83
A PAINTED CAPSTONE FROM THE MAYA AREA
Christopher Jones
Introduction
Mesoamerican archaeology is in an exciting period of synthesis, in which many
scholars are making attempts to understand their particular areas or sites as parts of
the complex development of civilization in the Americas. The spirit of synthesis has
often re-exposed the shakiness of the scaffolding on which some of the most trusted
chronologies are based. One of the frustrating chronological controversies at present
is that of the architectural styles of the Yucatan Peninsula, with its strongly regional
nature and its apparently sudden changes and abandonments. Attempts have seemed to
fall so far to reconcile differences of viewpoint in such major matters as the correlation
of the Northern and Southern Maya Lowland sequences (see Willey and Shimkin 1973:
471- 473 for a recent statement), and even the basic outline of the architectural sequence
at Chichen Itza (Parsons 1969: 172-184).
The present paper is written for two purposes. The first is to illustrate and
describe a hitherto unpublished painted Maya capstone from the peninsula and present
a reading of its inscription. The second is to review our knowledge about capstone dates
and scenes in the belief that these small paintings can contribute toward a resolution of
some of the above-mentioned controversies, as well as toward a better understanding
of the complex religious beliefs of the area.
The University Museum Capstone: The Artifact
William R. Coe, curator of the American Section of the University Museum,
has kindly furnished the following comments upon the physical appearance of the Univer-
sity Museum Capstone as well as a photograph (Plate 1), a drawing of the painted scene
(Figure 1), and a drawing of the capstone as an object (Figure 2).
"In 1965 the University Museum received as a gift an intricately painted
slab of limestone. It was accompanied by the most vague attribution of 'Yucatan. '
There is no reason to doubt that this object originally functioned as a capstone, that is,
one of a series of the horizontally, transversely set stones forming the ceiling of
corbel-vaulted chambers in Maya architecture.
"This capstone (Catalogue No. 65-44-1) is incomplete lengthwise, measuring
60 cm. Its intact width is 33 cm. Seen in terms of its painted surface, its bottom edge
does seem to retain a short span of original surface. The space from this edge to the
base of the painting is 19 cm. Doubling this and adding the length of the painting, i. e.,
35.8 cm., we arrive at 74 cm. as the approximate original length of the capstone.
84
Traces of raised, secondarily applied plaster form a transverse line across the face of
the stone at a point 7 cm. below the painting. This line should mark the uppermost edge
of one vault face. If we double this gap and add again the length of the painting, the
visible span of the stone installed was about 50 cm.
"Longitudinally, the face of the stone is essentially flat, but with a slight
convexity side-to-side. The whole underside of the piece has been recently removed by
a combination of round-chiseling from the sides and sawing. This has left not more
than 5. 5 cm. of the original thickness. The stone was anciently beveled from its face
to its rear, buried in situ top. These sides were pecked, then rough-smoothed.
Though we have little left with which to judge, its ends probably were flat rather than
beveled.
"Turning to the painting, this was done on a thin (a matter of millimeters)
hard smooth cream plaster that entirely sizes the face of the capstone. The poorly
squared painting was executed in a red specular hematite paint. Two brushes appear to
have been used, one 2 mm. wide and a second about 1 mm. wide. The smaller one was
often used in a double-stroke fashion to achieve relatively wide lines. The immediately
surrounding rectangular frame consists of outer and inner thin specular red lines that
originally carried entirely across the face of the stone. These lines and the lateral
edges of the stone bound the frame proper. This frame was painted a variably opaque
orange-red rather than specular red. An important point is that three cir cular drops
.of orange-red occur within the line-work proper; in one case, the orange drop overlaps
specular red. We can thus be fairly certain that the whole painting was carried out
before the installation of the capstone, since the arops must have fallen downward.
"Following its placement across the gap of the vault, finger-daubed plaster
was applied to the four visible peripheries of the face of the stone. This plaster survives
today as low plaster lips along the sides and below the painted frame. The 'left' lip is
very pronounced in its 'lift. I This lip clearly overlies the original edge of the specular
red transverse outer frame line, again indicating that the painting preceded installation.
Both left and right plaster lips were painted red-orange to match the coloring of the
interior of the frame.
"The curvature of the left longitudinal lip of plaster might suggest that the
capstone occurred at an end of a row of such stones but is more probably an indicative
of an imperfect alignment to a neighboring capstone, since painted capstones were usually
placed centrally above a doorway. The sectional conformation of right hand plaster does
suggest that masons filled the interstice between this capstone and the adjacent one.
What remains of this secondarily applied plaster is also painted orange-red. Presumably
the application of color to these lateral lines of plaster was only carried as far as the
sides of the stone proper. At issue here is whether the rest of the line of capstones and
the vaults proper were painted orange-red as well. We can only note that the vestiges of
transverse secondary plaster (below the frame) were left unpainted, a fact indicative of
plain vault soffits.
85
"The ends of the stone appear to be old break-lines. The heavily faded area
in the lower right quarter of the painting might be the result of water damage. Two deep
and old-appearing nicks, each about 3. 5 cm. long, occur on the painted face (Figure 1:
at Glyph A2 and to the left of A4 and A5). These features indicate that the capstone was
recovered from collapsed vault debris. To lighten the piece, the back of the stone was
removed in the manner already indicated.
"The painting proper is primarily illustrated here (Figure 1) by blackened
and stipple-shaded lines which follow the relative intensities of the surviving specular
red paint. Broken-line restoration is used only in the case of Glyph A2. Water damage,
as we have noted, probably accounts for the weakness of line work in the lower right of
the panel. The inked rendering of the scene was traced on a full-scale photograph and
then carefully checked against the original. Glyphic material has been referenced in
the system of the Tikal Project. It is necessary to note that Glyph wAl refers to the
sign painted on the shoulder of the left personage; Glyph xAl to that carried in his hands;
and yAl to the sign on which he directly sits. The 'planetary band' of the right 'bench'
has not been labeled. "
The Scene and Glyphs
The scene on the University Museum Capstone depicts two figures in profile
seated close to and facing one another. J. Eric Thompson, in a recent study of the
Sacnicte capstone (1973: 60), has identified the left-hand figure here as the maize god
(God E of Shellhas, 1904). The deity is depicted with his characteristically youthful face
and maize headdress. The headdress, which Shellhas says is derived from an ear of
maize, emerges from a "curved-line" glyph, 617 in Thompson's Catalog (1962) instead
of the usual kan glyph (506) of the codex representations. Under the ear of corn, the
god is wearing a tied cloth headband, the ends of which project forward in the same
manner as on much Late Classic Maya pottery painting (cf. W. R. Coe 1967: 52). The
feathers projecting out behind the sash are also arranged like Late Classic headdresses.
The figure wears a flaring-edged "ear spool, " wristlets made of beads, and a bead
necklace. A small pendant on his necklace has the projecting nose of the rain god (God
B) or the beak of the screech-owl, both of which occur as pendants at Tikal (cf. Tikal
Stelae 5, 22 , 16 and Temple IV Lintel 3).
The figure appears markedly hunchbacked, as indicated by the shortened torso,
the strong curved line under the shoulder blade, and the excessive distance between the
arm and backbone. In his recent study of the Sacnicte Capstone, Thompson (1973: 60-61)
points out on that stone a hunchbacked dwarf facing another standing figure. He states
that dwarfs and hunchbacked figures are associated with hallucinatory drugs and the
resultant divine messages in Maya folklore. Such a context is in keeping with the glyphic
message of abundant food (see below) which the figure holds up in his hands, but in this
case, the hunchbacked figure is not a dwarf and seems to be the god himself presenting
the message. Some of the gods on Chenes capstones have similarly protruding backs
(see below).
86
Hunchbacks and dwarfs occur among the many figurines from the island of
Jaina off the Campeche coast. Corson (1973: 60-61) notes that hunchbacks occur ex-
clusively in Jaina I and dwarfs exclusively in Jaina II. Although time limits for the two
periods were not offered in the cited paper, this observation does support the contention
below that the University Museum Capstone is early in the Late Classic - Terminal
Classic - Postclassic sequence of the western Yucatan.
