#Maudslay’s Temple 6

[blueiscoool]

Archaeologists Find Maya Warrior Head Sculpture in Mexico

Archaeological rescue work ahead of the Maya Train construction has turned up another remarkable find in Chichén Itzá – a well-preserved sculpture of a Maya warrior head in a helmet shaped like a feathered serpent with open jaws.

The head was discovered on Tuesday in Maudslay’s Temple 6, in the Casa Colorada complex of Chichén Itzá, in Yucatán, as part of the Program for the Improvement of Archaeological Zones (Promeza).

The 33 centimeter-high sculpture appears to date from the earliest period of habitation of Chichén Itzá.

“It was customary to represent warriors with a headdress, with a kind of helmet,” he said. “In this case it is a snake figure from which the face of this character emerges, and a feathered headdress, so it is probably alluding to Kukulcán, the feathered serpent of the Maya.”

Just last week, INAH archaeologists discovered a circular temple dedicated to Kukulcán at the El Tigre site in Campeche, also as part of Promeza works associated with the Maya Train construction.

Prieto Hernández used his presentation at the morning press conference to give updates on other Promeza projects, including conservation work at the Xelhá site on the coast of Quintana Roo.

The site is around 1,300 years old, and its name means “Entrance to the Water” in the Mayan language. It was the principal port of the Cobá kingdom in the years 250-600 A.D., but fell into rapid decline after diseases introduced by the Spanish conquest all but wiped out the native inhabitants.

Prieto Hernández insisted that Promeza projects are helping to give today’s Maya communities new contact with their past – although the Maya Train has also been controversial among Indigenous communities for its impact on the natural environment and their way of life.

As of Nov. 9, Prieto Hernández said that archaeological salvage work on the seven sections of the Maya Train had recovered 57,146 building structures, 1,925 movable artifacts, 660 human burials and 2,252 natural features associated with human settlements.

[thatshowthingstarted]

Maya Statue Head,

On Tuesday, November 7, archaeologists in the eastern Yucatán Peninsula unearthed a well-preserved Maya warrior statue head adorned with a serpentine headdress amidst construction for the Maya Train.

Measuring approximately 13 inches tall and 11 inches wide, the artifact was found during the excavation of a wall in Maudslay’s Temple 6, a site named after the British archaeologist Alfred Maudslay within the Casa Colorada Complex in the Maya city of Chichén Itzá. The complex is one of four buildings surrounding the main plaza of the ancient site.

The object may date back to the earliest years of Chichén Itzá, founded around 455 CE. 

[hellosidereus]

#REPOST @megalithicmarvels with @get__repost__app TOP 10 PHOTOS OF 2021 2021 was a great year of research and exploration regarding megalithic structures and ancient civilizations. From the hundreds of photos posted this year, here are the top 10 based on total impressions: 1. (1.1M impressions) Cut from a single massive rock, India’s Kailasa Temple is the largest of 34 temples that make up the Elora Caves complex. 📷 by @kunaldalui 2. (728K impressions) Evidence of lost ancient technology seen up close in the megaton walls of the mysterious Osirion of Abydos archaeological site. 📷 by @ Gord Tiemstra 3. (560K impressions) Compelling evidence of lost ancient technologies seen at Saqqara. 📷 @aturstravel 4. (473K impressions) Vintage photo of the Serapeum of Saqqara - which holds one of the great mysteries of Egypt - the 25 black precision crafted granite boxes weighing approx 100 tons each. 📷 by (unknown) 5. (469K impressions) With a Spanish Monastery built on top of it in the 1600s, Cusco’s ancient Coricancha (The Golden Temple) features astonishing megalithic precision & was considered the jewel of the Inca empire… but did it predate the Inca? 📷 @ Julien Coqueret 6. (435K impressions) Catalunya, Spain: a large stone with what appears to be four ancient, yet precision cut core-drill holes. 📷 @ Jorge Jose Manuel Bernal 7. (434K impressions) Izabal, Guatemala 1894: the largest of the three-dimensional Maya zoomorphs found at the Quirigua archaeological site which weighs 20 tons. 📷 by @ Alfred P Maudslay 8. (409K impressions) Cusco is a city made of a million #megalithicmarvels 📷 by @enigma.cusco 9. (374K impressions) Sunlight glows on India’s Lakshmana Temple, an architectural masterpiece 📷 by @the.artographer 10. (361K impressions) Cut straight from the ancient stone crevices, it is estimated that 85% of Petra has yet to be uncovered. 📷 by @emmett_sparling (à Abydos Temple, Abydos, Egypt) https://www.instagram.com/p/CX-zC7jqI4o/?utm_medium=tumblr

