THE IMAGEIN

WRITING

E.J. BRILLLEIDEN • NEW YORK • K0BENHAVN • KÖLN

1988

CONTENTS

H. A. Witte, Introduction: The Image in Writing or the Image of Writing vu

M. Beks, Die Handschrift der Kunst und die Kunst der Handschrift l

A. Gebhart-Sayer, Gesungene Muster der Shipibo-Conibo (Ost-Peru) 29

J.-M. Huon de Kermadec, Les clefs de l'écriture chinoise 49

M. E. R. G. N. Jansen, The Art of Writing in Ancient Mexico: an ethno-iconographicalperspective 86

A. Parpola, Religion Reflected in the Iconic Signs of the Indus Script: penetrating intolong-forgotten picto+graphic messages 114

A. Schimmel, Schriftsymbolik im Islam 136

H. L. J. Vanstiphout, Mihiltum, or the Image of Cuneiform Writing 152

H. te Velde, Egyptian Hieroglyphs as Linguistic Signs and Metalinguistic Informants 169

Additional Articles

J. Gutmann, An Eighteenth-Century Prague Jewish Workshop of Kapporot 180

U. Jäger, Buddhistische Ikonographie und nomadische Herrscherrepräsentation — zumsogenannten 'Jäger-König' von Kakrak bei Bämiyän/Afghanistan 191

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO:AN ETHNO-ICONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

by

MAARTEN E. R. G. N. JANSENUniversity of Leiden

"El estudio actual de los llamados pueblos 'dependientes' o colonizadossolo es posible — desde el punto de vista de un enfoque cientifico —tomando en cuenta los caractères especificos de la dependencia que sufren.Por mas evidente que ello pueda parecer por el simple juego de palabras,se trata de una exigencia que la antropologia reconoce muy rara vez,cuando no ignora pura y simplemente la existencia de dicha relación."

Georges Balandier: 1973, 30.

§ l Status

Native American cultures have developed various rich and complex sign systems, which becauseof their pictorial, iconic or mnemotechnical character have been described until very recentlyas a "primitive" or "rudimentary" stage in the evolution towards "real" writing. On closerexamination, however, such a description turns out to be insufficient and to suffer from aEurocentric bias.

The study of colonized societies offers numerous examples of the tendency to consider"primitive" or "mysterious" those cultural manifestations which the investigator is not able tounderstand. The colonial situation itself, with its omnipresent prejudices and hierarchical struc-ture, interferes with the investigation. Claiming the irrationality and inferiority of a culture hasfurther proved an easy pretext for robbing a people of its lands, its heritage and its autonomy,and for placing it with violence under the tutelage of a colonial power.

This is still the reality of the American Indians: after gaining the political independence fromthe European countries that had invaded the western hemisphere nearly five centuries ago, thedescendants of the colonists assumed power and created their "latin" or "anglo" nation-states.The resulting internal colonialism, interwoven with a general economic dependence, causes adaily experience of discrimination and exploitation. Massacres of Indian communities—likethose in Guatemala, Brazil or Peru—and other forms of brutal repression are common facts,hardly commented upon by the world press. Other countries—like the U.S.A.—do not respectthe treaties they made with Indian nations and cynically infringe upon fundamental humanrights.

These circumstances cast a shadow over the scholarly concerns of archaeologists,anthropologists, linguists and others who occupy themselves with Indian cultures. The researchis generally done in such a way that it conforms to the colonial structures and can hardly bebeneficial to the peoples investigated. In the social sciences, just as in politics, there is still hardlyany participation of the indigenous peoples themselves (cf. Lewis: 1973).

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 87

Culture and the study of culture should be the base for ethnic identity and development, butin practice the dominant classes try to expropriate the Indian past as a "national heritage" andto force the Indian cultures of today into the realm of folklore, converting their products andartistic expressions into articles of naive consumption, and converting the peoples themselvesinto stereotypes, nice objects without a voice, or denying their existence altogether.

Obviously, all this leads to Eurocentric distortion and mystification. An old but illustrativeexample can be found in a short article, published by Enrique de Guimaraes in 1907, on thesurvival of the quipu, the ancient Andean registration system of strings and knots (Ravines:1978, 772ss.). The author, basing himself on several secondary sources, had the idea that theprecolumbian quipus were a form of writing and that, through an esoteric code, they preservedthe intellectual achievements of the Inca nobles. In examining some quipus of his own time,Guimaraes was disappointed: these were "ordinary" counting devices. The strings, in anordered sequence and sometimes differentiated by form or colour, represented the categories(the different animals possessed by the peasant) and the knots the quantities (the number of eachkind of animal). He therefore concluded that the relationship between the ancient and themodern quipu was vague and insignificant. In fact the modern quipu demonstrated toGuimaraes the ignorance of the Indian peasant:

EI quipus moderno, en sumo, no viene a ser otra cosa que una palpable muestra de la falta de instruction delindio, en los lugares donde hace uso de esa forma de contador, pues ignorante de la lectura y de la escritura,y de los mas rudimentarios conocimientos de la aritmética, se ha visto en la necesidad de conservar ese sistemaempleado por sus antepasados, que si bien révéla la cultura incàsica, no esta en armonia con los progresos dela civilization moderna ....

Cuando el indio pueda tener un libro en la mano y sepa servirse de él, sera elemento de progreso para el Peru;entonces desaparecerà por complète el uso del cordon con nudos de que hoy se vale para rendir sus cuentas ...(Ravines: 1978, 775, 779).

In a short appendix to Guimaraes' article, Max Uhle already rectified some major points,explaining how the precolumbian quipu had also been a mnemolechnical device, based onnumbers expressed by knots. By no means, Uhle emphasized, is there an essential differencebetween the ancient and modern quipu (Ravines: 1978, 781-782). Since then, detailed studies byLeland Locke, Marcia and Robert ascher (see also Ravines: 1978), John Murra (1975: ch. 9)and others have further clarified our understanding of this interesting system and have showedthat the quipu is indeed able to register complex sets of data, in terms of categories and quan-tities. Elements of material culture, historical events, population, rituals, tributes, laws etc. wereall ordered in specific categories with logical and fixed sequences. The sequence of the stringsrepresented such a sequence of categories: for example, the inhabitants of a village were orderedin age groups, the first group (string) being those of 70 years and older, the second one of thosebetween 60 and 70, etc. On each string the quantity of each category was expressed by knots,using the decimal system and a digital notation (fig. 1). Colours and special forms of stringsconstituted additional indications to distinguish the subject-matter, a red string referring tosoldiers and a composit one of blue, yellow and white to the feasts of the "God that lives inthe blue heaven and created gold and silver" etc.'

With Uhle we conclude that the modern quipu has indeed preserved the essential elements ofthe precolonial one. The colonization reduced its themes and uses, but not its method.

In the same way there are many aspects of the native American cultures which show a directhistorical continuity from precolonial times, but which are not properly understood when theinvestigator idealizes the Indian past and looks down on the Indian people of today. Value-

88 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

judgements about "modernization" according to the standards of industrial society in Europeand North America often play a role here (cf. Fitzpatrick: 1980): indigenous culture is notconsidered an alternative inspiration for development but rather an aesthetic museum piece, asilent corpse, and its study becomes an "autopsy" (Kubler: 1964).

We have to bear this in mind when we examine the ancient Mesoamerican writing systems.2

A notable early negative judgement comes from the 16th Century philosopher Juan Ginés deSepülveda, who in his dialogue Démocrates Alter tried to prove the superiority of Spanishculture:

Confer nunc cum horum virorum prudentia, ingenio, magnitudine animi, temperantia, humanitate et religionehomunculos illos in quibus vix reperies humanitat is vestigia, qui non modo nullam habent doctrinam, sed neelitteris u tun tu r , aut noverunt, nulla retinent rerum gestarum monumenta, praeter tenuem quamdam et obscuramnonnullarum rerum memoriam picturis quibusdam consignatam ... (edition 1979, 104).

Sepülveda explicitly aimed at the justification of the Spanish conquest, but still in our centurysimilar derogatory statements have been made by authors on writing systems in general.' It isnot until the rise of semiology in the last two decades that the classical Greek definition ofwriting as the registration of the spoken language (with the alphabet as its culminating point)was abandoned and a better evaluation of pictographic systems became possible.

§ 2 Genesis

We will direct our attention here to Mesoamerican pictography, as it was expressed in paintedscreenfold books (codices) before and shortly after the Spanish invasion (1519 A.D.), i.e. thelate postclassic and early viceroyal periods.