The figure of the maize god wears a glyph on his shoulder (Glyph wAl of
Figure 1), a clear kan cross (281MS) surmounted by two bars and the visible traces
of a centrally placed dot (see Table 1 for a listing of the glyphs on the capstone). The
scrolls and a single dot on both sides of the glyph are probably not numerical. Thompson
(1950: 276-277) thinks that the kan cross has the general meaning of "precious" as well
as "yellow" and can be freely substituted for symbols for green, jade, shells, and
completion in his "water group" of affixes. The number 11 above the glyph is repre-
sented at times in its head variant form by Thompson's God R. Thompson (1950: 131)
says that "God R is benevolent, and his associations are with the maize god" and also
that God R might be the god named Buluc-Ch'abtan in the colonial period Chumayel
Manuscript. Roys (1933: 134) translates the name as "11 penances" or "11 times for-
tunate." On the capstone, the name would read, "11 precious things" or " 11 yellow," bcth
fitting names for the maize god. With such associations, the sign would be appropriate
as a name for the maize god, written on his shoulder in the same way as names seem
to be written on the skin of some figures on Late Classic monuments.
The glyph held in the hand of the left figure has been identified by Thompson
(1973: 60) as cauil meaning "second helping" or "abundance of food" (Thompson 1968:
85-87). The glyph appears as an offering in the Maya codices in contexts of plenty, for
example on Dresden Codex p. 27, where it is an offering in a ceremony of the new year.
The god is seated on a glyph or cushion decorated with the Maya day glyph Ik
(503). The Ik sign is also used as a glyphic seat on a Late Classic plate from Tikal
(W. R. Coe 1967: 104) and might have a glyphic meaning or might simple represent the
manner in which some Maya bolsters were made. The jaguar-skin cushions below and
in back of the figure are surprisingly similiar in construction to a cushion on another
vessel from Late Classic Tikal (W.R. Coe 1967: 52).
Attached to the front of the cushion is a profile human head decorated with
three oval pendants in the Classic Maya manner.
The figure on the right side of the capstone scene has a grotesque face com-
monly found in Maya art. A long nose projects straight out from the face and curls up
slightly at the end. The gaping mouth exposes a large curved front fang and a molar.
The rounded lower jaw sports a tuft of beard. The eye is large and square, with the
interior hooked line characteristic of sky deities. The front of the -forehead is hollowed
out as if pierced by a hole. Projecting from this is a long tubular object with two scrolls
"0
a)
U2)
-0
Go
"0
Ib1t
*E
C.)
0      3
5        f
S1-    1I-
0
'-4
cl-.
_     cq
OP-
Cl
ot  C     f
Cl)~~~C
0              l
'"    0     l     -
o            4
Cl)            0
Cd    ,,
(1)  $4 ~ C)
c     ?4)   -     Ct)
C)       0     0
"0    a)    a    Cl
a)            4
;*4    (a)
a)     4.j
a)           a)
h.    Cl
C      CL)
C)     'O    LO     CD            C'     M
C      cO    is;     Cl           0 0    O
KA               C      CD     '-    C
LO~~~             -
Ctd
CC
C  d   Cl)
" Id,
~~0  C.)~ I j
| | . . s S         3~~~. t-
Ct) s
Cl  CW) 00  00            Ct
C  l C l  C            Cl
C-.  *.  *   .     Ct  Ct4
*   *  'dJ  dq  Ct  C-C  *
C'-.  C'- -    0    C l  C-.
1          1- 4 c    1-4
co   >  3          N   s  N
?                  ?               C?                ?               1?
?-~  N                m                <Iti              ll             r-               0--
87
0
a)
I
Cl)
*1
Q
bL
0
06-
a1)
0
0
Cl)
q
a)
0*
0
a)
*_14
jr.
U2
;^
n-~
0
*0
'-4
I
I
I
I
I
88
curving out of the end. A feather headdress, a tied bead with features, a bead neck-
lace, beads or vertebrae showing on the back, and a loincloth and wide belt complete
the costume.
The figure can be positively identified as that of Shellhas' God K, by the
up-turned nose, the large squared eye, the fang, and especially by the object protruding
from the forehead. In the codices, the figure of God K is always drawn with a huge
branching and upturned nose, but, as Thompson (1970: 224) says: "In the codical glyph
of God K, this branching nose is absent. Instead, there projects from the forehead a
circular or wedge-shaped object from which, in turn, issues a double flame-like motif."
The nature of God K has apparently not been agreed upon by scholars.
Thompson has said that he is a fertility god, as shown by the vegetal scrolls issuing
from the hole in the forehead, and suggested by similarities to a god called Bolon
Dzacab ("nine generations" or "eternal") who is described as seed in the Colonial
Period books of Chilamn Balam (Roys 1933: 99; Thompson 1972: 90). God K's fertility
powers might have been extended at one time to human generation and the continuance
of the Classic Period dynastic lineages as suggested by Michael Coe (1966: 153).
Thompson (1970: 224ff.) has also stated that God K is a manifestation of
Itzam Na, the serpent who is both earth and sky together. This suggestion would fit
well the similarity of representation of God K, God B (the rain god and sky serpent)
and God D (Itzam No). In the codices, these three are drawn with the same hair or
headdress, Ihe same large squared eye and loop under the eye. Often the only differ-
ences exist in the shapes of the upper mouth.
Morley (1946: 229-230), following some earlier scholars, suggests that God
K might be the wind god, Ehecatl, whose huge branching and upturned mask is worn by
Quetzalcoatl in Aztec mythology. Morely points out that the Aztec Ehecatl sweeps the
way for the rain god, and the Maya God K is pictorially similar to God B (the rain god)
in the Maya codices. This is a complex subject, as can be observed by reading
Thompson's recent attempt to understand Itzamna (1970) and Henry B. Nicholson's
recent summary of the difficult Mexican pantheon (1971). Nevertheless, it would seem
that God K is celestial rather than earthly, and associated with the weather or the stars.
The object protruding from the god's forehead is identified by Thompson as
vegetation, but it looks more like a flaming torch. For comparison with a similar
tubular object with volute scrolls, see the "cigar" or pipe smoked by the old man on the
sanctuary of the Temple of the Cross at Palenque (Thompson 1970: Figure 1 after
Maudslay) and examples from Uaxactun and the Codices Madrid and Dresden cited by
Thompson (1970: 106-107). The torch and the wind are intimately connected in the
cycle of traditional Maya agriculture. When the brush and trees have been felled and
allowed to dry out during the spring, the Maya farmer must pick a day for the burning.
This must be done with care; after the brush is dry but before the summer rains arrive.
If burned too soon , weeds will choke the crops. Sometimes an offering of corn meal
89
is given to the wind before burning. At the moment of setting the torch to the piles of
dried brush, the farmers whistle a special wind tune and shout for the winds to whirl
up the flames and make an intense consuming fire (Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934: 132-
134; 118-119). Redfield and Villa Rojas note that the choosing of the day of burning
and summoning of the winds is a cause of special anxiety in the modern Maya farmer.
It is the only occasion mentioned in which the people of Chan Kom count the days in
order to predict an event. Thus, in the context of the scene on the capstone, it would
be very meaningful to portray the wind god face to face with the maize god.
God K on the capstone holds two objects in his hands, from which emerge long
curving dotted scrolls decorated with intermittant clusters of short loops. These would
appear to be maize ears and leaves, since they look like simplified versions of the
maize god's headdress and also resemble the "maize affix" (84/85) (Thompson 1972:
151). However, the scrolls are also like the dotted scrolls (rain clouds?) which the
gods ride on several Late Classic monuments (i.e. Ixlu Stelae 1 and 2; Greene 1972:
Plate 170-171).
The figure of God K sits cross-legged on a rectilinear hard-surfaced "celes-
tial throne," as Thompson (1972: 67) calls it. The throne is decorated along its borders
with the "celestial band," which here contains cross-bands glyphs (552), k  meaning
"crossing, or celestial or sexual conjunction" (Thompson 1972: 48-49) and the curved-
line glyph (24). The former sign is seen on the wide belt of God K. The latter is a
common prefix to the glyphic names of the maize and death gods (Gods E and A) in the
codices and occurs on the capstone painting on the headdress of the maize god and on
the bodies of both figures.