[tlatollotl]

by Michael Coe (Yale University) and Stephen Houston (Brown University)

Forgeries have long been a scourge to archaeology and art history alike, rearing up whenever money mixes with “excessive desire and bad judgment” (Meyer 1973:103, see also Lapatin 2000:45). According to Ascanio Condivi, even Michelangelo got into the act by passing off one of his carvings as a valuable antiquity (Holroyd 1903:21–22). Yet fakes also serve as fascinating evidence in the history of crime, especially for that special con by which the cleverness of a forger matches wits with scholars.

Fakers may win for a time—think of the “Etruscan warriors” concocted by the brothers Pio and Alfonso Riccardi and later sold to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (von Bothmer and Noble 1961). But mostly they lose. No one can look today at van Meegeren’s banal paintings and think, as Hermann Göring did, that Vermeer had a hand in their making (Godley 1967). Scientific techniques play a role in separating fakes from genuine pieces, along with a systematic probing of provenience, outright confessions—proudly made in some cases (Beltracchi and Kunst)—and the mere fact that every generation draws on greater knowledge. Faking becomes harder and harder, and the myth, say, that a forger knows more than specialists in Maya art and writing is scarcely credible. The wise analyst must also ask the standard gumshoe questions: who was the victim, who the perpetrator, was there any intent to deceive, was harm done as a result (Chappell and Polk 2009:3, 16)?

There are, no doubt, works that continue to puzzle. The Getty Kouros, for example, is either a fake that deeply skews our understanding of Greek art or it is a revealing anomaly that shows our “imperfect understanding of what remains, and the limits of our perspectives, preconceptions, and comprehension” (Lapatin 2000:46). And then there are the stunningly terrible fakes that do not so much represent a “crisis of criteria” (Lapatin 2000:43), a tough decision to be made between competing claims, as obvious forgeries that would fool no scholar.

Think about Maya fakes. There are many of them (Eberl and Prager 2000; Eberl and Prem 2011), some published, to our amazement, in important traveling exhibits (Gallenkamp and Johnson 1985:pls. 62, 63, 69, 72, 74). A few have needed further research. Typically, the more challenging cases are colonial, with only a few purported signs or images of indigenous nature (Hanks 1992; Jones 1992). But, under hard scrutiny, they too eventually yield their secrets. As for “Pre-Columbian books,” the tell-tale indicator is whether they exist as a pastiche, a rough assortment of glyphs or pictures. Often in nonsensical order, and mostly lifted from well-known sources, the glyphs and images tumble out in combinations that are, to expert eyes, anachronistic, stylistically inconsistent or incoherent, and contrary to recent decipherments of Maya writing.

With Maya books, of which only four intact examples remain, there is no real “crisis of criteria.” Quite simply, the fakes are glaring, at times laughable: who would be fooled by them today? In truth, few scholars ever were. The first such studies were done by Frans Blom (1935a, 1935b; 1946) and by a sprinkling of others (Brainerd 1948; Wassén 1942).

The “codices” tend to have a number of attributes, including:

(1) recognizable day and month signs, sometimes interspersed with wishful squiggles intended to simulate glyphs (Figure 1; compare with Figure 3, below);

Figure 1. Comparison of faked codex with source image in Dresden 19a.

(2) a crudely polished leather base, with follicles clearly evident, or on what appears to be amate (fig-tree bark) or even coconut fiber (Figures 2, 3);

Figure 2. Faked leather codex and source image (K594, photograph copyright Justin Kerr, used with permission).

