THE

MAYA
VASE
BOOK
A CORPUS OF ROLLOUT PHOTOGRAPHS OF MAYA VASES

BY JUSTIN KERR
II

WITH ESSAYS BY

DORIE REENTS-BUDET
MARC ZENDER
CAROLYN E. TATE
PATRICIAANCONA-HA.
JORGE PEREZ DE LARA.
& MARK VAN STONE

EDITED BY BARBARA AND JUSTIN KERR

VOLUME 6
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
/ \..
\. o )
"

.,

THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6

A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of Maya Vases

Edited by Barbara and Justin Kerr

Copyrtght Justin Kerr 2000

all rights reserved

Photography Justin Kerr

Design Barbara Kerr
Prtnttng Mitchell Graphics Inc.

Published by Kerr Associates

14 West 17th Street
New York, NY 10011
USA
(212) 741-1731
www.mayavase.com
e-mail mayavase@aol.com

Printed In The United States

ISBN 0- 9624208-5-9

904
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6

CONTENTS

PAGE 906 PREFACE JUSTIN KERR

PAGE 910 TIlE CORPUS

TIlE ESSAYS

PAGE 1022 FEASTING AMONG THE CLASSIC MAYA: DQRlE REENTS-BUDET

EVIDENCE FROM THE PICTORIAL CERAMICS

PAGE 1038 A STUDY OF lWO UAXACTUN-SlYLE MARC ZENDER

TAMALE SERVING VESSELS

PAGE 1056 WRITING ON THE FACE OF THE MOON: CAROLYN E. TATE

WOMEN AS POTTERS, MEN AS PAINfERS
IN CLASSIC MAYA CIVILIZATION

PAGE 1072 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON HAND GESTURES PATRICIAANCONA-HA,

IN MAYA ART JORGE PEREZ DE LARA,
& MARK VAN STONE
 THE MAYAVASE BOOK VOL. 6

A STUDY OF 1WO UAXACTUN-STILE

TAMALE-SERVING VESSELS

MARC ZENDER

studies have convincingly defined a Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art in

Uaxactun regional tradition centered at Toronto; Ontario (G83.1.120) (fig.2 .
.••••. Na~e•...• ;
the sites of Uaxactun and EI Sotz', and K6080); the other from the Duke Univer-
ErSotz' ..A. ..
U~actU
, f bounded to the south and north by rival
traditions at Tikal and Nakbe, respectively
sity Museum of Art. North Carolina
(l978.40) {fig.3;, Reents-Buder et a1.
Tik~ ....:Naranjo

MEXICO
"-/-~
.,.." ~'.
'-
BELIZE
{fig.1). It is probably fair to say, however,
that while cylindrical vessels and deep
1994; 281, '359, cat no. 92, [K5460]).1
Whileunprovenanced, these plates willbe
. r---=<;..I bowls (uk'ib1 of this and related tradi- shown to bear the diagnostic epfgraphtc.
tions have been intensively analyzed [cf stylistic and typological features of the

