ancient maya stela e quirigua

06%20TIK%20AND%201%20mod-%20copie

The author was born in 1948 and is a University Professor (Université du Sud Toulon-Var). His research on the Maya civilisation is closely linked to the humanitarian actions he has taken since 1994 in aid of the k’ekchi Maya communities of Guatemala.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE ANCIENT MAYA

AND THE STELA « E » IN QUIRIGUA

 

 

André SEGURA

 

 

Reading the fifth and sixth editions of The Ancient Maya raises several problems among which I have singled out the assignment of the Initial Series (including the Long Count date) 9.17.0.0.013 Ahau 18 Cumkú to Stela F (Monument 6) in Quiriguá ; settling this problem brings up another one, related to the graphic reproduction of the lapidary materialization of this date adopted in all the editions of the work.

 

The problem of the assignment. It arises when comparing the editions of The Ancient Maya signed by S.G. Morley on the one hand, and R.J. Sharer on the other. The captions accompanying the drawing that is supposed to reproduce the aforementioned Initial Series connect the representation with the east side of Stela E in the Morley editions yet with the same side of  Monument 6 or Stela F in the Sharer and Sharer/Traxler editions.

In order to settle this problem, it is enough to turn to the photographies of the east sides of the two stelae (Fig. 1 ; Fig. 2). The comparison brings to light that the two east sides have different dates, both recorded in the Long Count system ; the difference does not only concern the recorded date but also the shape of the numerical coefficients affecting the time units : on Stela F these coefficients have an anthropomorphic shape (Fig. 2) whereas on Stela E they are recorded in bar-and-dot-notation (Fig. 1). As the two stelae cannot be mixed up, R.J. Sharer has made a mistake (unless it is due to the typographer) and many a researcher on Maya culture, forgetting S.G. Morley, has contributed to spreading that mistake in all good faith.

 

The problem of the graphic reproduction. The same comparison shows that the drawing of the lapidary materialization of the date (Fig. 3) is identical in every respect in all the editions of The Ancient Maya ; but the comparison between the aforementioned drawing and the photography of the east side of Stela E (Fig. 1) reveals that it is not compliant with the reality it claims to represent. The differences between the Initial Series of the east side of Stela E and the drawing by S.G. Morley bear upon three points :

 

 

Continuation of the article in  Journal de la Société des Américanistes, 2007, 93 (1)

 

Other publications: http://andre.segura1.free.fr/tmccop.htm