 7 7 27. Emery (2010: 242); Olsen (1972: 245); Taschek (1994: 119). 28. Moholy-Nagy and Coe (2008: 61, figs. 207e–g, 208d, f); Willey (1972: 236–237, figs. 202a–c). 29. See also K530, K1208, K3041, K3247, K3332, K8947. 30. Hellmuth (1987: 468, fig. 100) illustrates one side of a cylinder vase that he says is a “hunting scene,” including a figure wearing a probable deer hide wrapped around his waist and blowing a conch trumpet. 31. Hellmuth (1987: 345, 468); Schele and Miller (1986: 255); Whittington (2001: 235). 32. Another garment that has a similar rounded shape and may therefore be made of deer hide is depicted on K4120, worn by the main enthroned figure. 33. See also K2022 and Copán Ballcourt A–IIb markers. 34. See Olivier (2014: 146–149, 2015: 281–288). See also the headdress of the figure on the El Kinel monument (fig. 5.9), which pairs a white-tailed deer head with a large rattle. 35. See also K3332 and K5104. Thompson (1963: 95–96) mentions a whistle from Lubaantun representing a hunter killing a deer. cha p t er 3 1. Ajk’uhuuns are also depicted as captives (Piedras Negras Stela 26), sacrificers (K1606), dancing together with kings (K534, K1399, K1452), and holding mirrors for them (K1463, K2695). 2. Zender (2004: 330) identified Jewel Jaguar as an ajk’uhuun for the king of Pomoná. 3. Carr (1996); Emery (2004b: 51, 2007: 189); Götz (2008). 4. Montero Lopez (2009: 56); Montero López and Núñez Enríquez (2011). 5. Foias (2002); see also the discussion of obsidian trade for comparison (e.g., Houston and Inomata 2009: 280–281). 6. E.g., K1204, K1366, K1392, K1489, K1491; see Stuart (1995: 363). 7. Grube (1998: 544–545); Houston, Robertson, and Stuart (2001: 5, fig. 2); Stuart (1992: 175). 8. Ball (1993); Demarest (2004: 160); Freidel, ReeseTaylor, and Mora-Marín (2002); Reents-Budet (1994).

9. Inomata and Stiver (1998); Moholy-Nagy (1995); Moholy-Nagy and Coe (2008: 74). 10. Sarah Jackson (2013: 133) stated that the wearing of deer headdresses in these two instances might be related to the office of ajk’uhuun. It should be noted, however, that deer headdresses are not generally associated with ajk’uhuuns, who are more frequently shown wearing a “miter” (see Zender 2004). Furthermore, not all persons wearing deer headdresses are identified as ajk’uhuuns. 11. E.g., Allsen (2006); Berry (2001: 1–37); Betzig (2008); Cartmill (1996); Hughes (2013). 12. An excellent example of deer hunting as a form of political intimidation is documented in early colonial Michoacán: “To put fear into the Spaniards, he [the Tarascan ruler] sent all his people to the hunt, a large number of painted people with many bows and arrows” (Craine and Reindorp 1970: 68). c h ap t er 4 1. In the past the scroll markings on deer were understood as associating deer with the earth (Taube 1980). 2. See Taube (1980: v). The Desana of Colombia, whose hunting lore shows striking parallels with that of Mesoamericans, also consider the deer to be “a female principle of strong sexual attraction” (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971: 100). This concept is expressed partly through the whistling vocalizations of deer, which the Desana associate with female sexual invitation (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971: 115). More generally, the Desana approach to the hunt is highly eroticized: the term for “hunt” literally means “to make love to the animals” (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971: 220). According to this theory, the hunter must make himself sexually desirable to the game, which come close and are killed, representing an act of sexual domination. Olivier (2015: 241–277) elsewhere discussed the extensive erotic symbolism of the hunt in the Americas. 3. All translations by author unless otherwise noted. 4. Beliaev and Davletshin (2006: 31–33); Boot (1989); Braakhuis (2001); Robicsek and Hales (1981: 39, vessels 14–16); Zender (2017a). 5. Scholars disagree regarding the authenticity of the Munich vase. Indeed, while some of the glyphs

208

Looper_5982.indd 208

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 7 7 – 8 8 are awkwardly drawn (or repainted), many can be identified and make sense in the context of the scene. Further, many details, such as the mountain masks, the headdress of the Moon Goddess, and the hunting garb, are fairly accurately rendered, leading me to conclude that its major features are probably authentic. 6. Bassie-Sweet (2008: 181–184); Braakhuis (2001, 2005, 2010: 392–405); Chinchilla Mazariegos (2010, 2017: 83–103); Colby and Colby (1981: 180–183); Cruz Torres (1978: 33–44); Dieseldorff (1966); Estrada Monroy (1990); Gordon (1915: 116–117, 120–121); Schumann (1988: 213); Thompson (1930: 126–129, 1970: 363–366). The chthonic spirits that own and personify the earth and its resources, generally known as Earth Lords in the literature, have diverse terms of reference in various Mayan languages (Tedlock 1992a: 454–455). 7. Another version of the Hummingbird Dance is still performed in Aguacatán (McArthur 1966, 1977: 8). According to an interview with Pedro Mendoza (dance director, Chajul, April 25, 2006), the troupe of musicians that accompanies the dance is from Chajul; the trumpet player from this group functions as dance director. This dance was formerly performed every four years during the main festival, which began twenty days after Holy Tuesday but is now an annual event. The characters in this dance include two masked figures who carry feather frames very similar to the baskets of the Chajul dance but with stuffed birds attached. There are also three Malinches, four Spaniards, four monkeys, an old man, and two or three Mexicans. The text of the dance is spoken by the carriers, the old man, and the Malinches in a garbled mixture of K’iche’, Awakateko, and Spanish. Following initial invocations, the music begins and the carriers dance in one corner of the space. Opposite them are the other dancers, always watching the birds atop the baskets. After this tune finishes, the dancers take each other by the hands, forming a line, and ask the master to provide more music so that they can continue. Then the Malinches declaim in the four corners of the dance area and dance four times around the carriers. In their speech to the four corners, the Malinches invoke deer and hummingbird (kamasát, katz’unún), similar to the version performed in Chajul (see McArthur 1966: 143). The old man, Spaniards, and

monkeys point to the birds with their cane, swords, and whips throughout the dance. 8. Yurchenko (1958, 1978, 1986, 2006). 9. Bierhorst (1998: 151); Graulich (1997b: 170). This symbolism also appears in the contemporary Huichol story of Morning Star, who wounds deer that then transform into women (Preuss 1996: 129; see chapter 7). 10. Bierhorst (1998: 153); Braakhuis (2001: 392); Graulich (1997b: 177–178); Olivier (2014: 123–125, 2015). 11. Braakhuis (2001: 394); see also Olivier (2014: 130–133, 2015: 251–254). 12. Olivier (2015: 265–268) also pointed out that a central Mexican rite in which deer are killed with planting sticks illustrates the symbolic connection between deer hunting and agriculture. 13. See K114, K504, K1485 (lower register, in front of enthroned Water Serpent deity), and K5166. The diagnostic motif of the nectaring hummingbird in the Moon Goddess’s headdress seems to underscore the importance of the Hummingbird Myth to her mythic identity. 14. Both (2004); Coe (1982: 120–123, cat. 63); Schele and Miller (1986: 308–309); Zender (1999: 77–82). Huk Xib Chahk is the name of a captive shown on Naranjo Stela 19. 15. Braakhuis (2001: 402) posits that some of these birds might have the role of giving the game warning of the hunters’ presence. 16. Boot (1989); Helmke and Nielsen (2009); Pendergast (1966, 1969). 17. Taube (1980: 69) also noted that the Maya seem to have extended some aspects of the deer’s role as a game animal onto agriculture. 18. Mayers (1958); Schumann (1988); see also Chinchilla Mazariegos (2010: 54–55). 19. The definition and relevance of the term “shamanism” (as well as “attack shamanism”) is discussed at length in chapter 8. Braakhuis (2001: 403) also associated the young males on the vessels with shamanism, suggesting that they may represent shamanic mediators with the Earth Lord, responsible for regenerating game but also negotiating exchanges with the people. Among the Desana of Colombia, the shamanic mediators negotiate the terms of the hunting expedition, their payment being human souls. The shamans may also cohabit

209

Looper_5982.indd 209

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 8 9 – 1 1 4 9. Freidel, Schele, and Parker (1993: 87); Milbrath (1999); Stuart (1984: 15, 2005b: 72). 10. The imagery of a vase from La Corona in the Art Institute of Chicago (fig. 4.9) also illustrates the connection between the Starry Deer Crocodile and the hunt. This vessel shows a deity with deer attributes holding the Starry Deer Crocodile in the form of a bundle or throne (see Taube 1988a: 344–345, fig. 12.16b). 11. Stuart (2005b: 176–180); Taube (1993, 2010b); Velásquez García (2006). 12. Craine and Reindorp (1979: 118); Knowlton (2010: 70–75); Thompson (1939b: 153–154). 13. Schele and Miller (1986: 45); Stuart (1984: 16); Velásquez García (2006). 14. In Yucatec keh ik’ “deer wind” refers to high winds as well as a passing hurricane (Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 309). cha p t er 5 15. Girard (1962: 102); Hull (2016: 98); Wisdom (1940: 394). 1. See also the Maya Hummingbird Myth and its 16. Looper (2012); Stuart (1984: 15, 1988: 203–205, dramatic reenactments, in which the “fierce warrior” 2003). Oyew Achi or Oyeb becomes a “sweet deer” after 17. Gutierrez (1990); Miller and Houston (1987); being shot (chapter 4). Schele and Miller (1986: 248–253); Tokovinine (2002: 2. Benson (1997: 35–36, 2001: 321); Graulich 1); see also Hellmuth (1987: 272, 427–432, 448). (1997a); Houston, Stuart, and Taube (2006: 219– 18. Cohodas (1991: 267); Hellmuth (1987: 330, 221); Olivier (2008, 2014, 2015); Taube (1988b). 3. See also K1224 and K8933, which show warriors 427, 449, 1991, 1992: 178, 192, 1996); Tokovinine wearing deer headdresses. A Jaina-style figurine rep- (2002: 5). 19. See figures 5.16, 5.19, 5.20, as well as K1921, resents a seated male wearing a deer headdress with K2022, K2803, K3842, K5435, K5937; Hellmuth an inverted human head suspended from his neck (André Emmerich Gallery 1967: fig. 42). Similar pen- (1987: 321–322, 333, 365, 426, fig. 79b, 81b, d, 1991); Von Winning (1968: 321, cat. 455); Whittington dants are worn in scenes of warfare and captive sac(2001: 232, cat. 105). rifice at Bonampak (Room 2 HFs 55, 94; see Miller 20. See Schele and Freidel (1991: 308); Wagner, and Brittenham 2013). Box, and Morehead (2013: 28). 4. The main claim to fame of the figure wearing 21. The iconographic parallel between K1116 and the deer headdress who stands directly in front of Yajaw Chan Muwaan is that he is a “grandfather of a the Palenque Tablet of the Sun may be rooted in the fact that both were designed to commemorate royal youth” (Houston 2012a: 163). childhood rituals. While K1116 is glyphically named 5. Houston et al. (2006) and Olivier (2015: as a first penance bowl, the inscription of the Tablet 624–625). 6. Proskouriakoff (1960); Schele and Miller (1986: of the Sun features yookte’ (childhood) events for various Palenque rulers (see Schele 1984b). These 216); Taube (1988b). took place when the Palenque rulers-to-be were six 7. Schele and Miller (1986: 216); Taube (1988b: years old, roughly the same age as those who went figs. 12.11, 12.19). through the first penance. 8. Schele (1976: 20–21); Schele and Miller (1986: 22. An interesting, though damaged, vessel in 45); Stuart (1984: 15–16); Thompson (1939b: 154– the De Young Museum (2010.70.4) illustrates what 160, 1950: 77). with female animals in the guise of the owner of the animals in order to replenish game. Conversely, the owner of the animals also replenishes game animals and fish by copulating with human females against their will or by sending his daughter to seduce young boys (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971: 82–84, 130, 132). 20. Kun “encanto, hechizo, conjuro”; kunal keh “conjuro de venados” (Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 352). 21. The association of deer with shamanic acts may also be expressed in the remarkable figurine found in El Perú Burial 39, in which a deer holds its forelegs over a kneeling human figure, as if attempting to cure him (see Rich and Freidel 2010: 286). 22. Houston (2018: 68–70) notes the distinctive imagery found on the rare vases that had named female owners.

210

Looper_5982.indd 210

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 1 1 6 – 1 2 2 may be a myth upon which the deer-hunting component of the first penance ceremony was based. This vessel, painted in a style probably associated with Xultún, includes a rim dedication text that refers to it as a “drinking vessel for first penance” of a youth. The scene depicts a monkey before a broken tree (a kalte’ according to the text). A leaping figure with an axe, possibly the storm deity Chahk, seems to be attacking the monkey or the tree. The deer looks back at a young male, who gestures toward the deer, possibly casting a net to capture it. The caption is difficult to interpret but includes the term uutz “good,” suggesting that this might be a record of the male’s speech to the deer (chihj). Although the content of this image is highly unusual, the possible imagery of a deer capture by a young male may also link this first penance vessel to the hunt. 23. The spear-thrower is essentially a long-range weapon. The inclusion of this device in this scene may be an attempt to depict different events simultaneously: the wounding of the deer with projectiles and its capture by the youth. cha p t er 6 1. Coe (1989b: 7); Martyr d’Anghiera (2001); Thompson (1972: 3–4). 2. Bricker, Bricker, and Wulfing (1997); Bricker and Vail (1997); Graff (2000); Lacadena (1997); Vail (1996, 1997, 2002, 2013); Vail and Aveni (2004). 3. See Haeckel (1959); Olivier (2015: 154–184); Reichel-Dolmatoff (1971: 80–81); Zerries (1954). 4. The initial sound /s/ is rendered in various ways in colonial documents and their translations, including “z” and “dz.” I preserve these spellings with reference to these documents. However, using modern orthography and spelling rules the god’s name in the codices would be rendered si-pu, yielding siip. 5. Interestingly, the Lunar Maize God on the Palenque Temple XIV panel may have related names: Huk [Yo’hl] Siip and Lajchan Yo’hl Siip (see Zender 2017a). 6. Gabriel (2006); Redfield and Villa Rojas (1934: 117–118); Villa Rojas (1945: 103). Zender (2017a) observes that the term siip might derive from ProtoMayan *xib “male, buck, hart, stag” but was also phonetically and semantically influenced by ProtoMayan *siip “tick.”

7. Tepecano or Tepehuano hunters of Jalisco also identified Venus as Morning Star with the spirit owner of the deer (Mason 1918: 135). Among the Huichol, the sacred Deer Person Kauyumári, the main intermediary between the mara’akáme (shamans) and the gods, is also known as Párikuta Muyéka “He who walks at dawn” (i.e., Morning Star) (Preuss 1996: 129). 8. Tedlock (1986: 134–135, 1992b: 147–148). The name of this being includes the term saq “white,” which may be related to the Nahua term for the protector or “king” of the deer, iztac maçatl “white deer” as well as to more widespread Native American notions of deer owners that are white in color (Olivier 2015: 155–156). Perhaps these beliefs are rooted in rare sightings of albino deer. 9. Carlsen (1997: 98); Gabriel (2006); Redfield and Villa Rojas (1934: 117). 10. Writing in general terms, Paul Shepard (1993: 276) describes these exchanges as “canonical acts of depressurization resembling diplomatic obligations. The hunt and other encounters with animals in daily life are framed in aversion, circumspection, convention, protocol, thanksgiving, and acts of contrition or apology, but not as ordinary gregarious conviviality, thoughtless exploitation, or the dominance relationships of slavery.” 11. Francis Xavier Grollig (1959: 161) stated that in the past each family was required to kill and eat a deer during the Ucteche or risk death. According to Morris Siegel (1941: 70), the deer hunt took place at the end of the 260-day Year Bearer cycle, while one of Krystyna Deuss’s (2007: 171) informants stated that the hunt took place in June or July and another stated that deer sacrifices took place three times a year. 12. Burns (1983: 96–102); Hofling (1991: 136– 153); Köhler (1995: 131); La Farge (1947: 50–51); La Farge and Byers (1931: 132); Tedlock (1992b: 149); Wagley (1949: 57). 13. Deuss (2007: 171) reported that sometimes the deer’s head was hung in the loft above the household altar, while the bones were placed in the cave. 14. Many other Native American peoples honor deer spirits through posthunt rituals (see Olivier 2015: 234–240). For example, the Pueblo decorate the deer’s body with blankets and beads and sprinkle it with cornmeal (Beaglehole 1936: 24; Parsons 1939:

211

Looper_5982.indd 211

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 1 2 2 – 1 2 7 197, 304; Stevenson 1904: 440–441; Stirling 1942: 22, 24). In Acoma and other pueblos, the antlers of deer and skulls of other large animals are strung on a cord to which feathers are attached (Stirling 1942: 24). The Sierra Popoluca of Veracruz smoke the jawbones of hunted deer using copal and hang them in the house rafters (Foster 1945: 181). Among the Tlapanec of Acatepec, the deer is laid out and washed. A chain of seven or eight flowers or leaves is put around its neck, the number depending on its sex. The carcass is also censed and “fed” with maize, chile sauce, and Coca-Cola (Dehouve 2008: 15–17). The Huichol conduct a particularly elaborate posthunt rite in which the deer is placed before a table holding staffs of authority. The xaurishikáme, the principal singer and hunt organizer, speaks softly to the animal, caressing it. Women sprinkle flowers between its horns and place foods near the mouth. Candles are lit, prayers are offered, and peyote cactuses are rubbed onto the animal’s eyes, muzzle, and antlers in order to reinforce the power of the peyote. Finally, the mara’akáme attempts to secure a stone manifestation of an ancestral soul by inhaling it from the mouth of the deer (Lemaistre 1996: 322–323). Masks made from the skin and antlers of hunted deer are later placed in a temple as offerings to assure hunting success, to bring rain, and to make the souls of deer present during ceremonies (Schaefer 1996: 348). 15. Brown (2005: 140); Carlsen and Prechtel (1991); Carmack (1981: 352); Christenson (2003: 129); La Farge (1947: 50). 16. Brown (2005); Brown and Emery (2008); Brown and Romero (2002); Emery et al. (2009). 17. Brown (2005: 138); Cook (2000: 114–115); Freidel, Schele, and Parker (1993: 187). 18. Tozzer (1907: 115). Shrines used for curating the skeletal remains of deer and other hunted animals in order to increase game abundance are found widely among Native American peoples, such as the Hopi (Beaglehole 1936: 8) and Mixe (Starr 1900: 55). The Tlapanec of Guerrero sprinkle blood of farm animals on the enshrined bones of wild animals, thereby enabling their regeneration (Dehouve 2008: 18–19). 19. See Masson and Peraza Lope (2008: 180–181); Pohl (1983: 89, 1990: 163); Pohl and Pohl (1983). 20. Bonor (1989: 116, 159); Carot (1982: 28); Stone (1995: 96, plate 5).

21. Various other animal dances, such as the Spanish-language Dance of the Little Animals (Animalitos), performed either for Corpus Christi or for the festival of San Pedro may have been created in the nineteenth century by priests as a substitute for more ancient hunting dances (Correa and Cannon 1958: 31–32; Mace 1970: 53–54). Mace (1970: 64) reported that a Ladino named Miguel Ayala wrote plays and dance texts in Rabinal between 1925 and 1953. 22. These dances are variously titled Baile del Venado, Mazate, or simply Venado (Mace 1970: 56–57; Paret-Limardo 1963). Another Spanishlanguage deer dance performed in Cobán, called Masate, differs from the Salazar version, having a traveler’s theme (Mace 1970: 57). 23. Janssens and Akkeren (2003); Mace (1970: 61–62). Other hunting dances performed in Rabinal include Xajooj Keej and Maam Pa Keej (texts in Janssens and Akkeren 2003: 141–207). Franz Termer (1957: 211) suggested that a priest wrote the B’alam Keej, and Gustavo Correa and Calvin Cannon (1958: 32) included it in their list of “substitution dances.” 24. Mace (1970: 61–62) stated that the B’alam Keej was performed for Corpus Christi or the feast of St. Peter (June 29). 25. In Mace’s (1970: 61–62) version of this dance, this character is called Mayahuá, who is ill with malaria. 26. In the version of this dance described by Mace (1970: 59), this character is called Acutam and is represented by a man dressed as a squirrel. 27. The version of this dance (Balam Kiej) reported by Mace (1970: 61–62) is slightly different. A man sets out to kill the jaguar, who attacks him and threatens audience members. He regains consciousness and again pursues the jaguar and deer. He aims his weapons at the animals but then lays them on the ground, where animals stand on them. The old man believes that the animals are dead but finds that they are alive when he puts his hand on their heads and they let out screams. He then makes plans for spending money gained from their sale. The performance ends with prayer and a general dance. 28. Bunzel (1952: 424); Doctolero (2002); Guzmán Anleu (1965: 22–23); Mace (1970: 53–62); La Farge

212

Looper_5982.indd 212

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 1 2 7 – 1 4 0 and Byers (1931: 99–106); Paret-Limardo (1963); Schultze Jena (1954: 118–120); Thompson (1930: 103–104). See also Jensen (1977), who gives the complete text and cast for the deer dance in Santa Eulalia. 29. An exception may be the Guaxatój Masat or Xajoj Rech Masat of Chichicastenango, in which Jaguar plays the part of a clown, pretending to attack and abduct the audience. This dance, however, is incompletely documented (see Bunzel 1952: 424; Schultze Jena 1954: 118–120). 30. This has been seen in performances at Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán, Nahualá, San Pedro la Laguna, and San Cristóbal Cucho. 31. Cf. zagal “pastor joven; muchacho adolescente” (young shepherd, adolescent male) (Maldonado González 1999: 1883). 32. See also Janssens and Akkeren (2003); Tedlock (2003: 189–190); Teletor (1945). 33. Braakhuis (2001) also drew attention to a Totonac identification of growing antlers with maize ears. 34. A variant of this performance, called the Spider Monkey Dance (xajoj k’oy), is done annually in San Andrés Sajcabajá for the fiesta of the patron saint in late November. For this dance a rope is suspended from the top of the church to a tree erected in the plaza. The dancers slide along the rope on a round seat, while imitating the cries of monkeys. The dance has three organizers and up to seven dancers dressed as monkeys. Training begins two months before the fiesta. The performers have to pay their own costs, including renting costumes from Chichicastenango. There are no performers except the dancers, though music is provided on a drum. Rope walking is not always associated with deer dances but is seen on the south coast of Guatemala in the dance called Aj Ers or Erres (Little Black Ones) in San Bernardino Retalhuleu (Morales Hidalgo 1988: 139). In this performance men with blackened faces and red lips do tricks on a rope extended between two poles in the plaza in front of the church. 35. A similar rite may be suggested at San Cristóbal Cucho, where the animal dancers jump off the top of a rock called the “Deer Stone” as a form of divination (Paret-Limardo 1963: 144–145). Failure to land on their feet is taken as a sign that an acci-

dent will occur during the following dance, which involves dangerous rope-walking tricks, similar to the dance in Momostenango. Upon returning to town, the animals take turns jumping off a second stone. A parallel ceremony may have been held in Nahualá (Paret-Limardo 1963: 67). 36. Data concerning the deer dance at San Andrés Xecul were collected mainly during April and May 2006. 37. Krystyna Deuss (personal communication, 2006) and personal observation in Santiago Atitlán, 2006. 38. Carlsen and Prechtel (1994: 86, 87, fig. 4.2); Christenson (2001); Mendelson (1958). 39. Martín is also associated with the Prehispanic K’iche’ deity Tojil, whose principal emblem is a deerskin bundle, described in the Popol Vuh (Christenson 2001: 234; Mendelson 1958: 121–124). Olivier (2015: 166–170) makes an excellent case that the hunting god Mixcoatl was the Nahua equivalent of Tojil. 40. Another source relating to the same general area of Guatemala (San Bartolomé Mazatenango), though dating to 1679, mentions a dance called Ah Ceh “Hunter,” though no details are given (Ruz and Báez Júarez 2002: 1: 327–328). 41. Chinchilla Mazariegos (2017: 173–174, 178– 179) summarized the problems with reading the hieroglyphic names of Gods S and CH. 42. See K8622; Asensio Ramos (2007); Freidel, Schele, and Parker (1993: 91). 43. Also known as God Y; see Bill (1997); Fox and Justeson (1984: 39); Thompson (1972: 45); Vail and Hernández (2013: 343, 411–413); Zimmermann (1956: 164). 44. Another important context in which Siiprelated beings appear is a series of codex-style vessels that show a wahy in the form of a deer-serpent disgorging the bust of Siip playing a conch trumpet (see chapter 8). 45. See Yaxchilán Hieroglyphic Stairway 1 Step 6 block 5–6, Hieroglyphic Stairway 3 Step 5 A3b–B3a, Lintels 5, 21, 22, 33, 34, Stelae 1, 11, 12, 33, Throne 2, La Pasadita Lintel 2, and Site R Lintel 3. 46. See K1198, K1645, K1813, K3702, K5164, K5230, K6754, and K7838. 47. See K521, K1152, K1546, K2207, K2208, K2213, K3201 (records birth), K4011, K4013, K4056.