Glyphs above the maize god (Figure 1: vAl and vB1) and within the rectangle
of the celestial throne (zAl, zBl, zC1) might serve to further identify the two deities.
All the glyphs have the same partial cartouche as the identifiable day sign at Al. In
addition, they carry the al(23) subfix. Four of them are prefixed by a dot and two scrolls
which might represent the number one. Two of the signs are unmistakably the glyphs
for the Maya day Chicchan (508) at vBl and zCl. Two others (vAl and zAl) are
probably the day-signs for Caban (526) or possibly Cauac (528). In his study of the
Dresdan Codex, Thompson (1972: 152) translates the subfix al (23) as "in" or "at," as
in the phrases ti caanal (59. 561:23) "there on high," and u cabal (1. 526:23) "his
below." Along these lines, the glyphs on the capstone might refer to one or both of
the deities in the painting, saying something like hun cabal "the one in the earth"
(maize) and hun canal "the one in the heavens or in the sky serpent" (the day Chicchan
is the sky serpent, called can in Yucatec. Maya) (Thompson 1950: 75). The presence
of the al subfix makes it fairly certain that these are not day notations.
The Hieroglyphic Date
The principal set of hieroglyphs, on the central top portion of the painting
(Table 1 and Figure 1: Al-A5, Bl, Cl) surely make a calendric statement. When the
90
capstone arrived in the University Museum in the spring of 1965, Linton Satterthwaite,
then curator of the American Section of the University Museum, kindly allowed me to
try my hand at decipherment. We recognized -the reversed day and "month" glyphs at
Al and A3, which clearly read 9 Muluc 11 Uo. Subsequently, Satterthwaite and I
recognized the winged kin glyph at A2, a characteristic placement for this sign in the
"Yucatecan Method" of Maya dating first deciphered by Thompson (1937; 1950: 197-203;
Figures 38, 39) on inscriptions from Cichen Itza. We then realized that Bl.read as
a haab glyph with a coefficient and Cl as an Ahau sign also with a coefficient, making
the inscription a full statement (with the exception of certain affixes noted below) of
the Yucatecan Method, in which a Calendar Round (day and "month" position) is stated
in a text as occurring within a numbered haab or tun (360-day period) and within a
Katun (twenty tun period) ending at a numbered Ahau day.
The day Muluc would normally fall on 12 Uo in Classic Maya texts instead
of the clearly stated 11 Uo. Such a shift of one day in the month position, called the
"Puuc Style" of dating or the "Shifted Classic" is found in inscriptions from Campeche
and Western Yucatan from as early as 9.12. 0. 0. 0 (A. D. 670), in the Madrid Codex,
and in occasional texts from Yaxchilan, Bonampak, and Dos Pilas (Thompson 1950:
127-128, 304-305; 1952; J. Graham 1973: 208).
All the positions of 9 Muluc 11 (12) Uo in Baktuns 9 through 11 were consi-
dered (22 positions in all). It was decided by inspection that the coefficient of the
haab sign (Bi) could only be 8, 9, 13, or 14 and that Ahau coefficient must be 5 or less.
Even without these broad parameters of possibilities, only one day within the Baktuns
9, 10, and 11 (from A.D. 435 to approximately A.D. 1617) fulfils all of the above-
stated conditions: 10. 8.13. 5. 9. 9 Muluc 11 (12) Uo, in 14th Tun of Katun 2 Ahau
(A. D. 1001).
Another reading is possible: 9.15.9.12.9 9 Muluc 11 (12) Uo in 10th Tun
of Katun 2 Ahau (A. D. 741). In a memo sent to epigraphers, Satterthwaite (Memo 2,
1965) writes: "The position may be made possible by choosing 9 rather than 14 as the
recorded haab coefficient, and then correcting it to the required 10. One could argue
that the Maya priest was accustomed to elapsed-time tun numbers in dividing his katuns,
but forgot to shift to current-time style for this special "Yucatecan Method" which
gives the current tun (as 'haab' ) as well as the current named katun." Memos on the
dating were circulated in 1965 (Memo 2) and 1972 (Memos 3 and 4).
Thompson (in a letter to W.R. Coe, 1972) objects to an acceptance of either
of the above two dates. He points out that the haab and Ahau glyphs of the "Yucatecan
Method" dates normally carry their own sets of special affixes which make a linguistic-
,ally proper Maya phrase out of the statement, something like: "in the journey of Tun
10 within a Katun 2 Ahau " (Thompson 1950: Figures 38-39).
While I share Thompson' s wish for caution in assigning a fixed date to this
important painting, I should point out that the haab and Ahau glyphs do not always
91
take affixes in known examples of Yucatecan Method dating outside the Chichen Itza area.
For example, in the Xcalumkin "Temple of the Inscriptions" text (Ruz 1945: Figure
XXIV), dated by Thompson (1950: 199) at 9.15.12.6.9, the Ahau glyph lacks the impor-
tant ben-ich (168) superfix, even though the haab carries the usual crosshatched (89)
prefix. On one of the capstones from the Nunnery at Uxnal (discussed below) the haab
has no affixes, although the Ahau seems to have the proper ben-ich superfix and the
bil (130) subfix. Both of these stones come from the Puuc-Chenes area from which the
University Museum Capstone probably originates. The Uxmal capstone is dated by
Thompson at 10.3.17. 12.1 (1973: 61-62), contemporary with the many properly stated
Chichen Itza examples. It seems likely that the method was more strongly established
at Chichen Itza than in the Puuc and Chenes area, where the affixes were sometimes
dispensed with.
The reversal of the calendric glyphs at Al and A3 is interesting, It involves
the positions of the coefficients but not always the ordering of the main sign elements
themselves. The prefix of the month sign Uo at A3, for example, is in its proper po-
sition, even though the wing postfix at A2 is not. Glyph reversal is rare but not unknown
in Maya writing. It occurs on Temple 11 at Copan and on Stela 6 at Uaxactun (in order
to keep the coefficients of the dates toward the front of the monuments, according to
Morley (1920: 311-314)), on Lintel 25 at Yaxchilan (apparently for the same reason, if
the top of the scene rested on the right jamb of its doorway, as occurs on the compan-
ion Lintel 26 from the same structure (Maler 1903: 151-153, Plates 58, 59), on Stela
2 from Jimbal, near Tikal (perhaps for balance), and on pages 23-24 of the Paris
Codex (perhaps to conform to a reversed order of reading: Gates 1910: 30-34). In the
case of the capstone, the coefficients would not face the outside of the building, since
the painting was positioned transversely in the ceiling of the room. I have wondered if
the reversed placement of the coefficients might have been occasioned by a desire to
direct the significance of the date to the maize god on the left instead of to God K, since
the normal placement of a date in a Late Classic scene makes the left-to-right order of
reading of the inscription carry the viewer's eye into the face of the principal figure on
the stone, who usually faces the inscription from the right. However, this interpretation
of the glyph reversal conflicts with my suggestion that the right hand figure (God K) is
indeed the focus of the whole scene (see below).
Two hieroglyphs follow the date below the month sign (A4 and A5 of Figure 2
and Table 1). They are, respectively, a death head (1047a) and a moon sign (682).
They are probably not reversed like the glyphs above them, since the affix of the death
head (126) is in its more usual position as a postfix. Both signs are in the so-called
codex form. This does not mean, however, that the capstone was painted as late as the
codices, for these glyphic forms are also very similar to glyphs found on Late Classic
carved bones and pottery from Tikal (cf. Trik 1963: Figures 9a and 12, Mt-39: .B and
Mt-29; also W.R. Coe 1967: 52, Mt-176).
As has been stated, several aspects of the scene on the capstone suggest an
agricultural theme: the maize god with his maize ear headdress, God K as the god of
92
the wind or of fertility, the glyph in the maize god's hand, translated by Thompson as
"abundance of food, ? and the maize ears in the hands of God K. The associations with
farming suggest that the written date might be significant in terms of the agricultural
year. Therefore, I have tried to determine where the date fell within the solar year.
