See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275929206

The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. Vol. 1: The Classic Period Inscriptions

Article  in  Latin American Antiquity · September 2005

DOI: 10.2307/30042499

CITATIONS READS

28 194

3 authors, including:

Søren Wichmann Martha J Macri

Leiden University University of California, Davis
200 PUBLICATIONS   2,565 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   654 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computer methods in typology and comparativistics View project

Maya Hieroglyphic Database Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Søren Wichmann on 08 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Society for American Archaeology

The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. Vol. 1: The Classic Period Inscriptions by Martha J.
Macri; Matthew G. Looper
Review by: Sören Wichmann
Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 349-350
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30042499 .
Accessed: 10/01/2015 09:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.94.96.194 on Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:24:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEWS 349

(1999).Announcements forMayaZooarchaeology pub- catesa subcategory, anda numberdistinguishes among

licize it as highlightingrecenttrendsin zooarchaeo- thedifferentsignsinthecategory.Signswithelongated
logicalmethodand theory.It coversinnovativeand shapesarenot assignedletters,butnumbers("1"for
cutting-edge methodologies in combination withtried oneelement,"2fortwoelements,etc.),andthesesigns
andtruemethods,althoughseriousissuesneedrefine- areorderedlastin thecatalog.Theassignment of num-
ment,such as taphonomyand the most appropriate bersratherthanlettersto thesesignsmakethemstand
quantificationmethods.The verdictis still out on outintheformalsystemratherlikeThompson's affixes
whetherthisbookrepresents a newdirectionin social did, and manyof Thompson'saffixesactuallyrecur
zooarchaeology. Theauthorsexpandtraditional inter- amongMacriandLooper's"elongated" signs.
pretations of zooarchaeological dataintheMayaworld Themajornewfeaturesarethefollowing.Foreach
andconnectthemto socialorganization, politicalecon- sign, generallyagreed-uponphoneticvalues (when
omy, and ritual,but understanding sociallyembodied available)aregivenin whatwouldbe thepronouncia-
livedexperienceanddailypracticesof ancientMaya tionsof a modemYucatecMayaanda Ch'olspeaker.
peopleremainsa goal for futureresearchin zooar- Thenfollowdictionary entriesof relevanceto theread-
chaeology. ingsfromYucatec, Ch'olan,andoccasionally oneortwo
otherlanguages.Andfinallytherearelists of propos-
als concerningdecipherments by, in principle,any
TheNew Catalogof MayaHieroglyphs.Vol.1: The scholarwhohasevervoicedanopinion.Theoftenmas-
ClassicPeriodInscriptions. MARTHA J.MACRIand sive numberof citationsareorderedintosix different
MATTHEW G. LOOPER.Universityof Oklahoma periods.Finally,variousappendicesaregiven,among