Only a limited number of codices have survived, all painted in this relative short time-span(Glass and Robertson: 1975). Other samples of this form of pictography are found in sculpture,wall-paintings, decorated ceramics, incised bones and shells etc. Through these media its historycan be traced. Mesoamerican pictography as the Spanish invaders encountered it, was neithera transitional stage in the development towards phonetic writing nor a result of decadence orstagnation, but a highly successful end-product of a creative process of at least 1000 and maybeeven 3000 years. The first indications of a wide-spread system of signs and conventions can befound already in the preclassic period, in Olmec art (1200-600 BC). In this system iconic-representations (images) coexisted with abstract, arbitrary signs (ideograms), which were tobecome the two basic categories of later Mesoamerican sign-systems. In Olmec art, which is thefirst clearly identifiable monumental art-style in Mesoamerica, we recognize also some of thebasic themes which remain important in subsequent civilisations: a) the commemoration ofrulers (Grove: 1981), b) the cult of divine powers ( Joralemon: 1976), and c) nahualism, i.e. thehuman experience of also having an animal-identity (Köhler: 1985). Among the conventions wenotice: the representation of objects and beings through the combination of the mostcharacteristic frontal and profile views (called a "multiplicity of visual positions" by Uspensky1976), the indication of a person's name through hieroglyphic signs, incorporated in his figure(e.g. on the head of the individual), the use of ideograms like speech-scrolls and of some signssimilar to the later Maya hieroglyphs (cf. Coe: 1976), the representation of rulers in a standingposition with ceremonial bars in their arms or seated on elaborated thrones, the identificationof the Gods through different face-markings, the combination of human and animal traits etc.

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 89

In the late preclassic period, e.g. in the Zapotec civilization of Monte Alban, this system isfurther developed. The Mesoamerican calendar appears fully elaborated and provides a datingmechanism for historiography and for ritual life. Abbreviations of actions in the form of "eventglyphs" can be recognized. Together with the signs for personal names, place-name signs alsoappear (cf. Whittaker: 1980).

With the elaboration of both the iconographical conventions and the abbreviated and abstractsigns, we see the development—and eventual separation—of the two main Mesoamericansemiotic traditions:

1. A pictographic tradition, which essentially communicates through iconic representation,using ideograms for those units of information which are diff icult to depict and reservinghieroglyphs (i.e. signs which have primarily a phonetic value) for the names of places or persons.Its fully developed manifestation can be seen in the classic Teotihuacan frescoes (Kubler: 1967;Miller: 1973). Postclassic Toltec and Mixteca-Puebla art continues this tradition, producing thepictographic codices of Mixtecs, Nahuas (Aztecs) and other peoples (cf. Nicholson: 1973; Smithand Heath-Smith: 1980; Smith: 1983).

2. A tradition of hieroglyphic writing, which registers a phonetic text but often uses picturesand iconography as both a source and a support or illustration. Probably the late preclassic andclassic Zapotecs used such a system, but it was elaborated most by the classic and postclassicMayas (cf. Kelley: 1976; Schele: 1986).

Pictography does not aim at fixing a spoken text with its specific phonetic details; it isperfectly capable, however, of storing complex information. It is not words that are registered,but the data are "formulated" directly through conventional images, which may be understoodwithout prior knowledge of the message. The systematic interpretation of the pictures producesa text which coincides in content (but not necessarily in form!) with the original message. Aquick comparison with the above-mentioned quipus shows clearly that Mesoamericanpictography is not to be seen as a mnemotechnical system.

Hieroglyphic writing, on the other hand, does register verbal expression and thereforequalifies for the "classical" definition of writing. A Eurocentric, "logocentric" approachwould place this latter tradition on a higher rank in an evolutionary scheme. But it should bepointed out here that both traditions evolved simultaneously and were in use for more than 1000years, during which there were several intensive (commercial and military) contacts between thepeoples that practiced them.

Both systems had their advantages. While hieroglyphic writing was capable of preserving atext just as it had been formulated, pictography was less esoteric and was capable of being usedbetween speakers of different languages. One becomes very conscious of this latter advantageif one studies the difficulties of reducing a tonal language like Mixtec, with its sandhi perturba-tions of the tones, to alphabetic writing (Faraclas: 1983). It is also important to observe thatthe difference between both systems is less radical than it may seem. Pictography is based ona number of pictorial conventions which correspond closely to sets of idiomatic expressions andalso uses many abbreviated images with a fixed meaning, thereby considerably reducing thevariability of the reading.

Hieroglyphs, on the other hand, are not seldom derived from such abbreviated pictures. Mosthieroglyphic texts in Maya reliefs and codices are accompanied by pictorial scenes which expressat least part of the same information in a pictographic manner.

90 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

To illustrate this point we will compare some representations of similar events in the differentsystems.

In postclassic Mixtec codices we find the "scattering of green dust" together with thedecapitation of a quail as part of a ceremonial salute to honour rulers, deceased ancestors andGods (fig. 4). Probably the green dust is ground piciete (nicotiana rustica, cf. Jansen: 1982, eh.111:1). Some thousand years earlier we find a similar "scattering" ceremony, represented onTeotihuacan frescoes and vessels: priests with their characteristic copal (incense) bag scatter orpour libations of what might be piciete or seeds of some kind (Kubler: 1967, 10; Miller: 1973,figs. 168-184, 235, 366). Generally, elaborated speech-scrolls accompany the action, probablysignifying hymns (fig. 2). It is interesting to note that in some cases the contents of thesehymns—the shells and jade artifacts painted in the scrolls—are scattered in libations of waterby the Water- and Rain Deities in other frescoes (Miller: 1973, figs. 301-314, 324-327),suggesting that this is what the priests pray for: possibly the "precious stones of the Rain Gods"stand for maize-cobs and prosperity.4

In both cases—Mixtec codices and Teotihuacan frescoes—the representation is purelypictographic and relatively easy to understand: the actor is painted in ful l , performing the mostrepresentative part of the ceremony.

Likewise, classic Maya reliefs show rulers in priestly function performing such a "scattering"act during period ending rituals: a purely pictographic representation. Again the identificationof the scattered material is a problem: it resembles drops of water, maize-kernels or sprinkledblood (Schele: 1982, 180; 1986, 182ss.) and also the above-mentioned piciete (still used by theMayas today as a potent hallucinogen) (fig. 3).

Such a pictographic scene, however, is accompanied by a hieroglyphic text in typical Mayafashion, in which the action is mentioned in the form of an "event glyph". The main sign ofthis verb consists precisely of the picture of a scattering hand (T 170 in Thompson's catalog).This root is preceded by a glyphic element in the form of a half moon, read w (T 1), which meansboth "moon" and the prefix for the third person singular. Often stil l another glyphic element,T 130, is added under the main sign.

Opinions differ as to the precise reading of this verbal form (T 1.710:130). Linda Schele(1982, 83 and 287) proposes mal for the scattering hand, a root which in the Quiche and TzeltalMaya languages means "sprinkle" or "scatter" (cf. Kelley: 1976, 51-52) and wa for T 130.Victoria Bricker (1981), following an observation of Eleuterio Poot, proposes a reading xaw(Yucatec Maya: "to stir, to mix or to sift with a hand") for T 710:130 and compares the signwith the open hand that represents the letter x in the famous "Maya alphabet" written downby bishop Diego de Landa (cf. Durbin: 1969). The hieroglyphs do not solve the question of whatactually is scattered; on the contrary, the pictographic problem is reflected in the differentattempts at decipherment of the event glyph.

This discussion illustrates the different origins of Maya hieroglyphs. Quite a few, like the"scattering hand" sign (T 170), are abbreviated iconic representations. Others are based on thedepictions of homonyms, like the third person singular prefix u. A third category is made upof extremely stylized or arbitrary signs with just a specific phonetic value: T 130 seems to fitin here.

The glyphs that occur in pictography are formed in a similar way. The place-name signs inthe Codex Mendoza (painted for the first viceroy, in native style with Spanish commentary) havebeen the base for many studies of the Aztec writing system, ever since its first publication in

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 91

1625 by Samuel Purchas (de Laet: 1633, Kircher: 1652/54, Clavigero: 1780/81, Aubin: 1849,Pefiafiel: 1885, Clark: 1938, Nowotny: 1959, Dibble: 1971). Here also we find abbreviated iconsand ideograms of which the phonetic reading is reinforced through phonetic indicators orcomplements, based on homonyms. In fact, this hieroglyphic system was so well developed thatthe continued use of pictography in the area has to be explained as a conscious preference andnot as a lack of capacity.

Both traditions, we conclude, are intimately related: though in a different way and degree, bothhave pictorial and phonetic aspects. The interpretation, therefore, will essentially be aniconological analysis which takes into account the native language.

§ 3 Paradigm

The 16th Century was a time of conquest and destruction, but incidentally also of contact andsome direct dialogue between the intellectuals of both Mesoamerican and European cultures.As a result, native pictographic manuscripts received commentaries either in the nativelanguages (written with the introduced alphabet) or in Spanish, like Codex Mendoza, CodexTelleriano-Remensis and many others. These commentaries, together with other relevantcultural and historical information written down shortly after the invasion, directly or indirectlyproceed from the experts who knew and used the system: now they constitute our most impor-tant key to the understanding of these works. These data, however, are far from complete, andare often incoherent or even contradictory, due to mutual misunderstanding and Europeanimpositions, so the key cannot be used without careful reasoning and anthropological-historicalcriticism.