The month position 11 (12) Uo is a day in the Maya "vague year" of 365 days.
This year does not contain a built-in correctional system similar to our leap-year.
Therefore 9 Muluc on the day 11 of the month Uo fell on March 9 of the Gregorian
calendar in A. D. 741 (the 9. 15. 9.12. 9 corrected position) and on January 3 in A. D.
1001 (the 10. 8.13.5.9 position). Redfield and Villa Rojas (1934: 44) .reported that in
the modern Yucatecan town of Chan Kom: " burning usually begins in early March, is
at its height in April, and co2ntinues into the first part of May. " Thus, if one is to
believe that God K is associated with the wind and with crop-burning, the scene on the
capstone could involve a prognostication of a good harvest for the new agricultural
year. It is possible that the recorded date is actually the officially approved day of
burning, written either in anticipation or after the fact. If so, then the earlier position,
in March of A. D. 741, would be the better date for burning.
It would appear that the scene on the University Museum Capstone is a
religious rather than a dynastic one. Dynastic themes seem to dominate the art of
Late Classic cities of the Southern Maya Lowlands. Even the roof-combs of the major
temples at Tikal seem to portray the rulers as the center of their compositions. In
this respect, the capstone scene differs from the art of Late Classic Tikal and follows
the pervading religious themes of the Maya Postclassic. However, it should be noted
that "idols" similar to the God K of the stone were found in a Tikal tomb (Coe 1967: 57).
There are many stylistic similarities between the scene on the capstone and
the art of Late Classic Tikal: the bound headdress of the maize god, the head of God
K with his characteristic forehead ornament, the details of the jaguar-skin seat, the
three pendant shells hanging from the head on the jaguar cushion. The glyphs also
resemble Late Classic forms. The wing affix (116) at A2, for example, differs con-
siderably from the codical form, with its long row of dots, and resembles closely one
ont Mt-57 from Burial 116 at Tikal (W.R. Coe 1967: 30). The al (23) subfix of glyphs
vAl, etc. are also similar in form to subfixes on Tikal bowl (Mt-2 and Mt-232, unpub-
lished). I have already mentioned that the death-head at A4 and the moon glyph at A5
have their stylistic counterparts in Late Classic Tikal pottery painting.
I have compared the style with Tikal pottery partially because it is more
familiar to me than is the art of other sites. However, it does appear that the resem-
blance to Tikal pottery is far closer to Imix ceramic Complex vessels of the 8th and
9th centuries A. D. than to the preceding 1k Complex or the succeeding Eznab Complex.
Thus, from the standpoint of this somewhat restricted stylistic comparison, the cap-
stone would appear rather to belong to the 8th century A. D. and the earlier 9. 15. 9.12.9
date than to the later l. 8.13.5.9 date of the beginning of the 11th century. However,
as we shall see, it is difficult to define and compare Maya art styles of the 10th and 11th
centuries A. D. because of a paucity of glyphic dates and much confusion about sequence.
93
Other Maya Capstones: Introduction
Now that the scene and glyphs on the University Museum Capstone have been
described, we can turn to the question of origins. As I have mentioned, the "Puuc
Style" of dating on the stone is commonly found in the western Yucatan and Campeche,
although scattered texts have appeared from the riverine sites to the southwest. The
"Yucatecan Method" has been found only on the inscriptions of Yucatan and Campeche,
specifically at Chichen Itza and outlying sites, at Uxmal, and Xcalumldn, and possibly
also at Kabah and Labna near Uxmal, and Tulum on the east coast (Thompson 1950:
199). All these sites are in the Northern Maya Lowlands.
A comparison of scenes, glyphs, and styles of the known Maya painted cap-
stones can help narrow down the probable origin of the capstone even more. Table 2
lists as many of the capstones as I have been able to find mentioned in print. They
are listed by architectural associations, with the Chichen Itza stones first, then those
from sites with predominately Puuc architecture, then those from Chenes style sites,
and finally the University Museum Capstone, of as yet unknown origin. Lists of oc-
currences of capstones have previously been published by Morley (1946: 420) and
Thompson (1950: 20; 1973: 59-60). The present list adds only four to Thompson's
survey: the ones mentioned by Pollock (1970) from Dzibiltun, El Tabasqueno, and
Hochob. There are 34 known painted and carved Maya capstones, of which sixteen
have not been illustrated in publication, although the six unillustrated Uxmal stones
have apparently been drawn by mom (1933: 56).
The following discussion will treat each capstone in turn, focusing on
hieroglyphic dates and the content and style of the scenes for comparative purposes.
References and illustrations of the capstones are listed on Table 2 and often omitted
In the text.
Chichen Itza Capstones
Morley (1920: 520) first noted the possibility of a year-bearer date on the
capstones from a tomb on the outskirts of Chichen Itza (Table 2: #1). He suggested
that the third and fourth glyphs on the top band read 6 Kan 9 Tun, recording 6 Kan as
the first day in a new 365-day year, falling within a ninth Tun (360-day period). He
stated (correctly) that these conditions were met twice only in Baktuns 9 through 11:
10.3.8.14.1 6 Kan 1 Pop (A.D. 897 by the 11.16.0.0.0
Correlation)
11.12.8.13.4  6 Kan 1 Pop (A.D. 1469)
Morley preferred the later date (correlating it to A. D. 1210 by the then-preferred
12.9.0.0.0 Correlation) because he believed that the shift of one day in the 365-day
cycle (allowing Kan to be one of the four-year bearers instead of Akbal) had not occurred
as early as 10. 3. 8. 14. 4. As nct ed above, the shift had actually occurred as early as
9.12. 0. 0. 0. Morley's date was repeated without challenge by Beyer (1937: 169) and
Thompson (1937: 186), but the year-bearer method of dating in the Maya inscriptions
94
has apparently not been accepted as demonstrable, since Thompson does not mention
the Chichen Itza capstone, or the method in his otherwise exhaustive Maya Hieroglyphic
Writing (1950). This lack of acceptance is probably justified in view of the fact that
the capstone has stood as the only example of a year-bearer date in Maya writing,
even though the method (without the use of the Tun) was widely spread in Central
Mexican manuscripts.
In the 1937 paper cited above, Thompson identified the glyph preceding
6 Kan as 10 Sky, the name of a god Lahun Chaan, one of the more ferocious aspects of
the planet Venus as the morning star, an identification well suited to the threatening
pose of the figure on the stone. This is Venus as the spearer of the young, the aged,
the lords, the crops, etc., as recorded in the mythology of the conquest period of
Mexico and as read in the Dresden Codex Venus Tables on pp. 46-50 (Thompson
1950: 217-218; 1972: 62-71).
A confirmation of Morley's reading of a year-bearer date and Thompson's
reading of the god-name might be provided by the glyphs in the top band of the capstone
from the Temple of the Owls at Chichen Itza (Table 2: #2). A similar set of four
opening glyphs are found: 1) a non-calendrical glyph, featuring an animal head with
gaping mouth (transferred to a prefix in the tomb capstone, and a wing subfix; 2) a
name for a god connected to the Planet Venus (in this case 1 Ahau or Hunapu); 3) a
day (here 10 Muluc) in the "shifted-classic" or "Puuc Style" or year bearers (Kan,
Muluc, Ix, Cauac;4)a glyph with a coefficient (here 13). The two published drawings of
the Owls capstone differ considerably in the rendering of these last two glyphs. The
Muluc is clear only in Willard's drawing (in Tozzer 1957). The fourth sign is indistinct
in both, but could be read as a winged haab in Morley' s version. If the Owls Capstone
is read as 10 Muluc within Tun 13 in the same manner as the tomb capstone, a pair of
dates are the only ones possible for the stone within Baktuns 9 through 11, each date
only about 35 years distant from the two tomb Capstone readings:
10.1.13. 5.9 10 Muluc 1 Pop
11.10.12.12.9 10 Muluc 1 Pop
The first reading, however, must assume a current rather than elapsed-tun notation of
Tun 13, as was considered possible in the University Museum Capstone reading.