•
••...•••••••••••

GUATEMALA

F1gure L Map oJthe Maya lowlands showing sues

d~
.l.NajTunich
mentioned in Ute text.(alldrawlngs by Ute author}.
The Uaxactun regional painting tradition
is well known to students of Classic Maya
polychrome ceramics. Over the last
decade, collaborative research on the part
of numerous scholars has related
tradition's unique hieroglyphic style and
its underlying linguistic patterns to paint-
ing techniques, ceramlc typologies and the
scribal traditions of known Maya sites
(Grube 1991: 222; MacLeod 1990: 485-
6; Reents-Buder et al. 1994: 125, 135-8.
155). In conjunction with trace element
analyses (via neutron activation) of the
pastes of archaeologically excavated pots
and potsherds (Reents 1985: 183~187;
Reents-Buder et a1. 1994: ISS). these
Grube 1991; Houston. Stuart and Taube
1989; MacLeod 1990: 485-486) •. the
more uncommon but no less important
shallow bowls and plates (lakandjawte1
have been somewhat neglected. That Is,
while epIgraphic, iconographic. lise-wear
and gas-chromatographic analyses have
all been profitably employed in uncover-
ing the function and significance of the
this larger. more spectacular drinking vessels
(Hall et al. 1990; Houston, Stuart and
Taube 1989; Hurst et a1. 1989;, Stuart
1986a; 1988). we still do not have
convtnctng epigraphic or physical-evi-
dence relating to the functions
wide, shallow plates in this tradition.
It Is In the hopes of fllllngthis unfortunate
gap that this paper is offered. Its purpose
is to discuss the texts of two Saxche
Orange-polychrome plates: one, previously
unpublished. from the collections of the
Uaxactiin regional style. Therefore, to the
extent that they can be related to the rest
of the tradition. these vessels might
reasonably be expected to extend some-
what our appreciation of this regional
style. An additional contribution of this
study Is a reconsideration of the social and
functional roles that wide. shallow plates
might have fflled for the Classic Maya.
TEXT AND IMAGE
The texts on the Gardiner and Duke ves-
selscomprise twenty-two and eighteen
of glyph blocks. respectively (figs.2-3). Each
text is arranged around the inner rim of
the plate, and is read clockwise. Close

1038
 , THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6

inspection of the
Gardiner plate reveals a
painting sequence com-
mon to both vessels:
first came the cream
sUp, then the heavy
black outlines and the
fine details of the
~. glyphs and central im-
, , age. Finally, the dis-
tinctive heavy red wash
that highlights the
glyphs and fills in the
zoomorphic grotesques
~ in the center was ap- "
r pl1ed. This was dorie
with decidedly more Il-:
nesse in the case of the -Figu;.e2:'K60Bo,Plate~~thecoUectionsoI Figure 3. K 5460, Platefrom the collections
,'\ "j' Gardiner plate, espe-:
, ,," , the GOTdinerMuseum of Ceramic Art (083.1.120). of the Duke Unfversity Musewn of Art.
cfally with regard to the - :"\ r- "-- ---
~,

interior detail of the centni.liiriag~-,:, .n::'"Coggins (in Gallenkampand Johnson this briefdescriptionofit here (thoughsee
although both artists were-careful-to i9S5: 181. cat no. 132;' see also K12. Reents-Buderet al. 1994:359).
avoid letting the red wash -cross.ithe K4321, K5054. K5381). Its "Jester-
thick outlines of the glyph blocke.. ;;.\:;. G'od headband', G Iv-featu res and Regarding their relative dates of manu-
ft