After the period of initial contact, the colonial hierarchy was established and all dialoguebetween civilizations was suppressed: the study of the precolonial past became the exclusiveprivilege of European or colonial scholars, who generally limited themselves to archaeologicalremains and archives. As a consequence, the codices were seen from an essentially antiquarianand alien perspective: the "three stages" view of history and the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe(Boturini, 18th Century), the localisation of the lost tribes of Israel (Lord Kingsborough, 19thCentury), Mexican mestizo nationalism (from Clavigero till today), astral mythology (EduardSeier, early 20th Century) or the modern nomothetic analysis of human mind and behaviour.5

Because of the colonial pressure the great tradition of codex-painting had come to an end inthe early 17th Century and was replaced by alphabetic writing: numerous documents in theIndian languages were produced. The manuscripts that have survived in archives and librariestestify that during the viceroyal period writing was a common practice for many Indians.

The Spanish clergy used the native tongues for evangelization and published catechisms,grammars and dictionaries, while the Spanish administration appointed official interpreters inthe courts of justice, thereby recognizing the official status of the indigenous languages, thoughin a limited and hostile context. Since the beginning of the republican period an integrationistideology has prevailed, which pursues hispanization even more and represses Indian literacy inthe schools, in the text-books and in the media.

Through the ages, our discipline has gained in precision, scientific structure and documentary

92 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

bases, but, we have to recognize, it has moved away from the Indians themselves. A majorimprovement, and at the same time a change in our outlook and paradigm, will be the resultof bridging the gap between the Indian heritage and the Indian peoples.

This situation constitutes one of the main differences between the study of Mesoamericaniconography and European art-history: the latter has a huge amount of written sources and ofscholars who share the culture they analyze. In Mesoamerica there relatively few informativesources and the scholars are foreign to the world they study.

On the other hand, the disruption in forms did not mean a total disruption in content: theancient pictography was discontinued but many cultural elements and structures fromprecolonial times are preserved in traditional Indian communities. Through the colonizationprocess the significance and even the presence of such traits and customs may have becomeobscure to the native Americans themselves: they may need to study their own culturemethodically and consciously in order to rediscover and understand it fully. But, obviously, itis always their own cultural tradition, more intimate, more transparent and more significantthan it could possibly be for outsiders.

This cultural continuity has a very important potential for the interpretation of theprecolonial past: it can supplement the fragmentary historical sources, correct the Eurocentricdistortion, explain the meaning and function of both material items and religious concepts etc.An optimal use of this potential calls not only for much more ethnography but also for thepreparation and full participation of the culture-carriers themselves.

This perspective is known as the direct historical approach or the continuous model in ethno-archaeology (cf. Stiles: 1977, Hodder: 1982). Precisely because of the cultural continuity in theregion and the consequent importance of ethnographic data for any interpretative effort,precolumbian archaeology has to be ethno-archaeology and native American history has to beethnohistory. For the study of the Indian images and signs we may use the analogous termethno-iconology, in order to make explicit its special characteristics:

a) In dealing with this culture we have to be aware of a dominant colonial perspective andEurocentric distortions.

b) Modern ethnographic information is an indispensable asset for the amplification andclarification of archaeological and historical data.

c) In order to obtain and apply this ethnographic information not only specific fieldwork(generated for such an interpretative purpose) is necessary, but also the ful l and equal participa-tion of the native Americans themselves.

d) The research is inserted in a contemporary social struggle, which makes it impossible forthe investigator to remain a neutral observer.

Cultural continuity by no means justifies an easy projection of data into the past. Disjunctioncan be an important obstacle. Originally used by Erwin Panofsky in his discussions of Europeanart, this term was introduced into Mesoamerican studies by George Kubler (1967, 1972) in orderto indicate the interruption of a representational code, due to historical and/or social processes,to the effect that the same forms or iconographie schemes may be used in different periods toexpress different contents and messages, determined by subsequent cultures or successive phasesof the same culture.

Kubler criticized the common use of Aztec terminology for iconographie entities in earliercultures:

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 93

... with successive cultures spanning a duration on the order of about one thousand years in the same region,such as western Europe or Mesoamerica, we may expect to observe disjunctions of form and meaning more oftenthan marked continuity in their association. As Orpheus and the Good Shepherd displayed different meaningsin similar representations, so we may expect representations of the feathered serpent and Quetzalcoatl to displaymeanings at least as different across more than one thousand years in Mexico (1967, 12).

Disjunction refers to the realm of form, and should not be confused with cultural discontinuity,which means the end of a co-tradition. Such a confusion, however, often occurs, specially inthe thinking about the incision caused by the Spanish invasion:

If we rely on these enhnohistories or, worse, modern ethnographies to interpret Andean iconographie motifs,we run the risk of disjunction or of descendants having forgotten what a motif originally represented (Cordy-Collins: 1977, 421).

This "risk" should not mean that we are free to disregard a priori all information which is laterthan the investigated period! Quite the contrary, it obliges the iconologist to pay much attentionto historical and social processes and to "map" systematically the changes that affected theculture-area.

Continuity always implies development and change; it does not stand for a "fossilization"of society, in which everything remains the same, but simply for a strong diachronic affiliation.By scrutinizing the processes of modification, it becomes possible to discover in which way aspecific cultural phase is related to its antecedent and which traits, practices or concepts mayhave been present at an earlier time. The comparison of the present and the past should takeinto account both tradition and transformation and should not be based on isolated elementsbut on structured, coherent and meaningful clusters of data.

This principle has been clearly formulated by Henry B. Nicholson (1976, 171) in his detailedreview of the disjunction problem:

"It is largely through discerning significant associations, then, that reasonable explanatory hypotheses con-cerning the significance of iconographie elements can be achieved on whatever time level. The application ofthe direct historical approach often provides solid points of departure from which to work back, again, asSteward originally expressed it, merely applying the elementary logic of proceeding from the known to theunknown— If the elements themselves are similar and occur in similar clusters then the likelihood of retentionof similar meanings over time seems greatly increased."

Kubler himself (1973, 165-166) concurs, be it from another angle:By examining the iconographie repertory for a given period, it is possible to ascertain the approximate l imitsof the vocabulary, and the kinds of combination that were performed. If we then examine the repertory usedin the same region a thousand years later, some striking changes inmediately appear, changes relating to newand old forms, and meanings, like those analyzed by Panofsky in his studies of the survival and transformationof classical imagery during the Middle Ages. After such an analysis it may be possible to use ethnologicalanalogies with reasonable control. We might be able to draw the remote past toward the present with someunderstanding of the preferential expressions of the remote past, ins tead of imposing present or recent pa t t e rnsupon the remote past without soliciting that past to its preferences.

Although both Kubler and Nicholson refer to the question of disjunction within the precolonialperiod, their statements are also valid for the study of the Mesoamerican co-tradition as awhole. In fact, both describe here a central issue of the ethno-archaeological method, succintlyformulated by Stiles (1977, 94-95):

In the ethnographic analogy a specific set of ethnographic data is compared to an analogous set of archaeologicaldata. To determine what ethnographic data might be applicable in a specified situation one should f i r s t formallydescribe the physical characteristics of the archaeological material in question. A potential ethnographic analogyis then recognised and an examination is made of the physical properties of this phenomenon which areanalogous to the archaeological data. The degree to which the two sets of properties agree determines the proba-bi l i ty of the act ivi ty which resulted in the archaeologically observed data being analogous to the ethnographic-ally

94 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

observed activity. The degree of probability varies also with the number of features shared in common of thetime and space correlates of the two sets of data.

We have presented these citations because of their methodological relevance and the crucialimportance of the continuity concept to our ethno-iconological perspective. Disjunction shouldbe investigated (a posteriori) and not used as an aprioristic theoretical impediment. The ques-tion will be further clarified when we examine the successive levels of the ethno-iconologicalanalysis (below): the problem of disjunction belongs to the first level, i.e. the recognition offorms, but vanishes on the second level, when it comes to the study of themes. The main con-sequences of cultural continuity, on the other hand, concern precisely the thematic approachto native American art.

Unfortunately, the existing divorce between the disciplines tends to divide and to obscure ourperception of the co-tradition as a unity: the precolonial period becomes the hunting groundof archaeologists, art- and ethno-historians, while the modern indigenous society is consideredthe laboratory of anthropologists and sociologists. It is common to find chronological tablesof subjects like "the Maya in world history" (Schele: 1986, 12-13) ending with the Conquista,more than 450 years ago, as if we did not have millions of Maya fellow-men today!

Of course, we may distinguish between different forms and degrees of cultural continuity.Before the Spanish invasion the Americas show autonomous traditions, unbroken lines ofdevelopment according to internal mechanisms and possibilities.6 The imposition of an aliensystem had a disruptive effect on these traditions. Many peoples were annihilated. After suchgenocide continuity in the region can only be indirect, i.e. carried on by another ethnic groupthat participated in the same culture-area. But also in the cases of a direct cultural continuity(i.e. among the same ethnic/linguistic group) new elements were introduced, which reformedtechnology, economy and ideology.