The weakest part of the year-bearer-tun reading for the two stones lies in
the tun glyph. As I have mentioned, the glyph on the Owls Capstone is non-committal.
On the Tomb Capstone,- the glyph is clearly a winged Uinal (521) or Chuen (520).
Thompson (1962: 125) notes that: "piles of uinal signs, usually with numerical coeffi-
cients, found in Codices Dresden and Madrid, still conceal their function and meaning."
Such a study has not been attempted for this paper, but might reveal demonstrable
proof of the correct way to read these capstone year-bearer dates. Although the un-
certain tun reading casts doubt on the Long Count positions for these stones, the
similiar opening glyphs, the deity names, and the day-signs within the same set of
year-bearers suggest that the dating method on the two stones is the same, setting them
apart from other Chichen Itza inscriptions and the Uxmal capstones.
-
-
-
-
-
A:   B:
Location
1    Chichen Itza,
"Tomb" (Halakal).
2    Temple of the Owls.
C:
References (illustrations naderlind
Morley 1920: 520, Fi.?; Beyer 1937: 1699
PI. 13a; Thompson 1937: 186-7; 1941: 106-8; 1945,
1 50: 199; Morley 1946: FJAgj5; Tozzer
1957: 24, 35, 86, 156, 1589 Fig. 5400
Beyer 1937: 162; Willard 1926: 248; Morley _1946:
Fig. 52; 1927: 235; Tozzer 1957: 35, 1229 127,
175, Fig. 384.
Tozzer 1957: 78, 1509 Fig.. 616.
Thompson 1973: 59.
Blom 1934: 56, Fg3;Morley 1920: 510-1,
Fig. 74; Thompson 1937: 194-5; 1941: 106-8;
1973: 61-2,Fi.2
Blom 1934: 56, Fig. 4; Thompson 1937:194-5;
1973: 61-2, Fig.o 3.
Blom 1934: 56 (unillustrated)
Kutscher 1971t. PI. 24_ Thompson 1973.
E. Thompson 1898: 227,Fg   4
E. Thompson 1898: 227 (unillustrated)
Morley 1946: 420 (unillustrated)
Pollock 1970: 25-7, 29, 82, Figs. 32a, 32c:
Seler 1916: Figs. 49, 50; Coggins 1972: 16.
Pollock 1970: 29, Figs. 32b, 32c; Seler 1916:
Figs. 49, 50.
Pollock 1970: 57, Fig. 74a.
Pollock 1970: 57, Fig. 74b.
Pollock 1970: 59 (unillustrated)
Morley 1946: 420 (notes 10 from Santa
Rosa Xtampak).
Pollock 1970: 13 (unillustrated)
Pollock 1970: 21 (unillustrated)
Pollock 1970 : 2 5 (unillustrated)
Morley 1946: 420 (unillustrated)
Thompson 1973: 60; Present Paper.
D:
Architecture
Chlchen II7, TV?
Chichen II?
Chichen m
Chichen m
Puuc (Pure
Florescent)
Puuc (Pugre
Florescent)
Puuc (Pure
Florescent)
Puuc
Puuc (w/Chenes)
Puuc (w/Chenes)
Western Puuc
Chenes
Chenes
Chenes
Chenes
Chenes
Chenes
Chenes
Chenes
Chenes
Chenes
unknown
E:
Date
10.3S.8. 14. 4 ?? or
11. 12. 8. 13. 4 ? ?
10. 1. 13. 5.9 ?? or
11. 10. 12. 12. 9 ? ?
10.3.17.12.1
10. 3. 8.7.12 ?or
10. 3. 18. 9.12 ?
10. 10. 2. 11. 4 ? ?
10.3.5.10.9?? or
11.12.5.7.9??
F:.
Method
Year-bearer,
'Puuc Style"
G:
GlyPph Placement
top and bottom
bands
H:                       I:
Scene                    Artis
warrior throwing spear   Fine
(Venus, named Lahun-     (Tolti
Chajn
God K rising from serpent Fine
mouth (Venus?, named
Hunahau) holding bowl
standing figure          Fine
dancing figure           Fine
tee?)
Year-bearer, top band
"Puuc Style"
Temple of the Warriors,
N. Colonnade.
Temple of the Warriors.
Uxmal, Nunnery, East
Building, NW Chamber.
Uxmal, Nunnery,
Building Y.
Uxmal, Nunnery.
Sacnicte.
Xkichmook, Ch . 1 L
Xkichmook, Ch. 4.
Xcalumkin-Holactun.
Dzibilnocac, Str. 1,
West Room.
Dzibilnocac, Str. 1,
East Boom.
Santa Rosa Xtampak,
Palace, Outer Boom
Santa Rosa Xtampak,
Palace, Inner Room
Santa Rosa Xtampak,
S. E. Quad.
Santa Rosa Xtampak.
Hochob, Str. 2.
El Tabasqueno
Dzibiltun
Kiuic (carved)
University Museum
3
4
5
no glyphs ?
top and bottom
bands
top and bottom
bands
top and bottom
infixed
Lnci
"Yucatecan, II
I IPauc Style"I
"Yucatecan"
"Puiuc Style"
dancing figure
standing figure facing
dwarf
seated figure (facing
another figure?)
seated god
I
I
Fine
Fine
Careless
Careless
Careless
Careless
Careless
Careless
Fine
6
7-12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21-3
24-8
29
30
31-2
33
34
Year-bearer, infixed
"Puuc Style"
-            no glyphs
Year-bearer, infixed
"Puuc Stvle"
-            no glyphs
seated God K holding
inverted basket
seated God K holding
bowl
seated god (God K ?)
holding object
seated god (God K ?)
holding bowl ?
God K holding maize       ]
facing God E holding glyph
meaning "bountiful harvest"
9.15.9.12.9? or
10. 8. 13. 5.9 ?
"Yucatecan, II inflxed
"Puumc Style"
TABLE 2:    A List of Painted and Carved Capstones From the Maya Area
96
Instead of the threatening Lahun Chan of the Tomb Capstone, the Owls Cap-
stone presents a god with upturned snout, rising from a coiled serpent, bearing a
bowl-full of objects and surrounded by large beads and conch shells (or cacao beans in
Willard's drawing). The upturned, branching mask (of Ehecatl, the wind?) the conch
shells, the ascension from the earth-serpent, and the gifts, suggest that this is the
complex deity Quetzalcoatl, who in Mexican stories became the morning star (Nicholson
1971: 428-429). Here, he is called by the Maya name 1 Ahau, the Hunapu of the
Quiche Maya book, the Popol Vuh, whom Thompson (1950: 218-219) believes also
became the planet Venus. In the above-cited discussion of Venus, Thompson suggests
that Lahun Chan was the original Maya malevolent deity of the rising planet, fused in
the Colonial Period Chumayel Manuscript with the Mexican idea of Quetzalcoatl as
Venus (see also Thompson 1970: 22 for Quetzalcoatl as 1 Ahau). Perhaps "Maya" and
"Mexican" are not the correct contrasting terms here, since our knowledge of the
malevolent aspect of the star comes from Mexico as well as from the Dresden Codex,
and the Venus Table pages of the codex are markedly more "Mexican" in style than in
the remainder of the manuscript. At any rate, it is interesting that the two capstones,
which appear to be roughly contemporaneous with each other, are portraying opposed
aspects of Venus, one threatening, the other bearing gifts. The latter comes from a
building, as do the object-holding deities on the Chenes capstones (see below). Perhaps
the threatening aspect of Venus on the capstone from the Halakal tomb has something
to do with the death of the person entombed there.
The third stone from Chichen Itza (Table 2: #3) is a beautiful piece in several
colors, portraying a standing figure wearing a necklace and a medallion. It was found
in the ruins of the North Colonnade of the Temple of the Warriors. Stone #4 is from
the Temple of Warriors itself and unpublished.
The architectural associations of the Chichen Itza capstones is not at all
clear. The tomb capstone comes from the outlying group called Halakal, which con-
tains a "Puuc-style"l temple (Tozzer 1957: 23), but the capstone itself is placed by
Tozzer in his post-Puuc Chichen II period (1957: 35). Tozzer (1957: 33-35) puts the
Temple of the Owls in his Chichen II period as well (ca. 948- ca. 1145 A. D.). On
the other hand, Proskouriakoff (in Tozzer 1957: 44) thought that the temple may belong
in Tozzer' s Chichen IV (1280-1450 A. D.). The Temple of the Warriors and the North
Colonnade appear to be from the Chichen III period.