213

Looper_5982.indd 213

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 1 4 1 – 1 6 1 48. See Grube (2012); MacLeod (1989); Thompson (1943, 1950: 212–217). 49. See Berlin and Kelley (1961); MacLeod (1989); Stuart (2005b: 64–65). 50. Graff and Vail (2001); cf. Colas (2006: 83); Vail (2013: 107). 51. Bricker (1991: 290); Colas (2006: 84–85); Vail (2013: 109). 52. Colas (2006: 85); Vail (2013: 111) von Nagy (1997: 49). 53. Love (1989); Redfield and Villa Rojas (1934: 129); Villa Rojas (1945: 108–109). 54. The frequent use of snares for deer capture in the Madrid Codex might relate to the Mesoamerican associations of snares and nets as punishment for moral transgression, especially of a sexual nature (see Klein 1990–1991). Because the deer signified sexual excess among the Maya, it might be that the general image of a snared deer metaphorically represented punishments for immoral behavior. 55. This image recalls the etymology of the Tabai (Tabay) or Xtabai (Xtabay) malevolent forest spirits of Yucatán, which is derived from tab “cord” (see Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 748, 953). The name refers to the use of cords and nets to trap victims. cha p t er 7 1. Benson (1963: 16, cat. 78); Bliss (1957: 258, cat. 135, LXXX–LXXXI); Chinchilla Mazariegos (2012b); Gordon and Mason (1925, pt. 3: plates LIV– LV); Morley (1927). 2. Cruz Torres (1978: 47–70); Thompson (1930: 119–140, 1939b: 169–170). 3. Even before his analysis of the Calcehtok vase, Thompson (1939b: 150, 151, fig. 3, 1970: 368) related the Río Hondo vase (also known as the Yaloch vase; Gordon and Mason 1925: plate XLVII) to the Sun, Moon, and Vulture myth of the Q’eqchi’. He suggested that the creature on the lower left side of the composition is the Sun hiding beneath the deerskin. In a much later article Braakhuis (1987) identified this myth on another vase, the Ten Gods vase (K555; see Coe 1978: 58–63). Braakhuis (1987: 244–245) argued that the bloated hoofed creature in the scene represents a decapitated white-tailed deer carcass, with an emerging puma head that represents the

sun. However, Chinchilla Mazariegos (2017: 11–15) noted that the imagery of the Ten Gods vase is parallel to a number of pottery paintings that show Chahk striking at an insect that lies on the back of a rotund hybrid creature based on the bodies of a Baird’s tapir (Tapirus bairdii) and a jaguar. Moreover, even though the zoological identity of the creature depicted on the Río Hondo vase is uncertain, it definitely lacks the diagnostic features of deer in Maya art. Therefore, because neither the Río Hondo vase nor the Ten Gods vase represents deer, their relationship to the Sun, Moon, and Vulture myth seems doubtful. 4. The appearance of this deity in multiple persons on K2785 suggests a possible identification of them as the quadripartite gods making autosacrificial blood offerings in the San Bartolo west mural. As posited by Taube et al. (2010: 19), the four San Bartolo God S figures might correspond to the “four youths” mentioned in various Classic-period texts. However, on K2785 there seem to be five spotted human males. 5. Chinchilla Mazariegos (2011: 150–179, 2012b, 2017: 224–238). 6. Braakhuis (2001: 393, 2009); Craine and Reindorp (1970: 64); Ichon (1995: 75–76); Williams García (1972: 91). 7. See Chinchilla Mazariegos (2011, 2012b, 2017); Moholy-Nagy (1981); Pohl (1981); Thompson (1970: 367–368). 8. In addition, cargo-transfer ceremonies or kuch are represented by numerous recent transformations that bear little comparison to each other and therefore are not reducible to a primordial ceremonial complex (see Loewe 2003). In other words, the presence of elements such as a deer and a tree or pole in both modern and ancient ceremonies is not sufficient evidence of a ceremonial lineage. 9. Chinchilla Mazariegos (2012a: 389); Grube and Nahm (1994: 702); Taube (2003b). 10. See Moholy-Nagy and Coe (2008: fig. 199c); Taube (1980: 20–23, fig. 18). For variants of the Palenque emblem glyph main sign that depict a deer skull with a spotted ear, see Schele (1977). 11. To use Lévi-Strauss’s notation, deer:peccary::dry season:rainy season. 12. Another vase, K7821, shows the same wind god appearing with the Principal Bird Deity and

214

Looper_5982.indd 214

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 1 6 2 – 1 7 9 again before God D. In the major scene the text states that the descent of God D occurs under the authority of the wind god, accompanied by the Headband Gods. 13. Fields and Reents-Budet (2005: 146, cat. 48); see also K2946. 14. Vail and Hernández (2013: 416–417) discuss the association between peccaries and rain in the Maya codices. 15. Beliaev and Davletshin (2006: 31) note that the unclear glyph that follows “deer” may be the same Mook Witz personage that God D reports as having fled on K8622. 16. This detail recalls the frog or toad located beneath one hoof of the (dead) deer shown on the effigy vessel illustrated in figure 5.14. Perhaps these were meant to ground the images metaphorically on the western horizon. 17. See Chinchilla Mazariegos (2012a); Coe (1975: 15, cat. 6); Robicsek (1978: plate 188); Stone and Zender (2011: 160–161, illustration 4); Tate (1985: 131–132); Taube (2003a: 473–475); Walker (2010). 18. It is unfortunate that the location of this vessel is unknown and that it can only be studied from low-resolution photographs. The lengthy and readable texts of this important vase represent a unique opportunity for deciphering the meaning of the depicted scenes; however, their full examination must await better documentation. 19. Stone (1983, 1985); Thompson (1939b: 152–161). cha p t er 8 1. See Clancy, Gallenkamp, and Johnson (1985: 170); Fash (1991: 52); Fields and Reents-Budet (2005: 160–161, cat. 61); Longyear (1952: 111); Looper (2006); Morley (1920: 379–381); Wanyerka (2001: 30–32). 2. The glyphic caption next to the trumpet player may read sak wahyib xook, though this is not the usual name for this being. The purpose of this caption is unclear. 3. See Grube and Gaida (2006: 55–57); Hoopes and Mora-Marín (2009: 295); Miller and Taube (1993: 78); Stuart (2005c: 160–165). 4. Braakhuis (2005: 188); Helmke and Nielsen (2009); Roys (1965).

5. Way: “contagio; infeccionamiento; sahornamiento; contagiar” (Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 915). 6. E.g., figure 8.3c and d and K2010; see Grube and Nahm (1994: 694–695). 7. The similar being shown on K1811 is named in a peculiar way, with a spotted bird head ‘o surrounded by curls usually read as syllabic no, syllabic chi surrounded again by the curls, then ma-xi. Although Helmke and Nielsen (2009: 75) read the name of the wahy as Maax Noj Chij, this does not account for the initial spotted bird head. If we instead read the caption by vertical columns and the curls as decorative, we may consider this to be yet another instance of o-chi ma-xi. 8. See K771, K791, K1901, K2023, K3312, K3924, K4922; Asensio Ramos (2007); Grube and Nahm (1994: 705). On Motul de San José-style vessel K771, the name is spelled u-TUN-ni CHAM?-ya, while the stylistically related K791 has u-TUN-ni-li CHIJ CHAM?-ya. The El Zotz-style vessels K1901 and K2023 have u-ku-hi CHIJ CHAM? and TUN CHAM? CHIJ CHAM?-ya. On K2023 Zender (2000: 1041) saw the prefix of the Kawak sign as a cha complement, yielding the name Chajuk Chij Chami “Thunder Deer Death.” 9. See also K531, K556, K998, K1646, K7523, K7794; Grube and Nahm (1994: 693). 10. Helmke and Nielsen (2009: 71, 72); Kaufman (2003: 584–585); see also Dobbels (2001: 416); Hofling (2014: 215, 285). 11. Deer are associated with disease among other Native American groups. For the Tohono O’odham (Papago), tuberculosis was a punishment sent by deer for excessive cruelty during the hunt (Underhill 1946: 86). 12. It should be noted that Landa’s account dates to the early colonial period, when new epidemics appeared in the Maya area with terrible consequences. It remains to be confirmed through archaeological evidence if diseases were more common during the dry season than the rainy season prior to European contact. 13. Barrera Rubio and Taube (1987); Furst and Coe (1977); Smet (1981, 1983, 1985); Smet and Hellmuth (1986); Stross and Kerr (1990). 14. See K505, K774, K1376, K4922, and the Bowl of the Eleven Deities.

215

Looper_5982.indd 215

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 1 8 1 – 1 8 8 15. Yucatec: paw “talega de red; bolsa de paredes muy gruesas y apretadas hecha con fibra de henequén” (Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 635). 16. See K927, K1001, K1743, K7525, and Robicsek and Hales (1981: 185, Vessel 173). 17. Yucatec: kitam “gota coral (epilepsia)” (Barrera Vásquez, Bastarrachea Manzano, and Brito Sansores 1980: 321); Colonial Tzeltal: Chitamit “gota coral [epilepsia]” (Ara 1986: 509); Colonial Tzotzil: chiton chuHaj “epilepsy” (Laughlin and Haviland 1988: 645). The glyphic cartouche adjacent to the peccaries consists of an undeciphered “drum” sign together with ajaw “lord.” The same combination appears in the Bonampak Murals in an emblem glyph associated with Bonampak (Room 1 Caption 40; see Tokovinine 2013: 62). However, given the skewed orientation of this cartouche and the ti chatahn cartouche on the opposite side relative to the adjacent images, it is likely that these (as well as makoom, above the quatrefoil) are read in a sequence independently of the images: “drum” ajaw makoom ti chatahn. This does not, however, affect the interpretation of the depicted Enema Jaguar as a being associated with Calakmul. 18. Stuart (2012: 128–129) suggests that the “Foliated Ajaw” element in this text may instead refer to the depicted wrappings around the stela. 19. The glyphic cartouche adjacent to Leaf Ajaw is damaged, but seems to include k’uhul, part of the emblem glyph title that might name him as a high king. 20. Exceptions to this include Actun Tunichil Muknal and other caves in central Belize (Awe, Griffith, and Gibbs 2005). 21. The glyph located in central position directly above the cartouche could reinforce this idea. It reads makoom, possibly literally translated as “one who closes” and probably better interpreted as “guardian.” Appearing frequently in the inscriptions of Copán, this title usually appears with the numeral “four,” suggesting guardianship of the four directions. In the case of the peccary skull, it may indicate the function of the period-ending ceremony depicted in the central cartouche as a rite that closes

the portal to the spirit world, keeping the malevolent forces of the wahyob at bay (Helmke and Nielsen 2009: 57). 22. For further discussion of these issues, see in particular the work of Rebecca Stone (2011; StoneMiller 2004). 23. There is, however, the wahywal title used for rulers at Palenque and Piedras Negras. Although this title is based on the root wahy, its precise significance is not understood. 24. Reichel-Dolmatoff (1971: 172); RipinskyNaxon (1993: 141); Wilbert (1972, 1987, 1990). 25. Similarly, according to Thomas Gregor (1977: 334), among the Mehinaku of Brazil, “all mature men in the village are either yetamá [“shamans, smokers”] or are hoping to be,” with few exceptions. Among the Yanoama (Yanomami) of southern Venezuela and adjacent areas of Brazil, “all . . . men are potential shamans” (Wilbert 1972: 58). For the Kulina of western Brazil, shamanic training is part of general socialization into adulthood (Pollock 2004: 203). In the ancient Maya context of ritual cave use, Prufer (2005: 210–211) suggests that non-elite shamanic religious specialists used the dark interior zones of caves for rituals but employed paraphernalia such as incense and benches that were also used by elites. 26. Reichel-Dolmatoff (1975); Riboli and Torri (2013); Whitehead and Wright (2004b). 27. Neil Whitehead, quoted in Hoopes and MoraMarín (2009: 301–302). 28. See also Looper (2003: 140) on Maya royal “time-travel” through visions or dreams. It is interesting as well to compare the linkage between rulership and rites of healing/harming conveyed by the peccary skull with the K’iche’ shamans called ajnawal mesa, who are often thought to be able to cause illness but who also frequently hold high political office (Tedlock 1992b: 74). 29. For example, in the context of Belize, Prufer (2005: 215) argues that, while ancient Maya elite persons might have used the more “public” spaces of caves in Belize for political purposes, “some specialists who operated in the dark zones of caves, out of view of the public, may have been individuals not so politically aligned.”

216

Looper_5982.indd 216

1/27/19 3:02 PM

n o t es t o pa g e s 1 9 2 – 2 0 2 e p ilo gue 1. Bassie-Sweet (2002); Braakhuis (2009); Taube (1980: 69); Thompson (1970). 2. See also Klein (1993) regarding the ambivalent attitudes toward excrement in ancient Mexico. 3. Restall (2001: 370–375); see also Helms (1991, 1993, 1994, 2010). 4. Davenport and Golden (2016: 190); Hanks (2010: 287); Restall (1999). 5. See Davenport and Golden (2016: 183, 188) and García-Zambrano (1994), who discusses the quincunx as the fundamental Mesoamerican formal model for the establishment or reestablishment of community territorial boundaries. 6. See also Hanks (1990: 336–337) and Sosa (1985: 470–471) on the Maya concept of tying and untying ritual spaces in terms of the construction of cosmograms that are modeled on the perception of the sun completing a circuit around the earth. 7. Other examples of stelae that may have served as bordering devices include the stelae at Oxtun and a series of at least seven stelae set up around the Copán valley and farther afield (Garrison and Dunning 2009: 534; Webster et al. 2007: 58). 8. Goñi Motilla (1995); Hutson et al. (2007); Manzanilla and Barba (1990). 9. Dahlin (2000); Houston and Inomata (2009: 24, fig. 1.11); Manzanilla and Barba (1990); Peniche Rivero and Folan (1978). 10. Davenport and Golden (2016: 193); Puleston (1967); Webster et al. (2007). 11. Golden et al. (2008); Golden and Scherer (2013); Scherer and Golden (2009, 2014). 12. Full phonetic substitution data in support of the CH’EN decipherment is lacking; however, contextual evidence strongly supports it (see Tokovinine 2013: 19–23; Vogt and Stuart 2005). 13. Helmke and Brady (2014) interpret the scattering of soot and blockage of access points within

certain caves as evidence of desecration rites, analogous to the “cave-entering” and other martial actions directed against ch’een as described in hieroglyphic texts. 14. See Bassie-Sweet (1996: 111–131, 215–219); Benson (1985: 184); Brady and Prufer (2005a: 8-9); Freidel, Schele, and Parker (1993: 146–150); Helmke and Brady (2014: 196); Schávelzon (1980); Stone (1995: 35–40); Stuart (1997); Vogt and Stuart (2005). 15. Bassie-Sweet (1996); Brady (1997: 603); Heyden (1973, 1981); Vogt and Stuart (2005: 179). 16. Heyden (1976); MacLeod and Puleston (1979); Stone (1992: 114, 1995: 38). 17. The ancient Maya elite concern with controlling water resources is documented in the Prehispanic as well as colonial periods (Lucero 2006; Lucero and Fash 2006; Restall 2001: 339–341; Scarborough 1998). In the northern lowlands it was control of cenotes and wells; in southern lowlands it was reservoirs. 18. See also Moyes (2005), who discussed ritual arrays within caves as a means of framing or demarcating ritual space. 19. As Tokovinine (2013: 36) noted, the Popol Vuh uses an analogous term siwan “canyon” to refer to a primordial landscape feature, a shrine where deity images were kept, and the legendary distant place of origin of the K’iche’ rulers, Tulan. 20. Indeed, the “foreign” associations of the center in Olmec ideology may be manifested in yet other forms. For example, the central element of the Olmec cosmogram is often rendered in the form of an axis mundi identified with both jade and maize (see Taube 1996). For the Olmec of the Gulf Coast of Mexico, jade was an imported material, secured from a distant highland realm. Similarly, maize had been domesticated elsewhere and in Mesoamerican mythology was often associated with origins in a distant mountain.

217

Looper_5982.indd 217

1/27/19 3:02 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

bibliography

Acuña, Mary Jane 2015 Royal Death, Tombs, and Cosmic Landscapes: Early Classic Maya Tomb Murals from Río Azul, Guatemala. In Maya Archaeology 3, ed. Charles Golden, Stephen D. Houston, and Joel Skidmore, pp. 168–185. San Francisco: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press. Aguilera García, María del Carmen 1985 Flora y fauna mexicana: Mitología y tradiciones. Mexico City: Everest Mexicana. Akkeren, Ruud van 2000 Place of the Lord’s Daughter: Rab’inal, Its History, Its Dance-Drama. CNWS Publications, 91. Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. 2003 Authors of the Popol Wuj. Ancient Mesoamerica 14 (2): 237–256. Alcorn, Janis B. 1984 Huastec Mayan Ethnobotany. Austin: University of Texas Press. Alejos García, José 1988 Wajalix bʌ tʼan: Narrativa tradicional chʼol de Tumbalá, Chiapas. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Allsen, Thomas T. 2006 The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Álvarez, Cristina 1980 Diccionario etnolingüístico del idioma maya yucateco colonial: Mundo físico. Vol. 1. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de

Looper_5982.indd 219

México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Centro de Estudios Mayas. Anders, Ferdinand 1963 Das Pantheon der Maya. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. 1967 Codex Tro-Cortesianus (Codex Madrid). Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. Anderson, Elyse N. 2009 Exploring Maya Ritual Fauna: Caves and the Proposed Link with Contemporary Hunting Ceremonialism. MA thesis, University of Florida. Anderson, Elyse N., and Felix Medina Tzuc 2005 Animals and the Maya in Southeast Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Anderson, James, and Liam O’Dowd 1999 Borders, Border Regions and Territoriality: Contradictory Meanings, Changing Significance. Regional Studies 33 (7): 593–604. André Emmerich Gallery 1967 Gods and Men in Pre-Columbian Art. New York: André Emmerich. Aoyama, Kazuo 2005 Classic Maya Warfare and Weapons: Spear, Dart, and Arrow Points of Aguateca and Copan. Ancient Mesoamerica 16 (2): 291– 304. 2007 Elite Artists and Craft Producers in Classic Maya Society: Lithic Evidence from Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 18 (1): 3–26.

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Appadurai, Arjun 1981 Gastro-Politics in Hindu South India. American Ethnologist 8 (3): 494–511. Ara, Domingo de 1986 Vocabulario de lengua tzeldal según el orden de Copanabastla. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Ardren, Traci 2002 Death Became Her: Images of Female Power from Yaxuná Burials. In Ancient Maya Women, ed. Traci Ardren, pp. 68–88. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Arzápalo Marín, Ramón, ed. 1987 El ritual de los bacabes: Edición facsimilar. Fuentes para el estudio de la cultura maya, 5. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Asensio, José María, ed. 1898 Relaciones de Yucatán. Vol. 1. Colección de documentos inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españoles de ultramar. 2 ser., 2 vols. Madrid: Est. tip. “Sucesores de Rivadeneyra.” Asensio Ramos, Pilar 2007 El venado, el pecarí e Itzamnaaj. In XX Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2006, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 1115–1128. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. 2009 A lomos del venado: Iconografía de las imágenes de muchachas sobre venados en las cerámicas “códice.” In XXII Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2008, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 1246–1258. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.

2015 El “way” en la cerámica polícroma del clásico tardío maya. PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Geografía e Historia. Asensio Ramos, Pilar, and Ana María Martín 2006 El árbol Pax, la caza del venado y del avatar del Dios D. In XIX Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2005, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 619–625. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. Atran, Scott 1999 Itzaj Maya Folkbiological Taxonomy: Cognitive Universals and Cultural Particulars. In Folkbiology, ed. Douglas L. Medin and Scott Atran, pp. 119–204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Atran, Scott, Arlen F. Chase, Scott L. Fedick, et al. 1993 Itza Maya Tropical Agro-Forestry. Current Anthropology 34 (5): 633–700. Aulie, H. Wilbur, Evelyn de Aulie, Cesar Menéses Díaz, and Cristóbal López Vázquez 1978 Diccionario ch’ol-español, español-ch’ol. Vocabularios y diccionarios indígenas Mariano Silva y Aceves, vol. 21. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Awe, Jaime J., Cameron Griffith, and Sherry Gibbs 2005 Cave Stelae and Megalithic Monuments in Western Belize. In Brady and Prufer 2005b: 223–248. Baer, Phillip, and William R. Merrifield 1971 Two Studies on the Lacandones of Mexico. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ball, Joseph W. 1993 Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some Socioeconomic and Political Implications

220

Looper_5982.indd 220

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y of Late Classic Maya Ceramic Industries. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 7th and 8th October 1989, ed. Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, pp. 243–272. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Barrera-Bassols, Narciso, and Victor Manuel Toledo 2005 Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya: Symbolism, Knowledge and Management of Natural Resources. Journal of Latin American Geography 4 (1): 9–41. Barrera Rubio, Alfredo, and Karl A. Taube 1987 Los relieves de San Diego: Una nueva perspectiva. Boletín de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropológicas de la Universidad de Yucatán 14 (83): 3–18. Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo 1944 Canción de la danza del arquero flechador. Tlalocan 1 (4): 273–277. 1965 El libro de los cantares de Dzitbalché. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo, Juan Ramón Bastarrachea Manzano, and William Brito Sansores 1980 Diccionario maya cordemex: Maya–español, español–maya. Mérida, Yucatán: Ediciones Cordemex. Barrientos Quezada, Tomás José 2014 The Royal Palace of Cancuén: The Structure of Lowland Maya Architecture and Politics at the End of the Late Classic Period. PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University.

Bassie-Sweet, Karen 1996 At the Edge of the World: Caves and Late Classic Maya World View. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 2002 Maya Creator Gods. Mesoweb articles. http:// www.mesoweb.com/features/bassie/CreatorGods/CreatorGods.pdf. 2008 Maya Sacred Geography and the Creator Deities. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Baud, Michiel, and Willem Van Schendel 1997 Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands. Journal of World History 8 (2): 211–242. Bauer, Erwin A., and Peggy Bauer 1993 Whitetails: Behavior, Natural History, Conservation. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press. Beach, Tim, Nicholas Dunning, Sheryl LuzzadderBeach, Duncan Cook, and Jon Lohse 2006 Impacts of the Ancient Maya on Soils and Soil Erosion in the Central Maya Lowlands. Catena 65 (2): 166–178. Beaglehole, Ernest 1936 Hopi Hunting and Hunting Ritual. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, 4. New Haven: Yale University. Beals, Ralph L. 1945 Ethnology of the Western Mixe. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 42. Berkeley: University of California. Becker, Marshall J.

2001 Houselots at Tikal Guatemala: It’s What’s Out Back That Counts. In Reconstruyendo la ciudad Bartlett, Mary Lee maya: El urbanismo en las sociedades antiguas, 2004 Ornaments of Bone and Semiprecious ed. María Josefa Iglesias Ponce de León and Stone. In K’axob: Ritual, Work, and Family María del Carmen Martínez Martínez, pp. in an Ancient Maya Village, ed. Patricia A. 427–460. Madrid: Sociedad Española de EstuMcAnany, pp. 353–364. Monumenta Archaeodios Mayas. logica, 22. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

221

Looper_5982.indd 221

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Beliaev, Dimitri, and Albert Davletshin

Betzig, Laura

2006 Los sujetos novelísticos y las palabras obscenas: Los mitos, los cuentos y las anécdotas en los textos mayas sobre la cerámica del período clásico. In Valencia Rivera and Le Fort 2006: 21–44.

2008 Hunting Kings. Cross-Cultural Research 42 (3): 270–289.

Benson, Elizabeth P. 1963 Handbook of the Robert Woods Bliss Collection of Pre-Columbian Art. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections. 1979 From the Island of Jaina: A Maya Figurine. Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of the Arts 57 (3): 94–103. 1985 Architecture as Metaphor. In Fields 1985: 183–188. 1997 Birds and Beasts of Ancient Latin America. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2001 Deer. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, vol. 1, ed. David Carrasco, pp. 320–321. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beyer, Hermann 1932 Mayan Hieroglyphs: Some Tun Signs. In Middle American Papers, pp. 105–127. Middle American Research Series, Publication 4. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University. Bierhorst, John 1998 History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca. 2nd ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Bill, Cassandra R. 1997 The Roles and Relationships of God M and Other Black Gods in the Codices, with Specific Reference to Pages 50–56 of the Madrid Codex. In Bricker and Vail 1997: 111–145. Black, Max 1981 Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Berdan, Frances, and Patricia Rieff Anawalt

Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah

1997 The Essential Codex Mendoza. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1972 The Black-Man of Zinacantan: A Central American Legend. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Berger, John

Bliss, Robert Woods

2015 About Looking. London: Bloomsbury Paperbacks.

1957 Pre-Columbian Art: The Robert Woods Bliss Collection. Text and Critical Analyses by Samuel K. Lothrop, William F. Foshag, and Joy Mahler. New York: Phaidon.

Berlin, Heinrich, and David H. Kelley 1961 The 819-Day Count and Color-Direction Symbolism among the Classic Maya. In Middle American Research Institute Publication 26, pp. 11–19. New Orleans: Tulane University. Berry, Edward I. 2001 Shakespeare and the Hunt: A Cultural and Social Study. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bonor, Juan Luis 1989 Las cuevas mayas: Simbolismo y ritual. Madrid: Universidad Complutense Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana. Boone, Elizabeth Hill 2007 Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books of Fate. Austin: University of Texas Press.

222

Looper_5982.indd 222

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Boot, Erik 1989 De Vaas van Actun Balam: Het Verhaal van Ixtabai? Een Ethnografische Analyse van een Klassieke Maya Voorstelling op de Polychrome Vaas van Actun Balam, Belize. Yumtzilob 1 (2): 19–48.

Guatemala. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 1991 Caves and Cosmovision at Utatlán. California Anthropologist 18 (1): 1–10.

Both, Arnd Adje

1997 Settlement Configuration and Cosmology: The Role of Caves at Dos Pilas. American Anthropologist 99 (3): 602–618.

2004 Shell Trumpets in Mesoamerica: MusicArchaeological Evidence and Living Tradition. In Studien zur Musikarchäologie, ed. Ellen Hickmann and Ricardo Eichmann, pp. 261– 277. Rahden, Westphalia: Marie Leidorf.

2002 The Implications of Artificial Caves for Our Understanding of Cave Function. Paper presented at the Sixty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, March 20–24, Denver, CO.

Boucher Le Landais, Sylviane

2012 The Architectural Cave as an Early Form of Artificial Cave in the Maya Lowlands. In Heart of Earth: Studies in Maya Ritual Cave Use, ed. James E. Brady, pp. 61–68. Bulletin 23. Austin, TX: Association for Mexican Cave Studies.

2012 Tradición y arte cerámico. In Calakmul: Patrimonio de la humanidad, ed. Regina Martínez Vega, pp. 177–211. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura; Grupo Azabache. Braakhuis, H. Edwin M. 1987 Sun’s Voyage to the City of the Vultures: A Classic Mayan Funerary Theme. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 112 (2): 237–260. 2001 The Way of All Flesh: Sexual Implications of the Mayan Hunt. Anthropos 96: 391–409. 2005 Xbalanque’s Canoe: The Origin of Poison in Q’eqchi’-Mayan Hummingbird Myth. Anthropos 100: 173–191. 2009 The Tonsured Maize God and ChicomeXochitl as Maize Bringers and Culture Heroes: A Gulf Coast Perspective. Wayeb Notes. http://www.wayeb.org/notes/wayeb_ notes0032.pdf. 2010 Xbalanque’s Marriage: Commentary on the Q’eqchi’ Myth of Sun and Moon. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Leiden. Brady, James E. 1989 An Investigation of Maya Ritual Cave Use with Special Reference to Naj Tunich, Petén,

Brady, James E., and Keith M. Prufer 2005a Introduction: A History of Mesoamerican Cave Interpretation. In Brady and Prufer 2005b: 1–17. Brady, James E., and Keith M. Prufer, eds. 2005b In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use. Austin: University of Texas Press. Brady, James E., and Irma Rodas 1995 Maya Ritual Cave Deposits: Recent Insights from the Cueva de Los Quetzales. Institute of Maya Studies Journal 1 (1): 17–25. Branan, William V., and R. Larry Marchinton 1987 Reproductive Ecology of White-Tailed and Red Brocket Deer in Suriname. In Biology and Management of the Cervidae, ed. Christen M. Wemmer, pp. 344–351. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Brandl, Mark Staff, and Daniel Ammann 1993 Beyond Like and As in Images: Metonymy and Metaphor in Some Recent Art. Art Criticism 8 (2): 98–108.

223

Looper_5982.indd 223

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Brasseur de Bourbourg, Charles Étienne, ed.

Brown, Linda A.

1869– Manuscrit Troano: Études sur le système 1870 graphique et la langue des mayas. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale.

2005 Planting the Bones: Hunting Ceremonialism at Contemporary and Nineteenth-Century Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. Latin American Antiquity 16 (2): 131–146.

Breton, Alain 1999 Rabinal Achí: Un drama dinástico maya del siglo XV. Mexico City: Centro Francés de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos. Brewer, E. Cobham, and Adrian Room, eds. 1995 Brewer’s Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable. 15th ed. London/New York: Cassell/ Harper Collins. Bricker, Harvey M., Victoria R. Bricker, and Bettina Wulfing 1997 Determining the Historicity of Three Astronomical Almanacs in the Madrid Codex. Archaeoastronomy, Supplement to the Journal for the History of Astronomy 28 (22): S17–S36. Bricker, Victoria R. 1973 Ritual Humor in Highland Chiapas. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1991 Faunal Offerings in the Dresden Codex. In Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, ed. Virginia M. Fields, pp. 285–292. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Bricker, Victoria R., and Helga-María Miram 2002 An Encounter of Two Worlds: The Book of Chilam Balam of Kaua. Middle American Research Institute, Publication. 68. New Orleans: Tulane University.

Brown, Linda A., and Kitty F. Emery 2008 Negotiations with the Animate Forest: Hunting Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15 (4): 300–337. Brown, Linda A., and Andrea I. Gerstle 2002 Structure 10: Feasting and Village Festivals. In Before the Volcano Erupted: The Ancient Cerén Village in Central America, ed. Payson Sheets, pp. 97–103. Austin: University of Texas Press. Brown, Linda A., and Luis Alberto Romero 2002 Lugares sagrados para ritos de la cacería. In XV Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2001, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Héctor Escobedo, and Bárbara Arroyo, pp. 771–778. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. Brown, R. D. 1994 Digestion. In Gerlach, Atwater, and Schnell 1994: 66–70. Bruce, Robert D. 1974 El libro de Chan Kin. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, SEP. Bullard, William R., and Mary Ricketson Bullard

Bricker, Victoria R., Eleuterio Po’ot, and Ofelia Dzul de Po’ot

1965 Late Classic Finds at Baking Pot, British Honduras. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

1998 A Dictionary of the Maya Language as Spoken in Hocabá, Yucatán. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Bunzel, Ruth Leah

Bricker, Victoria R., and Gabrielle Vail, eds. 1997 Papers on the Madrid Codex. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 64. New Orleans: Tulane University.