Often these changes are thoughtlessly described as an act of "decapitation" (e.g. AguirreBeltrân: 1970, 20ss.): a most unfortunate term as it suggests that the precolonial elite wasexterminated and that this meant the death of the Indian cultures. Culture, however, is not theexclusive creation of an intellectual or political elite, but is shared by the different sectors ofsociety, that constitute an intercommunicating system.

Moreover, the Mesoamerican elite was not totally wiped out: many merged, in part with thenew, European elite, in part with the "common people". Mesoamerican culture survived inlimited areas and under permanent pressure: it is not a case of "decapitation", but of reduction,of translation (of its own terms into those of the colonial oppressors) and of syncretism. Thisexplains the continuous presence of both "non-elite" and "elite" elements and structures (seee.g. Durand-Forest: 1966/1967; Hunt: 1977; Leyenaar: 1978; Tedlock: 1982; Jansen: 1982).

This situation makes it possible for the investigator to move beyond an analogical reasoning,based on formal similarities. Specific topics and problems of content can be examined as such,in their diverse manifestations through the ages. The present-day Gods of the traditional Indiancommunities are not just analogous to the precolonial deities: they are the same, thoughmodified by time.

§ 4.0 Analysis

As pictography is composed of visual images, its interpretation can be described as aniconological exercise, following more or less the same method as that defined for the study of

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 95

European art by Erwin Panofsky (reprinted in Kaemmerling: 1979). This well known modeldistinguishes three levels of interpretation. For our purpose it may be compared with RolandBathes' model of superposed semiotic orders or systems, in which "that which had the statusof a sign (i.e. the 'associative total' of signifier and signified) in the first system becomes a meresignifier in the second" (Hawkes: 1977, 131).

Rephrasing Panofsky, we can divide the ethno-iconological interpretative process intodistinct, interrelated levels and connecting articulations.

§4.1 Forms

The first level is that of identifying which object, phenomenon or being (the signified) isexpressed by the graphic form (the signifier). This identification is based on a combination ofdetailed observation with knowledge of the style, the pictorial conventions (code) and theproperties attributed to the object by the culture in question (cf. Eco: 1978, 345ss.).

Here the glosses and comments made in the early viceroyal period, written in Spanish or inthe native American languages (mainly Nahuatl) with the Spanish alphabet, the "pictographicdictionaries" (Nowotny: 1959; Prem: 1974) are our basic tool to identify the images andideograms of ancient Mexican pictography.

On this level we interprète certain pictures as mountains, plants, animals, stars, humans,gods, decorative motifs etc. Diagnostic attributes permit the identification of historical ormythological personages. Rulers in the codices can be recognized by their calendrical name (theday on which they were born) and their more poetical personal name: Lord 8 Deer "JaguarClaw".

Sets of face-paintings and other attributes serve to characterize the Mesoamerican Gods: jaderings around the eyes and large teeth identify the Rain God (Tlaloc in Nahuatl).

Again, the chronicles of the 16th Century provide us with detailed information about suchcultural traits: the Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagün, for example, describes the typicalfeatures and attire of the Aztec Gods in the first book of his encyclopedic work (cf. alsoNicholson: 1971).

Modern Indian culture can often supply additional information about the configuration ofmaterial items, customs and the conceptual world. Notwithstanding the loose relationshipbetween pictography and the spoken word, idiomatic expressions in the indian languages maythrow light upon otherwise obscure representations and combinations.

Between the first and the second levels of interpretation we distinguish a connecting step, orarticulation, not concerned with the relation between signifier and signified, but with the contextin which the signifiers are presented and its implications for the analysis of the second level.

An important question here is the general context, the genre of the pictures. This is a crucialstep in the interpretation, but, paradoxically, it often does not receive much consideration, asthe investigator usually starts out with clear previous notions in this respect and situates theresearch within an already given conceptual framework or paradigm.

Obviously, an identical element can have very different meanings in different genres. Thefeline traits of personages in Olmec art, for example, seem to be related to nahualism: a jaguaras alter ego implies strength and courage for the individual. But in the "Language of Zuyua"(a set of metaphors and riddles, used by the postclassic Maya elite) we find "a green jaguar thatdrinks the blood of the sun" as a metaphor for ... a green pepper, served together with a fried

96 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

egg (Roys: 1967; Jansen: 1985). Applying such a statement from the sources to the preclassicsculptures, disregarding the difference in genre, would result in a culinary interpretation ofOlmec art!

In order to determine the genre of a certain work we can often resort to earlier research andto independent evidence. The archaeological context, for example, may indicate that somevessels or sculptures are "funerary", others "ceremonial", "elite" etc. In the case of thecodices the genre was established through comparisons with other manuscripts. CodexTelleriano-Remensis and Codex Vaticanus A were created in the second half of the 16th Century(cf. Jansen: 1984) and contain both religious and historical scenes, clearly identified as such byglosses and comments. The parallels between the patron-deities of the 260 day cycle in VaticanusA and those in the precolonial Codex Borgia were already recognized by José Lino Fâbrega atthe end of the 18th Century and used as a basis for his Borgia commentary.

At the end of the 19th Century Eduard Seier, the German scholar who laid the foundationfor the scientific study of ancient Mesoamerican iconography, recognized the parallels betweenCodex Borgia and several other precolonial codices and was able to define a "Borgia Group".Seler worked within a now obsolete astral paradigm. Karl Anton Nowotny (1961) corrected thisview and provided a new methodological approach: as the Borgia Group deals primarily withreligious matters—Gods, rituals and mantic i.e. divinatory symbolism—which are structuredaccording to the Mesoamerican calendar, with its many temporal-spatial divisions, Nowotnyelaborated a holistic interpretative model based precisely on the calendrical order.

The genre of another important group of codices (called the "Vindobonensis Group" bySeler) was not well defined until the Mexican archaeologist Alfonso Caso (1949) was able torelate them to the 1580 Map of Teozacualco, which demonstrated their subject matter to be thegenealogical history of the rulers of different Mixtec cacicazgos (principalities) in the centuriesbefore the Spanish invasion.

Since Caso's discovery, it has become common to refer to the Vindobonensis Group as"Mixtec, historical codices", in contrast to the religious Borgia Group, of which the origin isunknown (with the exception of the Codex Porfirio Diaz, which is Cuicatec). Actually, thisdifferentiation is not exact, as the Vindobonensis Group also contains references to religion,mainly depictions of rituals. It would be more precise to describe the contents of theVindobonensis Group as descriptive (it presents myths and rituals as part of a narrativesequence) and those of the Borgia group as prescriptive (its purpose being divination and ritualprescription).

The difference between the two groups, then, is one of genre, not of ethnic background. Thisinsight has its consequences for the discussion about the provenience of the members of theBorgia Group. When the contents of the codices are compared in more detail, differences dueto genre can not be used to claim a non-Mixtec origin for the Borgia Group. It has beenobserved, for example, that in the latter group a much higher percentage of the women aredepicted with bare breasts than in Vindobonensis and other Mixtec codices (Anawalt: 1981). Butthe most probable reason for this difference is that these women in the Borgia Group areGoddesses whose motherhood- and fertility-aspects are stressed, while the women in theVindobonensis Group are Mixtec ladies, founders of dynasties and rulers of cacicazgos, dressedin their customary fashion.

Supposedly, the ancient Mixtecs also has their mantic and ritual prescriptive books, which,if preserved, would now be part of the Borgia Group. In fact, one or more codices of this group

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 97

actually may be Mixtec. The discussion has been clouded by an emphasis on style and formalaspects, with scant regard for the question of genre and contents.'

In other cases, when such definitive information is still lacking, the genre of a work is postulatedas a working hypothesis (generally as an impression based on a number of details and an over-view) and, naturally, functions as such until another hypothesis can be found which can explainthe different elements in a more coherent and complete way.

We also have to direct ourselves to the question of what might be called the genre of the signitself, by drawing up an inventory of the possible modes of signification—the possible ways inwhich the signifier is related to the signified—that may exist in the representational code underdiscussion.

Applying elementary semiotic theory to Mesoamerican pictography we can make the follow-ing basic distinctions:

1. In the iconic mode the relation signifier-signified is direct, based on visual resemblance:a drawing of a flag signifies just a flag, a drawing of a house just a house etc.

2. In the indexical mode the relation signifier-signified is metonymical ("concrete, actual andusually of a sequential, causal kind", Hawkes: 1977, 129). The signifier is only part of a morecomplex whole to which it refers. Flags are used in human sacrifice, so a flag in the hand ofa person can indicate that he is going to be sacrified (cf. Codex Seiden 8-111), In the same waya flag can be an index of the Aztec feast Panquetzaliztli, "Rising of the banners" (cf. CodexVaticanus A 49v, 87r). A temple carried on the back indicates the cult of which the bearer isin charge (cf. Codex Nuttall 18, 19, 21). A temple on fire indicates the conquest of a town (cf.Codex Mendoza passim, fig. 6) etc.