In Table 3, in the three columns to the right, I have listed conflicting views
on the temporal placement of the architectural styles associated with the Chichen Itza
capstones: Tozzer's (1957) scheme of four numbered periods; Thompson's (1970:
3-47) view, essentially similar to Tozzer but with differing transition dates; and Parson's
(1969: 172-185) sequence, which puts Thompson's first "Itza" period (Tozzer's Chichen
II) back into the 7th century A. D.
The two early "year-bearer" dates from Chichen Itza (10. 1. 13. 5. 9 and
10. 3.8. 14. 4) are too early for Tozzer' s Chichen II period, and would suggest that these
Z   0     00
a6V  0   40  OIA01
6 " 40   "4 6 0  "4
I.iW   I "4  to   ( i
-X c   IL   I I
a    0
46   4
o       N
N V    LOJ
O4
I 1-    I   _
P-4
9C
a)
'C
0
"F4
'C
u
CD
"4" 4
I4'C"4
4-4
'-4
0
"V4
'C
0o
C C
0
.Cr.& r.
:3 Co
-) O-..
04 L)o
3      6
a     go
i     u
"4
C)
0
'4)
XC
0
"4
'C
a
V-
3   a
c--
C... 2: %
0
01>1
0"4i
ae a   *1
_40   _c-
.0 >  4J6l
-" 44  CUi
laa   60
In=   n 4
N'O.v  '&  %&I
II
roCC
o0 A
6 0
> 0  S"4w
l0.C'C
.N4U
I 0'0
0 o
404
4 .e4
c ?-
0
e-
I
0
co
$4
0
"V4
C:
an 4)    co        m           4) v o@Z b Zi
c-X:$al    ~   ~I   1~,    , I     ,1I
0'~~~~~
06
"4                                0~~~~~~~W
m                m    (a ~410)t.~0co)  1.10)  0't  $40
la                               co        co ao@
$40)6_c .
V-4  co  V         C.)
C.,
"-4
0
0
"-4
N
C4
6-
%.0
0
S
0
-4
"4
"*4
0
V-
0
%oo
0
"4
"-4
V-
N
-
0
"-4
'.5
o
0
0
0
8
.4
0
-4
co
'-
0~
0
I
0
"4
.
0
cv)
Go
%NOI
0
0
"-4
-4
cn
r-
14o
.
Cv)
0
0
0
-4
0'
40"
if
&-W
Cv)
Cv)
i0
'.5'
0
"4
0'
0
S
0
S
U;
0;
c
C
c
c
c
1'
97
64
a
0
0)
co
a;
I
A
6
Sa
4.1
'-4
& $4
.c O
ON6
"V4 ba
'CO
uE-4
IA'
"o40
s
9- t
0.
C.)
a
_
4_
0
0
a"4
C.)
0
Ian
"-4
C'.-
C*.
a
0)
0
6
ad
4.1
O
1
cn
I  %g
640
4
a
9
4
0
c
9
or
a
4
9
c
14
c
9
c
c
0
S
0)
0
Co
0
'C-
u
0
v-4
4.1
6
c)
-4
C:
0 0
Go"4
> ~o
1)0
A
$4
b a
0
-4
0)
Jc
c @
0
"4s
S
o00
$4$4i
0
CC.)
6
00Z
0.:
4.1
a 4)
*J 1
9 ml
.0
46
1.1
a
6
6
0-*
"4
in
N
-4
0
0
0
"4
"4
"4
"4
V-
%to
'.5
0
"-4
"4
"-4
-
I
__
I
i
I
I
I
II
I
I
i
I
I
I
0
1
1
1
1
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
i
I
98
paintings come from the Chichen I or Puuc period. This would be supported by the
presence of a Puuc-style temple near the tomb at Halakal, and by the other early
Baktun 10 dates on other capstones from the Puuc and Chenes areas (see below).
Perhaps the trait of capstone-painting came in to Chichen Itza from the Puuc area
during this period in conjunction with other Puuc architectural traits. The early
"year-bearer" dates certainly cannot be ruled out by the somewhat "Mexican"
character of the drawings, since Tozzer's dichotomy between "Mexican" and "Maya"
at Chichen Itza has become more and more difficult to correlate with a succession of
time periods.
Puuc Capstones
The hieroglyphic dates on two capstones from the Nunnery Quadrangle at
Uxmal (Table 2: #5 and #6) have been read with some certainty by Thompson (1941
and 1973) as:
10. 3.17.12.1 5 lnix 18 Kankin (A.D. 906)
and:
10.3.8.7.12? 4 Eb 15 Ceh (A.D. 897)
or       10.3.18.9.12? 4 Eb 5 Ceh (A.D. 907)
Thompson (1973: 62) notes a confirmation of these dates by a radiocarbon from a
Nunnery lintel at 885 A.D. plus-or-minus 100 years. Andrews (1973: 253) felt that
this radiocarbon date should be discarded in favor of the fourteen dates averaging
662 A. D. from the Rio Bec area to the south, which he supposed to be contemporary
with the Puuc. Recent reports on the excavations at Becan, in the Rio Bec area, how-
ever, (Potter 1974) make it clear that the Rio Bec architectural styles began in the
Classic and are in part considerably earlier than the Nunnery at Uxmal. Thus the
glyphic dates here may well be contemporary with the erection of the Uxmal Nunnery.
The dancing figures on the two Uxmal Capstones cannot be identified as divine
or human. They are drawn in a quick but practiced style not unlike that on Late
Classic polychrome pottery. Six more stones from Uxmal are unpublished.
Another capstone associated with the Puuc area is from Sacnicte (Table 2:
#13), near Labna (Thompson 1973: 59). Its date has not been placed within the Long
Count, but surely is in the Puuc style, like capstone #5 from Uxmal. The presence
of a winged kin glyph after the day sign and the coefficient on the last glyph of the top
band of glyphs suggests that the stone records a full Yucatecan Method date like the
Uxnal stones. Again, the principal figure cannot be identified as human or divine. He
has a human face with a large-eyed mask over his eyes. The painting is in black line
with red, orange, green, and blue coloring. Like the Uxmal paintings, the artistry is
quick and sure, and does not seem to have any paritcularly "Mexican" touches to it.
The glyphs are placed in top and bottom bands, as at Uxmal. Thus, in several attributes
the Uxmal and Sacnicte capstones are quite similar to each other.
Two painted capstones were found at Xkichmook, a Puuc site near the Chenes
99
area (Table 2#14, #15). The caption to Figure 34 of E. Thompson's 1898 report
states that both illustrated capstones come from Chamber 11 of the Palace, although
the text (p. 227) describes a painted capstone in Chamber 4 of the same building.
Possibly three capstones are involved. In Table 2 of this report, #14 refers to the
scene from Chamber 11, even though it might be painted on more than one capstone.
The illustration of the Chamber 11 Capstone shows a seated figure, God B or one of
the other celestial deities, judging by the large squared eye and projecting upper lip.
The glyph for God B (668) is at the figure's feet. Two horizontal lines separate the
scene from a bottom band of glyphs. The painting (or possibly only Thompson's
drawing of it) is crudely done, reminding one of the Chenes capstone figures. Xkich-
mook has been termed a Puuc site, but with Chenes influence in its architecture
(Pollock 1970: 83; Andrews 1973: 252). The bottom band of glyphs is like the Puuc
Capstones, but the crude artistry and the seated god make it more similar to the
Chenes examples. Perhaps this can be tdi en as additional evidence of a mixture of
regional styles at this border site.
A painted capstone is mentioned from Xcalumkin-Holactun in the Western
Puuc area, but is unpublished. Pollock (1970: 84-85) thinks that Western Puuc is
slightly earlier than Eastern Puuc sites such as Uxmal, and contemporary with Chenes.