1952 Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village. Publications of the American Ethnological Society, 22. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin. Burkhart, Louise M. 1986 Moral Deviance in Sixteenth-Century Nahua and Christian Thought: The Rabbit and

224

Looper_5982.indd 224

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y the Deer. Journal of Latin American Lore 12: 107–139. Burns, Allan F. 1983 An Epoch of Miracles: Oral Literature of the Yucatec Maya. Austin: University of Texas Press. Buttles, Palma Jeanne 2002 Material and Meaning: A Contextual Examination of Select Portable Material Culture from Colha, Belize. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Cabarrús, Carlos Rafael 1998 La cosmovisión q’eqchi’ en proceso de cambio. Guatemala City: Cholsamaj. Callaway, Carl D. 2012 Analysis of the Term K’ojob in Era Day Expressions, Posted May 30, 2012. Maya Mythos. http://ajchich1.blogspot.com/2012 /05/analysis-of-term-kojob-in-era-day.html.

In Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 115–140. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. Carmack, Robert M. 1973 Quichean Civilization: The Ethnohistoric, Ethnographic and Archaeological Sources. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1981 The Quiché Mayas of Utatlán: The Evolution of a Highland Guatemala Kingdom. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Carot, Patricia 1982 L’occupation préhispanique des grottes de l’Alta Verapaz. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 68: 27–32. Carr, Helen Sorayya 1986 Faunal Utilization in a Late Preclassic Maya Community at Cerros, Belize. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.

1997 Where the Wayob Live: A Further Examination of Classic Maya Supernaturals. In Kerr and Kerr 1989–2000: 5: 868–883.

1996 Precolumbian Maya Exploitation and Management of Deer Populations. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, ed. Scott L. Fedick, pp. 251–261. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Carlsen, Robert S.

Carrasco, David

1997 The War for the Heart and Soul of a Highland Maya Town. Austin: University of Texas Press.

2012 The Aztecs: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carlsen, Robert S., and Martín Prechtel

Cartmill, Matt

1991 The Flowering of the Dead: An Interpretation of Highland Maya Culture. Man 26: 23–42.

1996 A View to a Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature through History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Calvin, Inga

1994 Walking on Two Legs: Shamanism in Santiago Atitlán, Guatemala. In Ancient Traditions: Culture and Shamanism in Central Asia and the Americas, ed. Gary Seaman and Jane S. Day, pp. 77–111. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. Carlson, John B., and Linda C. Landis 1985 Bands, Bicephalic Dragons, and Other Beasts: The Skyband in Maya Art and Iconography.

Caso Barrera, Laura 1999 Religión y resistencia indígena en Yucatán, siglos xvi–xix. Colonial Latin American Historical Review 8 (2): 153–184. Castillo, Bernal Díaz del 2017 Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España. Vol. 2. Barcelona: Linkgua.

225

Looper_5982.indd 225

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Chan, Yuk Wah, and Brantly Womack 2016 Not Merely a Border: Borderland Governance, Development and Transborder Relations in Asia. Asian Anthropology 15 (2): 95–103. Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase, Elayne Zorn, and Wendy G. Teeter 2008 Textiles and the Maya Archaeological Record: Gender, Power, and Status in Classic Period Caracol, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 19 (1): 127–142. Chavez León, Gilberto 1980 La fauna silvestre de Quintana Roo, una riqueza mal aprovechada. Revista de Ciencia Forestal 5 (27): 3–16. Chinchilla Mazariegos, Oswaldo 2010 Of Birds and Insects: The Hummingbird Myth in Ancient Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 21: 45–61. 2011 Imágenes de la mitología maya. Guatemala City: Museo Popol Vuh, Universidad Francisco Marroquín. 2012a Carved Vessel [PC.B.582]. In Pillsbury, Doutriaux, Ishihara-Brito, and Tokovinine 2012: 386–389. 2012b Painted Vessel [PC.B.203]. In Pillsbury, Doutriaux, Ishihara-Brito, and Tokovinine 2012: 390–393. 2017 Art and Myth of the Ancient Maya. New Haven: Yale University Press. Christenson, Allen J. 2001 Art and Society in a Highland Maya Community: The Altarpiece of Santiago Atitlán. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2003 Popol Vuh: The Sacred Book of the Maya: The Great Classic of Central American Spirituality, Translated from the Original Maya Text. Winchester, UK: O Books. 2016 The Burden of the Ancients: Maya Ceremonies of World Renewal from the Pre-Columbian Period

to the Present. Austin: University of Texas Press. Clancy, Flora S. 1976 Maya Pedestal Stones. New Mexico Studies in the Fine Arts (Albuquerque) 1 (1): 10–19. Clancy, Flora S., Charles Gallenkamp, and Regina Elise Johnson 1985 Maya: Treasures of an Ancient Civilization. New York: H. N. Abrams in association with the Albuquerque Museum. Clark, J. Grahame D., and Michael W. Thompson 1953 The Groove and Splinter Technique of Working Antler in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 19 (6): 148–160. Clendinnen, Inga 1987 Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517–1570. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coe, Michael D. 1972 Olmec Jaguars and Olmec Kings. In The Cult of the Feline: A Conference in Pre-Columbian Iconography, October 31st and November 1st, 1970, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 1–18. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections. 1973 The Maya Scribe and His World. New York: Grolier Club. 1975 Classic Maya Pottery at Dumbarton Oaks. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections. 1978 Lords of the Underworld: Masterpieces of Classic Maya Ceramics. Princeton: Art Museum, Princeton University. 1982 Old Gods and Young Heroes: The Pearlman Collection of Maya Ceramics. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. 1989a The Hero Twins: Myth and Image. In Kerr and Kerr 1989–2000: 1: 161–184.

226

Looper_5982.indd 226

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y 1989b The Royal Fifth: Earliest Notices of Maya Writing. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 28. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research. Coe, William R. 1959 Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Coggins, Clemency Chase 1980 The Shape of Time: Some Political Implications of a Four-Part Figure. American Antiquity 45 (4): 727–739. Cohodas, Marvin 1974 The Iconography of the Panels of the Sun, Cross, and Foliated Cross at Palenque, Part II. In Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque: A Conference on the Art, Iconography, and Dynastic History of Palenque, ed. Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 95–103. Pebble Beach, CA: Robert Louis Stevenson School, Pre-Columbian Art Research. 1976 The Iconography of the Panels of the Sun, Cross and the Foliated Cross at Palenque: Part III. In The Art, Iconography and Dynastic History of Palenque, ed. Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 155–176. Pebble Beach, CA: Robert Louis Stevenson School, Pre-Columbian Art Research. 1991 Ballgame Imagery of the Maya Lowlands: History and Iconography. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox, pp. 251–288. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Colas, Pierre Robert 1998 Ritual and Politics in the Underworld. Mexicon 20 (5): 88–104. 2006 The Hunting Scenes in the Madrid Codex: A Planner for Hunting Rituals. In Valencia Rivera and Le Fort 2006: 81–92.

Colby, Benjamin N., and Lore M. Colby 1981 The Daykeeper: The Life and Discourse of an Ixil Diviner. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Collins, Lisa Marie 2002 The Zooarchaeology of the Copan Valley: Social Status and the Search for a Maya Slave Class. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Comunidad Lingüística Q’eqchi’ 2004 Xtusulal aatin sa’ q’eqchi’: Vocabulario q’eqchi’. Guatemala City: Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Cook, Garrett W. 2000 Renewing the Maya World: Expressive Culture in a Highland Town. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cook, Suzanne 2016 The Forest of the Lacandon Maya: An Ethnobotanical Guide. Boston, MA: Springer US. Cordry, Donald Bush, and Dorothy M. Cordry 1968 Mexican Indian Costumes. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cordy-Collins, Alana 2010 The Sacred Deer Complex: Out of Eurasia. In Adventures in Pre-Columbian Studies: Essays Honor of Elizabeth P. Benson, ed. Julie Jones, pp. 139–159. Washington, DC: PreColumbian Society of Washington. Correa, Gustavo, and Calvin Cannon 1958 La loa en Guatemala. In The Native Theatre in Middle America, ed. Margaret A. L. Harrison and Robert Wauchope, pp. 1–96. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 27. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University. Cortés y Larraz, Pedro 1958 Descripción geográfico-moral de la diócesis de Goathemala. Biblioteca “Goathemala” 20,

227

Looper_5982.indd 227

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y 2 vols. Guatemala City: Sociedad de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala. Coto, Thomás de 1983 Thesaurus verborum: Vocabulario de la lengua Cakchiquel v[el] guatemalteca : Nueuamente hecho y recopilado con summo estudio, travajo y erudición. Ed. René Acuña. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México. Craine, Eugene R., and Reginald C. Reindorp 1970 The Chronicles of Michoacán. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1979 The Codex Pérez and the Book of the Chilam Balam of Maní. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Cruz Torres, Mario Enrique de la 1978 Rubelpec: Cuentos y leyendas de Senahú, Alta Verapaz. Guatemala City: Editorial del Ejército. Dahlin, Bruce 2000 The Barricade and Abandonment of Chunchucmil: Implications for Northern Maya Warfare. Latin American Antiquity 11 (3): 283–298.

Deckert, Helmut, and Ferdinand Anders 1975 Codex Dresdensis. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. Dehouve, Danièle 2008 El venado, el maíz y el sacrificado. Cuadernos de Etnología, 4. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Demarest, Arthur A. 2004 Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeMello, Margo 2012 Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York: Columbia University Press. Deuss, Krystyna 2007 Shamans, Witches, and Maya Priests: Native Religion and Ritual in Highland Guatemala. London: Guatemalan Maya Centre. Dieseldorff, Herber Quirín 1966 Historia de Balam Que y Po, la luna. Folklore de Guatemala 2: 175–186.

Daston, Lorraine, and Gregg Mitman

Dobbels, Marcel

2005 Introduction: The How and Why of Thinking with Animals. In Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism, ed. Lorraine Daston and Gregg Mitman, pp. 1–14. New York: Columbia University Press.

2001 Tusq’orik poqomchi’-kaxlan q’orik, poqomchi’castellano. Guatemala City: Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala; Comunidad Lingüística Poqomchi’.

Davenport, Bryce, and Charles W. Golden 2016 Landscapes, Lordships, and Sovereignty in Mesoamerica. In Political Strategies in PreColumbian Mesoamerica, ed. Sarah Kurnick and Joanne Baron, pp. 181–216. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Dean, Carolyn, and Dana Leibsohn 2003 Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America. Colonial Latin American Review 12 (1): 5–35.

Doctolero, Jaime 2002 La danza del venado. Textos Ak’ Kutan, 22. Cobán, Guatemala: Ak’ Kutan, Centro Bartolomé de las Casas. Douglas, Mary 1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge. 1975 Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology. London: Routledge.

228

Looper_5982.indd 228

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Doyle, James 2010 Catalog Entry 35: Shell Plaque with a Lord Smoking. In Finamore and Houston 2010: 114–115. Duarte, José Maurício Barbanti, Susana González, and Jesús E. Maldonado 2008 The Surprising Evolutionary History of South American Deer. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49 (1): 17–22. Durán, Diego 1971 Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar. Trans. Fernando Horcasitas and Doris Heyden. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1994 The History of the Indies of New Spain. Trans. Doris Heyden. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Edmonson, Munro S. 1982 The Ancient Future of the Itza: The Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin. Austin: University of Texas Press. Eisenberg, John F. 1981 The Mammalian Radiations: An Analysis of Trends in Evolution, Adaptation and Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Emery, Kitty F. 2003a The Economics of Natural Resource Use at Ancient Motul de San José, Guatemala. Mayab 16: 33–48. 2003b The Noble Beast: Status and Differential Access to Animals in the Maya World. World Archaeology 34 (3): 498–515. 2004a Animals from the Maya Underworld: Reconstructing Elite Maya Ritual at the Cueva de Los Quetzales, Guatemala. In Behaviour behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity, ed. Sharyn Jones O’Day, Wim Van Neer, and Anton Ervynck, pp. 101–113. Oxford: Oxbow.

2004b In Search of the “Maya Diet”: Is Regional Comparison Possible in the Maya Tropics? Archaeofauna 13: 37–56. 2007 Assessing the Impact of Ancient Maya Animal Use. Journal for Nature Conservation 15 (3): 184–195. 2008a Techniques of Ancient Maya Bone Working: Evidence from a Classic Maya Deposit. Latin American Antiquity 19 (2): 204–221. 2008b A Zooarchaeological Test for Dietary Resource Depression at the End of the Classic Period in the Petexbatun, Guatemala. Human Ecology 36: 617–634. 2010 Dietary, Environmental, and Societal Implications of Ancient Maya Animal Use in the Petexbatún: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Collapse. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 2012 The Motul de San José Animals in an Economic Perspective. In Politics, History, and Economy at the Classic Maya Polity of Motul de San José, Guatemala, ed. Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 291–325. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2014 Aguateca Animal Remains. In Life and Politics at the Royal Court of Aguateca: Artifacts, Analytical Data, and Synthesis, ed. Takeshi Inomata and Daniela Triadan, pp. 158–200. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Emery, Kitty F., ed. 2004c Maya Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at University of California, Los Angeles. Emery, Kitty F., and Kazuo Aoyama 2007 Bone, Shell, and Lithic Evidence for Crafting in Elite Maya Households at Aguateca, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 18 (1): 69–89. Emery, Kitty F., and Linda A. Brown 2012 Maya Hunting Sustainability: Perspectives from Past and Present. In The Ethics

229

Looper_5982.indd 229

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y of Anthropology and Amerindian Research: Reporting on Environmental Degradation and Warfare, ed. Richard J. Chacon and Rubén G. Mendoza, pp. 79–116. New York: Springer. Emery, Kitty F., Linda A. Brown, Elyse N. Anderson, Erin Kennedy Thornton, and Michelle LeFebvre 2009 Etnozoología de depósitos rituales de los mayas modernos e implicaciones para la interpretación de la dieta y del ritual de los antiguos mayas. In XXII Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala 2008, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 842–852. Guatemala City: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología. Emery, Kitty F., and Erin Kennedy Thornton 2008a A Regional Perspective on Biotic Change during the Classic Maya Occupation using Zooarchaeological Isotopic Chemistry. Quaternary International 191: 131–143. 2008b Zooarchaeological Habitat Analysis of Ancient Maya Landscape Changes. Journal of Ethnobiology 28 (2): 154–178. Emery, Kitty F., Lori E. Wright, and Henry Schwarcz 2000 Isotopic Analysis of Ancient Deer Bone: Biotic Stability in Collapse Period Maya LandUse. Journal of Archaeological Science 27 (6): 537–550. Emmons, Louise H., and François Feer 1990 Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Escobedo-Morales, Luis A., Salvador Mandujano, Luis E. Eguiarte, Marco A. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, and Jesús E. Maldonado 2016 First Phylogenetic Analysis of Mesoamerican Brocket Deer Mazama pandora and Mazama temama (Cetartiodactyla: Cervidae) Based on Mitochondrial Sequences: Implications on Neotropical Deer Evolution. Mammalian Biology 81 (3): 303–313.

Estrada Belli, Francisco 2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power before the Classic Period. London: Routledge. Estrada Monroy, Agustín 1990 Vida esotérica maya-kekchí. Guatemala City: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes. Fash, William L. 1991 Scribes, Warriors and Kings: The City of Copan and the Ancient Maya. 1st ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Fernandez, James W. 1986 Persuasions and Performances: The Play of Tropes in Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fields, Virginia M., ed. 1985 Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. Fields, Virginia M., and Dorie Reents-Budet 2005 Lords of Creation: The Origins of Sacred Maya Kingship. London: Scala. Finamore, Daniel, and Stephen D. Houston, eds. 2010 Fiery Pool: The Maya and the Mythic Sea. New Haven: Peabody Essex Museum. Fitzsimmons, James L. 2009 Death and the Classic Maya Kings. Austin: University of Texas Press. Fitzsimmons, James L., Andrew Scherer, Stephen D. Houston, and Héctor L. Escobedo 2003 Guardian of the Acropolis: The Sacred Space of a Royal Burial at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 14 (4): 449–468. Foias, Antonia E. 2002 At the Crossroads: The Economic Basis of Political Power in the Petexbatún Region. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, ed. Marilyn A. Masson and David A. Freidel, pp. 223–248. Thousand Oaks, CA: AltaMira Press.

230

Looper_5982.indd 230

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Ford, Anabel, and Kitty F. Emery

Freidel, David A., and Linda Schele

2008 Exploring the Legacy of the Maya Forest. Journal of Ethnobiology 28 (2): 147–153.

1988 Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The Instruments and Places of Ritual Power. American Anthropologist 90: 547–567.

Ford, Anabel, and Ronald Nigh 2016 The Maya Forest Garden: Eight Millennia of Sustainable Cultivation of the Tropical Woodlands. London: Routledge. Förstemann, Ernst W. 1880 Die Mayahandschrift der Königlichen Öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden. Leipzig, Germany: Verlag von A. Noumann Stet Schroeder. 1902 Kommentar zur Madrider Handschrift (Codex Tro-Cortesianus). Danzig, Germany: Danzig Verlag v. L. Sauniers Buchhdlg. Foster, George M. 1945 Sierra Popoluca Folklore and Beliefs. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fought, John 1972 Chorti (Mayan) Texts. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Fox, James A., and John S. Justeson 1984 Polyvalence in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing. In Justeson and Campbell 1984: 17–76. Fox, John Gerard 1996 Playing with Power: Ballcourts and Political Ritual in Southern Mesoamerica. Current Anthropology 37 (3): 483–509. Franco C., José Luis 1955 Trampas en el códice Madrid y discusión de glifos relacionados. El México Antiguo 8: 193–218. Freidel, David A., Kathryn Reese-Taylor, and David F. Mora-Marín 2002 The Origins of Maya Civilization: The Old Shell Game, Commodity, Treasure, and Kingship. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, ed. Marilyn A. Masson and David A. Freidel, pp. 41–86. Thousand Oaks, CA: AltaMira Press.

Freidel, David A., Linda Schele, and Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. New York: William Morrow and Company. Freiwald, Carolyn R. 2010 Dietary Diversity in the Upper Belize River Valley: A Zooarchaeological and Isotopic Perspective. In Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica, ed. John Staller and Michael Carrasco, pp. 399–420. New York: Springer. Friedrich, Paul 1991 Polytropy. In Beyond Metaphor: The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology, ed. James W. Fernandez, pp. 17–55. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Furst, Peter T. 1968 The Olmec Were-Jaguar Motif in the Light of Ethnographic Reality. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, October 28th and 29th, 1967, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 143–178. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 1972 To Find Our Life: Peyote among the Huichol Indians of Mexico. In Flesh of the Gods: The Ritual Use of Hallucinogens, ed. Peter T. Furst, pp. 136–184. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1976 Hallucinogens and Culture. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp. 1994 Introduction: An Overview of Shamanism. In Ancient Traditions: Shamanism in Central Asia and the Americas, ed. Gary Seaman and Jane S. Day, pp. 1–28. Niwot: University Press of Colorado.

231

Looper_5982.indd 231

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Furst, Peter T., and Michael D. Coe 1977 Ritual Enemas. Natural History 76 (3): 88–91. Gabriel, Marianne 2006 “Sib-ten a w-áalak’-o’ob . . .” (“Regálanos tus hijos, tus criados . . .”): Oraciones dirigidas al “protector de los animales” (Sip). In Valencia Rivera and Le Fort 2006: 93–111. Gage, Thomas 2005 The English-American: A New Survey of the West Indies, 1648. London: Routledge Curzon. Gann, Thomas William Francis 1918 Maya Indians of Southern Yucatan and Northern British Honduras. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 64. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. 1924 In an Unknown Land. London: Books for Libraries Press. Garber, James F. 1989 Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America, vol. 2: The Artifacts. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. García de Palacio, Diego 1985 Letter to the King of Spain. Trans. Ephraim G. Squier. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos. García-Zambrano, Ángel J. 1994 Early Colonial Evidence of Pre-Columbian Rituals of Foundation. In Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989, ed. Merle Greene Robertson and Virginia M. Fields, pp. 217–227. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. Garrison, Thomas 2007 Ancient Maya Territories, Adaptive Regions and Alliances: Contextualizing the San Bartolo-Xultún Intersite Survey. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Garrison, Thomas, and Nicholas P. Dunning 2009 Settlement, Environment, and Politics in the San Bartolo-Xultún Territory, El Petén,

Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 20 (4): 525–552. Geertz, Clifford 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Geist, Valerius 1998 Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Gennep, Arnold van 1960 The Rites of Passage. Trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Gentry, Alan W. 1994 The Miocene Differentiation of Old World Pecora (Mammalia). Historical Biology 7 (2): 115–158. Gerlach, Duane, Sally Atwater, and Judith Schnell, eds. 1994 Deer. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Gerry, John P., and Harold W. Krueger 1997 Regional Diversity in Classic Maya Diets. In Whittington and Reed 1997: 196–207. Gilbert, Clement, Anne Ropiquet, and Alexandre Hassanin 2006 Mitochondrial and Nuclear Phylogenies of Cervidae (Mammalia, Ruminantia): Systematics, Morphology, and Biogeography. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40 (1): 101–117. Girard, Rafael 1962 Los mayas eternos. Mexico City: Antigua Librería Robredo. Golden, Charles W. 2003 The Politics of Warfare in the Usumacinta Basin: La Pasadita and the Realm of Bird Jaguar. In Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, ed. M. Kathryn Brown and Travis W. Stanton, pp. 31–48. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

232

Looper_5982.indd 232

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Golden, Charles W., and Andrew K. Scherer

Gossen, Gary H.

2013 Territory, Trust, Growth, and Collapse in Classic Period Maya Kingdoms. Current Anthropology 54 (4): 397–435.

1974 Chamulas in the World of the Sun: Time and Space in a Maya Oral Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Golden, Charles W., Andrew K. Scherer, A. René Muñoz, and Rosaura Vásquez

Gómez Navarrete, Javier A.

1986 The Chamula Festival of Games: Native Macroanalysis and Social Commentary in a Maya Carnival. In Symbol and Meaning beyond the Closed Community: Essays in Mesoamerican Ideas, ed. Gary H. Gossen, pp. 227–254. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York.

2009 Diccionario introductorio: Español-maya, mayaespañol. Chetumal: Universidad de Quintana Roo.

2002 Four Creations: An Epic Story of the Chiapas Mayas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Goñi Motilla, Guillermo A.

Götz, Christopher M.

1995 Solares prehispánicos en la península de Yucatán. In Memorias del segundo congreso internacional de mayistas, pp. 437–457. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

2008 Coastal and Inland Patterns of Faunal Exploitation in the Prehispanic Northern Maya Lowlands. Quaternary International 191 (1): 154–169.

2008 Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan: Divergent Political Trajectories in Adjacent Maya Polities. Latin American Antiquity 19 (3): 249–274.

Goody, Jack 2011 Cooking, Cuisine, and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, George Byron 1896 Prehistoric Ruins of Copan, Honduras: A Preliminary Report of the Explorations by the Museum, 1891–1895. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 1 (1). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. 1915 Guatemala Myths. Museum Journal 6 (3): 103–144. Gordon, George Byron, and John Alden Mason 1925 Examples of Maya Pottery in the Museum and Other Collections. Philadelphia: University Museum. Goss, Richard J. 1983 Deer Antlers: Regeneration, Function, and Evolution. New York: Academic Press.

Götz, Christopher M., and Kitty F. Emery, eds. 2013 The Archaeology of Mesoamerican Animals, Archaeobiology, 1. Atlanta: Lockwood Press. Götz, Christopher M., and Travis W. Stanton 2013 The Use of Animals by the Pre-Hispanic Maya of the Northern Lowlands. In Götz and Emery 2013: 191–232. Graff, Donald H. 2000 Material Culture in the Madrid Codex. Human Mosaic 33 (1): 17–32. Graff, Donald H., and Gabrielle Vail 2001 Censers and Stars: Issues in the Dating of the Madrid Codex. Latin American Indian Literatures Journal 17 (1): 58–95. Graulich, Michel 1983 Myths of Paradise Lost in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. Current Anthropology 24: 575– 588. 1997a Chasse et sacrifice humain chez les Aztèques. Bulletin des Séances de l’Académie Royale des Sciences d’Outre Mer 43 (4): 433–446.

233

Looper_5982.indd 233

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y 1997b Myths of Ancient Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

2012 A Logogram for SIP, “Lord of the Deer.” Mexicon 34 (6): 138–143.

Greenberg, Laurie S. Z.

Grube, Nikolai, and Maria Gaida

1992 Garden Hunting among the Yucatec Maya: A Coevolutionary History of Wildlife and Culture. Etnoecológica 1 (1): 23–33.

2006 Die Maya: Schrift und Kunst. Berlin: SMB-DuMont.

Gregor, Thomas 1977 Mehinaku: The Drama of Daily Life in a Brazilian Indian Village. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Groark, Kevin P. 2010 The Angel in the Gourd: Ritual, Therapeutic, and Protective Uses of Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) among the Tzeltal and Tzotzil Maya of Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 30 (1): 5–30.

Grube, Nikolai, and Werner Nahm 1994 A Census of Xibalba: A Complete Inventory of “Way” Characters on Maya Ceramics. In Kerr and Kerr 1989–2000: 4: 686–715. Guiteras Holmes, Calixta 1961 Perils of the Soul: The World View of a Tzotzil Indian. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Gutierrez, Mary Ellen 1990 The Maya Ballgame as a Metaphor for Warfare. Mexicon 12 (6): 105–108.

Grollig, Francis Xavier

Guzmán Anleu, Mario Alfonso

1959 San Miguel Acatán, Huehuetenango, Guatemala: A Modern Mayan Village. PhD dissertation, University of Indiana.

1965 Danzas de Guatemala. Folklore de Guatemala 1: 19–30.

Gronemeyer, Sven 2010 A Painted Ceramic Vessel from San Miguel Tayasal, El Petén, Guatemala. Mexicon 32 (6): 145–147. Grube, Nikolai 1998 Speaking through Stones: A Quotative Particle in Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. In 50 Years Americanist Studies at the University of Bonn: New Contributions to the Archaeology, Ethnohistory, Ethnolinguistics and Ethnography of the Americas, ed. Sabine Dedenbach-Salzár S., Carmen Arellano Hoffmann, Eva König, and Heiko Prümers, pp. 543–558. Markt Schwaben, Germany: Verlag Anton Saurwein.

Haeckel, Josef 1959 Der Herr der Tiere im Glauben der Indianer Mesoamerikas. In Amerikanistische Miszellen: Festband Franz Termer, ed. Wilhelm Bierhenke, Wolfgang Haberland, Ulla Johansen, and Günter Zimmermann, pp. 60–69. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Völkerkunde im Hamburg, 25. Hamburg: Kommissionsverlag Ludwig Appel. Halls, Lowell K., ed. 1984 White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Hamblin, Nancy L. 1984 Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

2004 Akan—The God of Drinking, Disease, and Death. In Continuity and Change: Maya ReliHamell, George R. gious Practices in Temporal Perspective, ed. Dan1986 Strawberries, Floating Islands, and Rabbit iel Graña-Behrens, Nikolai Grube, Christian Captains: Mythical Realities and European M. Prager, et al., pp. 59–76. Acta MesoameriContact in the Northeast during the Sixteenth cana, 14. Markt Schwaben, Germany: Verlag and Seventeenth Centuries. Journal of CanaAnton Saurwein. dian Studies 21 (4): 72–94.