3. In the symbolic mode the relation signifier-signified is arbitrary, metaphorical or based onan intellectual structure of oppositions. The flag in the Aztec numerical system represents thenumber 20 (Codex Mendoza passim, fig. 7). A temple can stand for "good", in opposition withthe cross-roads ("bad") and nature ("indifferent") (cf. Nowotny: 1961, 219; Jansen: 1982,eh. 1:11).

4. For reasons of practical convenience we distinguish as a special category the glyphic mode,in which the relation signifier-signified is based on the language: the signified is a name, aphonetic unit. Various categories of hieroglyphs can be distinguished:

a) logograms, in which name and object coincide (whether in an iconic, indexical or symbolicway). In Nahuatl "flag" is pantli and "house" is calli. As such the drawings of a flag and ahouse are part of place-name hieroglyphs like Pan-tepee ("on the mountain of the flags") andCal-tepec ("on the mountain of the houses") respectively (cf. Codex Mendoza 16, fig. 6).

b) phonetic writing, in which only the phonetic aspect, the name is relevant, without regardfor the object as such. A flag can represent the Nahuatl locative suffix -pan (e.g. Hueyapan,"place of the big water", Codex Mendoza 16). After the Spanish invasion this flag, pantli,together with nochtli ("cactus") was used to write "pater noster" and the house, calli, formedpart of the hieroglyph of Santa Cala (Santa Clara) (cf. Galarza: 1967).

c) semantic determinants, in which only the semantic value is used, to specify the categoryof another signifier. A house or a mountain, for example, may occur in a place-name hieroglyphjust to indicate the toponymical character of the sign, without forming part of the nameexpressed: Teticpac ("on the stones") is painted as a house on a stone (Codex Mendoza 44).Cempoala ("place of twenty") is painted as a mountain with a human head, adorned in what

98 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

apparently was the typical way of the inhabitants of this village (Codex Mendoza 21v, fig. 7):notice how confusion with Pantepec is avoided by writing actually "place (semantic determi-nant) of the Cempoala-people (iconic logogram)".

d) dates: the calendrical signs are a special case. By nature they are symbols ("House" doesnot represent a house but a day of that name) but at the same time they have a specific,unequivocal phonetic value. The Mixtecs even used a special calendrical vocabulary for the thir-teen numbers and for the twenty signs (Smith: 1973, 23ss.).

The glyphic mode is most frequently used in place-name and personal-name signs, but is by nomeans limited to these. An example of the interference of a homonym with a picture is thespeech-scroll which consists of dots in the Mixtec codices (Becker I 7-III; Bodley 28-IV/III). Thedots may represent ashes, yaa in Mixtec, and function as a phonetic complement, indicating thatthe speech-scroll should be understood as "song", also yaa in Mixtec (fig. 5). Another case isthe use of a series of individuals as semantic determinants for the enumeration of qualities orattributes of one individual (Codex Vindobonensis 48, fig. 8, cf. Jansen: 1982, 140ss.). In suchscenes also well known figures of speech may be detected, like metaphors or parallellism(difrasismo, cf. Garibay: 1971 I, 17ss.; Edmonson: 1978). In Codex Vindobonensis p. 34 severalparallels are used to describe the qualities of the primordial beings: these are lying on the roadsand along the irrigation canals (represented as two blue bands bordering a strip of land) (fig. 9).In the Mixtec reading nuu ichi, nuu sichi we even discover rhyme.8

Such sequences of pictures, which actually are meant to be read as. litanies, as well as themantic scenes, which situate all signs on a symbolic plane, show that the different modes ofsignification are not only often interconnected but may also operate simultaneously, therebycreating very complex combinations. A rough grouping as given here, however, seems sufficientfor practical use.

Another part of the articulation between the first and the second interpretative levels is theexamination of the associations between the signs and between the scenes. With Roland Barthes(1971, 61ss.) we may distinguish syntagmatic relations (mutual relationships, clustering,connection-patterns of the signifiers) and paradigmatic relations (equivalences, substitution andinterchangeability of the signifiers). Through these we gain insight into the structure ofcombinations and permutations that affects objects and beings, resulting in a narrative, manticor otherwise meaningful sequence.

Adapting Barthes' own examples we might say that a syntagmatic relation exists between theface-painting, dress and other attributes of a specific deity and that a paradigmatic relationexists between the different types of face-paintings that occur with different deities. Between allthe actions of an individual's biography there is a syntagmatic relation, and between thedifferent individuals that are shown to perform one specific action there is a paradigmaticrelation. History is syntagmatic, ritual and divination are paradigmatic.

§ 4.2 Themes

After the descriptive analysis and a first systematization of what is depicted, the second levelof interpretation consists of trying to discover what the scene could have meant to the originalpublic. The pictures, therefore, have to be related to other information about the same culture

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 99

and, more specifically, about the topic with which the scene deals. Just as in the comparisonof past and present, discussed above, significant associations play an important role here. Suchan analysis, based on the systematic comparison of coherent clusters of data, is called a thematicapproach."* The themes, discovered in the pictures as patterns of syntagmatic and/orparadigmatic relations, are to be compared with similar themes or clusters found in our frameof reference (i.e. the total information available about the culture in question).

Themes are an analytical tool. They are defined for an interpretative purpose, and can be assmall and limited, or as extensive and abstract as seems convenient. It is crucial, however, toremain within the genre and to use coherent, structured units of information, not isolatedelements. As the clusters of data are more coherent and the correspondences between thepictures and the frame of reference more complete and logical, the comparison will be moreconvincing.

Hands and hearts, for example, occur with a decorative function in postclassic central-Mexican pictures, as on the frescoes of Tizatlan (Caso: 1927) (fig. 10), on polychrome vessels,and as necklaces of earth-monsters and related deities, like the famous Aztec statue calledCoatlicue in the Mexican National Museum of Anthropology (Pasztory: 1983, 157-160) and theTzitzimitl in Codex Magliabechiano p. 76 (fig. 11). The 16th Century Dominican friar DiegoDurân (1967 I, 280) explains such a decoration as a prayer-formula in his description of theHuey Pachtli fiest:

"Bailaban en este dia un halle solemnisimo, todos vestidos de alhas pintadas muy galanas, hasta los pies;pintadas y labradas con unos corazones y paltnas de manos ahiertas, cifra que daha a entender que con las manosy el cora/ón pedian buena cosecha, por ser ya tiempo de ella".

From here to the association with blood-letting aftd human sacrifice (represented by magueyspines, skulls and other signs in the different pictures) is just one step in the ancientMesoamerican cosmovision (cf. Fernandez: 1954).

A clear example of the importance of defining clusters is the identification of place-namehieroglyphs in the Mixtec codices (Smith: 1973; Jansen: 1982). The toponyms are so oftenrepeated in actual geography that it is easy to propose places to which a specific hieroglyph mayrefer. There are indeed those who just because of the picture of a sun on a page of a codex decidethat the associated actions took place ... on the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan! Obviously,such intuitive suggestions, based on isolated elements, do not take us anywhere. Instead, onehas to form a coherent cluster of data on the base of associations of the hieroglyph with otherplace-name signs and/or personages, and then demonstrate a sensible correspondence of thiscluster to geography (a series of neighbouring towns) and/or history (the associated personagesbeing known as rulers of a town with such a name).

The frame of reference consists not only of geographical and historical data, but also ofarchaeological, linguistic, anthropological, biological and other possibly relevant informationabout the culture-area in question (Mesoamerica), as well as pertinent general theoretical-methodological insights. Much of the frame has to be built up independently of the iconologicalanalysis, as it is not possible to predict the relevance that certain pieces of information may turnout to have for solving the problems that occur during the interpretative process. A holisticapproach is advocated here: in order to interpret correctly a work of art or an act of communica-tion our knowledge of the culture which produced them needs to be as complete as possible,knowledge both from the outside (etic) and from the inside (emic), i.e. proceeding from objec-

100 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

live analysis as well as from experience and participation (cf. Sturtevant: 1964; Feleppa: 1986).The themes express the way people think about life and cosmos, deal with nature and society,create objectives, values, signs. Cultural continuity, therefore, implies the preservation of manythemes, though in a number of cases modified under colonial pressure (reduction/syncretism)and represented in other forms (disjunction). In the Americas the traditional concepts andcustoms of the indigenous communities, indeed, contain many precolonial themes: that isprecisely why they are so fundamental to Indian identity and so violently persecuted by theneocolonial ruling classes. The study of these themes and of the processes that affect Indiansociety is essential to any interpretation of the American past.