Press,Norman.2003.480 pp.,illustrations, drawings. themlistsof syllabicsignsandlogograms orderedafter
$59.95(cloth). theirvalues.The referencesectionhas close to 500
entries.Thevolumecontainsa wealthof nicedrawings
Reviewedby SorenWichmann, MaxPlanckInstitute by MatthewLooperandis bothtechnicallywell pro-
forEvolutionary Anthropology. ducedandhandsome.
The catalogclearly surpassesits predecessors,
Formorethanacentury, manypublications have offered includingThompson.Butit doesnotreachthe schol-
lists andcataloguesof the inventoryof signs in the arlylevelthatwouldsecureit thekindof impactin the
Mayawritingsystem.Amongthese,Thompson's Cat- twenty-first centurythatThompson's workhadon the
alogof MayaHieroglyphs from1962standsoutas the fieldin thetwentieth.It is usefulthatsomesignsthat
most comprehensiveand authoritative.As is well werenotfoundin earliercataloguesareincluded,but
known,however, therearemanyproblems withThomp- thecatalogis limitedto theClassicperiodmonumen-
son'scatalog:sometimesdifferentsignsareassigned talinscriptions, whicharealreadyquitewellresearched.
the samenumberor variantsof one signareassigned A trulygroundbreaking newcatalogwouldincludeall
differentnumbers,conflationsof differentsigns are signson the morethana thousandceramictextsthat
sometimestreatedas singlesigns,andof coursenew havebeenpublished,and,to reachThompson'sstan-
signsoccurring in inscriptionsthathaveappeared after dards,wouldincludeunpublished ceramictextsaswell.
1962 are missing. Moreover,the distinctionmade Sincetheiconicshapesof signsdonotrelateto any
between"mainsigns"(signsfillinga square,roughly) distinction in thewritingsystemas such,thenewclas-
and"affixes"(elongatedsigns)is a falseone,notper- sification system,although itdoesmakesomewhat more
tinentto thewritingsystem. sensethanThompson's, remainsarbitrary. Theintro-
Macriand Looper'sNew Catalogrepresentsan ductionof the systemand this wouldbe trueof any
attempt bothto remedythedeficienciesof Thompson's othernewsystemis notin itselfenoughto motivatea
catalogandto addotherfeatures.Thus,it presentsa newcatalog.Inactualpracticeepigraphers rarelyrefer
morecompleteinventoryandavoidsconfusionin the to signsbyThompson-numbers, andtheyarenotlikely
identificationof signs.Forthefirsttimea newsystem to makemuchuse of the Macri-Looper designations
forcataloguing thesignsis offered.Inthenewsystem either.
the signs are groupedinto categoriesdefinedby the Thereadingsof signsindicatedare,as mentioned,
iconic shapesof the signs.MacriandLooperuse a renderedin modernYucatecand Ch'ol. These are
mnemotechnical letteringsystemto distinguish among arguablyamongthe modemlowlandlanguagesthat
signs thatresemble animals (A), birds(B),persons(P), have least affinitywith the Classicinscriptions.So
etc.,as well as moreabstract-looking signs,whichare Macriand Looper'stranscriptionsare strangeand
groupedintosquare-shaped symmetrical (X), square- potentiallyveryconfusing.By now,decipherment has
shapedasymmetrical (Y),etc.Anadditional letterindi- progressed so farthatwe usuallyknowthephonolog-