234

Looper_5982.indd 234

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Hammond, Norman 1975 Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Realm. Peabody Museum Monographs, 2. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Hanks, William F. 1990 Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2010 Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hanks, William F., and Don S. Rice, eds. 1989 Word and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing, and Representation. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Harlow, Richard F., and David C. Guynn 1994 Whitetail Habitats and Ranges. In Gerlach, Atwater, and Schnell 1994: 169–173. Harner, Michael J. 1973 Hallucinogens and Shamanism. New York: Oxford University Press. Harrison-Buck, Eleanor 2004 Nourishing the Animus of Lived Space through Ritual Caching. In K’axob: Ritual, Work, and Family in an Ancient Maya Village, ed. Patricia A. McAnany, pp. 65–85. Monumenta Archaeologica, 22. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon 1984 The Structure of Material Systems: Ethnoarchaeology in the Maya Highlands. Society for American Archaeology Papers, 3. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology. Hellmuth, Nicholas M. 1978 Maya Archaeology: Tikal, Copan: Travel Guide, 1978: A Complete Guide to All the Maya Ruins of Central America. St. Louis: Foundation for Latin American Anthropological Research.

1987 Ballgame Iconography and Playing Gear: Late Classic Maya Polychrome Vases and Stone Sculpture of Peten, Guatemala. Culver City, CA: Foundation for Latin American Anthropological Research. 1991 A Hunting God and the Maya Ballgame of Guatemala: An Iconography of Maya Ceremonial Headdresses. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. Gerard W. Van Bussel, Paul F. Van Dongen, and Ted J. J. Leyenaar, pp. 135–159. Leiden: Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde. 1992 Los juegos de pelota maya en México y Guatemala durante los siglos VI–VII. In El juego de pelota en mesoamérica: Raíces y supervivencia, ed. María Teresa Uriarte, pp. 169–197. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. 1996 Headdresses and Skirts Shared by Deer Hunters and Ballplayers. Osaka, Japan/Cocoa, FL: National Museum of Ethnology/Foundation for Latin American Anthropological Research. Helmke, Christophe, and Christopher R. Andres 2015 For the Love of the Game: The Ballplayer Panels of the Tipan Chen Uitz in Light of Late Classic Athletic Hegemony. PARI Journal 16 (2): 1–30. Helmke, Christophe, and James E. Brady 2014 Epigraphic and Archaeological Evidence for Cave Desecration in Ancient Maya Warfare. In A Celebration of the Life and Work of Pierre Robert Colas, ed. Christophe Helmke and Frauke Sachse, pp. 195–227. Acta Mesoamericana, 27. Markt Schwaben, Germany: Verlag Anton Saurwein. Helmke, Christophe, and Jesper Nielsen 2009 Hidden Identity and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica: Supernatural Alter Egos as Personified Diseases. Acta Americana 17 (2): 49–98. Helms, Mary W. 1991 Esoteric Knowledge, Geographical Distance, and the Elaboration of Leadership Status: Dynamics of Resource Control. In Profiles in

235

Looper_5982.indd 235

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Cultural Evolution: Papers from a Conference in Honor of Elman R. Service, ed. A. Terry Rambo and Kathleen Gillogly, pp. 333–350. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power. Austin: University of Texas Press.

2011 Mopan Maya–Spanish–English Dictionary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 2014 Lacandon Maya–Spanish–English Dictionary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Hofling, Charles Andrew, and Félix Fernando Tesucún

1997 Itzaj Maya–Spanish–English Dictionary. Salt 1994 Essays on Objects: Interpretations of Distance Lake City: University of Utah Press. Made Tangible. In Implicit Understandings, ed. Stuart B. Schwartz, pp. 355–377. Cambridge: Holland, William Cambridge University Press. 1961 El tonalismo y el nagualismo entre los 2010 Access to Origins: Affines, Ancestors, and Aristotzotziles. Estudios de Cultura Maya 1: 167–181. crats. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1964 Contemporary Tzotzil Cosmological ConHendon, Julia cepts as a Basis for Interpreting Prehistoric Maya Civilization. American Antiquity 29 (3): 1997 Women’s Work, Women’s Space, and 301–306. Women’s Status among the Classic-Period Maya Elite of the Copan Valley, Honduras. In Hoopes, John W., and David F. Mora-Marín Women in Prehistory: North America and Meso2009 Violent Acts of Curing: Pre-Columbian Metaamerica, ed. Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary phors of Birth and Sacrifice in the Diagnosis A. Joyce, pp. 33–46. Philadelphia: University and Treatment of Illness “Writ Large.” In of Pennsylvania Press. Blood and Beauty: Organized Violence in the Art Heyden, Doris and Archaeology of Mesoamerica and Central America, ed. Heather Orr and Rex Koontz, pp. 1973 Un Chicomóztoc en Teotihuacan? La cueva 291–330. Ideas, Debates, and Perspectives, 4. bajo la Pirámide del Sol. Boletín INAH 2 (6): Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology 3–18. Press. 1976 Los ritos de paso en las cuevas. Boletín INAH Hopkins, Nicholas A. 19 (2): 17–26. 2012 A Dictionary of the Chuj (Mayan) Language 1981 Caves, Gods, and Myths: World-View and As Spoken in San Mateo Ixtatan, HuehuetePlanning in Teotihuacan. In Mesoamerican nango, Guatemala. http://www.famsi.org Sites and World-Views, ed. Elizabeth P. Ben/mayawriting/dictionary/hopkins/Chuj son, pp. 1–35. Washington, DC: Dumbarton EnglishDictionary2012.pdf. Oaks Research Library and Collection. Hopkins, Nicholas A., J. Kathryn Josserand, and Hodge, Frederick Webb, ed. Ausencio Cruz Guzmán 1912 Handbook of American Indians North of Mex2011 A Historical Dictionary of Chol (Mayan): The ico, Part 2. Smithsonian Institution Bureau Lexical Sources from 1789 to 1935. http:// of American Ethnology Bulletin 30. Washingwww.famsi.org/mayawriting/dictionary ton, DC: Government Printing Office. /hopkins/CholDictionary2010.pdf. Hofling, Charles Andrew Houston, Stephen D. 1991 Itza Maya Texts with a Grammatical Overview. 1993 Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas: Dynastic Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Politics of the Classic Maya. Austin: University of Texas Press.

236

Looper_5982.indd 236

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y 2000 Into the Minds of the Ancients: Advances in Maya Glyph Studies. Journal of World Prehistory 14: 121–201.

Houston, Stephen D., and Takeshi Inomata 2009 The Classic Maya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2008 The Epigraphy of El Zotz. Mesoweb Resources. http://mesoweb.com/zotz /resources.html.

Houston, Stephen D., John Robertson, and David Stuart

2009 A Splendid Predicament: Young Men in Classic Maya Society. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19 (2): 149–178.

2001 Quality and Quantity in Glyphic Nouns and Adjectives. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 47. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research.

2010a Living Waters and Wondrous Beasts. In Finamore and Houston 2010: 66–79.

Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart

2010b Maya Musk. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya Writing and Iconography. https://decipherment.wordpress.com /2010/06/17/maya-musk/. 2012a The Good Prince: Transition, Texting and Moral Narrative in the Murals of Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22 (2): 153–175. 2012b A Liquid Passage to Manhood. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya Writing and Iconography. https://decipherment .wordpress.com/2012/05/08/a-liquid -passage-to-manhood/. 2014a Courtesans and Carnal Commerce. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya Writing and Iconography. https://decipherment .wordpress.com/2014/06/08/courtesans -and-carnal-commerce/. 2014b The Life Within: Classic Maya and the Matter of Permanence. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2018 The Gifted Passage: Young Men in Classic Maya Art and Text. New Haven: Yale University Press. Houston, Stephen, Héctor Escobedo, Charles Golden, et al. 2006 La Técnica and El Kinel: Mounds and a Monument Upriver from Yaxchilan. Mexicon 28(5): 87–93.

1989 The Way Glyph: Evidence for “Co-Essences” among the Classic Maya. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 30. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research. 1996 Of Gods, Glyphs, and Kings: Divinity and Rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity 70: 289–312. 2001 Peopling the Classic Maya Court. In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, ed. Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 54–83. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart, and Karl A. Taube 2006 The Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Experience among the Classic Maya. Austin: University of Texas Press. Howitt, Richie 2001 Frontiers, Borders, Edges: Liminal Challenges to the Hegemony of Exclusion. Australian Geographical Studies 39 (2): 233–245. Hughes, Julie E. 2013 Animal Kingdoms: Hunting, The Environment, and Power in the Indian Princely States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hull, Kerry 2016 A Dictionary of Ch’orti’ Mayan–Spanish– English. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

237

Looper_5982.indd 237

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Hultkrantz, Åke

Inomata, Takeshi, and Kitty F. Emery

1966 An Ecological Approach to Religion. Ethnos 31: 131–150.

2014 Bone and Shell Artifacts. In Life and Politics at the Royal Court of Aguateca: Artifacts, Analytical Data, and Synthesis, ed. Takeshi Inomata and Daniela Triadan, pp. 127–157. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Hunn, Eugene S. 1977 Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classification of Discontinuities in Nature. New York: Academic Press. Hunt, Eva 1977 The Transformation of the Hummingbird: Cultural Roots of a Zinacantecan Mythical Poem. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hutson, Scott R., Travis W. Stanton, Aline Magnoni, Richard Terry, and Jason Craner 2007 Beyond the Buildings: Formation Processes of Ancient Maya Houselots and Methods for the Study of Non-Architectural Space. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (3): 442–473. Ichon, Alain

Inomata, Takeshi, and Laura R. Stiver 1998 Floor Assemblages from Burned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala: A Study of Classic Maya Households. Journal of Field Archaeology 25 (4): 431–452. Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Erick Ponciano, et al. 2002 Domestic and Political Lives of Classic Maya Elites: The Excavation of Rapidly Abandoned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 13 (3): 305–330. Ishihara-Brito, Reiko

1995 La religión de los totonacas de la sierra. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.

2012 Beads [PC.B.184, 185, 186]. In Pillsbury, Doutriaux, Ishihara-Brito, and Tokovinine 2012: 270–271.

Ingles, Lloyd Glenn

Jackson, Sarah E.

1956 Meat for Mayan Tables. Pacific Discovery 9: 4–12.

2013 Politics of the Maya Court: Hierarchy and Change in the Late Classic Period. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Ingold, Tim 1994a From Trust to Domination: An Alternative History of Human-Animal Relations. In Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives, ed. Aubrey Manning and James Serpell, pp. 1–22. London: Routledge. 1994b Introduction. In What Is an Animal?, ed. Tim Ingold, pp. 1–16. London: Routledge. Inomata, Takeshi 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Fortified Center of Aguateca, El Petén, Guatemala: Implications for the Study of the Classic Maya Collapse. PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University.

Jackson, Sarah, and David Stuart 2001 The Aj K’uhun Title: Deciphering a Classic Maya Term of Rank. Ancient Mesoamerica 12 (2): 217–228. Jakobson, Roman 1971 Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton. Janssens, Bert, and Ruud van Akkeren 2003 Xajooj keej: El baile del venado de Rabinal. Rabinal, Baja Verapaz, Guatemala: Museo Comunitario Rabinal Achi. Jensen, Daniel 1977 Baile del venado, Santa Eulalia, Huehuetenango. Guatemala Indígena 12 (1–2): 203–221.

238

Looper_5982.indd 238

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Jones, Owen Harold

Justeson, John S., and Lyle Campbell, eds.

2009 Colonial K’iche’ in Comparison with Yucatec Maya: Language, Adaptation, and Intercultural Contact. PhD dissertation, University of California, Riverside.

1984 Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University of New York at Albany.

Joralemon, David 1976 The Olmec Dragon: A Study in PreColumbian Iconography. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica, ed. H. B. Nicholson, pp. 27–71. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles Latin American Center. Jorgenson, Jeffrey Paul 1993 Gardens, Wildlife Densities, and Subsistence Hunting by Maya Indians in Quintana Roo, Mexico. PhD dissertation. University of Florida. 1995 A Profile of Maya Subsistence Hunters in Southeastern Mexico. In Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future, ed. John A. Bissonette and Paul R. Krausman, pp. 667–671. Bethesda, MD: Wildlife Society. 1998 The Impact of Hunting on Wildlife in the Maya Forest of Mexico. In Timber, Tourists and Temples: Conservation and Development in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala and Mexico, ed. Richard B. Primack, David Barton Bray, Hugo A. Galletti, and Ismael Ponciano, pp. 179–193. Washington, DC: Island Press. 2000 Wildlife Conservation and Game Harvest by Maya Hunters in Quintana Roo, Mexico. In Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests, ed. John G. Robinson and Elizabeth L. Bennett, pp. 251–266. New York: Columbia University Press. Jung, Carl G., Joseph L. Henderson, Marie-Luise von Franz, Aniela Jaffé, and Jolande Jacobi 1978 Man and His Symbols. London: Picador. Just, Bryan R. 2012 Dancing into Dreams: Maya Vase Painting of the Ik’ Kingdom. Princeton: Princeton University Art Museum.

Kaufman, Terrence 2003 A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary. http://www.famsi.org/reports/01051 /pmed.pdf. Kaufman, Terrence, and William M. Norman 1984 An Outline of Proto-Cholan Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary. In Justeson and Campbell 1984: 77–166. Keller, Kathryn C., and Luciano G. Plácido 1997 Diccionario chontal de Tabasco. Tucson: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kerr, Justin, and Barbara Kerr, eds. 1989– The Maya Vase Book. 6 vols. New York: Kerr 2000 Associates. Kidder, Alfred Vincent 1947 The Artifacts of Uaxactún, Guatemala. Publication 576. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Klein, Cecelia F. 1990– Snares and Entrails: Mesoamerican Symbols 1991 of Sin and Punishment. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 19/20: 81–103. 1993 Teocuitlatl, “Divine Excrement”: The Significance of “Holy Shit” in Ancient Mexico. Art Journal 52 (3): 20–27. Klein, Cecelia F., Eulogio Guzmán, Elisa C. Mandell, and Maya Stanfield-Mazzi 2002 The Role of Shamanism in Mesoamerican Art: A Reassessment. Current Anthropology 43 (3): 383–419. Knorozov, Yuri V. 1955 La escritura de los antiguos mayas (ensayo de descifrado) [Spanish translation of Sistema Pis’ma Drevnikh Maya]. Moscow: Editorial de la Academia de Ciencias de la URSS.

239

Looper_5982.indd 239

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Knowlton, Timothy P. 2010 Maya Creation Myths: Words and Worlds of the Chilam Balam. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Köhler, Ulrich 1995 Chonbilal chulelal-alma vendida: Elementos fundamentales de la cosmología y religión mesoamericanas en una oración en maya-tzotzil. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Konzevik, Adriana, and Gabriela Vélez Paz, eds. 2014 Catálogo de el Gran Museo del Mundo Maya de Mérida. Mérida, Yucatán: CONACULTA, INAH. Koster, Jeremy 2009 Hunting Dogs in the Lowland Neotropics. Journal of Anthropological Research 65 (4): 575–610. Kozelsky, Kristin L. 2005 Identifying Social Drama in the Maya Region: Fauna from the Lagartero Basurero, Chiapas, Mexico. M.A. thesis, Florida State University, Talahassee. Kroll, James C. 1994 Internal Anatomy. In Gerlach, Atwater, and Schnell 1994: 24–30. Kubler, George 1969 Studies in Classic Maya Iconography. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 18. New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences. 1974 Mythological Ancestries in Classic Maya Inscriptions. In Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque: A Conference on the Art, Iconography, and Dynastic History of Palenque, ed. Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 23–43. Pebble Beach, CA: Robert Louis Stevenson School, PreColumbian Art Research.

1984 The Art and Architecture of Ancient America: The Mexican, Maya, and Andean Peoples. 3rd integrated ed. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Lacadena García-Gallo, Alfonso 1997 Bilingüismo en el códice de Madrid. In Los investigadores de la cultura maya, pp. 184–204. Vol. 5. Campeche, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche. Lacadena García-Gallo, Alfonso, and Søren Wichmann 2004 On the Representation of the Glottal Stop in Maya Writing. In The Linguistics of Maya Writing, ed. Søren Wichmann, pp. 103–162. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. La Farge, Oliver 1947 Santa Eulalia: The Religion of a Cuchumatán Indian Town. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. La Farge, Oliver, II, and Douglas Byers 1931 The Year Bearer’s People. Middle American Research Series, 3. New Orleans: Department of Middle American Research, Tulane University of Louisiana. Lagrou, Elsje 2004 Sorcery and Shamanism in Cashinahua Discourse and Praxis, Purus River, Brazil. In Whitehead and Wright 2004b: 244–270. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson 1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lapham, Heather A. 2005 Hunting for Hides: Deerskins, Status, and Cultural Change in the Protohistoric Appalachians. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Laughlin, Robert M. 1975 The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantán. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, 19. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

240

Looper_5982.indd 240

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Laughlin, Robert M., and John B. Haviland 1988 The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of Santo Domingo Zinacantán with Grammatical Analysis and Historical Commentary, vol. 2: English-Tzotzil. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, 31. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Leeuwenberg, Frans J., and John G. Robinson 2000 Traditional Management of Hunting by a Xavante Community in Central Brazil: The Search for Sustainability. In Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests, ed. John G. Robinson and Elizabeth L. Bennett, pp. 375–394. New York: Columbia University Press. Lemaistre, Denis 1996 The Deer That Is Peyote and the Deer That Is Maize: The Hunt in the Huichol “Trinity.” In Schaefer and Furst 1996: 308–329. León, Perla, and Salvador Montiel 2008 Wild Meat Use and Traditional Hunting Practices in a Rural Mayan Community of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Human Ecology 36 (2): 249–257. Leopold, A. Starker, and Charles W. Schwartz 1959 Wildlife of Mexico: The Game Birds and Mammals. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1963a The Bear and the Barber. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 93 (1): 1–11. 1963b Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. 1964 Totemism. Trans. Rodney Needham. London: Merlin Press. 1969 The Raw and the Cooked. Introduction to a Science of Mythology, 1. New York: Harper and Row. 1973 From Honey to Ashes. Introduction to a Science of Mythology, 2. London: Jonathan Cape.

1981 The Naked Man. Introduction to a Science of Mythology, 4. London: Jonathan Cape. Linares, Olga F. 1976 “Garden-Hunting” in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4 (4): 331–349. Lizana, Bernardo de 1988 Historia de Yucatán. Ed. Félix Jiménez Villalba. Madrid: Historia 16. Loewe, Ronald 2003 Yucatan’s Dancing Pig’s Head (Cuch): Icon, Carnival, and Commodity. Journal of American Folklore 116 (462): 420–443. Longyear, John M., III 1952 Copan Ceramics: A Study of Southeastern Maya Pottery. Publication 597. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Looper, Matthew G. 1998 A Note on the Carved Bone from Copán Temple 11. Glyph Dwellers, Report 4. http:// glyphdwellers.com/pdf/R4.pdf. 2003 Lightning Warrior: Maya Art and Kingship at Quirigua. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2006 La iconografía del cráneo de pecarí de Copán en su contexto ritual. In XIX Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2005, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 611–618. Guatemala City: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, Asociación Tikal. 2009 To Be Like Gods: Dance in Ancient Maya Civilization. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2011 Musicians from Chajul. Mexicon 33 (5): 110. 2012 The Maya “Cosmic Monster” as a Religious and Political Symbol. In Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous, ed. Asa Simon Mittman and Peter Dendle, pp. 197–215. London: Ashgate. 2018 Objects with Voices among the Ancient Maya. In Relational Identities and Other-Than-

241

Looper_5982.indd 241

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Human Agency in Archaeology, ed. Eleanor Harrison-Buck and Julia A. Hendon, pp. 178– 205. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Looper, Matthew G., and Yuriy Polyukhovych 2016 Seven Inscribed El Zotz–Style Maya Vessels in the Fralin Museum of Art. Glyph Dwellers, Report 45. http://glyphdwellers.com/pdf/R45 .pdf. 2018 A Royal Vase from La Corona in the Art Institute of Chicago. Glyph Dwellers, Report 58. http://glyphdwellers.com/pdf/R58.pdf. Forthcoming A Maya Travertine Vessel Depicting Captive Presentation. Princeton University Art Museum Record. Looper, Matthew G., and Thomas G. Tolles 2000 Gifts of the Moon: Huipil Designs of the Ancient Maya. San Diego Museum Papers, 38. San Diego, CA: San Diego Museum of Man. López Austin, Alfredo 2011 Myths of the Opossum: Pathways of Mesoamerican Mythology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. López de Cogolludo, Diego 2008 Historia de Yucatán. Barcelona: Linkgua. Lothrop, Samuel Kirkland 1929 Further Notes on Indian Ceremonies in Guatemala. Indian Notes 6 (1): 1–25. Love, Bruce 1989 Yucatec Sacred Breads through Time. In Hanks and Rice 1989: 336–350. Lucero, Lisa Joyce 2006 Water and Ritual: The Rise and Fall of Classic Maya Rulers. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lucero, Lisa Joyce, and Barbara W. Fash 2006 Precolumbian Water Management: Ideology, Ritual, and Power. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Lumholtz, Carl 1900 Symbolism of the Huichol Indians. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 3 (1). New York: American Museum of Natural History. 1973 Unknown Mexico: A Record of Five Years’ Exploration among the Tribes of the Western Sierra Madre; in the Tierra Caliente of Tepic and Jalisco; and among the Tarascos of Michoacán. 2 vols. New York: AMS Press for Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Mace, Carroll Edward 1970 Two Spanish-Quiché Dance-Dramas of Rabinal. New Orleans: Department of French and Italian, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Tulane University. MacLeod, Barbara 1989 The 819-Day-Count: A Soulful Mechanism. In Hanks and Rice 1989: 112–126. MacLeod, Barbara, and Dennis E. Puleston 1979 Pathways into Darkness: The Search for the Road to Xibalba. In Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, ed. Merle Greene Robertson and Donnan Call Jeffers, pp. 71–77. Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico: Pre-Columbian Art Research Center. Macri, Martha J., and Matthew G. Looper 2003 The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs, vol. 1: The Classic Period Inscriptions. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Maldonado González, Concepción 1999 Clave: Diccionario de uso del español actual. Madrid: CESMA. Mandujano, Salvador, and Victor Rico-Gray 1991 Hunting, Use and Knowledge of the Biology of the White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus Hays) by the Maya of Central Yucatan. Journal of Ethnobiology 11 (2): 175–183.

242

Looper_5982.indd 242

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Manzanilla, Linda, and Luis Barba

Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Research 24: 229–274.

1990 The Study of Activities in Classic Households: Masson, Marilyn A., and Carlos Peraza Lope Two Case Studies from Coba and Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 1 (1): 41–49. 2008 Animal Use at the Postclassic Maya Center of Mayapán. Quaternary International 191 (1): March, Ignacio J. 170–183. 1987 Los lacandones de México y su relación con 2013 Animal Consumption at the Monumental los mamíferos silvestres: Un estudio etnoCenter of Mayapán. In Götz and Emery 2013: zoológico. Biótica 12 (1): 43–56. 233–279. Marchinton, R. Larry, and David H. Hirth Maudslay, Alfred P. 1984 Behavior. In Halls 1984: 129–168. 1889–1902 Archaeology. 5 vols. Biologia CentraliMartin, Simon Americana. London: R. H. Porter and Dulau and Co. 2015 The Old Man of the Maya Universe: Unified Aspects to Ancient Maya Religion. In Mayers, Marvin Keene Maya Archaeology 3, ed. Charles W. Golden, 1958 Pocomchí Texts, with Grammatical Notes. NorStephen D. Houston, and Joel Skidmore, man: Summer Institute of Linguistics. pp. 186–227. San Francisco: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press. McArthur, Harry S. Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube 1966 Orígenes y motivos del baile del Tz’unum. Folklore de Guatemala 2: 139–152. 2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson. 1977 Releasing the Dead: Ritual and Motivation in Aguacatec Dance. In Cognitive Studies in Martyr d’Anghiera, Peter Southern Mesoamerica, ed. Helen L. Neuen2001 De Orbe Novo Decades, Fourth Decade. In swander and Dean E. Arnold, pp. 3–34. DalThe Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing, las: Summer Institute of Linguistics Museum ed. Stephen D. Houston, Oswaldo Chinchilla of Anthropology. Mazariegos, and David Stuart, pp. 25–26. McCabe, Richard E., and Thomas R. McCabe Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mason, J. Alden 1918 Tepecano Prayers. International Journal of American Linguistics 1 (2): 91–153. Masson, Marilyn A. 1999 Animal Resource Manipulation in Ritual and Domestic Contexts at Postclassic Maya Communities. World Archaeology 31 (1): 93–120. Masson, Marilyn A., Timothy S. Hare, Carlos Peraza Lope, Bárbara C. Escamilla Ojeda, Elizabeth H. Paris, Betsy Kohut, Bradley W. Russell, and Wilberth Cruz Alvarado 2016 Household Craft Production in the Prehispanic Urban Setting of Mayapán, Yucatan,

1984 Of Slings and Arrows: An Historical Retrospection. In Halls 1984: 19–72. McComb, Patricia 1989 Upper Paleolithic Osseous Artifacts from Britain and Belgium: An Inventory and Technological Description. BAR International Series, 481. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. McKenna, Terence K. 1992 Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge: A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution. New York: Bantam Books.

243

Looper_5982.indd 243

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y McSwain, Rebecca, Jay K. Johnson, Laura J. Kosakowsky, and Norman Hammond 1991 Craft Technology and Production. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, ed. Norman Hammond, pp. 159–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Medellín, Rodrigo A., Alfred L. Gardner, and J. Marcelo Aranda 1998 The Taxonomic Status of the Yucatán Brown Brocket, Mazama pandora (Mammalia: Cervidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 111 (1): 1–14. Mendelson, Edward Michael 1958 A Guatemalan Sacred Bundle. Man 58: 121–126. 1965 Los escándalos de Maximón: Un estudio sobre la religión y la visión del mundo en Santiago Atitlán. Guatemala City: Tipografía Nacional. Méndez, Eustorgio 1984 Mexico and Central America. In Halls 1984: 513–524. Merwin, Raymond E., and George Clapp Vaillant 1904 The Ruins of Holmul, Guatemala. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 3. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Milbrath, Susan 1980 A Star Calendar in the Codex Madrid. In La antropología americanista en la actualidad: Homenaje a Raphael Girard, pp. 445–464. Mexico City: Editores Mexicanos Unidos. 1981 Astronomical Imagery in the Serpent Sequence of the Madrid Codex. In Archaeoastronomy in the Americas, ed. Ray A. Williamson, pp. 263–283. College Park, MD: Center for Archaeoastronomy. 1999 Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Milbrath, Susan, and Debra S. Walker 2016 Regional Expressions of the Postclassic Effigy Censer System in the Chetumal Bay Area. In New Perspectives on the Ancient Maya of Chetumal Bay, ed. Debra S. Walker, pp. 186–213. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Miller, Mary Ellen 1986 The Murals of Bonampak. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Miller, Mary Ellen, and Claudia Brittenham 2013 The Spectacle of the Late Maya Court: Reflections on the Murals of Bonampak. Austin: University of Texas Press. Miller, Mary Ellen, and Stephen D. Houston 1987 The Classic Maya Ballgame and Its Architectural Setting. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 14: 47–65. Miller, Mary Ellen, and Simon Martin 2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. San Francisco/New York: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco/Thames and Hudson. Miller, Mary Ellen, and Karl A. Taube 1993 The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya: An Illustrated Dictionary of Mesoamerican Religion. New York: Thames and Hudson. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula 1981 Ein Alter Maya Mythos. Mexicon 3 (2): 26–29. 1995 Shells and Society at Tikal, Guatemala. Expedition 37 (2): 3–13. 2003 The Artifacts of Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and Unworked Material. Tikal Report 27, pt. B, University Museum Monograph, 118. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, and William R. Coe 2008 The Artifacts of Tikal: Ornamental and Ceremonial Artifacts and Unworked Material.