Themes hardly ever stand on their own. Both their internal cohesion (the reasons for a particularclustering) and their interconnections have to be explained by the frame of reference. The useof non-durational time is based on a complex philosophy. The marriages of the rulers reflectkinship and alliance-policies. Myth and ritual can often be analysed in terms of structures whichwill also be present elsewhere in the same culture: "The number and ordering of iconographieelements in a particular concrete expression of a religious system may also reflect the organiza-tion of the functioning social units of a society or of the contrasting units in various otherdomains of culture" (Lathrap: 1977, 337-338).

For a better understanding of the themes it is necessary to place them in their social,ideological, historical and/or ecological context and to discover the correlative facts, processesand patterns in these realms. This activity we see as the articulation between the second and thethird interpretative level. As an example of the relevance of such contextual information we citethe status of the ancient Mixtec rulers, early colonial sources mention that the lords and ladieswere called iya and iyadzehe respectively. Nowadays we can check the semantic fields of thesetitles in living Mixtec: they turn out to be limited to divine personages (the Mixtec Gods as wellas the Christian Saints and Trinity). Applying this knowledge in reading the biographies of theancient caciques, we become aware of their mythic dimension: they are not just genealogies andsequences of events, they constitute a holy history. This explains why the rulers may have divinenames and attributes (Lord 5 Alligator "Rain God—Sun" etc.). Mythical origins legitimized thepower of the royal lineages and emphasized the intimate connection of the rulers with the land:the founders of the dynasties are shown to be born from trees, rivers or the earth.

So a different perspective emerges from the use of the original Mixtec terminology: thehistorical codices obtain a religious value, comparable to that of the biblical history for Jewsand Christians. What a contrast with the etic designation of the depicted protagonists throughthe signs cr and 9 before their name, as is the custom in many publications!

Again we observe how the difference between the Borgia Group and the VindobonensisGroup cannot be adequately described in terms of religious vs. (secular) historical contents. Infact, such an opposition seems alien to Mesoamerica.

Sometimes it is possible to correlate the structure of the theme with similar structured units else-where in the culture, even when the subject matter of the theme itself remains obscure becauseof insufficient information (cf. Zuidema: 1972; Leone: 1982). One must be careful, however,not to lapse into anagrammatic or numerological games, venturing fancy interpretations basedon the reduction or conversion of pictorial elements to numbers. Nearly all numbers have somesymbolic significance in Mesoamerica, and in nearly all representations some basic structures

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 101

and oppositions can be found. Once one starts counting and reshuffling the elements, dis-regarding the contents of the themes themselves, one can construct "proofs" for almostanything, from occult astronomy to transpacific contacts (cf. Mundkur: 1978).

This second articulation, in sum, does for the themes what the first did for the signs: itestablishes their genre and context, and it systematizes their structural elements.

§ 4.3 Values

The third interpretative level is the concluding synthesis and evaluation of the results of theearlier levels and articulations. The questions to be answered here are of a general and ofteneven philosophical nature, in order to explain why this specific work with this specific messagewas created in such and such a time and place, and in order to analyse the contents andsignificance of that message from our present-day viewpoint. Here our own judgementsintervene, as to quality standards, causes of historical and social processes, relevance ofideological statements, basic structures of human behaviour and thinking etc.

In other words, the signifieds of the investigated culture on this level become the interroga-tions of the world in which we live: they are not to be isolated as curious antiquities or sterileesthetics but are to be related to the important scientific and human questions of our days, withall their educative, political and ethical dimensions.

The ancient art is a testimony of an autonomous phase of development of a civilization thattoday is still oppressed and colonized: a reality which is still sometimes forgotten in the ivorytower of academic pride. For the Indian movements the recuperation of the cultural heritageis inseparable from the social struggle, but access to and participation in the research is oftenwithheld from them. Human rights, decolonization and non-destructive development are acommon responsability of all. For the investigator of the Indian world it means an urge tosupport and collaborate with indigenous movements, both in scientific work and in personalattitude. The realization of a true Indian bilingual-bicultural education, designed and directedby the Indians themselves (cf. the projects of the Alianza de Profesionales Indigenas BilinguesA.C.) would be a first step.

Ackno wledgemen t s

This paper is the outcome of lengthy discussions with Ferdinand Anders, Aurora Père?, and Peter Van der Loo. Anders(1976) used the ethno-iconological approach with success in his studies of the San Pablito muflecos and their precolum-bian origins. This approach was then fur ther applied to the localization of place-names that appear as hieroglyphs inthe Mixtec codices (Jansen/Anders: 1976; Jansen: 1982). Perez added an important dimension to this research throughdecipherments based on a direct reading of scenes from these codices in Mixtec (Jansen/Pérez: 1983, 1986) and throughher statements on the colonial character of the studies of native American cultures and the need to change the perspec-tive of these studies in order to make them useful for real Indian bilingual-bicultural education (Pérez/Jansen: 1979;Perez: 1981, 1984). Van der Loo elaborated the method by putting it to a systematic use in his research on the BorgiaGroup, with enlightening results (1980, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986).

Notes

l Antonio de Calancha (1:14) describes in clarifying detail such indicators and the possibilities of the quipu forregistering history (see also Locke: 1923). Visual symbolism is further mentioned in a passage of the colonial-mcaicdrama O/lanla (111:3): "In this quipu there is charcoal: Ollanta is already burned. In this quipu there are three timesfive knots: Antisuyu is already taken, it is already in your hand, Inca. That is the meaning of these fivehold knots:three times five means all" ( Jansen/Bolman: 1984, 63). A fivefold knot indeed resembles a fist.

102 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

2 Archaeologists and anthropologists use the term Mesoamerica for a culture area and a co-tradition: "Geographicallyit includes Mexico south of the Pânuco-Lerma drainage, Guatemala, Salvador, British Honduras, and westernHonduras to an approximate boundary formed by the Ulüa River and Lake Yojoa. The area is one of enormousgeographical variability. At the time of the Conquest it was occupied by a great number of l inguist ic and ethnicgroups, and displayed striking regionalism in cu l tu ra l characteristics; yet in spite of the diversi ty , all these compo-nent groups participated in a single great tradition" (Sanders/Price: 1968, 6-7). See for a general overview alsoMiller: 1986. The chronology is broadly subdivided in a lithic and archaic period (till ± 2500 BC- ± 300 AD), classic(±300-±900 AD), postclassic (±900-1521 AD), viceroyal (1521-1821) and a republican period (1821 u n t i l now).For a preliminary classification of the non-Maya writ ing systems in the area, see Prem: 1973.

3 For a critical evaluation of the bias of Gelb (1952) and others, see Perez/Jansen: 1979, 93 and Whittaker: 1980,2-17. Brotherston (1985) analyses the ideas of Lévi-Strauss and Dcrrida in this respect.

4 This metaphor is known from Toltec (postclassic) history, cf. Jansen: 1985, 5.5 For general studies on the history of the discipline, see Keen: 1971; Lafaye: 1974; Bernai: 1979. As Kduard Seler

was one of the founders of the iconological analysis of ancient American art, his astral interpretations—though nowobsolete (cf. Dorson: 1955)—still influence modern studies. Even a recent introduction to Mesoamerican art echoesSelers view on Codex Borgia: "The Venus pages in the center of the manuscript contain the travels of Quct/alcoatlin the underworld" (Miller: 1986, 225).

6 This is Gordon Willey's mayor point of criticism against Kubler ' s use of the disjunction concept: "I believe thatthe pre-Columbian Mesoamerican ideological system did have an internal integri ty and coherence and that t h i scondition was relatively stable and, perhaps, as Coe maintains, can be pushed as far back in time as the Olmec.1 would argue that Kubler's parallel of Hellenistic Palmyra and Arab texts, on the one hand, and Teotihuacan andAztec ritual, on the other, is not an apt one. I would see Mesoamerica, even across the Classic-to-Postclassic transi-tion, as much more self-contained wi th in unified cultural traditional boundaries than the eastern Mediterraneanfrom Hellenistic to Muslim times" (Willey: 1973, 160).

7 The provenience of the Borgia Group was also a topic of the Dumbarton Oaks summer seminar of 1982. A list ofcorrespondences between this group and the Mixtec codices was presented there by the prcscnl author (summanmlby Sisson: 1983). The purpose of this list, however, is not to argue a Mixtec origin of the Borgia Group codicesbut to oppose an uncritical at tr ibution of that group to Cholula. In fact, one should be sceptical of the scientificvalue of the diverse speculations that unt i l now have been made about their origin. The problem is that Mixteca-Puebla style was not limited to one or two ethnic groups but a was an "international" horizon style, spread overmost of postclassic Mesoamerica. The codices themselves must have been a central factor in the formation anddistribution of this style. Comparisons between codices and .ceramics or frescoes, therefore, are not conclusive. Alook at mediaeval Europe makes us reali/e that the books travelled, as did the painters, that the important codexpainting schools need not have been correlated with centres of political power nor with centres of other artist icproduction, and that differences in painting style do not express geographical distances. The few precolonial codicespreserved are much too small a sample to reconstruct this complex situation.