(3) little to no confidence of line, the “hand” being ill-practiced in calligraphy (Figure 3);

Figure 3. Unpracticed handling of paint, illegible signs and crude leather base.

(4) overbold and liberal use of polychromy (Figure 4; see also Figure 5, from the Peabody Museum at Yale University);

Figure 4. Bright polychromy: source image to right, “Pellicer Vase,” Museo Regional de Antropología Carlos Pellicer Cámara (photograph to right: Stephen Houston).

Figure 5. Garish polychromy on the Yale Peabody Museum Codex (photograph by Michael Coe); note also the copying from Dresden 56b.

(5) transparent copying from widely available sources, especially the Dresden Codex and sundry illustrations from general books.

A few of these examples will suffice. One smuggles in a poorly interpreted vulture from a page of the Dresden Codex (Figure 1). The hammock and courtly figures on the so-called “Pellicer vase” from the Museo Regional de Antropología Carlos Pellicer Cámara, Villahermosa, Tabasco, transfer neatly to another “codex” (Figure 4; vase published in Covarrubias 1957), and a Late Classic image of a mythic figure from a polychrome vase excavated at Uaxactun Guatemala finds an inept copy on yet another leather codex (Figure 6). Mixing periods–—the mural dates to the late 300s, early 400s—the faker also quoted freely from the well-published Ratinlixul Vase, excavated in 1917 by Robert Burkitt near Chamá, Guatemala, and now in the University of Pennsylvania Museum (UPM No. NA 11701, Danien 1997:38, Fig. 1).

What is abundantly evident is the sheer laziness or uninventive mentality of forgers. Sylvanus Morley’s The Ancient Maya (1946), first edition, was a particularly generous source for them, as it contained a handy list of Maya day glyphs (fig. 18), month signs (fig. 19), glyphs for time periods (fig. 22), Initial Series (fig. 25), and thorough coverage of the Maya calendar (pp. 265–295). The Ratinlixul Vase had its own line drawing too (pl. 88b). Of slightly earlier date was the useful, inexpensive, and widely available edition of Maya codices by the Villacortas in Guatemala (Villacorta and Villacorta 1933).

Figure 6. Copy of images from Uaxactun and the Ratinlixul vase on a forged leather codex (photograph to lower left, copyright Justin Kerr, used with permission).

A final example shows how blatant such copying can be (Figure 6). This codex lifts half of the center ballcourt marker from Copan Ballcourt BII (excavated by Gustav Strømsvik in the 1930s), as well as a frontal image from Palenque’s Temple of the Skull (upper left) and a smattering of full-figure glyphs from Copan Stela D (center left; see Stuart Temple of the Skull); Maudslay 1889–1902:pl. 48).

Figure 6. Fake codex and, at center, image taken from Copan Ballcourt II, center marker (drawing by John Montgomery).

A few of these documents are in institutions (American Museum of Natural History, no. 30–9530, in a gift of c. 1901–1904, from the Duc de Loubat [Glass 1975:204]; Peabody Museum, Yale University [No. 137880]; Världskulturmuseet, Göteborg [Glass 1975:305]), but most are only known to us by way of unsolicited communications or, for one manuscript, via a glossy facsimile published in Guatemala (Benítez 2005; said to be from Chichicastenango, Guatemala, it even has a supposed radiocarbon date of “BP 200 + 28,” which, by odd arithmetic, the author pushes back to “1650 A.D.” [Benítez 2005:4–5]). Most fakes had two episodes of preparation, beyond the painting itself. Immersion in dirt or (we suspect) cow patties provided the right patina, and then a hurried cleaning gave some visibility for the dupe being invited to purchase the book.