244

Looper_5982.indd 244

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Tikal Report 27, pt. A, University Museum Monograph, 127. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Montolíu, María 1976 Algunos aspectos del venado en la religión de los mayas de Yucatán. Estudios de Cultura Maya 10: 149–172.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, and John M. Ladd

Morales Hidalgo, Italo 1992 Objects of Stone, Shell, and Bone. In Arti1988 El baile del tun en el departamento de facts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Suchitepéquez. Anales de La Academia de GeoYucatan: Textiles, Basketry, Stone, Bone, Shell, grafía e Historia de Guatemala 62: 131–146. Ceramics, Wood, Copal, Rubber, Other Organic Materials, and Mammalian Remains, ed. Morán, Fray Francisco Clemency Chase Coggins, pp. 99–152. Cam1935 Arte y diccionario en lengua choltí: A Manubridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology script Copied from the Libro Grande of Fr. Pedro and Ethnology, Harvard University. Moran of about 1625. Vol. 9. Baltimore: Maya Monaghan, John Society. 1995 The Covenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange, Sacrifice, and Revelation in Mixtec Sociality. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1998 The Person, Destiny, and the Construction of Difference in Mesoamerica. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 33: 137–146. Montero López, Coral 2009 Sacrifice and Feasting among the Classic Maya Elite and the Importance of the WhiteTailed Deer: Is There a Regional Pattern? Journal of Historical and European Studies 2: 53–68. 2013 Inferring the Archaeological Context through Taphonomy: The Use of the White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Chinikihá, Chiapas. In Götz and Emery 2013: 315–349. Montero López, Coral, and Luis Fernando Núñez Enríquez

Morley, Sylvanus Griswold 1920 The Inscriptions at Copan. Publication 219. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1927 Un jarro maya pintado. Forma 1 (5): 22–24. Moyes, Holley 2005 Cluster Concentrations, Boundary Markers, and Ritual Pathways: A GIS Analysis of Artifact Cluster Patterns at Actun Tunichil Muknal, Belize. In Brady and Prufer 2005b: 269–300. Muntsch, Albert 1943 Some Magico-Religious Observances of the Present-Day Maya Indians of British Honduras and Yucatán. Primitive Man 16 (1/2): 31–43. Myerhoff, Barbara G.

2011 Salud y dieta entre los entierros de Chinikihá: Primeros resultados. Estudios de Antropología Biológica 15: 139–166.

1970 The Deer-Maize-Peyote Symbol Complex among the Huichol Indians of Mexico. Anthropological Quarterly 43 (2): 64–78.

Montiel Ortega, Salvador, Luis M. Arias Reyes, and Federico Dickinson

Nagy, Christopher von

1999 La cacería tradicional en el norte de Yucatán: Una práctica comunitaria. Revista de Geografía Agrícola 29: 43–52.

1997 Some Comments on the Madrid DeerHunting Almanacs. In Bricker and Vail 1997: 27–71.

245

Looper_5982.indd 245

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Napier, A. David 2010 Masks, Transformation, and Paradox. Berkeley: University of California Press. Naranjo, Eduardo J., Michelle M. Guerra, Richard E. Bodmer, and Jorge E. Bolanos 2004 Subsistence Hunting by Three Ethnic Groups of the Lacandon Forest, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 24 (2): 233–254. Nations, James D., and Ronald Nigh 1980 The Evolutionary Potential of Lacandon Maya Sustained-Yield Tropical Forest Agriculture. Journal of Anthropological Research 36: 1–30. Newman, David 2006 Borders and Bordering: Towards an Interdisciplinary Dialogue. European Journal of Social Theory 9 (2): 171–186. Newsome, Elizabeth A. 2001 Trees of Paradise and Pillars of the World: The Serial Stela Cycle of “18-Rabbit-God K,” King of Copán. Austin: University of Texas Press. Nowak, Ronald M, and J. L. Paradiso 1999 Walker’s Mammals of the World. 6th ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. O’Brien, Linda L. 1983 Three Maya Bone Tubes from the CrossleyHolland Collection of Musical Artifacts: A Comparative Study. In Essays in Honour of Peter Crossley-Holland on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Nicole Marzac-Holland and Nazir A. Jairazbhoy, pp. 11–28. Selected Reports in Ethnomusicology, 4. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. Olivier, Guilhem 2008 Le cerf et le roi: Modèle sacrificiel et rite d’intronisation dans l’ancien Mexique. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 94 (1): 191–230. 2014 Venados melómanos y cazadores lúbricos: Cacería, música y erotismo en Mesoamérica. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 47: 121–168.

2015 Cacería, sacrificio y poder en Mesoamérica: Tras las huellas de Mixcóatl, “serpiente de nube.” Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos. Olsen, Stanley J. 1972 Animal Remains from Altar de Sacrificios. In The Artifacts of Altar de Sacrificios, ed. Gordon R. Willey, pp. 243–246. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. 1978 Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In Excavations at Seibal, Department of the Petén, Guatemala, ed. Gordon R. Willey, pp. 172–176. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 14. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. O’Neil, Megan E. 2012 Anthropomorphic Whistle [PC.B.195]. In Pillsbury, Doutriaux, Ishihara-Brito, and Tokovinine 2012: 420–425. Ortner, Sherry B. 1973 On Key Symbols. American Anthropologist 75 (5): 1338–1346. Palka, Joel W. 2002 Left/Right Symbolism and the Body in Ancient Maya Iconography and Culture. Latin American Antiquity 13: 419–443. Paredes Maury, Sofía, María José González, and Jorge Cardona 1996 Vida silvestre en el arte maya de Tikal/Maya Art of Tikal: Flora and Fauna. Guatemala City: WCS, CARE International Guatemala, USAID, Museo Sylvanus G. Morley, Parque Nacional Tikal. Paret-Limardo, Lise 1963 La danza del venado en Guatemala. Guatemala City: Centro Editorial “José de Pineda Ibarra,” Ministerio de Educación Pública.

246

Looper_5982.indd 246

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Parsons, Elsie Worthington Clews

Philo, Chris, and Chris Wilbert

1939 Pueblo Indian Religion. University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

2007 Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: An Introduction. In Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations, ed. Chris Philo and Chris Wilbert, pp. 1–35. London: Routledge.

Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del, and Jacinto de la Serna 1953 Manual de minístros indios. In Tratado de las idolatrías, supersticiones, dioses, ritos, hechicerías y otras costumbres gentílicas de las razas aborígenes de México, pp. 47–368. Vol. 1. Mexico City: Ediciones Fuente Cultural.

Pillsbury, Joanne, Miriam Doutriaux, Reiko IshiharaBrito, and Alexandre Tokovinine, eds. 2012 Ancient Maya Art at Dumbarton Oaks. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections.

Pasztory, Esther

Piña Chan, Román

1982 Shamanism and North American Indian Art. In Native North American Art History: Selected Readings, ed. Zena Pearlstone and Aldona Jonaitis, pp. 7–30. Palo Alto, CA: Peek Publications.

1964 Algunas consideraciones sobre las pinturas de Mul-Chic, Yucatán. Estudios de Cultura Maya 4: 63–78.

Peirce, Charles Sanders 1998 The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Vol. 2 (1893–1913). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Pendergast, David M. 1966 The Actun Balam Vase. Archaeology 19 (3): 154–161. 1969 The Prehistory of Actun Balam, British Honduras. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. 1971 Excavations at Eduardo Quiroz Cave, British Honduras (Belize). Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. 1974 Excavations at Actun Polbilche, Belize. Monograph 1. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. 1982 The Old Man and the Moon: A FourteenthCentury Figurine from Lamanai. Rotunda 14 (4): 7–12. Peniche Rivero, Piedad, and William Folan 1978 Cobá, Quintana Roo, México: Reporte sobre una metrópoli maya del noreste. Boletín de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropológicas de la Universidad de Yucatán 30: 48–78.

Pohl, Mary D. 1976 Ethnozoology of the Maya: An Analysis of Fauna from Five Sites in the Peten, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. 1977 Hunting in the Maya Village of San Antonio, Rio Hondo, Orange Walk District, Belize. Journal of Belizean Affairs 5: 52–63. 1981 Ritual Continuity and Transformation in Mesoamerica: Reconstructing the Ancient Maya Cuch Ritual. American Antiquity 46 (3): 513–529. 1983 Maya Ritual Faunas: Vertebrate Remains from Burials, Caches, Caves, and Cenotes in the Maya Lowlands. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas, ed. Richard Leventhal and Alan Kolata, pp. 55–103. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1985 The Privileges of Maya Elites: Prehistoric Vertebrate Fauna from Seibal. In Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy, ed. Mary Pohl, pp. 133–145. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 77. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.

247

Looper_5982.indd 247

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Pollock, H. E. D., and Clayton E. Ray 1990 The Ethnozoology of the Maya: Faunal Remains from Five Sites in Petén, Guatemala. 2009 Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from In Excavations at Seibal, Guatemala, ed. GorMayapan. In The Carnegie Maya II: Carnegie don R. Willey, pp. 142–174. Memoirs of the Institution of Washington Current Reports, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnol1952–1957, ed. John M. Weeks, pp. 539–550. ogy, 14. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum Boulder: University Press of Colorado. of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Preuss, Konrad Theodor 1991 Women, Animal Rearing, and Social Status: The Case of the Formative Period Maya of Central America. In The Archaeology of Gender, ed. Dale Walde and Noreen D. Willows, pp. 392–399. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. 1994 Late Classic Maya Fauna from Settlement in the Copan Valley, Honduras: Assertion of Social Status through Animal Consumption. In Ceramics and Artifacts from Excavations in the Copan Residential Zone, ed. Gordon R. Willey, Richard Leventhal, and William L. Fash, pp. 459–476. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 80. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pohl, Mary, and Lawrence H. Feldman 1982 The Traditional Role of Women and Animals in Lowland Maya Economy. In Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston, ed. Kent V. Flannery, pp. 295–311. New York: Academic Press.

1996 Konrad Theodor Preuss (1869–1938) on the Huichols. Trans. Peter T. Furst. In Schaefer and Furst 1996: 94–135. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1960 Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras. American Antiquity 25: 454–475. 1962 The Artifacts of Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, eds. H. E. D. Pollock, Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff, and A. Ledyard Smith, pp. 321–442. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Prufer, Keith M. 2005 Shamans, Caves, and the Roles of Ritual Specialists in Maya Society. In Brady and Prufer 2005b: 186–222. Puleston, Dennis E. 1967 Defensive Earthwork at Tikal. Expedition 9 (3): 40–48.

Pohl, Mary, and John Pohl

Quenon, Michel, and Geneviève Le Fort

1983 Ancient Maya Cave Rituals. Archaeology 36 (3): 28–32, 50–51.

1997 Rebirth and Resurrection in Maize God Iconography. In Kerr and Kerr 1989–2000: 5: 884–902.

Pollock, Donald 2004 Siblings and Sorcerers: The Paradox of Kinship among the Kulina. In Whitehead and Wright 2004b: 202–214. Pollock, H. E. D. 1980 The Puuc: An Architectural Survey of the Hill Country of Yucatan and Northern Campeche, Mexico. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Recinos, Adrián 1984 Crónicas indígenas de Guatemala. Guatemala City: Academia de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala. Recinos, Adrián, Delia Goetz, and Dionisio José Chonay 1979 The Annals of the Cakchiquels and Title of the Lords of Totonicapán. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

248

Looper_5982.indd 248

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Redfield, Robert 1945 Notes on San Antonio Palopó. Microfilm Collection of Manuscripts on Middle American Cultural Anthropology, 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Library. Redfield, Robert, and Margaret Park Redfield 1940 Disease and Its Treatment in Dzitas, Yucatan. Contributions to American Anthropology and History, 32. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Redfield, Robert, and Alfonso Villa Rojas 1934 Chan Kom: A Maya Village. Publication 448. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Reents-Budet, Dorie 1994 Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Reese-Taylor, Kathryn 2002 Ritual Circuits as Key Elements in Maya Civic Center Design. In Heart of Creation: The Mesoamerican World and the Legacy of Linda Schele, ed. Andrea Stone, pp. 143–165. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo 1971 Amazonian Cosmos: The Sexual and Religious Symbolisms of the Tukano Indians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1975 The Shaman and the Jaguar: A Study of Narcotic Drugs among the Indians of Colombia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Reid, Fiona 2009 A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Reilly, F. Kent, III 1987 The Ecological Origins of Olmec Symbols of Rulership. MA thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

1991 Olmec Iconographic Influences on the Symbols of Maya Rulership: An Examination of Possible Sources. In Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, ed. Virginia M. Fields, pp. 151– 166. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Reina, Ruben E. 1967 Milpas and Milperos: Implications for Prehistoric Times. American Anthropologist 69 (1): 1–20. Reitz, Elizabeth Jean, and Elizabeth S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Restall, Matthew 1999 The Maya World: Yucatec Culture and Society, 1550–1850. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2001 The People of the Patio: Ethnohistorical Evidence of Yucatec Maya Royal Courts. In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, vol. 2: Data and Case Studies, ed. Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 335–390. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Riboli, Diana, and Davide Torri, eds. 2013 Shamanism and Violence: Power, Repression and Suffering in Indigenous Religious Conflicts. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Rice, Don S. 1986 The Peten Postclassic: A Settlement Perspective. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 301–344. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Rich, Michelle E., and David A. Freidel 2010 Catalog Entry 98: Assemblage of Figurines from the Tomb of an Unknown Ruler. In Finamore and Houston 2010: 284–287. Ricketson, Oliver Garrison 1931 Excavations at Baking Pot, British Honduras. Publication 403, pt. 1. Contributions to

249

Looper_5982.indd 249

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y American Archaeology, 1. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington. Ricketson, Oliver Garrison, and Edith Bayles Ricketson 1937 Uaxactún, Guatemala, Group E: 1926–1931. Publication 477. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Ripinsky-Naxon, Michael 1993 The Nature of Shamanism: Substance and Function of a Religious Metaphor. Albany: State University of New York Press. Robertson, John S., Danny Law, and Robbie A. Haertel 2010 Colonial Ch’olti’: The Seventeenth-Century Morán Manuscript. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Robertson, Merle Greene 1974 The Quadripartite Badge—A Badge of Rulership. In Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque: A Conference on the Art, Iconography, and Dynastic History of Palenque, ed. Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 77–93. Pebble Beach, CA: Robert Louis Stevenson School, Pre-Columbian Art Research. Robicsek, Francis 1978 The Smoking Gods: Tobacco and the Ancient Maya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Robicsek, Francis, and Donald M. Hales 1981 The Maya Book of the Dead, the Ceramic Codex: The Corpus of Codex Style Ceramics of the Late Classic Period. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Art Museum. Robin, Cynthia, Norman Hammond, and Juliette Cartwright Gerhardt 1991 Ritual and Ideology. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, ed. Norman Hammond, pp. 204–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rodríguez, Mariana, Salvador Montiel, María D. Cervera, María T. Castillo, and Eduardo J. Naranjo 2012 The Practice and Perception of Batida (Group Hunting) in a Maya Community of Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 32 (2): 212–227. Rodríguez Rouanet, Francisco 1992 Danzas folklóricas de Guatemala. Colección Tierra Adentro, 15. Guatemala City: Subcentro Regional de Artesanías y Artes Populares. Roys, Ralph L. 1931 The Ethno-Botany of the Maya. New Orleans: Department of Middle American Research, Tulane University of Louisiana. 1933 The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Publication 438. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1965 Ritual of the Bacabs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1967 The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ruiz de Alarcón, Hernando 1984 Treatise on the Heathen Superstitions That Today Live Among the Indians Native to This New Spain, 1629. Trans. J. Richard Andrews and Ross Hassig. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ruz, Mario Humberto 1996 De lazos, flechas, trampas y cerbatanas: La caza en los vocabularios coloniales mayas. In Mesoamérica y los andes, ed. Mayán Cervantes, pp. 83–140. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Ruz, Mario Humberto, and Claudia M. Báez Júarez 2002 Memoria eclesial guatemalteca: Visitas pastorales. 3 vols. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

250

Looper_5982.indd 250

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Sahagún, Bernardino de

Sapper, Karl

1977 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Book 7: The Sun, Moon, and Stars, and the Binding of the Years. Trans. Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. Monographs of the School of American Research, No. 14, pt. VIII. Santa Fe, NM/Salt Lake City: School of American Research/University of Utah Press.

1897 Das Nördliche Mittel-Amerika nebst einem Ausflug nach dem Hochland von Anahuac. Braunschweig, Germany: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.

1979 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Book 8: Kings and Lords. Trans. Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. Monographs of the School of American Research, No. 14, pt. XII. Santa Fe, NM/Salt Lake City: School of American Research/University of Utah Press.

Sault, Nicole

1981 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Book 2: The Ceremonies. Trans. Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. Monographs of the School of American Research, No. 14, pt. III. Santa Fe, NM/Salt Lake City: School of American Research/University of Utah Press. 1997 Primeros memoriales. Trans. Thelma D. Sullivan and H. B. Nicholson. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Said, Edward W. 1978 Orientalism. New York: Pantheon. Salter, Mark 2011 Places Everyone! Studying the Performativity of the Border. Political Geography 30 (2): 66–67. 2012 Theory of the /. Geopolitics 17: 734–755. Santos-Fita, Dídac, Eduardo J. Naranjo, Erin I. J. Estrada, and Eduardo Bello 2015 Symbolism and Ritual Practices Related to Hunting in Maya Communities from Central Quintana Roo, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11 (71). https:// ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles /10.1186/s13002-015-0055-x.

Sauer, Peggy R. 1984 Physical Characteristics. In Halls 1984: 73–90.

2016 How Hummingbird and Vulture Mediate between Life and Death in Latin America. Journal of Ethnobiology 36 (4): 783–806. Saunders, Nicholas J. 1994 Predators of Culture: Jaguar Symbolism and Mesoamerican Elites. World Archaeology 26 (1): 104–117. Saville, Marshall H., ed. 1921 Reports on the Maya Indians of Yucatán. Indian Notes and Monographs, 9 (3). New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. Scarborough, Vernon L. 1998 Ecology and Ritual: Water Management and the Maya. Latin American Antiquity 9 (2): 135–159. Schaefer, Stacy B. 1996 The Cosmos Contained: The Temple Where Sun and Moon Meet. In Schaefer and Furst 1996: 332–373. Schaefer, Stacy B., and Peter T. Furst, eds. 1996 People of the Peyote: Huichol Indian History, Religion, and Survival. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Schávelzon, Daniel 1980 Temples, Caves, or Monsters? Notes on Zoomorphic Facades in Pre-Hispanic Architecture. In Third Palenque Round Table, 1978, pt. 2, ed. Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 151–162. Austin: University of Texas Press.

251

Looper_5982.indd 251

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Schele, Linda 1976 Accession Iconography of Chan-Bahlum in the Group of the Cross at Palenque. In The Art, Iconography and Dynastic History of Palenque, ed. Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 9–34. Pebble Beach, CA: Robert Louis Stevenson School, Pre-Columbian Art Research. 1977 Palenque: The House of the Dying Sun. In Native American Astronomy, ed. Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 42–56. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1984a Human Sacrifice among the Classic Maya. In Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica, ed. Elizabeth H. Boone, pp. 6–48. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 1984b Some Suggested Readings for the Event and Office of Heir-Designate at Palenque. In Justeson and Campbell 1984: 287–305. 1985 Balan-Ahau: A Possible Reading of the Tikal Emblem Glyph and a Title at Palenque. In Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 59–65. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. 1988 The Xibalba Shuffle: A Dance after Death. In Maya Iconography, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Griffin, pp. 294–317. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox, pp. 289– 315. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Schele, Linda, and Nikolai Grube 1990 Six-Staired Ballcourts. Copán Note 83. Copán, Honduras: Copán Mosaics Project and the Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia. Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews 1998 The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs. New York: Scribner. Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum. Scherer, Andrew K., and Charles W. Golden 2009 Tecolote, Guatemala: Archaeological Evidence for a Fortified Late Classic Maya Political Border. Journal of Field Archaeology 34 (3): 285–305. 2014 War in the West: History, Landscape, and Classic Maya Conflict. In Embattled Bodies, Embattled Places: War in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and the Andes, ed. Andrew K. Scherer and John W. Verano, pp. 57–87. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

1989 A Brief Note on the Name of a Vision Serpent. In Kerr and Kerr 1989–2000: 1: 146–148.

Schlesinger, Victoria

Schele, Linda, Federico Fahsen, and Nikolai Grube

2001 Animals and Plants of the Ancient Maya: A Guide. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1995 The Floor Marker from Motmot. Copán Note 117. Copán, Honduras: Copán Mosaics Project and the Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia.

Schmidt, Peter, Mercedes de la Garza, and Enrique Nalda, eds. 1998 Maya. New York: Bompiani-CNCA INAH.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel

Scholes, France V., and Eleanor B. Adams

1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow.

1938 Don Diego Quijada, alcalde mayor de Yucatán, 1561–1565: Documentos sacados de los archivos de España y publicados. 2 vols. Mexico City: Antigua Librería Robredo, de J. Porrúa e Hijos.

1991 The Courts of Creation: Ballcourts, Ballgames, and Portals to the Maya Otherworld.

252

Looper_5982.indd 252

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Scholes, France V., and Ralph L. Roys

Sharpe, Ashley E., and Kitty F. Emery

1938 Fray Diego de Landa and the Problem of Idolatry in Yucatán. In Cooperation in Research, pp. 585–620. Publication 501. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

2015 Differential Animal Use within Three Late Classic Maya States: Implications for Politics and Trade. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40: 280–301.

1948 The Maya Chontal Indians of Acalán-Tixchel: A Contribution to the History and Ethnography of the Yucatán Peninsula. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Shaw, Leslie C.

Schultze Jena, Leonhard

1991 The Articulation of Social Inequality and Faunal Resource Use in the Preclassic Community of Colha, Northern Belize. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

1954 La vida y las creencias de los indígenas quiches de Guatemala. Biblioteca de Cultura Popular, 49. Guatemala City: Ministerio de Educación Pública.

1995 The Importance of Dog in Ritual Feasting in the Maya Preclassic. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis.

Schumann, Otto

1999 Social and Ecological Aspects of Preclassic Maya Meat Consumption at Colha, Belize. In Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, ed. Christine D. White, pp. 83–102. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

1988 El orígen del maíz (version k’ekchi’). In La etnología: Temas y tendencias: I collóquio Paul Kirchhoff, pp. 213–218. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas. Scott, Karen West 1980 Antler and Bone Artifacts from the 1980 Season at Colha, Belize. In The Colha Project: Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, ed. Thomas R. Hester, Jack D. Eaton, and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 317–326. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Seler, Eduard 1963 Códice Borgia. 3 vols. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. 1996 Eduard Seler: Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology. Vol. 5. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos. Sexton, James D., and Ignacio Bizarro Ujpán 1999 Heart of Heaven, Heart of Earth, and Other Mayan Folktales. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Sharpe, Ashley E.

Shepard, Glenn H., Jr. 2004 Central and South American Shamanism. In Shamanism: An Encyclopedia of World Beliefs, Practices and Culture, ed. Mariko Namba Walter and Eva Jane Neumann Fridman, pp. 365–370. Oxford: ABC-Clio. Shepard, Paul 1993 On Animal Friends. In The Biophilia Hypothesis, ed. Stephen R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson, pp. 275–300. Washington, DC: Island Press. Siegel, Morris 1941 Religion in Western Guatemala: A Product of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 43 (1): 62–76. Slocum, Marianna C., and Florencia L. Gerdel 1980 Vocabulario Tzeltal de Bachajon. Vocabularios y diccionarios indígenas Mariano Silva y Aceves, 13. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

2011 Beyond Capitals and Kings: A Comparison of Animal Resource Use among Ten Late Classic Maya Sites. MA thesis, University of Florida. 253

Looper_5982.indd 253

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Smet, Peter A. G. M. de

Spinden, Herbert J.

1981 Enema Scenes on Ancient Maya Pottery. Pharmacy International 2 (10): 217–219.

1913 A Study of Maya Art: Its Subject Matter and Historical Development. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 6. Cambridge, MA: John Wilson and Son.

1983 A Multidisciplinary Overview of Intoxicating Enema Rituals in the Western Hemisphere. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 9 (2–3): 129–166. 1985 Ritual Enemas and Snuffs in the Americas. Amsterdam: Centrum voor Studie en Documentatie van Latijns Amerika. Smet, Peter A. G. M. de, and Nicholas M. Hellmuth 1986 A Multidisciplinary Approach to Ritual Enema Scenes on Ancient Maya Pottery. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 16 (2): 213–262. Smith, Michael E. 1984 The Aztlan Migrations of the Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History? Ethnohistory 31 (3): 153–186. Smith, Michael H., William V. Branan, R. Larry Marchinton, Paul E. Johns, and Michael C. Wooten 1986 Genetic and Morphologic Comparisons of Red Brocket, Brown Brocket, and WhiteTailed Deer. Journal of Mammalogy 67 (1): 103–111. Sosa, John R. 1985 The Maya Sky, the Maya World: A Symbolic Analysis of Yucatec Maya Cosmology. PhD dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York. Sperlich, Norbert Katz, and Elizabeth Katz Sperlich 1980 Guatemalan Backstrap Weaving. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Speth, John D. 2012 The Paleoanthropology and Archaeology of BigGame Hunting: Protein, Fat, or Politics? New York: Springer.

Spores, Ronald 1965 The Zapotec and Mixtec at Spanish Contact. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3: Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 2, ed. Robert Wauchope and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 962–990. Austin: University of Texas Press. Starr, Frederick 1900 Notes upon the Ethnography of Southern Mexico Part I: Expedition of 1898. Davenport, IA: Putnam Memorial Publication Fund. 1902 Notes upon the Ethnography of Southern Mexico Part II: Expedition of 1901. Davenport, IA: Putnam Memorial Publication Fund. Steggerda, Morris 1941 Maya Indians of Yucatan. Publication 531. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Stevenson, Matilda Coxe 1904 The Zuñi Indians: Their Mythology, Esoteric Fraternities and Ceremonies. Bureau of American Ethnology Report 23. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Stirling, Matthew W. 1942 Origin Myth of Acoma, and Other Records. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 135. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Stirton, Ruben A. 1944 Comments on the Relationships of the Cervoid Family Palaeomerycidae. American Journal of Science 242 (12): 633–655.

254

Looper_5982.indd 254

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Stock, Janet

Stone, Andrea, and Marc Zender

1979 A Preliminary Study of Bone and Antler Artifacts from Colha, Belize. In The Colha Project, 1979: A Collection of Interim Reports, ed. Thomas R. Hester, pp. 145–147. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.

2011 Reading Maya Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Maya Painting and Sculpture. London: Thames and Hudson.

Stocker, Terry, Sarah Meltzoff, and Steve Armsey 1980 Crocodilians and Olmecs: Further Interpretations in Formative Period Iconography. American Antiquity 45 (4): 740–758. Stoll, Otto 1886 Guatemala Reisen und Schilderungen aus den Jahren 1878–1883. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Stone, Andrea 1983 The Zoomorphs of Quirigua, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. 1985 Variety and Transformation in the Cosmic Monster Theme at Quirigua, Guatemala. In Fields 1985: 39–48. 1989 Disconnection, Foreign Insignia and Political Expansion: Teotihuacán and the Warrior Stelae of Piedras Negras. In Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan, AD 700–900, ed. Richard A. Diehl and Janet Catherine Berlo, pp. 153–172. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 1992 From Ritual in the Landscape to Capture in the Urban Center: The Recreation of Ritual Environments in Mesoamerica. Journal of Ritual Studies 6 (1): 110–132. 1995 Images from the Underworld: Naj Tunich and the Tradition of Maya Cave Painting. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2014 Spiritual Journeys, Secular Guises: Rock Art and Elite Pilgrimage at Naj Tunich Cave. Mexicon 36 (2): 49–64.

Stone, Rebecca R. 2011 The Jaguar Within: Shamanic Trance in Ancient Central and South American Art. Austin: University of Texas Press. Stone-Miller, Rebecca 2004 Human-Animal Imagery, Shamanic Visions, and the Ancient American Aesthetic. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 45 (Spring): 47–68. Stross, Brian, and Justin Kerr 1990 Notes on the Maya Vision Quest Through Enema. In Kerr and Kerr 1989–2000: 2: 348–361. Stuart, David 1984 Royal Auto-Sacrifice among the Maya: A Study of Image and Meaning. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 7/8: 6–20. 1988 Blood Symbolism in Maya Iconography. In Maya Iconography, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Griffin, pp. 175–221. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1992 Hieroglyphs and Archaeology at Copan. Ancient Mesoamerica 3: 169–184. 1995 A Study of Maya Inscriptions. PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University. 1996 Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelae in Ancient Maya Ritual and Representation. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 29/30: 148–171. 1997 The Hills Are Alive: Sacred Mountains in the Maya Cosmos. Symbols (Spring): 13–17. 2003 A Cosmological Throne at Palenque. Mesoweb Articles. http://mesoweb.com/stuart /notes/Throne.pdf.