8 It is interesting to note that several difrasisnws occur in both Nahuatl and Mixtec: water and fire (all tlachinolliand nduta ndecu respectively) for "war" (cf. Codex Borgia 69), water and mountain (in all in tepell and yucu ndutarespectively) for "city" (cf. Codex Vindobonensis 52).

9 Instructive examples of how a theme is discovered and described are given by Kubler (1969), Nicholson (1971, 1973),Donnan (1978) and Van der Loo (1986).

Bibliography

G. Aguirre Beltrân1970 El Proceso de Aculturación en Mexico. Mexico.

Alianza de Profesionales Indigenas Bilingues A.C.1980 Los Indigenas y su Politica Educativa. Ixmiquilpan.

P. Anawalt1981 Costume Analysis and the Provenience of the Borgia Group Codices. In: American Antiquity 46:4, 837-852.

F. Anders1976 Mexikanische Zauberfiguren (Ausstellungskatalog). Wien.

J. M. A. Aubin1849 Mémoire sur la peinture didactique et l 'écriture figurative des anciens Mexicains. Paris.

G. Balandier1973 Teoria de la Descolonización, Las dinâmicas sociales (Spanish translation of Sens et Puissance. Paris 1971).

Buenos Aires.R. Barthes

1971 Elementos de Semiologia (Spanish translation of Elements de Sémiologie. Paris 1964). Madrid.

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 103

I. Bernai1979 Historia de la Arqueologia en México. Mexico.

V. R. Bricker1981 Las ceremonias de aflo nuevo en los monumentos cläsicos mayas (paper presented at the XVII Mesa Redonda

of the Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia. San Cristobal de las Casas).G. Brotherston

1985 Towards a grammatology of America: Lévi-Strauss, Derrida, and the native new world text. In: Europe andits others, edited by F. Barker, P. Hulme, M. Iversen and D. Loxley, vol. II, 61-77, Colchester.

A. de la Calancha1638 Corónica Moralizada del Orden de San Agustin en el Peru. Barcelona.

A. Caso1927 Las ruinas de Tizatlan, Tlaxcala. In: Revista Mexicana de Estudios Históricos 1:4, 139-172.1949 El Mapa de Teozacoalco. In: Cuadernos Americanos VII1:5, 145-181.

J. C. Clark1938 Codex Mendoza (3 vols.). London.

F. J. Clavigero1780/81 Storia antica del Messico (4 vols.). Cesena.

Codex Becker I/II1961 Edition and commentary by K. A. Nowotny. Graz.

Codex Bodley 28581960 Edition and commentary by A. Caso. México.

Codex Borgia1976 Edition and commentary by K. A. Nowotny. Graz.

Codex Magliabechiano (CL. XIII.3, B.R. 232)1970 Edition and commentary by F. Anders. Graz.

Codex Mendoza see Clark 1938.Codex Nuttal l

1975 Edition by Z. Nuttall, new commentary by A. C. Miller. New York.Codex Telleriano-Remensis

1899 Edition and commentary by E. T. Hamy. Paris.Codex Seiden 3135

1964 Edition and commentary by A. Caso. Mexico.Codex Vaticanus A (= lat. 3738)

1979 Edition without commentary. Graz.Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus 1

1974 Edition and introduction by O. Adelhofer. Graz.M. D. Coe

1976 Early Steps in the Evolution of Maya Writing. In: Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in PreclassicMesoamerica, edited by H. B. Nicholson, 107-122. Los Angeles.

A. Cordy-Collins1977 The Moon is a Boat!: A study in Iconographie Methodology. In: Precolumbian Art History, Selected

Readings, edited by A. Cordy—Collins and .1. Stern, 421-434. Palo Alto.J. de Laet

1633 Novus Orbis seu Descriptionis Indiae Occidentalis LL. XVII I . Leiden.Ch. E. Dibble

1971 Writing in Central Mexico. In: Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by R. Wauchope, vol. 10,322-331. Austin.

C. B. Donnan1978 Moche Art of Peru. Los Angeles.

R. M. Dorson1955 The eclipse of solar mythology. In: Journal of American Folklore 68, 393-416.

D. Durän1967 Historia de la Indias de Nueva Espafia e Islas de Tierra Firme (2 vols.). Mexico.

J. de Durand-Forest1966/67 Survivance de quelques techniques précolombiennes dans le Mexique moderne. In: Journal de la Société

des Américanistes LV-2, 525-561, and LVI, 95-147.M. Durbin

1969 An Interprétation of Bishop Diego de Land's Maya Alphabet. In: Middle American Research InstitutePublication 12, 169-179. New Orléans.

104 M. E. R. O. N. JANSEN

U. Eco1978 Tratado de Semiótica General (Spanish translation of A Theory of Semiotics. Milan 1976). Mexico.

M. S. Edmonson1978 Los Popol Vuh. In: Estudios de Cultura Maya XI, 249-266. Mexico.

J. L. Fâbrega1899 Interpretación del Códice Borgiano. In: Anales del Museo Nacional de México V.

N. Faraclas1983 Preliminaries to Tonemic and Tonomechanical Analysis for the Chalcatongo Dialect of Mixtec. In: Studies

in Mesoamerican Linguistics, Report 4, 307-331. Berkeley.R. Feleppa

1986 Emics, Etics and Social Objectivity. In: Current Anthropology 27:3, 243-255.J. Fernandez

1954 Coatlicue, estética del arte indigena antigua. Mexico.P. Fitzpatrick

1980 Law, Modernization and Mystification. In: Research in Law and Sociology 3, 161-178.J. Galarza

1967 Prénoms et noms de lieux exprimés par des attributs Chrétiens dans les manuscrits pictographiquesmexicains. In: Journal de la Société des Américanistes LVI-2, 533-583.

A. M. Garibay1971 Historia de la Literatura Nahuatl (2 vols.). Mexico.

I. Gelb1952 A Study of Writing. Chicago.

J. B. Glass/D. B. Robertson1975 A census of Native American Pictorial Manuscripts. In: Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by

R. Wauchope, vol. 14, 81-252. Austin.D. C. Grove

1981 Olmec Monuments, Muti lat ion as a Clue to Meaning. In: The Olmec and their Neighbours, edited by E. P.Benson. Dumbarton Oaks.

T. Hawkes1977 Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley, Los Angeles.

I. Hodder1982 The Present Past. London.

E. Hunt1977 The Transformation of the Hummingbird. Ithaka, London.

M. E. R. G. N. Jansen1982 Huisi Tacu, estudio interprétative de un libro mixteco antiguo: Codex Vindobonensis Mexicamis I.

Amsterdam.1984 El Códice Rios y Fray Pedro de los Rios. In: Boletin de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe 36, 69-81.1985 Las Lenguas Divinas del México Precolonial. In: Boletin de Estudios Latinoamericanos Y del Caribe 38,

3-14.M. E. R. G. N. Jansen/F. Anders

1976 Die Wiener präkolumbischen handschrif ten, neue Ansalze zu ihrer Interpretation. In: Codices Manuscript!11:1, 10-15.

M. E. R. G. N. Jansen/E. D. Bolman1984 Ollanta. In: Wampum 2/3, 4-88.

M. E. R. G. N. Jansen/G. A. Perez1983 The Ancient Mexican Astronomical Apparatus: An Iconographical Crit icism. In: Archaeoastronomy IV,

89-95.1986 lyadzehe Aflute, valor literario de los codices mixtecos (manuscript, paper presented at t he symposium La

Dinâmica Etnica de Oaxaca. Oaxaca 1985).P. D. Joralemon

1976 The Olmec Dragon: A Study in Pre-Columbian Iconography. In: Origins of Religious Art and Iconographyin Preclassic Mesoamerica, edited by H. B. Nicholson, 27-71. Los Angeles.

E. Kaemmerling (ed.)1979 Ikonographie und Ikonologie. Cologne.

B. Keen1971 The A/tec Image in Western Thought. New Brunswick.

D. H. Kelley1976 Deciphering the Maya Script. Austin.

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 105

A. Kircher1652-54 Oedipus Aegyptiacus. Rome.

U. Köhler1985 Olmeken und Jaguare, zur Deutung von Mischwesen in der präklassischen Kunst Mesoamerikas. In:

Anthropos 80, 15-52.G. Kubler

1964 On the Colonial Extinction of the Motifs of Pre-Columbian Art. In: Essays in Pre-Columbian Art andArchaeology, by S. K. Lothrop and others, 14-34. Cambridge Mass.

1967 The iconography of the art of Teotihuacan. Dumbarton Oaks.1969 Studies in Classic Maya Iconography. In: Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences X V I I I .

New Haven.1972 La evidencia intrinseca y la analogia en el estudio de las religiones mesoamericanas. In: Religion en

Mesoamerica, edited by J. Litvak and N. Castillo. Mexico.1973 Science and Humanism among Americanists. In: The Iconography of Middle American Sculpture, by I.