A striking element is that many share elaborate “origin” stories. As a random selection, these concern a now-deceased relative who had traveled in Mexico/Guatemala, etc., a stray find in a Maya town in Guatemala, caves, scuba-diving or, in an example seen by one of us (Houston) in Provo, Utah, an heir wishing to donate the manuscript to a worthy public institution. A few seem to have gone through the hands of the late Pablo Bush Romero, “Mexico’s distinguished diver, self-made scholar and restless millionaire-at-large” (Sports Illustrated 1964). The presence of others of far earlier date, as in that acquired by the Duc de Loubat, show multiple hands behind their manufacture: the temptation to fake such codices clearly had deep roots (Glass 1975:305–306; for the Duc, Loubat obituary). The Yale forgery is described on the museum website as: a “Maya codex purchased in Mexico City, 1905, from an old priest around the corner from the southeast corner of the Alameda. This codex was first shown in 1887; he then declined to sell it, but in 1905, having been so ill that both his legs were amputated, and not expecting to live longer, he offered to sell the codex (to a friend?) of his in Merida who was then a druggist. This codex was examined by Dr. Alfred Tozzer of Harvard University, who considered it a reproduction, partly because the…various day signs were not in the proper Maya order” (Yale codex).

At this point, one of us (Coe) has seen over a dozen such codices. All are supremely unconvincing to the trained eye. The inept painting, ignorance of Maya coloration, slavish (yet scrambled) copying of well-known sources, anachronisms, inattention to decipherments, improvised, ad hoc “signs,” rough preparation and obvious attempts at artificial aging—all characterize these examples, without exception. It is unthinkable that any in this corpus of pictorial failure would pass muster, technical analysis or glyphic and iconographic exegesis.

To understand what is not a fake, as in the Grolier Codex (Coe et al. 2015), we are well-advised to study what isa fake. This rogues’ gallery shows that compelling deceptions of ancient Maya books are easier to claim than to create.

References

Benítez, Henry. 2005. Códice Chugüilá (1650 d.C.). Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa.

Blom, Frans. 1935a. A Checklist of Falsified Maya Codices. Maya Research 2(3):251–252.

______. 1935b. The ‘Gomesta Manuscript’, A Falsification. Maya Research 2(3):233–248.

______. 1946. Forged Maya Codex. The Masterkey 20:18.

Brainerd, George W. 1948. Another Falsified Maya Codex. The Mastery 22:17–18.

Chappell, Duncan, and Kenneth Polk. 2009. Fakers and Forgers, Deception and Dishonesty: An Exploration of the Murky World of Art Fraud. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 20 (3):393–412 (pp. 1–20, online).

Coe, Michael, Stephen Houston, Mary Miller, and Karl Taube. 2015. The Fourth Maya Codex. In Maya Archaeology 3, eds., Charles Golden, Stephen Houston, and Joel Skidmore, 116–167.San Francisco,: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press.

Covarrubias, Miguel. 1957. Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. New York: Knopf.

Danien, Elin. 1997. The Ritual on the Ratinlixul Vase: Pots and Politics in Highland Guatemala. Expedition39(3):37–48. Danien 1997

Eberl Markus, and Christian Prager. 2000. A Fake Maya Bone. Mexicon 22(1):5.

Eberl, Markus, and Hanns Prem. 2011. Identifying a Forged Maya Manuscript in UNESCO’s World Digital Library. Ancient Mesoamerica 22(1):155–166.

Gallenkamp, Charles, and Regina E. Johnson. 1985. Maya: Treasures of Ancient Civilization. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

Glass, John B. 1975. A Catalog of Falsified Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 14: Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources, Part 3, ed. Howard F. Cline (assoc. eds., Charles Gibson and H. B. Nicholson), 297–310. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Godley, John R. 1967. Van Meegeren: A Case History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Hanks William F. 1992. The Language of the Canek Manuscript. Ancient Mesoamerica 3:269–279.

Holroyd, Charles. 1903. Michael Angelo Buonarroti. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Jones, Grant D. 1992. The Canek Manuscript in Ethnohistorical Perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 3:243–268.

Lapatin, Kenneth D. S. 2000. Proof? The Case of the Getty Kouros. Source: Notes in the History of Art20(1):43–53.

Maudslay, Alfred P. 1889–1902. Biologia Centrali-Americana, or, Contributions to the Knowledge of the Fauna and Flora of Mexico and Central America, vols. 55–9, Archaeology. London: R. H. Porter and Dulau.