255

Looper_5982.indd 255

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y 2004 The Beginnings of the Copan Dynasty. In Understanding Early Classic Copan, ed. Ellen E. Bell, Marcello A. Canuto, and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 215–247. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 2005a Ideology and Classic Maya Kingship. In A Catalyst for Ideas: Anthropological Archaeology and the Legacy of Douglas W. Schwartz, ed. Vernon L. Scarborough, pp. 257–285. Santa Fe: School of American Research. 2005b The Inscriptions from Temple XIX at Palenque: A Commentary. San Francisco: PreColumbian Art Research Institute. 2005c Sourcebook for the 29th Maya Hieroglyph Forum, March 11–16, 2005. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Department of Art and Art History. 2008a A Childhood Ritual on the Hauberg Stela. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya Writing and Iconography. https:// decipherment.wordpress.com/2008/03/27 /a-childhood-ritual-on-the-hauberg-stela/. 2008b Copan Archaeology and History: New Finds and New Research: Sourcebook for the 2008 Maya Meetings at the University of Texas at Austin. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. 2011 The Order of Days: The Maya World and the Truth about 2012. New York: Harmony Books. 2012 The Name of Paper: The Mythology of Crowning and Royal Nomenclature on Palenque’s Palace Tablet. In Maya Archaeology 2, ed. Charles Golden, Stephen D. Houston, and Joel Skidmore, pp. 116–142. San Francisco: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press. 2013 Tonina’s Curious Ballgame. Maya Decipherment: Ideas on Ancient Maya Writing and Iconography. https://decipherment .wordpress.com/2013/06/11/report -toninas-curious-ballgame/.

Stuart, David, and Stephen D. Houston 1994 Classic Maya Place Names. Studies in PreColumbian Art and Archaeology, 33. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Sugiyama, Nawa, Gilberto Pérez, Bernardo Rodríguez, Fabiola Torres, and Raúl Valadez 2015 Animals and the State: The Role of Animals in State-Level Rituals in Mesoamerica. In Animals and Inequality in the Ancient World, ed. Benjamin S. Arbuckle and Sue Ann McCarty, pp. 11–31. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Taack, George 1973 An Iconographic Study of Deer Hunting Scenes in Maya Painting: Codex Madrid and Vases from Calcehtok and Altun Ha. MA thesis, University of New Mexico. Taggart, James M. 1983 Nahuat Myth and Social Structure. Austin: University of Texas Press. Tambiah, Stanley J. 1969 Animals Are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit. Ethnology 8(4): 423–459. Tapper, Richard 1994 Animality, Humanity, Morality, Society. In What Is an Animal?, ed. Tim Ingold, pp. 47–62. London: Routledge. Taschek, Jennifer T. 1994 The Artifacts of Dzibilchaltun: Shell, Polished Stone, Bone, Wood, and Ceramics. Middle American Research Institute Publication 50. New Orleans: Tulane University. Tate, Carolyn E. 1982 The Maya Cauac Monster’s Formal Development and Dynastic Contexts. In PreColumbian Art History: Selected Readings, ed. Alana Cordy-Collins, pp. 33–54. Palo Alto, CA: Peek Publications.

256

Looper_5982.indd 256

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y 1985 The Carved Ceramics Called Chocholá. In Fields 1985: 123–133. Taube, Karl A. 1980 The Deer and Vulture in Classic Maya Religion. BA thesis, University of California at Berkeley. 1985 The Classic Maya Maize God: A Reappraisal. In Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983, ed. Virginia M. Fields, pp. 171–181. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. 1988a The Ancient Yucatec New Year Festival: The Liminal Period in Maya Ritual and Cosmology. PhD dissertation, Yale University. 1988b A Study of Classic Maya Scaffold Sacrifice. In Maya Iconography, ed. Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Griffin, pp. 331–351. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1989a The Maize Tamale in Classic Maya Diet, Epigraphy, and Art. American Antiquity 54: 31–51. 1989b Ritual Humor in Classic Maya Religion. In Hanks and Rice 1989: 351–382. 1993 Aztec and Maya Myths. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1994 The Birth Vase: Natal Imagery in Ancient Maya Myth and Ritual. In Kerr and Kerr 1989–2000: 4: 652–685. 1996 The Olmec Maize God: The Face of Corn in Formative Mesoamerica. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 29–30: 39–81. 1997 A God Named Zip. Archaeology 50 (3): 39. 1998 The Jade Hearth: Centrality, Rulership, and the Classic Maya Temple. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, ed. Stephen D. Houston, pp. 427–478. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 2003a Ancient and Contemporary Maya Conceptions about Field and Forest. In The Lowland Maya Area: Three Millennia at the HumanWildland Interface, ed. Arturo Gómez-Pompa,

Michael F. Allen, Scott L. Fedick, and Juan J. Jiménez-Osornio, pp. 461–492. New York: Haworth Press. 2003b Maws of Heaven and Hell: The Symbolism of the Centipede and Serpent in Classic Maya Religion. In Antropología de la eternidad: La muerte en la cultura maya, ed. Andrés Ciudad Ruíz, Mario Humberto Ruz, and Ma. Josefa Iglesias Ponce de León, pp. 405–422. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas y Centro de Estudios Mayas. 2004 Structure 10L-16 and Its Early Classic Antecedents: Fire and the Evocation and Resurrection of K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’. In Understanding Early Classic Copan, ed. Ellen E. Bell, Marcello A. Canuto, and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 265–295. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 2009 The Womb of the World: The Cuauhxicalli and Other Offering Bowls of Ancient and Contemporary Mesoamerica. In Maya Archaeology 1, ed. Charles Golden, Stephen D. Houston, and Joel Skidmore, pp. 86–106. San Francisco: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press. 2010a Catalog Entry 75: Stela with a Male Figure Emitting Breath or Wind in the Form of Conchs [Kaminaljuyu Stela 9]. In Finamore and Houston 2010: 236–237. 2010b Where Earth and Sky Meet: The Sea in Ancient and Contemporary Maya Cosmology. In Finamore and Houston 2010: 202–219. Taube, Karl A., and Reiko Ishihara-Brito 2012 Painted Vessel [PC.B.594]. In Pillsbury, Doutriaux, Ishihara-Brito, and Tokovinine 2012: 354–357. Taube, Karl A., William A. Saturno, David Stuart, Heather Hurst, and Joel Skidmore 2010 The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petén, Guatemala, Part 2. Barnardsville, NC: Boundary End Archaeology Research Center.

257

Looper_5982.indd 257

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y Taube, Karl A., and Marc Zender

Teeter, Wendy G., and Arlen F. Chase

2009 American Gladiators: Ritual Boxing in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Blood and Beauty: Organized Violence in the Art and Archaeology of Mesoamerica and Central America, ed. Heather Orr and Rex Koontz, pp. 161–220. Ideas, Debates, and Perspectives, 4. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.

2004 Adding Flesh to Bones: Using Zooarchaeological Research to Answer the Big-Picture Questions. Archaeofauna 13: 155–172.

Tedlock, Barbara 1986 On a Mountain Road in the Dark: Encounters with the Quiche Maya Culture Hero. In Symbol and Meaning beyond the Closed Community: Essays in Mesoamerican Ideas, ed. Gary H. Gossen, pp. 125–138. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York. 1992a The Role of Dreams and Visionary Narratives in Mayan Cultural Survival. Ethnos 20 (4): 453–476. 1992b Time and the Highland Maya. Rev. ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Tedlock, Dennis 1991 La siembra y el amanecer de todo el cielotierra: Astronomía en el Popol Vuh. In Arqueoastronomía y etnoastronomía en mesoamérica, ed. Johanna Broda, Stanislaw Iwaniszewski, and Lucrecia Maupomé, pp. 168–178. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas. 1996 Popol Vuh: The Maya Book of the Dawn of Life. Rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster. 2003 Rabinal Achi: A Mayan Drama of War and Sacrifice. New York: Oxford University Press. Teeter, Wendy G.

Teixeira-Pinto, Márnio 2004 Being Alone amid Others: Sorcery and Morality among the Arara, Carib, Brazil. In Whitehead and Wright 2004b: 215–243. Teletor, Celso Narciso 1945 Bailes que representan los indígenas en la Baja Verapaz. Anales de La Academia de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala 20 (1): 51–52. Termer, Franz 1957 Etnología y etnografía de Guatemala. Guatemala City: Editorial del Ministerio de Educación Pública. Thomas, Cyrus 1882 A Study of the Manuscript Troano. Contributions to North American Ethnology, 5. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior. Thomassen, Bjørn 2006 Liminality. In Encyclopedia of Social Theory, ed. Austin Harrington, Barbara L. Marshall, and Hans-Peter Müller, pp. 322–323. London: Routledge. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1930 Ethnology of the Mayas of Southern and Central British Honduras. Field Museum Anthropological Series, 17. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. 1934 Sky Bearers, Colors and Directions in Maya and Mexican Religion. Publication 436, Contribution 10. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington.

2001 Maya Animal Utilization in a Growing City: Vertebrate Exploitation at Caracol, Belize. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

1939a Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras. Publication 506. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

2004 Animal Utilization in a Growing City: Vertebrate Exploitation at Caracol, Belize. In Emery 2004c: 177–191.

1939b The Moon Goddess in Middle America with Notes on Related Deities. Publication 509. Contributions to American Anthropology and

258

Looper_5982.indd 258

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y History, 29. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1943 Maya Epigraphy: A Cycle of 819 Days. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology, 1 (22). Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, Division of Historical Research. 1950 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, An Introduction. Publication 589. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1963 Maya Archaeologist. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1967 Maya Creation Myths, Part 2. Estudios de Cultura Maya 6: 15–43. 1970 Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1972 A Commentary on the Dresden Codex: A Maya Hieroglyphic Book. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Thornton, Erin Kennedy 2011 Reconstructing Ancient Maya Animal Trade through Strontium Isotope (87Sr/86Sr) Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (12): 3254–3263. Tilley, Christopher Y. 2000 Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. Tokovinine, Alexandre 2002 Divine Patrons of the Maya Ballgame. Mesoweb Articles. http://www.mesoweb.com /features/tokovinine/ballgame.pdf. 2013 Place and Identity in Classic Maya Narratives. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, 37. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Townsend, Richard F. 1989 Coronation at Tenochtitlan. In Imagination of Matter: Religion and Ecology in Mesoamerican Traditions, ed. David Carrasco, pp. 155–188. International Series, 515. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Tozzer, Alfred M. 1907 A Comparative Study of the Mayas and Lacandones. New York: Macmillan. 1941 Landa’s Relación de las cosas de Yucatán. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 18. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Tozzer, Alfred M., and Glover Allen 1910 Animal Figures in the Maya Codices. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 4 (3). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Turner, Victor W. 1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1974 Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2011 The Ritual Process: Structure and AntiStructure. New York: Aldine. Tykot, Robert H., Nikolaas J. van der Merwe, and Norman Hammond 1996 Stable Isotope Analysis of Bone Collagen, Bone Apatite, and Tooth Enamel in the Reconstruction of Human Diet: A Case Study from Cuello, Belize. In Archaeological Chemistry, ed. V. M. V. Orna, pp. 355–365. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Ucan Ek, Edilberto, Miguel Narvaez, Armando Puch, and Castulo Chan 1983 El cultivo del maíz en el ejido de Mukel, Pixoy, Yucatán. Mexico City: Fondo de Culturas Populares. Underhill, Ruth 1946 Papago Indian Religion. New York: Columbia University Press. Vail, Gabrielle 1996 The Gods in the Madrid Codex: An Iconographic and Glyphic Analysis. PhD dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.

259

Looper_5982.indd 259

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y 1997 The Deer-Trapping Almanacs in the Madrid Codex. In Bricker and Vail 1997: 73–110. 2002 The Maya Hieroglyphic Codices, Version 5.0: With Improved Searching. http://www .mayacodices.org/. 2013 Códice de Madrid: Descripción de los folios. In Códice de Madrid, ed. Horacio Cabezas Carcache, pp. 21–273. Guatemala City: Universidad Mesoamericana. Vail, Gabrielle, and Anthony F. Aveni, eds. 2004 The Madrid Codex: New Approaches to Understanding an Ancient Maya Manuscript. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Vail, Gabrielle, and Christine L. Hernández 2013 Re-Creating Primordial Time: Foundation Rituals and Mythology in the Postclassic Maya Codices. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Valencia Rivera, Rogelio, and Geneviève Le Fort, eds. 2006 Sacred Books, Sacred Languages: Two Thousand Years of Ritual and Religious Maya Literature. Acta Mesoamericana, 18. Markt Schwaben, Germany: Verlag Anton Saurwein. Vásquez, Francisco 1938– Crónica de la provincia del Santísimo Nombre 1944 de Jesús de Guatemala de la Orden de N. Seráfico Padre San Francisco en el Reino de Nueva España. Ed. J. Antonio Villacorta C. Biblioteca Goathemala, 14–17. 3 vols. Guatemala City: Tipografía Nacional. Vásquez Castañeda, Dagoberto 1971 Danzas folklóricas de Guatemala. Guatemala City: Dirección General de Cultura y Bellas Artes, Departamento de Arte Folklórico Nacional. Velázquez Castro, Adrián 2012 Pre-Columbian Maya Shell Objects: An Analysis of Manufacturing Techniques. In Pillsbury, Doutriaux, Ishihara-Brito, and Tokovinine 2012: 433–439.

Velásquez García, Erik 2006 The Maya Flood Myth and the Decapitation of the Cosmic Caiman. PARI Journal 7 (1): 1–10. 2017 Códice de Dresde, Parte 2: Edición facsimilar. Arqueología Mexicana (Edición especial) 72: 6–92. Villa Rojas, Alfonso 1945 The Maya of East Central Quintana Roo. Publication 559. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Vitebsky, Piers 2001 The Shaman: Voyages of the Soul Trance, Ecstasy and Healing from Siberia to the Amazon. London: D. Baird. Vogt, Evon Z. 1969 Zinacantán: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1976 Tortillas for the Gods: A Symbolic Analysis of Zinacanteco Rituals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vogt, Evon Z., and David Stuart 2005 Some Notes on Ritual Caves among the Ancient and Modern Maya. In Brady and Prufer 2005b: 155–185. Von Winning, Hasso 1968 Pre-Columbian Art of Mexico and Central America. New York: Abrams. Voss, Alexander W., and H. Jürgen Kremer 1998 La estela de Tabi: Un monumento a la cacería. Mexicon 20 (4): 74–79. Wagley, Charles 1949 The Social and Religious Life of a Guatemalan Village. Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association.

260

Looper_5982.indd 260

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y Wagner, Logan, Hal Box, and Susan Kline Morehead

Weber, Donald

2013 Ancient Origins of the Mexican Plaza: From Primordial Sea to Public Space. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1995 From Limen to Border: A Meditation on the Legacy of Victor Turner for American Cultural Studies. American Quarterly 47 (3): 525–536.

Wagner, Roy 1978 Lethal Speech: Daribi Myth as Symbolic Obviation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1989 Symbols That Stand for Themselves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Webster, David, Timothy Murtha, Kirk D. Straight, et al. 2007 The Great Tikal Earthwork Revisited. Journal of Field Archaeology 32 (1): 41–64.

Walker, Debra Selsor

Weitlaner-Johnson, Irmgard, and Roberto J. Weitlaner

1990 Cerros Revisited: Ceramic Indicators of Terminal Classic and Postclassic Settlement and Pilgrimage in Northern Belize. PhD dissertation, Southern Methodist University.

1963 Nuevas versiones sobre calendarios mijes. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 19: 41–53.

Walker, Nathaniel 2010 Catalog Entry 36: Vessel with the Hunter God Blowing a Conch. In Finamore and Houston 2010: 116–117. Wanyerka, Phil, ed. 2001 The Proceedings of the Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop, March 10–11, 2001. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.

Werness, Hope B. 2000 The Continuum Encyclopedia of Native Art: Worldview, Symbolism, and Culture in Africa, Oceania, and Native North America. New York: Continuum. 2006 The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in Art. London: Continuum. White, Christine D., ed.

Warren, Kay B.

1999 Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

1978 The Symbolism of Subordination: Indian Identity in a Guatemalan Town. Austin: University of Texas Press.

White, Christine D., Paul F. Healy, and Henry P. Schwarcz

Weaver, Muriel Porter 1981 The Aztecs, Maya, and Their Predecessors: Archeology of Mesoamerica. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press. Webb, S. David 2000 Evolutionary History of New World Cervidae. In Antelopes, Deer, and Relatives: Fossil Record, Behavioral Ecology, Systematics, and Conservation, ed. Elizabeth S. Vrba and George B. Schaller, pp. 38–61. New Haven: Yale University Press.

1993 Intensive Agriculture, Social Status, and Maya Diet at Pacbitun, Belize. Journal of Anthropological Research 49: 347–375. White, Christine D., Mary D. Pohl, Henry P. Schwarcz, and Fred J. Longstaffe 2001 Isotopic Evidence for Maya Patterns of Deer and Dog Use at Preclassic Colha. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (1): 89–107. White, Christine D., and Henry P. Schwarcz 1989 Ancient Maya Diet: As Inferred from Isotopic and Elemental Analysis of Human Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 16 (5): 451–474.

261

Looper_5982.indd 261

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r ap h y White, Christine D., Henry P. Schwarcz, Mary D. Pohl, and Fred J. Longstaffe 2004 Feast, Field, and Forest: Deer and Dog Diets at Lagartero, Tikal, and Copan. In Emery 2004c: 141–158. Whitehead, Neil L., and Robin Wright 2004a Introduction: Dark Shamanism. In Whitehead and Wright 2004b: 1–19. Whitehead, Neil L., and Robin Wright, eds. 2004b In Darkness and Secrecy: The Anthropology of Assault Sorcery and Witchcraft in Amazonia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Whittington, E. Michael, ed. 2001 The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame. London: Thames and Hudson. Whittington, Stephen L., and David M. Reed 1997a Commoner Diet at Copán: Insights from Stable Isotopes and Porotic Hyperostosis. In Whittington and Reed 1997b: 157–170. Whittington, Stephen L., and David M. Reed, eds. 1997b Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Wilbert, Johannes 1972 Survivors of Eldorado: Four Indian Cultures of South America. New York: Praeger Publishers.

American Archaeology and Ethnology, 54. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum. 1972 The Artifacts of Altar de Sacrificios. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 64 (1). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. 1978 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Petén, Guatemala: Artifacts. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 14 (1). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Williams García, Roberto 1972 Mitos tepehuas. Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública. Wilson, Richard 1995 Maya Resurgence in Guatemala: Q’eqchi’ Experiences. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Wilson, Thomas M., and Hastings Donnan 2012 Borders and Border Studies. In A Companion to Border Studies, ed. Thomas M. Wilson and Hastings Donnan, pp. 1–25. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Wing, Elizabeth S. 2004 Maya Zooarchaeology from a Zooarchaeological Perspective. In Emery 2004c: 249–254.

1987 Tobacco and Shamanism in South America. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wing, Elizabeth S., and David Steadman

1990 Tobacco and Shamanistic Ecstasy among the Warao Indians of Venezuela. In Flesh of the Gods: The Ritual Use of Hallucinogens, ed. Peter T. Furst, pp. 55–83. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

1980 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Dzibilchaltun. In Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico, ed. E. Wyllys Andrews IV and E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 326–331. Middle American Research Institute Publication 48. New Orleans: Tulane University.

2004 The Order of Dark Shamans among the Warao. In Whitehead and Wright 2004b: 21–50. Willey, Gordon R. 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of

Wisdom, Charles 1940 The Chorti Indians of Guatemala. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wiseman, Frederick M. 1983 Subsistence and Complex Societies: The Case

262

Looper_5982.indd 262

1/27/19 3:02 PM

b ib lio g r a ph y of the Maya. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, ed. Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 143–189. New York: Academic Press. Woodbury, Richard B., and Aubrey S. Trik 1953 The Ruins of Zaculeu, Guatemala. New York: United Fruit Co. Wright, Lori E. 1997 Ecology or Society? Paleodiet and the Collapse of the Pasión Maya Lowlands. In Whittington and Reed 1997: 181–195. Ximénez, Francisco 1967 Historia natural del Reino de Guatemala. Guatemala City: Editorial “José de Pineda Ibarra.” Yurchenko, Henrietta 1958 Taping History in Guatemala. American Record Guide 25: 228–229, 282–284. 1978 Music of the Maya-Quichés of Guatemala: The Rabinal Achí and Baile de las Canastas. FE4226. Folkways Records. 1986 El baile de las canastas y otras sobreviviencias del teatro prehispánico Maya-Quiché. Anales de la Academia de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala 60: 75–87. 2006 Música de los Mayas-Quichés de Guatemala: El Rabinal-Achi y el Baile de Canastas. Tradiciones de Guatemala 66: 83–98. Zender, Marc A. 1999 Diacritical Marks and Underspelling in the Classic Maya Script: Implications for Decipherment. MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary.

2000 A Study of Two Uaxactun-Style TamaleServing Vessels. In Kerr and Kerr 1989–2000: 6: 1038–1055. 2004 A Study of the Classic Maya Priesthood. PhD dissertation, University of Calgary. 2010 The Music of Shells. In Finamore and Houston 2010: 83–85. 2017a The Maize God and the Deer Lord’s Wife. Paper presented at 22nd Annual European Maya Conference, Malmö University, Sweden. 2017b Theory and Method in Maya Decipherment. PARI Journal 18 (2): 1–48. Zender, Marc, Dmitri Beliaev, and Albert Davletshin 2017 The Syllabic Sign “We” and an Apologia for Delayed Decipherment. PARI Journal 17 (2): 35–56. Zerries, Otto 1954 Wild- und Buschgeister in Südamerika: Eine Untersuchung Jägerzeitlicher Phänomene im Kulturbild Südamerikanischer Indianer. Studien zur Kulturkunde, 11. Wiesbaden, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag. Zimmermann, Günter 1956 Die Hieroglyphen der Maya-Handschriften. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde, 62 (B) (Völkerkunde, Kulturgeschichte und Sprachen, 34). Hamburg, Germany: Universität Hamburg.

263

Looper_5982.indd 263

1/27/19 3:02 PM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

index

4 Movement, 158, 159 7 Ajaw, 159, 160 7 Flower, 81, 159 819-day count, 141, 142, 142, 143 Acanum, 120 Acatepec, 212n14 accession of rulers, 10, 18, 19, 102, 108, 117, 183, 193, 199, 202 Achi’, 128 achiote, 41, 48 Achuar (Jívaro), 186 Acoma, 212n14 Actun Balam cave, 123; vase, 86, 86, 88, 89, 123, 173–174 Actun Tunichil Muknal, 216n20 Acutam, 212n26 aesthetics, 2, 9, 13 agency, 9, 36, 66 agouti, 54, 150, 156, 165 agriculture, 2, 7, 8, 13, 18, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 81, 87, 91, 93, 101, 102, 125, 128, 129, 135, 151, 152, 160, 185, 192, 195, 196, 197, 204, 209n12, 209n17 Aguacatán, 209n7 Aguateca, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 56, 62, 68, 198, 207n16 ah k’in, 144 Ah Uuc Yol Zip, 120 ajaw, 67, 68, 183, 216n17 Ajaw (calendrical), 159, 160, 183 “Ajaw face” glyph (T533), 175 aj k’uhuun, 59, 66, 69, 208n1, 208n2, 208n10 ajnawal mesa, 216n28 Aj Ola’, 33 Aj Wichan Ahk, 113, 115

Looper_5982.indd 265

Akkeren, Ruud van, 96 alcohol, 85, 135, 179 almanacs, 119; hunting, 143–152 Altar de Sacrificios, 34 altars, 41, 43, 102, 121, 122, 123, 124, 134, 135, 136, 140, 146, 147, 169, 183, 184, 189, 200, 207n8, 211n13 Alta Verapaz, 124, 128 Altun Ha, 48 Amazonia, 185, 187 ancestors (human), 6, 8, 13–14, 68, 97, 126, 130, 158, 200 ‘Anhel, 121 animals: domestication of, 7, 8, 33; game, 17, 26, 30, 31, 32, 34, 44, 62; guardian/master/owner of, 16, 120–122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 134, 137, 139, 145, 146, 151, 192, 202, 204, 206n25, 210n19, 211n7, 211n8; as metaphors, 4–11. See also death: of animals; impersonation of animals antlers: in art, 18, 21, 25, 49, 74, 82, 85, 87, 89, 98, 101, 105, 109, 137, 138, 139, 143, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 167, 169, 171, 173, 174, 175, 178; brocket, 27, 28, 48; cervid, 22; grappling, 27, 74; growth cycle, 24–25, 27, 74, 128, 149, 161, 167; in mythology, 74, 78, 120, 160; symbolism, 74, 93, 128, 129, 159, 167, 213n33; uses, 17, 39, 44, 48, 49, 50, 53, 56, 57, 61, 63, 74, 122, 126, 128, 134, 135, 160, 207n16, 212n14 ants, 97 Aquehe, 120 Arara, 206n25

Archaic period, 192 armadillos, 31, 78, 120, 150, 172 arrows, 2, 29, 33, 39, 69, 96, 126, 157, 161, 165, 208n12 arrow sacrifice, 80, 96 Arroyo de Piedra, 62 Art Institute of Chicago, 7, 82, 89, 210n10 Artiodactyla, 22 Arzápalo Marín, Ramón, 74 astronomy, 13, 119, 145, 149, 182, 194 atole, 113 autosacrifice, 42, 113, 114, 116, 193, 214n4. See also bloodletting; blood sacrifice; penis sacrifice; tongue sacrifice Awakatek, 16, 178, 209n7 awls, 47, 48, 51, 51, 52, 53 axes, 136, 211n22 axis mundi, 183, 188, 189, 200, 217n20 ayahuasca (Banisteriopsis), 186 Aztec, 10, 16, 46, 54, 56, 66, 69, 70, 71, 80, 100, 157, 158, 159, 160, 205n17 Baby Jaguar, 140, 143 Baja Verapaz, 125, 128 B’alam Q’e, 77, 78, 89, 96, 97 ballcourts, 111, 112, 194, 208n33; markers for, 55, 208n33 ballgame, 11, 109, 110, 116; attire, 55, 56; equipment, 1; and hunting, 19, 95, 108–113, 116, 117, 193, 204; and warfare, 17, 112, 116, 117, 191, 193 ballplayers, 48, 55, 56, 57, 65, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116, 117, 193