Bernai and others, 163-167. The Metropolitan Museum of Ar t .J. Lafaye

1974 Quetzalcoatl et Guadalupe. Paris.D. W. Lathrap

1977 Gifts of the Cayman: some thoughts on the subsistence basis of Chavin. In: Pre-Columbian Art History,Selected Readings, edited by A. Cordy Collins and J. Stern, 333-351. Palo Alto.

M. P. Leone1982 Some opinions about recovering mind. In: American Antiqui ty 47:4, 742-760.

D. Lewis1973 Anthropology and Colonialism. In : Current Anthropology 14:5, 581-602.

Th. J. J. Leyenaar1978 Ulama: the perpetuation in Mexico of the pre-Spanish ballgame u l lamal i / t l i . In: Mededelingen Rijksmuseum

voor Volkenkunde X X I I I . I eiden.L. L. Locke

1923 The ancient Quipu or Peruvian knot record. The American Museum of Natural History, New York.A. G. Miller

1973 The Mural Paintings of Teotihuacan. Dumbarton Oaks.M. E. Miller

1986 The Art of Mesoamerica from Olmec to A?tec. London.B. Mundkur

1978 The Alleged Diffusion of Hindu Divine Symbols in to Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica: A Critique. In: CurrentAnthropology 19:3, 541-583.

J. V. Murra1975 Formaciones cconomicas \ polnicas del mundo andino. I ima.

H. B. Nicholson1971 Religion in pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In: Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by R.

Wauchope, vol. 10, 395-447. Austin.1973 The late pre-Hispanic Central Mexican (A/tec) iconographical sysiem. In: The Iconography of Middle

American Sculpture, by 1. Bernai and others, 72-97. The Metropolitan Museum of Ar t .1976 Preclassic Mesoatnerican Iconography from the Perspective of the Postclassic: Problems in Interpretat ional

Analysis. In: Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica, edited by H. B.Nicholson, 157-175 Los Angeles.

K. A. Nowotny1959 Die Hieroglyphen des Codex Mcndo/a: der Bau einer mittelamerikanischen Wortschrift. In: Mitteilungen

aus dem Museum für Völkerkunde und Vorgeschichte Hamburg XXV, 97-113.1961 Tlacuilolli. die mexikanische Bilderhandschriftcn, Slil und Inha l t . Berlin.

E. Pas/tory1983 A/tec A r t . New York.

A. Penafiel1885 Nombres Geogrâficos de Mexico. Mexico.

G. A. Père/1981 Anthropology in my view. In: IWGIA Newsletter 28/29, 82-86.1984 Mexico: Bilingual-Bicultural Education, a synthes is of documents from the Al ian /a Nacional de los Profe-

sionales liidigeiias Bil ingues Asociación Civil. In: IWGIA Newsletter 38. 90-103.G. A. Pére//M. E. R. G. N. Jansen

1979 Los Codices y la Consciencia de Ser Indigcna. In: Rcvisla Mexicana dc ( lencus I 'o l i i i c . i s \ Sociales 97,82-104.

106 M. E. R. O. N. JANSEN

H. J. Prem1973 A tentative classification of non-Maya writing systems in Mesoamerica. In: Indiana 1, 29-58.1974 Matricula de Huexotzingo. Graz.

S. Purchas1625 Purchas His Pilgrimes (vol. 3). London.

R. Ravines (ed.)1978 Tecnologia Andina. Lima.

D. Robertson1966 The Mixtec religious manuscripts. In: Ancient Oaxaca, edited by J. Paddock, 298-312. Stanford.

R. L. Roys1967 The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Norman.

B. de Sahagün1950-70 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain, edited and translated by Ch. E. Dibble

and A. J. O. Anderson. Santa Fe.W. T. Sanders/B. J. Price

1968 Mesoamerica: the evolution of a civilization. New York.L. Schele

1982 Maya Glyphs: The Verbs. Austin.1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Fort Worth.

J. G. de Sepülveda1979 Tratado sobre las justas causas de la guerra contra los indios. Mexico.

E. B. Sisson1983 Recent Work on the Borgia Group codices. In: Current Anthropology 24, 653-656.

M. E. Smith1973 Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico, Mixtec Place Signs and Maps. Norman.1983 The Mixtec Writing System. In: The Cloud People, Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civiliza-

tions, edited by K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 238-245. Academic Press.M. E. Smith/C. M. Heath-Smith

1980 Waves of Influence in Postclassic Mesoamerica? A Critique of the Mixteca-Puebla Concept. In:Anthropology 4:2, 15-50.

D. Stiles1977 Ethnoarchaeology: A Discussion of Methods and Applications. In: Man (N.S.) 12, 87-103.

W. C. Sturtevant1964 Studies in Ethnoscience. In: American Anthropologist 66:3, 99-131.

B. Tedlock1982 Time and the Highland Maya. Albuquerque.

J. E. S. Thompson1962 A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. Norman.

B. Uspensky1976 The Semiotics of the Russian Icon. Lisse.

P. L. Van der Loo1980 Op zoek naar Ndikaa Hui 'ku 'u . Manuscript.1982a Rituales con manojos contados en el Grupo Borgia y entre los Tlapanecos de hoy dia. In: Los Indigenas de

México en la Época precolombina y en la Actualidad, edited by M. E. R. G. N. Jansen and Th. J. J.Leyenaar, 232-243. Leiden.

1982b Culturele Continuïteit in Mesoamerika. In: Latijns Amerika Studies in Leiden, edited by R. Buve and J.Lechner, 31-38. Leiden.

1983 The Tratado of Hernando Ruiz de Alarcón, A link between Precolumbian and Modern Indian Culture inGuerrero, Mexico. In: Archaeoastronomy VI, 177-185.

1986 Codices, Costumbres y Continuidad. Manuscript.G. Whittaker

1980 The Hieroglyphs of Monte Alban. Dissertation, Yale.G. R. Wiliey

1973 Mesoamerican Art and Iconography and the Integrity of the Mesoamerican Ideological System. In: TheIconography of Middle American Sculpture, by I. Bernai and others, 153-162. The Metropolitan Museumof Art.

R. T. Zuidema1972 Meaning in Nazca Art: Iconographie relationships between Inca-, Huari-, and Nazca cultures in Southern

Peru. In: Göteborgs Etnografiska Museum Àrstryck 1971, 35-54.

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 107

List of Illustrations

\. Ancient Peruvian quipu. Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, Leiden: RMV 3344-1.2. The scattering rite performed by a singing priest. Classic Teotihuacan fresco. Rijksmuseum

voor Volkenkunde, Leiden: RMV 3999-1.3. The scattering rite performed by Lord Bird Jaguar of Yaxchilan (left) on a classic Maya

lintel from La Pasadita, dated 8 Ahau 18 Pop (February 13, 766 AD). The "handscattering" glyph (T 1.710:130) is the third from above in the central column ofhieroglyphs. Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, Leiden: RMV 3939-1.

4. The scattering rite performed by Lord 3 Rain for the Holy Bundle in the sanctuary of theMixtec town Jaltepec. Codex Seiden 5-I1.

5 A man sings and plays the drum during a Mixtec ceremony. Codex Becker I, 7-I1I.6. A list of place-name signs and burned temples represents the conquests of the Aztec ruler

Moctezuma II. The Nahuatl names are written above the hieroglyphs as glosses in theSpanish alphabet. Codex Mendoza 16.

7. Tributes to be paid by the conquered towns (listed on the left hand- and bottom side ofthe page) to the Aztec ruler. Codex Mendoza 2 1 V .

8. "The painter of books. Songs emanate from his heart". From a description of the Mixtecculture hero Lord 9 Wind. Codex Vindobonensis 48-11.

9. "Those who gave the thrones (rulership) and the cradles (genealogies), those who are lyingon the roads and along the irrigation channels (nuu ichi, nuu sichi), under the living rocksand at the base of the trees". From a description of the Mixtec primordial beings. CodexVindobonensis 34-111.

10. Hand, heart and skull on a postclassic fresco, decorating an altar in Tizatlan (Caso 1929).11. The malignant spirit Tzitzimitl with a necklace and a headband of hearts and hands. Codex

Magliabechiano 76.

108 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

1. Peruvian i/iu/ni

2. The scattering rite performed by a singing priest.

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 109

3. The scattering rite performed by Lord Bird Jaguar of Yaxchilan.

110 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

4. The scattering rite performed, by Lord 3 Rain.

5. Mixtec ceremony.

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 1 1 1

"tc~ ' i-ivy ̂ Y .''•''-

•entr>ttf\, u^> -hi+C<ec W1<* *•*"«. c«d<**A<f

6. A list of the conquests of Moctezuma II.

112 M. E. R. G. N. JANSEN

7. List of tributes to the Aztec ruler.

THE ART OF WRITING IN ANCIENT MEXICO 113

o.En.

oa

•ac

-accdI