Meyer, Karl E. 1973. The Plundered Past: Traffic in Art Treasures. New York: Athenaeum.

Morley, Sylvanus G. 1946. The Ancient Maya. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Villacorta, J. Antonio C., and Carlos A. Villacorta. 1933. Códices Mayas: Dresdensis— Peresianus—Tro-Cortesianus. Guatemala: Tipografía Nacional.

Von Bothmer, Dietrich, and Joseph V. Noble. 1961. An Inquiry into the Forgery of the Etruscan Terracota Warriors in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Papers 11. New York.

Wassén, S. Henry. 1942. A Forged Maya Codex on Parchment: A Warning. Etnologiska Studier 1213:293–304.

[johnishere-blog]

Image from page 244 of “Annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution” (1895)

Identifier: annualreportofbu219smit Title: Annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution Year: 1895 (1890s) Authors: Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology Subjects: Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology Ethnology Indians Publisher: Washington : U. S. Govt. Print. Off. Contributing Library: Boston Public Library Digitizing Sponsor: Kahle/Austin Foundation and Omidyar Network

View Book Page: Book Viewer About This Book: Catalog Entry View All Images: All Images From Book

Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image: ers here to the date to be supplied, as has been shown,to the third series on the right slal) of the Tablet of the FoliatedCross. The interval he gives betweiMi the two dates is 6-11-6, whichis in accordance with the inscription. Tiiis is fol!owe(l (11) by S Ahau8 Lo with an interval of 1-12-4. whicli is also correct. TEMPLE OK INSCKIITIONS 771 ]t will l)t seen from this discussion that tlicri arc some ln-caks in hissynopsis which \ ill. until Ihcv aiv cxpltiinctl. icaxc it in an unsatisfac-tory coudition. Nc(rth(^less. as has l)eon suyycstcd. the two inscrip-tions appear to he based on the same enetit of Mr Maudslays photo-graphs and drawings and, to some extent, of Mr Cioodmans interpre-tation. As parts of the inscrijition have lieen badly defaced it is

Text Appearing After Image: Flii. 1^—Ijiit ol the illsuriplian uii tiic wall ul thu Tumpk- ^ti InscriiJtiuiis, Puluiiqiiu. impossible to give the series and dates iu connected form. Attentionwill therefore be directed only to such portions as are sufficiently dis-tinct to be determined with probable coriectness ))y inspection. AsMr (xoodmaii has given, on i)ago ll-t of his work, a copy of part of theinscription with comments, reference will l)e made tirst to this portion,of which a copy is gi(>n in our tigure 18. This portion is lettered andnuinbered separately in the usual manner. Mr Goodmans conuuents. as given on pages 114 and 115 of his work.are as follows, the breaks and parentheses being his own: The readini: of tlie above, so far as 1 can make it out, in as follows: (To the) 10 Alum 1.1 Yaxkiii (that is) 1 caUinlar roimil (froii; a. or tile samel date appcuriiitr some ilistaiire liaik—S days, it ilmens (^tliere is what 772 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [ethannIU appears almost like a trick here: the numb

Note About Images Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhanced for readability – coloration and appearance of these illustrations may not perfectly resemble the original work.

Posted by Internet Archive Book Images on 2014-07-30 08:47:55

Tagged: , bookid:annualreportofbu219smit , bookyear:1895 , bookdecade:1890 , bookcentury:1800 , bookauthor:Smithsonian_Institution__Bureau_of_American_Ethnology , booksubject:Smithsonian_Institution__Bureau_of_American_Ethnology , booksubject:Ethnology , booksubject:Indians , bookpublisher:Washington___U__S__Govt__Print__Off_ , bookcontributor:Boston_Public_Library , booksponsor:Kahle_Austin_Foundation_and_Omidyar_Network , bookleafnumber:244 , bookcollection:USGovernmentDocuments , bookcollection:bostonpubliclibrary , bookcollection:americana , bookcollection:additional_collections

The post Image from page 244 of “Annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution” (1895) appeared first on Good Info.