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex balls, 109, 111, 112, 171, 181 Barton Ramie, 51 baskets/basketry, 52, 57, 78, 79, 80, 81, 95, 209n7 bats, 150, 165, 172 Bead Boy, 165 beads, 47, 64, 68, 82, 211n14 Beals, Ralph, 15 beamer, 45 beards, 143 bears, 6, 7 bees, 171 Belize River, 63 bells, 78, 126, 128 belts, 43, 55, 68, 71, 109, 112 benches, 68, 74, 84, 85, 216n25 Benson, Elizabeth, 98 Berger, John, 6, 7 Bering land bridge, 2 bezoars, 207n4 bibs, 101, 139, 179 bird, 10, 15, 35, 42, 43, 48, 63, 68, 84, 87, 97, 103, 109, 111, 153, 156, 157, 165, 171, 172, 175, 187, 209n15, 215n7; hunting, 31, 32, 70. See also blackbird; curassow; dove; duck; hummingbird; macaw; owl; parrot; Principal Bird Deity; quail; quetzal; swan; turkey; vulture Bird Jaguar IV, 199 birth, of deer, 27, 34, 74; of deities, 80, 93, 139, 140, 188, 213n47 Black, Max, 203 blackbird, 96 Blackman (hˀik’al), 182 Blankenship, Emmett, 7 Blastomeryx, 22 blood, 91, 106, 107, 159, 172, 202; menstrual, 158 bloodletters, 140 bloodletting, 48, 69, 115, 165, 185, 188, 191. See also autosacrifice; blood sacrifice; penis sacrifice; tongue sacrifice blood sacrifice, 105, 159, 187, 188, 189, 212n18. See also arrow sacrifice; autosacrifice; bloodletting; captive sacrifice; decapitation; deer: blood; dismember-

ment; heart sacrifice; infant sacrifice blowguns, 32, 35, 69, 78, 97 Bolon Ti Ku, 106 Bolon Tzacab, 41 Bombil Pec, 124 Bonampak murals, 49, 50, 56, 98, 99, 99, 139, 139, 174, 181, 182, 202, 210n3, 216n17 bones, 66, 78, 81, 82, 122, 123, 124, 134, 137, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, 159, 169, 185, 188, 206n9, 207n22; crossed, 153, 155, 156, 165. See also deer: bones Boot, Erik, 17 border studies, 195; walks, 196 bowls, 14, 41, 43, 100, 102, 104, 105, 113, 114, 137, 147, 210n21 bows, 29, 33, 39, 69, 96, 126, 208n12 boys, 102, 115, 130, 136, 193, 210n19. See also man: young/youth Braakhuis, Edwin, 17, 129, 209n15, 209n19, 213n33, 214n3 breads, 41, 42, 71, 147, 151 breasts, 34, 85, 87, 91, 139 brocket deer, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27– 28, 28, 29, 31, 43, 48, 51, 54, 78, 120, 123 bucks, 27, 29, 74, 82, 121, 122, 128, 149, 211n6; in art, 25, 34, 84, 85, 89, 95, 138, 156, 165, 207n8 Bufo marinus, 185 bull, 7 bullfights, 154 bundles, 33, 44, 102, 112, 153, 157, 160, 175; sacred, 55, 80, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 143, 161, 185, 210n10, 213n39 burials, 19, 43, 48, 51, 53, 54, 68, 82, 107, 157, 169, 184, 194, 210n21 Burkhart, Louise, 157 cacao, 11, 41, 68, 95 cah, 196 caimans, 48, 106, 107. See also crocodiles Calakmul, 11, 74, 112, 175, 178, 179, 184, 216n17 Calcehtok vase, 19, 153, 154, 154, 155,

156, 157, 160, 164, 165, 166, 167, 214n3 Calendar Round dates, 81 calendars, 119, 188, 197 Cámara vase, 153. See also Calcehtok vase Camaxtli, 46 Campeche, 37, 122, 207n3 Cancuc, 50 Cancuen, 33 Candelaria, 130, 132 Candelaria Pequeña, 131 candles, 5, 30, 122, 123, 125, 133, 136, 212n14 Cannon, Calvin, 212n23 canopies, 102 Cantares de Dzitbalche’, 96, 104 capes/mantles, 33, 55, 67, 153, 155, 156, 157, 161, 164, 165, 167, 171 captives, 52, 89, 90, 91, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 116, 117, 139, 146, 154, 193, 199, 202, 203, 208n1, 209n14 captive sacrifice, 18, 69, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 108, 111, 112, 136, 139, 158, 210n3 Caracol, 34, 48, 51, 62, 173, 183, 184, 188 Carnival, 182, 197 Cashinahua, 185 cat, 172 catharsis, 10 catsim, 96 caves, 44, 78, 89, 111, 122, 123, 124, 132, 134, 136, 137, 143, 151, 152, 165, 166, 182, 183, 184, 188, 194, 199–200, 203, 211n13, 216n20, 216n25, 216n29, 217n13, 217n18 č’ay k’in, 182 Ceh Lac, 120 Ceibal, El, 34, 46, 53, 61 ceiba tree, 120, 121, 196 Centeotl, 81, 93, 155 centipedes, 158. See also deer-centipede Central Mayan languages, 89 ceramics, 3, 14, 67, 68, 85, 106, 115, 139, 149, 153, 161, 164, 167; ballgame on, 111; “Dying God” theme on, 18, 81, 82, 89, 90,

266

Looper_5982.indd 266

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex 107, 135; musicians on, 56; wahy on, 172, 175, 178, 179, 187; whistle, 73. See also Actun Balam: vase; bowls; Calcehtok vase; figurines; Finca Esquipulitas vase; Munich vase; ocarinas; plates; Princeton vase; Río Hondo vase; Ten Gods vase Cerén, 47, 48 Cerro Maya, 149, 150 Cerros, 53, 61 Cervidae, 21, 22 Cervoidea, 22 Chac, 78 Ch’a’ Chaak, 102, 129 chac uayab cab, 171 chac uayab xoc, 171 ch’ahb, 113. See also penance, first Chahk, 139, 140, 143, 211n22, 214n3. See also Chac; Ihk’ Siip Chahk; Yax Ha’al Chahk Chajul, 78, 209n7 Chak Ak’ Paat Kuy, 112 Chäkokot, 62 Chamá, 56 Chamula, 182 Chan Chihj Winkil, 138 ch’een, 199–200 ch’ok, 67, 95, 115, 141, 179 Ch’ol, 16, 23, 35, 178 Ch’olan languages, 22 Ch’olti’ language, 23 Ch’orti’, 16, 29, 52, 108, 121, 122, 160, 172 charcoal, 149 Charcoal Cruncher, 158 Chatahn, 179, 216n17 Chenalhó, 35, 182 chert, 29, 44, 47, 48, 56, 74 Chiapas, 9, 22, 172, 186 Chichén Itzá, 62 Chichicastenango, 130, 213n29, 213n34 Chichimec, 97, 199 Chicome Xochitl. See 7 Flower Chicomoztoc, 200 chicozapote, 29 Chihjil Hix, 175, 175 Chihjil “Rope” Kaan, 175, 177 chijchan, 108, 175

Chilam Balam of Chumayel, 96 Chilam Balam of Kaua, 178 Chilam Balam of Tizimín, 106, 179 chiles, 41, 89, 212n14 Chimalman, 80 Chinchilla Mazariegos, Oswaldo, 106, 155, 156, 157 Chinikihá, 44, 61 Chocholá, 163 chocolate, 70. See also cacao Chontal, 23 Christ, 135 Chrysler Museum of Art, 68, 83 Chuateguá, 125 Chuj, 23 Chunchucmil, 198 cigars, 59, 64, 114, 186 Cihuateteo, 157 Classic period, definition of, 2 Cleveland Museum of Art, 18, 59, 106 Cleveland plaque, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 186 clowns/clowning, 11, 181, 184, 213n29 coati, 10, 156, 165, 172 Cobá, 198 Cobán, 126, 212n22 Codex Mendoza, 46 Codex Pérez, 106 codices, Maya. See Dresden Codex; Madrid Codex; Paris Codex Coe, Michael, 155, 163 co-essences, 8, 9, 171 Cohodas, Marvin, 160 Colha, 46, 48 Colmenar, Francisco de, 135 Comalapa, 127, 128, 134 conch shell, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 112; trumpets, 19, 32, 33, 56, 66, 68, 74, 82, 83, 83, 84, 111, 114, 138, 153, 154, 164, 171, 174, 175, 206n25, 208n30, 213n44 Copán, 33, 48, 49, 62, 183, 184, 200, 203, 216n21, 217n7; acropolis, 37; Altar Q, 200; ballcourt, 111, 208n33; deer tibia from, 38, 39, 57, 191; Motmot Marker, 41; peccary skull from, 19, 88, 170, 172–173, 175, 181, 182, 183, 187,

188; South Acropolis, 169; Stela B, 142, 143, 144; Structure 10L-11, 37; Structure 10L-16, 200; Structure 10L-21A, 37; Structure 10L22, 105; Tomb 1, 19, 169 Cora, 106 cords, 41, 53, 96, 156, 161, 165, 212n14, 214n55. See also ropes corn. See maize Corpus Christi, 128, 129, 134, 212n21, 212n24 corrals, 34, 121 Correa, Gustavo, 212n23 Cortés y Larraz, Pedro, 122, 129 cosmology, 9, 12, 111, 135, 157, 168, 192 cosmos: creation/renewal of, 11, 42, 104, 106, 107, 108, 121, 155, 162, 166, 168, 181, 183, 188, 189, 194, 197; four corners of, 111, 193, 197; realms of, 9, 10, 43, 187, 199, 201; stones of, 162 courtship, 13, 28, 80, 81, 96 C’oyabaj, 123 coyotes, 24, 97 Cozumel Island, 34, 62, 63 crabs, 78 cramps, 88, 178, 179 creation. See cosmos: creation/renewal of crocodiles, 9, 35, 104, 106, 107, 108, 188, 201. See also caimans; Starry Deer Crocodile crocodile tree, 166 crosses, 128 cuch. See kuch Cuello, 43, 46, 52, 53 Cueva de los Quetzales, 123 curassow, 96 Dallas Museum of Art, 162 dances, 17, 55, 181; Ah Ceh, 213n40; Aj Ers or Erres, 213n34; B’alam Keej, 125–128, 127, 132, 134, 136, 212n23, 212n24; Balam Kiej, 212n27; Baskets, 78–81, 209n7; C’oyab, 130; Chitimazat, 127, 128, 134; Deer, 7, 48, 102, 122, 124– 136, 212n22, 213n28, 213n34, 213n36; Guaxatój Masat, 213n29;

267

Looper_5982.indd 267

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex dances (continued) Hummingbird, 209n7; hunting, 19, 119, 123, 124–136, 161, 212n21, 212n23; Ixim Kiej, 128; Little Animals (Animalitos), 212n21; Maam Pa Keej, 212n23; Maíz, 128; Masate/Mazate, 212n22; sacrificial, 136; snake, 187; Spider Monkeys, 123, 130, 131, 213n34; Tz’unum/Tzunun, 78–79; Venado, 212n22 Datura, 186 day-keepers, 144 Day of the Cross, 125, 128, 129 death, 1, 5, 16, 80, 82, 97, 106, 137, 138, 140, 154, 155, 156, 157, 165, 204, 211n11; of animals, 151, 202; and immorality, 93, 120. See also father, death of; sacrifice; Utuunil or Ukuhil Chihj Chamiiy; wahy or wahyob decapitation, 44, 107; of deer, 30, 44, 55, 114, 214n3 deer: in art, 20, 21, 25, 67, 153, 208n34, 214n3; behavior, 26– 27, 192; blood, 40, 41, 44, 61, 81, 86, 112, 123, 151, 160, 167, 207n9; bones, 7, 18, 26, 30, 34, 37–40, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46–54, 53, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 69, 122, 123, 146, 184, 207n2, 207n3, 211n13, 212n14, 212n18; callers, 29, 32, 56, 83; carcasses, 18, 39, 40, 44, 46, 57, 63, 71, 100, 112, 114, 122, 124, 128, 136, 144, 146, 147, 148, 174, 175, 194, 212n14, 214n3; classification, 21–23; diet of, 18, 25– 26; domestication, 34; ears, 11, 68, 74, 84, 89, 92, 104, 138, 139, 153, 158, 165, 173, 175, 178; eyes, 24, 30; feeding, 25, 26, 28, 36, 71, 93, 138, 168, 194, 203; habitats, 18, 25–26, 27–28, 35, 63, 161, 168, 203; haunches, 41, 42, 100, 114, 193; headdresses, 18, 32, 47–48, 57, 59, 65, 69, 71, 73, 74, 95, 98, 99, 100, 108, 109, 111, 117, 119, 124, 136, 149, 150, 193, 207n16, 208n10, 208n34,

210n3, 210n4; heads, 24, 44, 77, 87, 114, 122, 153, 155, 156, 161, 211n13; hearts, 31, 40, 42, 123, 148, 151, 193, 207n5, 207n8; hides, 17, 18, 39, 44–46, 47, 51, 54–57, 61, 67, 78, 80, 95, 100, 109, 122, 126, 128, 133, 134, 154, 208n30, 208n32, 213n39, 214n3; hooves, 21, 23, 24, 25, 39, 54, 78, 88, 98, 104, 138, 165, 169, 173, 215n16; hunting, 2, 18, 19, 28– 36, 44, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 81, 95, 97, 102, 113, 115, 117, 121, 124, 125, 129, 135, 160, 163, 165, 191, 193, 207n5, 208n12, 209n12, 211n11; mating, 27, 74, 82; meat/venison, 7, 18, 24, 28, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 44, 47, 51, 61, 62, 63, 70, 71, 81, 113, 114, 161, 191, 194, 202; mouse, 21; musk, 21; odor, 73, 78; pheromones, 24; rut of, 26, 27, 29, 30, 74, 92, 192; physical characteristics, 24–26; sacrifice, 18, 25, 40, 41, 42, 43, 56, 61, 66, 97, 102, 106, 107, 108, 112, 122–123, 148, 151, 154, 193, 194, 207n5, 207n8, 209n12, 211n11; sexual maturation of, 74; skinning of, 40, 44, 47, 55; skull, 39, 47, 48, 62, 121, 123, 130, 134, 135, 214n10; spirit guardian/owner of, 120, 121, 125, 127, 134, 137, 151, 211n7, 211n8; symbolism, 10, 203; tails, 1, 11, 12, 21, 24, 25, 28, 55, 88, 89, 120, 203; terminology, 22–23; testicles, 25; white-tailed, 2, 10, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24–26, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 51, 53, 55, 62, 63, 67, 74, 92, 108, 123, 128, 138, 153, 161, 168, 192, 194, 203, 208n34, 214n3. See also antlers; brocket deer; bucks; dances: Deer; decapitation: of deer; does; fawns; sex/sexuality: and deer; tracking deer deer-centipede, 158, 165 Dehouve, Danièle, 80 demons, 158, 182, 189

Desana, 208n2, 209n19 Deuss, Krystyna, 211n11, 211n13, 213n37 De Young Museum, 210n22 Díaz del Castillo, Bernal, 34 diet: ancient Maya, 2, 61, 62, 71, 167; Mesoamerican elite, 70–71 directions, cardinal, 42, 133, 157, 188 disease, 17, 19, 35, 88, 89, 125, 126, 169, 171, 172, 174, 178, 179, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 191, 204, 215n11, 215n12. See also macro-illness dismemberment, 100, 106, 107, 108, 114, 188 divination, 54, 121, 144, 185, 187, 213n35 DNA, 21, 22 does, 27, 29, 30, 74, 82, 85, 92, 121, 192 dogs, 7, 29, 30, 32, 44, 122, 125, 126, 128, 130 Dos Pilas, 46, 47, 55, 62, 113, 114, 115, 142, 143, 200 dove, 7 dreams, 8, 80, 121, 123, 171, 172, 188, 216n28 Dremotherium, 22 Dresden Codex, 19, 42, 103, 107, 138, 141, 207n4 drought, 187, 206n14 drum, 54, 57, 78, 101, 125, 133, 136, 213n34, 216n17; beater, 49, 57, 184; turtle-shell, 49, 50, 57, 78, 101, 123, 136, 184 dry season, 25, 29, 129, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 179, 192, 214n11, 215n12 dualism, 7, 12, 202 duck, 10 Dumbarton Oaks collection, 19, 73, 74, 101, 153 Durán, Diego, 69 Dying God, 18, 68, 73–77, 81–83, 85, 88–93, 193 Dzibilchaltún, 62 ear ornaments, 64, 68, 95 earth (the), 9, 35, 41, 42, 43, 79, 80,

268

Looper_5982.indd 268

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex 87, 96, 106, 130, 166, 167, 192, 199, 208n1, 217n6 Earth Lords, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 92–93, 96, 97, 120, 125, 126, 132, 137, 204, 209n6, 209n19. See also mountains earthworm, 172 Eduardo Quiroz Cave, 123 Ek’ Balam, mural, 155, 155, 156, 161, 165, 207n8 elite, secondary, 47, 56, 59, 66, 68, 69, 204 El Kinel, Monument 1, 100, 102, 103, 116, 136, 208n34 El Zotz’, 174, 184, 215n8 emblem glyphs, 214n10, 216n17, 216n19 Emery, Kitty, 62 enema, 85, 179, 181 Enema Jaguar, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 216n17 epilepsy, 172, 183, 216n17 equinox, vernal, 158, 160, 164, 167 eroticism, 18, 73, 74, 77, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 208n2. See also sex/sexuality Escobedo-Morales, Luis, 22 Escuintla, 155, 156 Eurasia, 22 Evening Star, 157 evil eye, 130 excrement, 73, 93, 195, 217n2 eyeball-collar, 138, 173 eyeballs, 53, 155, 165, 175 eyes, crossed, 139; “cruller,” 114; sockets, 175, 179; sores, 89; spiral, 138 façades, 130, 200 fans, 53, 112 farmers, 192, 195, 200 farming, 13, 64. See also agriculture fasting, 69, 145 father, death of, 156–157 fawns, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 34 feasting, 3, 4, 12, 13, 31, 41, 48, 62, 63, 69, 112 feasts, of the Immaculate Concep-

tion, 125; of San Martín, 132; of San Sebastián, 182; of St. Peter, 212n24; of toasted maize/peyote, 160. See also Great Feast of Lords feathers, 65, 96, 102, 112, 114, 209n7, 212n14. See also headdresses: feathered Fernandez, James, 5, 7, 203 fertility, 18, 73, 77, 79, 80, 81, 90, 132, 167, 187; agricultural, 87, 91, 93, 135, 185, 195, 204 fields, agricultural, 2, 25, 26, 29, 30, 34, 63, 71, 80, 93, 101, 120, 122, 129, 160, 164, 167, 168, 192, 194, 195, 197, 203 figurines, 48, 73–74, 97, 98, 100, 101, 108, 111, 210n21, 210n3 Finca Esquipulitas vase, 155, 156, 156, 160, 161, 164, 165 fire, deity, 114, 143; drilling, 107, 163; rituals, 30, 41, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 114, 135, 160; and wahyob, 171, 183. See also New Fire ceremonies fish, 10, 43, 103, 137, 163, 210n19 fishhooks, 47 fishing, 125 Fitzsimmons, James, 10 flint. See chert flood, primordial, 106 Florentine Codex, 69, 100 Flores, 34 flowers, 64, 78, 82, 93, 109, 135, 173, 212n14. See also 7 Flower; Maize-Flower Mountain flutes, 50, 57, 125, 135, 136 folklore, 16, 17, 30, 74, 96, 108, 139, 157 forest, 11, 29, 80, 93, 122, 136, 137, 171, 185, 196, 206n9; deities/ spirits of, 88, 140, 182, 189, 214n55; habitats, 25–26, 28, 62– 63, 161, 168, 194, 203; setting, 89, 111, 156, 164; symbolism, 2, 35, 36, 93, 97, 112, 164, 172, 188, 191, 193, 197, 200, 202, 204 founding of polities, 200 Four Hundred Mimixcoa, 106, 157

fox, 6, 7, 97, 172, 186 Freidel, David, 184 frogs, 102, 215n16 Fuego volcano, 121 Furst, Peter, 16 Gage, Thomas, 136 García de Palacio, Diego, 40, 43 garden hunting, 29, 192 gauze textiles, 51 Geertz, Clifford, 4 gender roles, 6, 90, 92, 122, 191, 192, 203 genitals, female, 78, 88 Gennep, Arnold van, 10, 11, 193, 194 gestures, 37, 64, 77, 160, 164, 211n22; hand-to-forehead, 82, 138, 147, 154, 157 GI, 105 gifts, 3, 4, 25, 31, 71, 80, 112, 123, 186 girls, 30, 79, 136 gladiators, 52 goats, 22, 23, 151 God B. See Chahk God CH, 136, 137, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 165, 166, 213n41 God D, 25, 111, 137, 161, 162, 165, 166, 168, 215n12, 215n15 God K. See K’awiil God L, 11, 68, 92 God N, 137, 139, 140 God S, 42, 68, 71, 83, 111, 117, 137, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 193, 213n41, 214n4 gods, hunting, 18, 19, 46, 66, 68, 69, 79, 81, 84, 90, 111, 119–122, 135, 136–143, 144, 151, 174, 178, 194, 213n39 God Y, 213n43 goggles. See headdresses: with “goggles” Goody, Jack, 7 gopher, 82, 172 gourds, 41, 50, 53, 78, 179 Gran Museo Mundo Maya, 41 grass, 26, 83, 156, 160, 206n9; effigies, 153, 160; garments, 33, 84, 174 grasslands, 25

269

Looper_5982.indd 269

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex Graulich, Michel, 93, 205n17 Great Feast of Lords, 54 Grollig, Francis Xavier, 211n11 Gulf Coast, 217n20 hallucinogens, 179, 185 Hamblin, Nancy, 34 handkerchief, 79, 122, 126, 161 hats, 52, 57, 82, 122, 126; bowler, 32, 33, 109, 114; hunting, 30, 32, 33, 84, 87, 95, 98, 101, 114, 138, 139, 166, 174 hch’uleltik, 9 Headband Gods, 137, 166, 215n12 headbands, 87, 137, 153, 179, 188. See also Jester God headdresses: Blackman, 182; feathered, 67, 95, 109; GI, 105; with “goggles,” 67, 100; Huk Siip, 139; jaguar, 99; macaw, 183; military, 55, 100; Moon Goddess, 209n5, 209n13; mosaic, 114; puma, 101; solar, 101; vulture, 101, 164; zoomorphic, 33, 46, 183, 202. See also deer: headdresses hearth, 130, 160, 163; stones, 42, 103 hearts, human, 171. See also deer: hearts heart sacrifice, 40, 42, 102, 123, 148, 151, 159, 207n5, 207n8 Hellmuth, Nicholas, 17, 208n30 Helmke, Christophe, 88, 89, 215n7, 217n13 hematite, 116 henequen, 197 hernia, umbilical, 74 heroes, 13, 19, 61, 64, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 89, 92, 96, 116, 120, 155, 156, 165, 167, 189, 192, 197, 198 Hero Twins, 1, 11, 35, 69, 92, 106, 120, 137, 157, 187, 203. See also God CH; God S; Headband Gods; Hunahpu; Xbalanque hip cloth, 64, 65, 67, 179 hip protector, 55, 56 Hix Witz, 112, 113, 114, 115 Holmul, 54 Holy Tuesday, 209n7 Holy Week, 132

honey, 97, 150 Hoopes, John, 187 horses, 23 households, 34, 39, 62, 69, 93, 146, 194, 198, 211n13 houses, 8, 41, 78, 122, 125, 130, 131, 135, 172, 194, 197, 198, 212n14; confraternity, 122, 125, 132, 133, 134; young men’s, 116 Houston, Stephen, 10, 85 Howitt, Richie, 195 Huaxtec, 46, 63, 121 Huehuetenango, 121, 122 Huichol, 2, 31, 56, 81, 106, 157, 160, 161, 165, 167, 209n9 huipil, 78, 126 Huistán, 182 Huk Siip, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 146, 150 Huk Siip Yax Xook, 139, 140 Huk [Yo’hl] Siip, Lajchan Yo’hl Siip, 211n5 Huk Xib, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 138, 174. See also Dying God Huk Xib Chahk, 209n14 hummingbird, 78, 79, 82, 87, 90, 96, 97, 209n7, 209n13; myths, 77–84, 87, 88, 91, 93, 96–97, 135, 210n1. See also dances: Hummingbird; dances: Tz’unum/Tzunun Hunahpu, 137 hunter-gatherers, 8 hunting. See almanacs: hunting; ballgame: and hunting; bird: hunting; dances: hunting; deer: hunting; garden hunting; gods, hunting; hats: hunting; ideology: hunting; net: hunting; rituals: hunting; shrines: hunting; war/warfare: and hunting hurricanes, 108, 210n14 huskers, 53 Hutis Chihj or Uhut Chihj, 175, 176, 178 hwe’eltik, 9 hybrid, culture, 15; imagery, 11, 173, 214n3

Ib(il), 174 ideology, 7, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 64, 90, 116, 117, 187, 195, 217n20; elite, 18, 63, 71, 184, 191, 200; hunting, 112, 124, 144, 204 iguana, 106, 150 Ihk’ Siip Chahk, 142 illnesses. See disease impersonation of animals, 49, 132, 160, 181, 182; of deities, 42, 101, 103, 111, 142–143, 145, 151, 171, 181 incense, 41, 105, 124, 135, 145, 151, 159, 188, 189, 216n25; bags, 114; burners, 101, 133, 139, 149; copal, 120, 121, 122, 123 infant sacrifice, 139 Ingold, Tim, 8, 9 Initial Series, 141 inlays, 39, 116 insects, 25, 74, 87, 91, 92, 120, 171, 172, 214n3. See also deercentipede; mosquito Isla Cerritos, 62 Isthmus of Panama, 22 Itzaj, 16, 22, 23, 26, 121 Itzam Cab Ain, 106 Ixil, 16, 78, 79, 81, 97 Izalco, 40 Jacaltenango, 127 Jackson, Sarah, 208n10 jade/jadeite, 64, 67, 68, 116, 217n20 jaguar, 1, 3, 6, 9, 24, 44, 99, 146, 147, 149, 171, 212n27, 214n3; dancers/impersonators, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 181, 182, 213n29; deities, 80, 114, 169, 172; pelts/skins, 35, 45, 55, 56, 68, 96, 99, 100, 128, 136, 175; symbolism, 48, 63, 71, 99, 117, 201, 202. See also dances: B’alam Keej; Baby Jaguar; Enema Jaguar Jaina, 37, 98, 100, 101, 210n3 Jakobson, Roman, 4 Jalisco, 211n7 Jester god, 98 Jewel Jaguar, 59 Jochanilla (or Juchan), 126

270

Looper_5982.indd 270

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex Jung, Carl G., 10 Juun Ixiim, 82, 84, 89 K’ahk’ Siip ? K’awiil, 143 K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Chahk, 77 K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat, 14, 197 K’ahk’ We’ Chitam, 182–183 K’an Winik Paw, 181, 182, 184 K’awiil, 139, 140, 141, 143, 165, 178 K’axob, 43, 53 K’iche’, 1, 16, 48, 54, 123, 125, 130, 178, 197, 200, 209n7, 216n28, 217n19; deities, 55, 121, 137, 213n39 K’iche’ Achi, 96, 97 k’in, 161 K’inich Ajaw, 139 K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, 183, 184, 188, 189 K’oy Ab’aj, 130 k’uhul ajaw, 68 kakal-mozon-ik, 80 kalac kin, 197 Kan Uayeb, 41 Kaqchikel, 16, 80, 108, 161, 172, 178 Kauyumári, 157, 160, 211n7 Kerr, Justin, 215n1 Kimbell Art Museum, 68 kings. See rulers/rulership kuch, 82, 154, 157, 214n8 Kulina, 216n25 Kumarcaaj, 123 La Amelia, Panel 2, 112 Lacandon, 16, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 44, 48, 54, 55, 66, 123, 178, 207n5 Lachan K’awiil Ajaw Bot, 112 La Corona, 82, 112, 210n10 Ladino, 212n21 La Esperanza, 55 Lagrou, Elsje, 185 Lake Atitlán, 29, 121, 123 lakes, 80 Lamat, 104, 105, 105 Landa, Diego de, 29, 31, 34, 41, 50, 63, 116, 120, 135, 137, 147, 159, 160, 179, 215n12 language, human, 11 La Pasadita, 199

Las Limas figure, 201, 201 Late Classic period, definition of, 2 Leaf Ajaw, 183, 184, 216n19 Legend of the Suns, 157 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 6, 9, 12, 13, 193, 205n8, 214n11 lightning gods, 121, 125. See also Chahk liminality, 10, 11, 19, 36, 63, 69, 93, 102, 104, 111, 117, 123, 132, 151, 168, 188, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 203 literacy, 66 literature, Maya, 5, 11, 15, 74, 96, 178; Nahua, 80, 158 lizards, 10 llamas, 22 loincloths, 64, 67, 68, 74, 138 Loojil Ts’oon or Loj Ts’oon, 121 looting of artworks, 3 López Austin, Alfredo, 12, 13, 15, 17 Los Petenes, 29 lotħ cehel, 178 lowlands, Maya, 3, 7, 15, 17, 25, 34, 48, 61, 63, 64, 121, 124, 198, 217n17 Lubaantun, 208n35 Maam, 125, 126, 127, 132, 136 Macanche, 34 macaw, 143, 171, 183 Macaw Mountain, 143 Mace, Carroll Edward, 128, 129, 212n21, 212n24, 212n25, 212n26, 212n27 macro-illness, 187 Macuilxochitl, 80 Madrid Codex, 16, 25, 31, 119, 143, 144, 149, 150, 151, 152, 214n54 magic, 16, 77, 79, 89, 92, 121, 126, 127, 131, 132, 154, 186, 187. See also sorcery maize, 26, 34, 41, 54, 78, 79, 81, 128, 206n9, 217n20; and deer, 2, 25, 81, 128, 129, 137, 160, 167, 188, 192, 204, 212n14, 213n33; deities, 93, 135, 155; fields, 1, 29, 36, 93, 129, 188, 194, 197, 203; symbolism, 18, 35, 135