Chenes Capstones
Painted capstones have been found in several Chenes sites south of the Puuc
area. Seventeen have been reported in all (see Table 2: #17 through #33), of which
only two from Dzibilnocac and two from Santa Rosa Xtampak have been illustrated in
print.
Two of the stones (#17 from Dzibilnocac and #19 from Santa Rosa Xtampak)
have similar infixed glyphs which may record dates in the year-bearer system. The
stone from Dzibilnocac (#17) has an infixed Kan glyph with coefficient 8 or 9 prefixed
and coefficient 3 subfixed. For the prefix, 8 is a preferred reading by inspection of
Pollock's photograph (1970: Figure 32a). According to Pollock (1970: 25-27) Herbert
Spinden read this date at:
10. 18. 8. 16.2 3 Kan 1 (2) Pop
apparently following the year-bearer-tun system of the Chichen Itza Capstone. Spinden' s
reading necessitates a switching of the two coefficients. It seems unlikely that the sub-
fixed numeral 3 would represent the day-number in place of the prefixed number 8 or
9. If one assumes instead a normal placement of 8 or 9 as the day-number and the
subfixed 3 as the tun, one arrives at the following dates as the only possibilities within
Baktuns 9 through 11:
9.1.2.12.4??    8 Kan 1(2) Pop  (A.D. 458)
10.10.2.11.4??  8 Kan 1(2) Pop  (A.D. 1030)
The former date would seem late for the Chenes area, but we do not yet know how late
construction continued there.
100
The capstone with glyphs from Santa Rosa Xtampak (Table 2: #19) actually
has two paintings, an inner-thick-line painting and an outer fine-line one on a secondary
coat of plaster. Glyphs with coefficients appear on the outer plaster but cannot be in-
terpreted. On the earlier painting, one glyph is a day-sign, probably Muluc, with a
two-scroll subfix identical to that under the Kan sign of the Dzibilnocac stone. The
Muluc has a clear coefficient 3. Its connection to the Dzibilnocac glyph is unmistak-
able, since it appears in an identical position behind the seated figure, enclosed within
an oval. The Santa Rosa glyph has no subfixed coefficient, but a separate glyph with
coefficient five appears at the feet of the figure. The glyph itself does not appear to
be a tun sign, but assuming for the moment that it does record a 5 Tun date, one finds
that there are no Long Count positions for the date within our limits of Baktuns 9 through!
11. Two positions do occur, however, if one assumes again that current tuns rather
than elapsed ones were recorded, as we did with the University Museum Capstone:
10.3. 5.10.9??    3 Muluc 1(2) Pop
11.12. 5. 7.9??   3 Muluc 1(2) Pop
These positions are close in time to those read on the Uxmal and Chichen Itza capstones,
the latter being year-bearer dates as well. The 10th Baktun position is 137 years
earlier than the 10.10. 2.11. 4 position of the Dzibilnocac date.
The four published capstones from Dzibilnocac and Santa Rosa Xtampak have
much in common besides the similarity of the day-signs. They show seated figures
rather than standing ones, and the glyphs are infixed into the scene rather than in top
and bottom bands. On the two Dzibilnocac paintings, the figures are clearly God K,
with his long snout and huge foliated ornament protruding from the forehead. One holds
a plaited basket out of which pours small objects like food or raindrops. The other holds
a large bowl filled with feathers or paper strips and possibly a deity head (cf. Tikal
Altar 6; Coe 1967: 75). On the first stone from Santa Rosa (Table 2: #19), the deity
has the roman nose of God D, Itzam Na, and holds a fringed object which might be a
bowl or a handled fan. The figure wears a long-nosed serpent head as a headdress.
The figure on the other capstone is more likely to be God K, judging from the remains
of a foliated ornament In front of the forehead, and the snakeskin markings on the top
of the forearm and the back of the upper arm, identical bearer scene on the Temple of
the Owls Capstone from Chichen Itza, although mixed with the concept of 1 Ahau
(Hunapu) as the rising planet Venus.
The dating of the Chenes architectural style has been sharpened by recent
excavations at Dzibilnocac and Santa Rosa Xtampak (DeBlools 1969; Joesink-Mandeville
1972). Unfortunately, I have not seen the fuller reports on these excavations (Matheny
and Berge 1970; Nelson 1970). A recent report (Potter 1974) on the architectural se-
quence at Becan, a Rio Bec style site far to the south, states that Chenes and Rio Bec
architectural styles form a coherent whole, and that most of the architecture of the Rio
Bec and Chenes is Late Classic in date (Bejuco/Chintok Ceramic Periods, 500-830 A. D.)
(see Table 3j. However, Potter (1974: 122) adds that- "fairly numerous Chenes area
buildings and some farther south may have been constructed during a slightly later time
period and therefore represent a transition from the style of Becan into that of the Puuc."
101
Thus the buildings which contained the Chenes capstones in question (Dzibilnocac
Structure 1 and the Santa Rosa Xtampak Palace) could date from the Late Classic or
even slightly later, as the postulated Baktun 10 Long Count dates on the stones suggest.
The Baktun 11 dates are probably much too late for the Chenes sites, however.
Many aspects of the Chenes paintings, their curde "idol" representations, the
brief calendric notations, the year-bearer day signs, the postulated Buktun 10 Long
Count positions, suggest a Terminal Classic date for the capstones and for their
buildings. The year-bearer readings are uncertain, however, and the capstones still
might be fully Late Classic. Thus we cannot be sure of the temporal relationship of
the Chenes capstones to the University Museum stone, with its similarity of theme and
differences of style.
Conclusions
In this review of Maya painted capstones, it has become clear that the cap-
stones divide themselves into three groups according to the architectural styles of the
areas in which they were found: Chichen Itza; Puuc, and Chenes (Table 2). The two
Chichen Itza scenes with glyphs show well-drawn standing figures, probably of the gods
of the planet Venus, with glyphs in top and bottom bands, apparent year-bearer date
notations in "Puuc Style" with similar text arrangements, and with relatively contiguous
Long Count positions, probably in early Baktun 10. The Puuc capstones from Uxmal
and Sacnicte show well-drawn standing figures, not recognizable as being deities, glyphs
in top and bottom bands, with "Yucatecan Method" date notations, sometimes in Puuc
Style, one time not. The Chenes stones depict more crudely drawn seated large-eyed
deities holding objects (usually containers), glyphs infixed into the scene, with apparent
year-bearer date notation in Puuc style. The Xkichmook capstone paintings, from the
southern limit of the Puuc area resemble the neighboring Chenes stones more than they
do the Puuc ones.
Since the University Museum Capstone bears no particular resemblance to the
Chichen Itza stones, it probably comes from within the Puuc-Chenes area. As in the
Chenes scenes, the glyphs are infixed, without top or bottom bands of glyphs. Like-
wise, the principal figure is God K, seated and holding out objects in his hands. On the
other hand, the Yucatecan Method of date notation is that of the Puuc capstones and the
careful delineation of details is more like the Puuc than the Chenes paintings. Also, the
complexity of the scene, with two personages instead of one, recalls the Puuc area
Sacnicte scene, and is in contrast to the simple scenes of the Chenes area.
Feeling obligated at this point to make a preliminary guess as to provenience,
I would say that the Chenes area is a more likely source that the Puuc, in spite of the
dating method and careful style. It would seem more probable that a Chenes ruler would
import a prestigious neighboring artist and dating method, than that a Puuc ruler would
import a neighboring religious practice.
102
As I have stated, the two alternative Long Count positions for the date on the
capatone are in the Eighth and the early Eleventh Centuries A. D. (in the 11. 16. 0. 0. 0
Correlation). I mentioned that the earlier position is preferred by style in spite of the
necessity for a Maya error. This judgment was based on the similarities to Late
Classic painted pottery from Tikal. Since we really know so little about artistic styles
of the 11th century Yucatan, the later date should not be eliminated from consideration.
As far as we know at present, Chenes and Puuc cities might have been occupied as late
as the 11th century. The capstone might be an earlier and more "Classic" version of
Chenes deity capstones, or it might be entirely contemporaneous with them.