This content downloaded from 194.94.96.194 on Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:24:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 350 LATINAMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.16, No. 3, 2005]

icalvaluesof signsatthelinguisticstagescorrespond- (orKUM)"tosit,"a 1990publication by JohnJuste-

ingtotheperiodswhenthesignswereused.Sometimes son and PeterMathewsis given, althoughWilliam
logogramshavepronunciations thataredifferentfrom Ringle,in a publication from1985,creditedMichael
thewaythatspeakersof anycurrent lowlandMayalan- Closswiththatreading.Stuart,Houston,andRobert-
guagewouldpronouncethem.Thatis, the languages son appearas thefirstto havereadHM1/T519as b'o
of the inscriptionsamongwhich an early form of in 1999,althoughthiswas proposedarounda decade
Ch'olanis by far the dominantonehave theirown before by WernerNahm and Nikolai Grube.The
identities.Itmakeslittlesense,then,to transcribe signs KO'HAWreadingof ZD5/T678is notcreditedto any-
intoYucatecandCh'ol. Suchapractice radicallydeparts one althoughit has been aroundat least since 1989.
fromcommonpracticein the epigraphiccommunity. LindaScheleis citedashavingproposedthechoread-
Moreover, theauthorshaveinexplicably chosennotto ingof HJ1/T590in 1991,butthiswasalreadyproposed
followstandard conventionsof rendering logogramsin byGrubeinthe1989catalogof KomeliaKurbjuhn. For
boldcapitalsandsyllabicsignsin bold smallletters, theAYINreadingof AL6/T844,onlya 1993paperby
butratheruse bolditalicsforbothcategoriesof signs. Khristiaan Villelais cited,althoughLindaScheleand
Thus,boththetranscriptions andthewaytheyarewrit- NikolaiGrube,in a 1994work,creditedDavidStuart
tenarehighlyunrecommendable. Inaddition,thepro- withhavingproduced thatreadingbefore1992.Thelist
posedvaluescitedaresometimeshighlycontroversial of sourcesfortheLAKAMreadingof ZS8/T767misses
or downrightbizarre,such as the "bone"readingof boththereferenceto thefirstannouncementmade by
HJ1-2/T590a-b orthek'a readingfor2S6.Othertimes Schelein a 1993publicationwhereshe creditsStu-
the valuesgiven simplylag behindcurrentdevelop- artas well as thereferenceto theplacewherethefull
ments.Forinstance,theinsightsof NikolaiGrube,first arguments forthereadings werepresented, namelyStu-
communicated tocolleaguesaround1990,regarding the art's1995Ph.D.dissertation. An 1883workby Leon
systematicdistinctionbetweenhV andjV signs,are de Rosnyis givenas thesourceforthereadingK'AB'
neglected. "hand" of MR2/T713a. Buttherealcreditfortheread-
As mentioned,the valuesof signsarefollowedin ing, as producedon modemprinciples,shouldgo to
the entriesby citationsof pertinentYucatecanand Christian Prager,asacknowledged by SimonMartinin
Ch'olanlanguagedata.Sometimesformsfromall or a publication from1994.Thehe readingof ZU8/T574
mostYucatecanlanguagesare cited, sometimesjust is creditedto theauthorsof the2002workbook forthe
Yucatec.ForCh'olan,the dataareusuallyjust repre- Texasmeetings,i.e. Martin,Zender,andGrube,but
sentedby reconstructions published byTerrence Kauf- was actuallyfirstproposedin 1999,also in theTexas
man and Will Normanin 1984. These data are a forum,by Stuart,Houston,andRobertson. I couldgo
convenient selection,notafulllist.Today'sepigraphers on likethis,buttheobservations madesufficeto warn
oftenneedlinguisticdatathatgo beyondthe lowland thereaderthatthehistoriesof individual decipherments
languages, andrecentpublications oftencitenewrecon- suggestedby thecitationsarenotalwaysadequate.
structionsthatdiffersignificantly fromthoseof Kauf- In conclusion,althoughTheNewCatalogof Maya
manandNorman.The linguisticformscitedmaybe Hieroglyphs is thebestcurrently availablecatalog,it is
usefulforthestudent,butforthescholartheyareoften notanywhere nearbeingthekindof authoritative work
insufficient. thatmighthelpscholarsof Mayaepigraphyprogress
Themanycitationsof proposed readingsmaysome- significantlyin theirfield.The bookwill be a useful
timesbeuseful,butinessencemostof themjustparade resourceforstudents, buttheywillneedto alsoconsult
scholarlyfailures. Crucially,what the student orwork- othersources of informationinordertoavoidthebook's
ing epigrapher needsto knowis (1) whois to be cred- manypitfalls.
itedwiththecurrently acceptedreadingof a givensign,
and(2) wherethatreadingwas firstpublished.This
information is usuallyburiedsomewhere in themiddle MakingEcuadorian Histories:FourCenturies ofDefin-
of themanycitations,butoftentimesit is actuallymiss- ing Power.0. HUGOBENAVIDES.Universityof
ing. This goes bothfor some older,well established TexasPress,Austin,2004.231 pp.$50.00(cloth)
readingsandformorerecentones.Forinstance,Hein-
richBerlincontributed significantlytothedecipherment ReviewedbyXimenaSosa-Buchholz
of thePC1/T1000ab femaleheadin a publication from
1959,butis not mentionedin the entryfor thatsign. 0. HugoBenavides writesaprovocative bookthatinter-
David Kelley first published his reading b'a of twinesarcheological research, historical
materialand
XE1/T501in 1962,notin 1976as onewouldbe ledto thepoliticalproduction of hegemonyin Ecuador.His
believe.Fortheearliestreadingof HT8//772asCHUM yearlongethnographic studyat the archeological site

This content downloaded from 194.94.96.194 on Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:24:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
View publication stats