Maize-Deer God, 68, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 192 Maize-Flower Mountain, 162 Maize God, 37, 45–46, 49, 82, 83, 90, 91, 92, 93, 162; Lunar, 211n5; Tonsured, 82, 89 Mak (month), 101 Mam (language), 179 Mammalia, 22 man: old, 73, 74, 78, 81, 87, 92, 93, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 134, 209n7, 212n27; young/youth, 19, 67, 68, 79, 92, 93, 95, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 156, 191, 204, 210n4, 211n22, 211n23. See also boys Maní, 122 mara’akáme, 2, 211n7, 212n14 maracas, 101 marimba, 128, 132 Mariquita, 78, 79, 81 marriage, 8, 10, 78, 80, 81, 122, 192 Martín (deity), 132, 133, 134, 135, 213n39 Martin of Tours, Saint, 132 Martyr d’Anghiera, Peter, 119 masks, face, 126, 128, 130, 182, 202, 207n16, 209n7, 212n14 Matagtanic, 78, 79 Mayahuá, 212n25 Mayan languages, 15, 22, 23, 35, 82, 88, 89, 125, 171, 178, 183, 199, 209n6 Mayapán, 34, 43, 47, 56, 198; Kukulkan temple, 43 Mazatenango, 135 Mazatl, 157 mead, 179 medicine, 5, 171, 172, 187 Mehinaku, 216n25 Mendelson, Edward Michael, 132 Mendoza, Pedro, 209n7 metaphors, definition of, 4–5 metnal, 172 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 140 Mexica, 71, 97, 205n17 Mexico, Valley of, 71 México-Tenochtitlan. See Tenochtitlan

271

Looper_5982.indd 271

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex Michoacán, 208n12 middens, 51, 53, 61, 63, 112 Middle Formative period, 201 midwifery, 185 migrations, ancestral, 97, 196, 200 Milky Way, 105 Miocene epoch, 22 mirrors, 89, 126, 208n1 “Mirror” Xiw Hix, 179 Mixcoatl, 69, 79, 80, 81, 157, 213n39 Mixe, 108, 212n18 Mixtec, 70 Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, 155 Momostenango, 123, 130, 213n35 monkeys, 3, 6, 63, 88, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 171, 172, 173, 174, 179, 181, 182, 184, 188, 209n7, 211n22, 213n34. See also dances: Spider Monkeys moon: cycles of, 26; myths of, 78, 81, 87, 88, 90, 91, 154, 157, 214n3; symbols of, 82, 104, 158. See also Maize God: Lunar Moon Goddess, 73, 82, 89, 140, 165, 166, 209n5, 209n13 Mopan, 16, 23, 27, 120, 138 morality/immorality/amorality, 7, 8, 13, 73, 74, 80, 81, 90, 93, 106, 164, 182, 184, 187, 191, 197, 202, 214n54 Mora-Marín, David, 187 morning glory, 185 Morning Star, 106, 120, 121, 138, 160, 161, 165, 194, 209n9, 211n7 mosaic, 68, 114 mosquito, 87, 90, 91 Motul de San José, 62, 112, 215n8 mountains, 35, 106, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 158; gods of, 121, 125, 137, 140, 196; and maize, 192, 217n20; masks, 84, 209n5; personified, 89, 164; and temples, 199, 200. See also Macaw Mountain; Maize-Flower Mountain Munich vase, 77, 77, 82, 84, 86, 87, 90, 92, 208n5 Muntsch, Albert, 30 Museo Arqueológico Santa Bárbara, 107

Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City, 32 Museo Regional de Antropología Palacio Cantón, 44 mushroom, fly agaric (Amanita), 2; psilocybin (Psilocybe mexicana), 185 music, 56, 78, 101, 116, 181, 206n25, 209n7, 213n34; instruments for, 123, 125, 132, 136, 184 musicians, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 101, 179, 209n7 musk, 73, 138 myth/mythology, 5, 6, 9, 187, 192, 194; analysis of, 12–16; Huichol, 157, 160, 161, 165; Maya, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 31, 35, 36, 37, 45, 46, 64, 65, 66, 69, 73, 74, 77, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 104, 107, 108, 109, 111, 114, 116, 117, 120, 123, 124, 137, 138, 139, 148, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 161, 162, 164, 166, 168, 174, 182, 183, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 203, 207n5, 211n22, 214n3; Mesoamerican, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 81, 85, 107, 157, 160, 167, 197, 202, 217n20; Nahua, 79, 81, 93, 106, 116, 157. See also hummingbird: myths nab’eysil, 132, 133, 134, 135 nagual, 8, 172. See also co-essences nagualism, 171 Nahua, 16, 23, 70, 79, 80, 81, 93, 106, 116, 155, 157, 158, 159, 205n17, 211n8, 213n39 Nahualá, 213n30, 213n35 Nahuatl, 205n17 Naj Tunich Cave, 123, 124, 136 nanche (Byrsonima crassifolia), 54 Naranjo, 77, 111, 207n22 narratives, 1, 196; in art and inscriptions, 11, 14–15, 17, 18, 19, 64, 73, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 140, 156, 157, 162, 165, 166, 167, 188, 203; mythic, 12–13, 16, 17, 35, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 93, 96, 97, 116, 117, 130, 148, 155, 157, 187, 203

Nebaj, 78 necklaces, 48, 64, 68, 74, 179 needles, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53 net, 52; attire, 149, 169, 171, 179, 181; hunting, 33, 44, 69, 171, 174, 175, 211n22, 214n54, 214n55. See also traps/trapping: nets New Fire ceremonies, 102, 107, 160, 163 New Orleans Museum of Art, 113, 114 New Year, 10, 41, 42, 103, 104, 141, 194 Nielsen, Jesper, 88, 89, 215n7 nose-piercing, 199 Nuevo León, 80 Oaxaca, Valley of, 70 obsidian, 33, 47, 48, 208n5 ocarinas, 10 Ochiil Maax, 88, 173, 173, 175, 184, 188 offerings, 55, 66, 69, 103, 119, 121, 126, 129, 130, 137, 139, 151, 165, 166, 183, 194, 199, 212n14; blood, 42, 105, 187, 214n4; copal incense, 41, 105, 120, 122, 124, 136; deer as, 41, 43, 61, 107, 108, 117, 122, 123, 146, 147, 148; food, 41, 42, 43, 81, 100, 147 Oligocene epoch, 22 Olivier, Guilhem, 17, 208n2, 209n12, 213n39 Olmec, 201, 217n20 omens, 138, 172 One Hunahpu, 155, 157 opossum, 12, 197 orchards, 35 ornaments, 18, 39, 47, 48, 53, 56, 57, 63, 66, 68, 69, 82, 89, 95, 153, 191, 194 orthography, 211n4 Ortner, Sherry, 203 Otomí, 80 owls, 84, 172 Owner of the Animals. See animals: guardian/master/owner of Oyeb, 79, 80, 210n1 Oyew Achi, 78, 96, 210n1

272

Looper_5982.indd 272

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex paca, 28, 31 Pa’chan, 174 Paddler Gods, 92, 162 paint, body, 32, 48, 89, 119, 181 Palenque, emblem glyph, 214n10; House A stucco, 158; House E stucco, 104; Temple of the Inscriptions stucco, 106, 106; Temple of the Sun panel, 114, 210n21; Temple XIV panel, 211n5; Temple XIX platform, 107; titles at, 216n23 Papago. See Tohono O’odham paper, 137, 153, 154, 188 Paris Codex, 150 parrot, 150 pasuk, 187 Pasztory, Esther, 186 Patzún, 129, 134, 135 Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 169 peccary, 22, 28, 31, 31, 34, 53, 55, 67, 99, 100, 122, 123, 137, 145, 150, 153, 161, 162, 163, 166, 168, 169, 172, 182, 183, 214n11, 215n14, 216n17. See also Copán: peccary skull from pedestals, 42, 183 penance, first, 113–117, 191, 193, 194, 210n21, 211n22 pendants, 53, 54, 64, 68, 74, 95, 165, 210n3 penis/phallus, 25, 74, 149 penis sacrifice, 103, 114, 117 perforators, 46, 47, 48, 51–53, 57 performances, 4, 13, 15, 48, 56, 66, 77, 79, 81, 115, 117, 124–136, 181, 185, 195, 203, 212n27, 213n30, 213n34 period endings, 14, 142 Petén, 28, 107, 124, 127 Petexbatún, 46, 62, 63 peyote cactus, 2, 160, 185, 212n14 Piedras Negras, 102, 104, 116, 199, 216n23; Stela 11, 102, 103; Stela 12, 64, 65, 65 pigments, 48, 54, 135, 149, 160 pigs, 6, 7, 22 pilgrimages, 183

Piltzintecuhtli, 81, 116, 155, 157, 159 Pipil, 40 plates, 31, 32, 41, 68, 84, 85, 89, 113, 114, 158, 162; offering/sacrificial, 165, 166, 183 platforms, 8, 18, 29, 30, 68, 108, 111, 148, 197 plazas, 43, 123, 130, 132, 183, 197, 213n34 Pliocene epoch, 22 Po, 78 poetry, 125 Pohl, Mary, 16, 154 polities, 3, 113, 179, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 203 Pomoná, 208n2 Popol Vuh, 1, 2, 13, 15, 16, 35, 48, 54, 55, 69, 92, 106, 116, 120, 121, 137, 155, 157, 187, 203, 213n39, 217n19 Poqomam, 16, 136 Poqomchi’, 178 Portland Art Museum, 158 portraiture, royal, 143, 198 poses, 86, 89, 98, 100, 133, 135, 182 Postclassic period, 10, 16, 19, 31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 47, 48, 62, 63, 102, 103, 104, 119, 137, 143, 149, 150, 158, 198, 205n17 pottery. See ceramics Preclassic period, 42, 43, 47, 49, 102 Preuss, Konrad Theodor, 81, 160 priests, 40, 41, 42, 59, 68, 69, 74, 100, 113, 117, 125, 135, 149, 204, 212n21, 212n23 Princeton vase, 68 Principal Bird Deity, 214n12 propaganda, 3 Proto-Mayan, 22, 211n6 Psychotria, 26 psychotropic substances, 186 Pueblo, 211n14 pulque, 179 pumas, 1, 24, 101, 214n3 Punta de Chimino, 198 pyramids, 100, 199, 200 Q’anjob’al, 16, 122 Q’eqchi’, 16, 23, 73, 77, 78, 79, 82,

88, 97, 121, 122, 129, 137, 138, 146, 154, 178, 214n3 Quadripartite Emblem or Badge, 104, 105, 107 quail, 70 quatrefoil cartouche, 169, 183, 184, 188, 216n17 quetzal, 79 Quetzalcoatl, 80, 106, 157 Quetzaltenango, 130 quincunx, 197, 200, 217n5 Quintana Roo, 26, 28, 29, 80, 121, 122 Quiriguá, 197, 203; Stelae A and C, 13, 162; Zoomorph B, 166 rabbit, 1, 11, 12, 49, 70, 82, 92, 93, 120, 158 Rabinal, dances of, 125–127, 134, 135, 136, 212n21, 212n23 Rabinal Achi, 96–97 rain: and deer, 81, 107, 108; deities of, 121, 125, 139, 140, 143; and peccaries, 215n14. See also Chahk; rituals: rainmaking rainy season, 27, 129, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 194, 214n11, 215n12 ramón (Brosimum alicastrum), 26 rasps, 47, 50, 51, 56, 57, 123, 181 rat, 1, 7, 78, 172 rattles, 51, 124, 126, 136, 169, 171, 179, 181, 184, 207n22, 208n34 rattlesnakes, 120, 146, 150 reindeer, 2 Relaciones de Yucatán, 29 ribbon, 122, 126, 128, 161 Ri’j Mam, 130 rings, 47 Río Hondo vase, 214n3 rites of passage, 10–11, 102, 116, 117, 131, 193, 194, 199 rituals: agricultural, 2, 160; calendrical, 10, 14, 41, 42, 102, 135, 136, 150, 151, 183, 188, 193, 216n21; funerary, 10, 171, 199; hunting, 41, 114, 120, 144, 147, 148, 149, 151, 159, 160, 212n14; initiation, 10, 19, 92, 116, 117, 186, 193; rainmaking, 29, 41, 81, 101, 102, 122, 128, 129, 167, 187, 212n14; vision,

273

Looper_5982.indd 273

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex rituals (continued) 2, 185, 186, 216n28. See also accession of rulers; dances; divination; feasting; fire: rituals; rites of passage; sacrifice Rjawal Pek’chila Chkop, 122 ropes, 71, 112, 126, 130, 175, 178, 213n34, 213n35. See also cords rubber, 112, 171, 179, 181 Ruiz de Alarcón, Hernando, 159 rulers/rulership: Aztec, 70, 71; Chichimec, 199; deities associated with, 142, 167, 187; Maya, 9, 13, 14, 19, 37, 48, 55, 59, 61, 64, 68, 69, 71, 77, 85, 88, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 108, 111, 112, 116, 117, 136, 139, 142, 143, 171, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203, 204, 208n1, 208n2, 210n21, 216n23, 216n28, 217n19; Mesoamerican, 201, 202; Nahua, 80; symbols of, 17, 18, 48, 54, 63, 68, 71, 91, 183, 191, 193, 199, 200, 202; Tarascan, 208n12 Ruminantia, 21, 22 rumination, 21, 27 sacrifice. See arrow sacrifice; autosacrifice; blood sacrifice; bloodletting; captive sacrifice; deer: sacrifice Sahagún, Bernardino de, 69, 70 Said, Edward, 1 saints, 121, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 213n34 sajal, 199 Sak Wahyib Xook, 215n2 Salazar, Ramón, 125, 212n22 Salter, Mark, 196 San Andrés Sajcabajá, 213n34 San Andrés Xecul, 130, 213n36 San Antonio, Belize, 124, 127 San Antonio Rio Hondo, 30 San Bartolomé Mazatenango, 213n40 San Bartolo mural, Las Pinturas structure, 42, 43–44, 49, 71, 100, 103, 104, 112, 117, 137, 148, 193, 214n4

San Bernardino Retalhuleu, 213n34 San Cristóbal Cucho, 128, 213n30, 213n35 San Cristóbal Totonicapán, 130 San Diego Museum of Man, 113 San Juan, confraternity of, 122, 132, 134, 135 San Juan Guichicovi, 108 San Luis Petén, 124 San Miguel Acatán, 41, 121, 122 San Pedro, 212n21 San Pedro Chenalhó, 35 San Pedro la Laguna, 213n30 San Sebastián, 182 Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán, 213n30 Santa Cruz del Quiché, 16 Santa Eulalia, 213n28 Santa Rita Corozal, 150 Santiago (saint), 130 Santiago Atitlán, 122, 132, 134, 135, 136, 213n37 Saqi K’oxol, 121 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 4 scaffolds, 18, 98, 101, 102, 104, 108, 117, 150 Schele, Linda, 171, 184 scorpions, 145, 149 scribes, 11 seasons, 17, 19, 26, 145, 149, 150. See also dry season; rainy season secretos, 132 segales, 127, 130 Seler, Eduard, 12, 25 serpents/snakes, 10, 48, 59, 65, 66, 82, 89, 103, 120, 125, 128, 146, 150, 153, 156, 161, 163, 172, 175, 178, 179; horned, 108, 175; leg of K’awiil, 139, 140, 178. See also dances: snake; snake lady Seven Hunahpu, 157 Seven Macaw, 35 sewing, 39, 52, 57 sex/sexuality, 8, 10, 27, 73, 90, 121, 122, 125, 145, 158, 159, 179, 182, 195, 212n14, 214n54; and deer, 17, 18, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 87, 88, 92, 93, 167, 192, 204, 208n2. See also eroticism shamanism, 2, 54, 132, 184–186, 188, 189, 210n21, 211n7, 216n25,

216n28; attack, 88–90, 187, 209n19 shark, 172 shawls, 122 sheep, 22, 23, 34, 121, 151 shell, 18, 39, 47, 91, 104, 105, 112, 143, 165. See also conch shell; Spondylus; turtles: carapace/ shell of Shepard, Paul, 211n10 Shield Jaguar III, 64 shields, 54, 114, 149 shrines, 131, 132, 199, 217n19; hunting, 19, 120–124, 130, 136, 146, 160, 161, 194, 212n18; topographic, 200. See also temples Siberia, 2, 185 Siegel, Morris, 211n11 Sierra Popoluca, 212n14 Siip, 19, 84, 119, 120, 121, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 164, 174, 211n4, 211n6, 213n44. See also Huk Siip sinew, 39, 44 singers, 84, 212n14 Sip. See Siip Sitz’ Chamiiy, 171 skirts, 33, 56, 73, 74, 84, 95, 109, 138, 165, 174 sky, 9, 10, 11, 43, 78, 82, 87, 88, 90, 104, 105, 106, 137, 147, 161, 163, 165, 179, 186, 197, 199, 201 sky-bands, 37, 104, 106, 147 smoking, 59, 64, 114, 179, 181, 185, 186 snake lady, 140 snakes. See serpents/snakes snares. See traps/trapping: snares solstices, 161 sones, 79 sorcery, 78, 88, 92, 93, 172, 185, 187 spatulas, 47, 53 spear, 55, 84, 86, 93, 95, 100, 114, 119, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 153, 207n3 spear-thrower, 33, 48, 55, 67, 84, 86, 95, 100, 146, 211n23 spirit companions, 171, 172, 202 Spondylus, 105 spring, 80, 101, 148, 164

274

Looper_5982.indd 274

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex squirrels, 97, 126, 133, 134, 212n26 staffs, 48, 67, 84, 100, 114, 174, 212n14 star, 37, 105, 106, 108, 182. See also Evening Star; Milky Way; Morning Star; sky; sun; Venus Starry Deer Crocodile, 19, 104–108, 210n10 stelae, 169, 183–184, 188, 189, 216n18, 217n7; Copán, 142, 143, 144; Piedras Negras, 65, 65, 102, 103, 104, 116; Quiriguá, 13, 14, 162 stingray spines, 105, 113 Stoll, Otto, 161 Stone, Andrea, 200 stones, three (of Creation), 13, 14, 162 structuralism, 6, 7, 12, 22, 193, 203 stucco, 119 subsistence, 2, 5, 9, 35, 68, 69, 71, 192, 196, 203 Suhui Dzip, 120 sulum’con, 108 sun, 44, 56, 107, 135, 158; deer and, 17, 56, 81, 105, 153, 157, 158, 162, 164, 168, 192, 194; deities, 73, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 89, 101, 106, 137, 139, 143, 152, 154, 157, 159, 161, 165, 166, 214n3; glyphs, 104, 161, 163; movement of, 108, 157, 160, 161, 167, 168, 185, 217n6. See also equinox, vernal; Quadripartite Emblem or Badge; solstices swan, 10 sweat baths, 194 sweet potato, 113 symbols, 4–5 T’actani, 78 Tabai, 120, 214n55 Tabí, Monument from, 44, 45 tails, of deity, 165; jaguar, 175; monkey, 88, 171, 173; scorpion, 145, 149. See also deer: tails tamales, 31, 41, 137, 147, 183 Tamarindito, 62 Tambiah, Stanley, 8 Tamio (or Estanquero), 126

Tamoanchan, 93 tapir, 172, 214n3 Tarascan kingdom, 208n12 Taube, Karl, 10, 16, 137, 181 Tecolote, 199 Teitipac, 70 Tejupa, 70 temples, 33, 43, 106, 107, 114, 123, 160, 198, 199, 200, 211n5, 212n14. See also shrines Ten Gods vase, 214n3 Tenochtitlan, 63, 70, 205n17 Teotihuacan, 200 Teotitlán del Camino, 70 Tepeacac, 46 Tepecano/Tepehuano, 211n7 textiles, 52, 55, 56, 57, 64, 68, 71, 74, 77, 78, 102, 153, 157 Tezcatlipoca, 93, 106 Thai, 8 Thompson, J. Eric S., 12, 16, 17, 53, 120–121, 154, 155, 206n14, 214n3 Thornton, Erin Kennedy, 63 thrones, 65, 84, 85, 102, 104, 111, 139, 162, 210n10 thunder, 78, 108, 121, 125, 137, 215n8 Tiana, 126 tiger, 126, 132, 133, 136 Tikal, 52, 54, 68, 142, 158; earthworks, 198; incised bones from Burial 116, 82 Tilantongo, 70 Tixcacaltuyub, 29, 30 Tixkuytún, 124 tlahtohqueh, 199 Tlaltecuhtli, 106 Tlapanec, 212n14, 212n18 toads, 172, 185, 215n16 tobacco, 53, 78, 96, 185–186; smoke, 184, 186 Tohono O’odham (Papago), 207n9, 215n11 Tojil, 55, 213n39 Tokovinine, Alexandre, 199 tombs. See burials tongue sacrifice, 121, 135, 147, 151 Toniná, 91 tools, 4, 7, 18, 39, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 61, 63, 69, 194, 203 tortoises. See turtles

totemism, 6, 23 Totonac, 213n33 Totonicapán, 78 Townsend, Richard F., 10 tracking deer, 29, 146, 154 trance, 2, 186, 187, 188 traps/trapping, 29, 125, 127; deadfalls, 35, 150; nets, 31, 69–70, 211n22, 214n55; snares, 1, 30, 31, 93, 126, 128, 149, 151, 160, 161, 214n54, 214n55 travertine vessels, 52, 98 trees, 2, 26, 30, 54, 79, 89, 93, 96, 97, 111, 112, 120, 122, 124, 132, 135, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 164, 165, 211n22, 213n34, 214n8; directional, 42, 103, 104, 117, 141, 193, 194, 197; world, 42, 183. See also ceiba tree; crocodile tree tribute/tax, 18, 45, 46, 59, 62, 63, 65, 68, 71, 112, 116, 203, 204 tricksters, 11, 92 trophy heads, 101 trumpets, brass, 78, 209n7. See also conch shell: trumpets tsentsak, 186 tuberculosis, 215n11 tubes, 32, 47, 53, 57, 89, 140 Tulan, 217n19 Tupp Kak, 102 turkey, 7, 35, 43, 70, 172 Turner, Victor, 4, 10, 11, 196 turtles, 150, 172; carapace/shell of, 78, 139. See also drum: turtle-shell Tzeltal, 16, 22, 23, 28, 50, 53, 74, 122, 146, 161, 178, 186, 216n17 Tzeltalan languages, 22 Tzicoac, 46, 63 tzolk’in dates, 144 Tzotzil, 9, 16, 23, 35, 108, 120, 121, 137, 158, 172, 178, 182, 186, 197, 202, 216n17 Tz’utujil, 16, 132, 178 Tzuultaq’a, 78, 121 Uaxactún, 54 U Chuch Q’uq’ U Chuch Raxon, 97 Ucteche, 121, 211n11

275

Looper_5982.indd 275

1/27/19 3:02 PM

in d ex underworld, 9, 16, 43, 68, 74, 81, 82, 87, 88, 90, 111, 114, 134, 138, 157, 158, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 172, 184, 186, 188, 197, 199; lords of, 1, 35, 187 Uo (month), 135 Uspantek, 178 Usumacinta River, 62, 199 Utatlán, 200 Utuunil or Ukuhil Chihj Chamiiy, 174, 174, 175, 178, 184 Ux Witza’ (Caracol), 173, 183 Valiente or Caliente, 126 Vásquez, Francisco, 135, 136 Venus, deity, 138, 211n7; glyph/sign, 37, 104, 105, 106. See also Evening Star; Morning Star Veracruz, 119, 212n14 Vogt, Evon, 10 volcanoes, 121, 132, 134. See also Fuego volcano vomit, 172, 179 vulture, 101, 146, 149, 150, 153, 154, 157, 164, 165, 172, 214n3 Wagner, Roy, 5 wahy or wahyob, 19, 88, 171–179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 213n44, 215n7, 216n21, 216n23 wahywal, 216n23 wakani, 187 war/warfare, 6, 55, 117, 187, 188, 192, 199, 202, 203, 217n13; and the ballgame, 17, 108–113; and hunting, 18, 57, 71, 95–108, 113, 114, 116, 139, 142, 146, 151, 191, 193. See also captive sacrifice; warriors Warao, 185 warriors, 48, 57, 65, 71, 77, 78, 86, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 106, 114, 115, 116, 117, 146, 152, 187, 193, 202, 210n1, 210n3. See also captive sacrifice; war/warfare

wasps, 120, 121 water, 10, 29, 30, 43, 78, 102, 104, 121, 162, 201; resources, 199, 217n17. See also rain Water Serpent, 209n13 Waxaklajuun Ubaah K’awiil, 143 Wayeb, 10, 11, 197 wayhel, 172 weave/weaver/weaving, 15, 51, 52, 57, 78 whale, 22 whistles, 10, 30, 32, 50, 57, 73, 122, 123, 126, 133, 181, 184, 208n35 wife, 18, 28, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 130, 135, 138, 147, 154, 155, 174. See also marriage wilderness. See forest wind, 74, 80, 210n14; deities/spirits, 121, 161, 162, 171, 214n12, 215n12 women: in art, 18, 37, 73, 74, 77, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 139, 174; and childbirth, 188; in dance, 127, 128; and deer, 34, 74, 79, 80, 157, 208n2, 209n9; male acquisition of, 78, 91, 92, 97, 204; owners of vases, 210n22; and ritual, 113, 122, 130, 132, 136, 147, 151, 212n14; sex and, 93, 106, 125, 139; symbolism of, 6, 81, 82, 93, 191; work of, 15, 47, 85. See also genitals, female; Moon Goddess; Tabai; wife; Xochiquetzal Wuqub’ Pek, Wuqub’ Siwan, 200 Xaqui Coxol, 121 xaurishikáme, 212n14 Xbalanque, 137 X-Hazil Sur, 29 Xochipilli, 80, 81, 155 Xochiquetzal, 80, 93, 159 Xtabai. See Tabai XT’actani, 78

Xukaneb’, 129 Xulab, 121 Xultún, 211n22 Yajaw Chan Muwaan, 99, 210n4 Yanoama (Yanomami), 216n25 Yawal Ch’o’, 69, 99 Yax (month), 104 yax ch’ahb. See penance, first Yaxchilán, kingdom of, 199; Lintel 24, 64, 64, 113; rulers, 100, 136, 139 Yax Ha’al Chahk, 140 Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat, 37 Yaxuná, 43 Year Bearer, 211n11 yookte’, 210n21 Yub’uur or Yawaa’, 126 Yucatán, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 43, 124, 129, 198; brown brocket, 18, 21, 22, 28; colonial, 29, 35, 41, 42, 50, 54, 63, 74, 101, 107, 120, 122, 145, 159, 179; deities/spirits, 120, 121, 214n55; polities, 196, 197 Yucatec, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 41, 54, 74, 89, 96, 102, 120, 129, 135, 150, 171, 172, 178, 196, 197, 206n14, 210n14, 216n15, 216n17 Yuk Tzik’iin, 69 Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ahk’, 112 Zac (month), 159 Zaculeu, 200 Zapote Bobal, 112, 113 Zapotec, 70 Zaquicoxol, 121 Zinacantán, 158, 172, 182 Zip (month), 120, 135, 137 Zipacna, 35 zoomorphism, 11 Zuñi, 80

276

Looper_5982.indd 276

1/27/19 3:02 PM