An outline of continued research on the capstones is formed by the questions
raised in this study. The first task would be to obtain a complete photographic record
of the capstone paintings, before they all disappear. In particular, we need photos of
the Temple of the Owls stone, the Xkichmook stones, the series from the Uxmal
Nunnery Quadrangle, including the two illustrated by Blom, and finally the unpublished
Chenes capstones. Secondly, the question of the highly important year-bearer dates
might be resolved by better photographs of the glyphs, by a search for other possible
year-bearer Maya dates, and by comparison with the Mexican year-bearer systems of
date notation.
The painted capstones reviewed here can and probably will be major items in
the renewed attempt to resolve the questions of Yucatecan cultural sequence. In
several instances, they hold the only hieroglyphic dates for a site, for a time period
within a region, or even for a whole architectural style.
103
PLATE 1: The University Museum Capstone.
vAl    v Bl
wAl
xAl
yAl
A    B   C
I
2
3
4
5
zAl     zBl
10 cm.
FIGURE 1:
Drawing of Painted Scene on the University Museum Capstone (1/2 Scale).
Drawing by W. R. Coe.
104
0
zCl
I                                                                                               a
105
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIGURE 2: Drawing of Painted Side and Section of the University Museum Capstone
(1/5 Scale). Drawing by W. R. Coe.
I
I
106
REFERENCES
Andrews, E. Wyllys, IV
1973 The Development of Maya Civilization after Abandonment of the
Southern Cities. In: The Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. Patrick
Culbert, pp. 243-265. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Ball, Joseph W.
1974 A Regional Ceramic Sequence for the Rio Bec Area, In: Preliminary
Reports on Archaeological Investigations in the Rio Bec Area,
Campeche, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane
University, Publication 31: 103-146.
Beyer, Hermann
1937   Studies on the Inscriptions of Chichen Itza. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Publication 483, Contribution 21.
Blom, Frans
1934   Short Summary of Recent Explorations in the Ruins of Uxmal, Yucatan.
In: Proceedings 24th International Congress of Americanists,
Hamburg, 1930, pp. 55-59.
Coe, Michael D.
1966 The Maya. Praeger, New York.
Coe, William R.
1967 Tikal: A Handbook of the Ancient Maya Ruins. The University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Coggins, Clemency
1972   Displaced Mayan Sculpture. Estudios de Cultura Maya, Volumen VIII,
pp. 15-24. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad
Universitaria.
Corson, Christopher
1973  Iconographic Survey of Some Principal Figurine Subjects from the
Mortuary Complex of Jaina, Campeche. In: Studies in Ancient
Mesoamerica, ed. by John Graham, pp. 51-69. Contributions of the
University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 18.
DeBloois, Evan I.
1969 Santa Rosa Xtampak and Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico. Katunob,
Volume VII, Number 2, pp. 18-19.
107
Gates, William E.
1910   Commentary on the Maya-Tzental Perez Codex. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,
Volume VI, Number 1.
Graham, John A.
1973 Aspects of Non-Classic Presences in the Inscriptions and Sculptural
Art of Seibal. In: The Classic Maya Collapse, ed. by T. Patrick
Culbert, pp. 207-219. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Greene, Merle, Robert L. Rands, and John A. Graham.
1972   Maya Sculpture from the Southern Lowlands, the Highlands and Pacific
Piedmont Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras. Lederer, Street, and
Zeus, Berkeley.
Joesink-Mandeville, LeRoy V.
1972 Yucatan and the Chenes During the Formative: A Comparative
Synthesis. Katunob, Volume Vm, Number 2, pp. 1-38.
Kutscher,
Gerdt
1972
Maler, Teobert
1903
Wandmalereiendes vorkolumbischen Mexico in Kopien Walter Lehmanns.
In: Jahrbuch Preussischer Kulturbestiz, Volume IX (1971), pp. 71-120.
Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley- Part
Second. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, Memoirs, Volume II, Number 2.
Matheny, Raymond T., and Dale L. Berge.
1970 Archaeological Investigations in Northern Campeche. Paper presented
to XXXVth annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Mexico, D. F.
Morley, Sylvanus G.
1920  The Inscriptions of Copan. Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Publication 219.
1927 Archaeology. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Year Book 26.
1946  The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Morris, Earl H., Jean Charlot, and Ann A. Morris.
1931  The Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Publication 406.
108
Nelson, Fred W., Jr.
1970 Archaeological Investigations at Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University.
Nicholson, Henry B.
1971 Regigion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In: Handbook of Middle
American Indians, ed. by Robert Wauchope, Volume 10, pp. 395-
446. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Parsons, L. E.
1969
Bilbao, Guatemala. Milwaukee Public Museum Publications in
Anthropology, Number 12.
Pollock, Harry E. D.
1970 Architectural Notes on Some Chenes Ruins. In: Monographs and Papers
in MayaArchaeology, edited by W. R. Bullard. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 61.
Potter, D. F.
1974
Architectural Style at Becan During the Maya Late Classic Period.
In: Preliminary Reports on Archaeological Investigations in the Rio
Bec Area, Campeche, Mexico, ed. by Richard E. W. Adams.
Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, Publication
31: 118-146.
Redfield, Robert, and Alfonso Villa Rojas.
1934 Chan Kom, a Maya Village, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Roys, Ralph L.
1933
The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Publication 438; University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
1967.
Ruz, L., A.
1945   Campeche enla Arqueologia Maya. Acta Anthropologica, Volume 1,
Numbers 2-3.
Seler, Eduard
1916
Die Quetzalcouatl-Fassaden Yukatischer Bauten. Abhandlungen der
Konigl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1916.
Shellhas, P.
1904 Representations of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,
Volume 4, Number 1.
Thompson, Edward H.
1898  Ruins of Xkchmook, Yucatan. Field Musuem of Natural History,
Anthropological Series, Volume 2, Number 3,
109
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1937  A New Method of Deciphering Yucatecan Dates with Special Reference
to Chichen Itza. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 483,
Contribution 22.
1941  A Coordination of the History of Chichen Itza with Ceramic Sequences
in Central Mexico. In: Revista Mexicana de Estudios Anthropologicos,
Volume 5, pp. 97-111.
1945  A Survey of the Northern Maya Area. American Antiquity 11: 2-24.
1950  Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduction. Carnegie Institution
of Washington Publication 589. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman, 1960.
1962  A Catalogue of Maya Hieroglyphs. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
1968  Deciphering Maya Hieroglyphs. News Letter, Cranbrook Institute of
Science, Volume 87, Number 7, pp. 82-87.
1970  Maya History -and Religion. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1972  A Commentary on the Dresden Codex, A Maya Hieroglyphic Book.
Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, Volume 93.
1973 The Painted Capstone at Sacnicte, Yucatan, amd Two Others at Uxmal.
Indiana, Volume 1, pp. 59-63.
Tozzer, Alfred M.
1957   Chichen Itza and its Cenote of Sacrifice. A Comparative Study of
Contemporaneous Maya and Toltec. Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Memoirs 11 and 12.
Trik, Aubrey S.
1963  The Splendid Tomb of Temple I at Tikal, Guatemala. Expedition
Volume 6, Number 1, pp. 2-18.
Willard, T.A.
1926  The City of the Sacred Well. Grosset and Dunlap, Century, New York.
Willey, Gordon R.
1971 Commentary on: The Emergence of Civilization in the Maya Lowlands.
In: Observations on the Emergence of Civilization in Mesoamerica,
110
ed. by R. F. Heizer and J. A. Graham, Contributions of the University.
of California Archaeological Research Facility 11: 97-111.
Willey, Gordon R. and Demitri B. Shimkin
1973 The Maya Collapse: A Summary View. In: The Classic Maya
Collapse, ed. by T. Patrick Culbert, pp. 457-501. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1. The author is greatly indebted to Dr. Linton Satterthwaite for his encouragement
and for the numerous memos and discussions concerning this capstone. He is grateful
to Dr. William R. Coe, Curator of the American Section of the University Museum for
permission to use his line drawings of the capstone as well as the photograph and the
observations which are incorporated into the paper. His advice on many points was
invaluable. The author's vast dept to J. Eric S. Thompson is evident in almost every
page of this paper.