"t 'I, The Gardiner plate's central image of an

:;Sinoking 'Ajaw'"imagery all evoke
th(;,:IIlesofdlvine'rille--and prfmogent-
facture. it is clear that both texts display
a great deal offorrnal similarity in terms
avian grotesque with f(;':atiJresofG1 Is ture-The sfgntftcanceof the uncommon of line. hieroglyphic style. and sign
not dissimilar from that of many.Cut-; .ientity on the Duke plate. a supernatural choice. However.1 believe the Gardiner
orange polychromes recov'e:re,q'i~/j;; ,>feathered fish with jaguarand.serpent plate to.predate the Duke plate by sev-
Campeche. and described and exemp1i~'::«~'characteristics, is less clear-aridvtt- eralgenerattons. as is reflected in the
fied by Ball (1975: 32-39. figs 1-2)~and would be premature to offer m~'ieth~'i,:\,o(,<;~'c()nsistently
':, pif!'~T,'''''' i',:
earlierpalaeographicstyle of
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
A B
b
FIgure 4. 17le dedication and surface-treatment seasons of the plates.
its glyphs, especially the diagnostic T178
la (figs. 9b:G and 11: Q-R) and T506
"K'an" signs (figs. 9b:I and lOb:O) (see
Mathews and Pendergast 1979: 204 for
the stylistic history ofthe latter sign, and
Lacadena 1995 for a thorough discussion
of Mayan script palaeographyj.s
Palaeographtc concerns, seriation, and
the stylistic history of the vessel's at-
tendant iconography clearly place the
manufacture of the Gardiner plate prior
to 9.lO.0.0.0 [t.e. Tzakol3. and pre-A.D.
633) and suggest a placement for the
Duke plate no earlier than the early Bth-
century A.D. (Le.Tepeu 1) and certainly
no later than ca. A.D. 750 (Smith 1955).
Thus, similarities in style and sign choice
on these two plates, themselvesdiagnostic
elements of the Uaxactun school
(MacLeod 1990: 485-486; Grube 1991:
2. This paper employs the system of glyphic nu-
memtion devised by J.E.S. Thompson (1962);
trwJSliteratlon conventions follow the guidelines
proposed In the Research Reports onAnctent Maya
Writing (G. Stuart 1988).
1040
c D E F
222), are here held to reflect the con-
servative nature of this school rather
than contemporaneity of production.
Both texts conform in most respects to
what has been termed the Primary Stan-
dard Sequence (Coe 1973), a formulate
sequence commemorating the vessel's
dedication. surface treatment, folk
classification and function. and the name
ofits owner or patron (Houstonand Taube.
1987; Houston, Stuart and Taube 1989;
MacLeod 19901.As both texts are nearly
perfect parallels, I shall discuss them
simultaneously so that problematic,
uncommon or abraded glyphs on the one
plate will be the more easlly clarified by
the other. This has the added advantage
of making clear the amount of glyphic
variation present even in regional tradi-
tions as robust as that of Uaxactun.
DEDICATION
The first glyph block of both texts (figs,
4a:A and 4b:A) is the so-called Initial
Sign, still of unknown reading. though
G H
M ··
•
•
•
F
•• 0
clearly..introductory in nature (Grube
1~.!=J,I:":22:3,:4tMacLeod
1990: 31-68). The
followingglyph. B, is comprised of the
compoiiridlogographK'ALand a persont-
fiedjaslgn common in ceramic texts of
,,;theU~9tllnregion (e.g.MacLeod1990:
. 508).Together,these can be transliterated
as the passivized transitive verb k'a[hll-
aj-0, and translated either as "It was
made" or "It was held" (cf. Ch'ol k'd1 vt.
"hacer (casar, Aulle and Aulie 1978: 45;
Ch'orti' k'ar "hold, hold onto. keep".
Wisdom 1949) and referring, in any
event, to the constituents which follow.
The next two signs are the syllables yi
and chi, which spell the possessed noun
y-ich.Althoughthe collocationis phoneti-
cally transparent, this lexeme unfortu-
nately does not survtve in any known
Ch'olan language, and a reliable transla-
tion still eludes us (though see MacLeod
1990: 249-259).
 -
(~4a:C-D)
spreads
the colloca-
tton over
two glyph
blocks and
employs a
personified
matn-stgn
variant of
T17yiand Figure 5. Supernatural with
a partially deer attributes (after K2023).
eroded ani-
mal-head sign. Comparison with texts
-.,I
from other Uaxactun-style vessels (e.g.
K1743 and K5350, both chemically and
stylistically from the Uaxacttin region, and
-.I' Robicsek 1978: no. 148) confirms that
this animal is a deer. Ch'olan chU
(Kaufman and Norman 1984: llS).
Grube (1991: 225) has elsewhere
demonstrated that this sign is an un-
common allograph of syllabic chi. In
addition, I would note that the sign
can also be employed as logographtc
CHJJ. as on K2023 (fig. 5), where a
skeletal supernatural with both
"Cauac" and deer attributes is htero-
glyphtcally labelled as cha-CHAJUK/
CHIJ/cha-CHAM-mi, Chajuk Chij
Chami or "Thunder Deer Death".
Other vessels depicting this same entity
(e.g. K791, KI901, K4922) substitute
syllabic chi or chi-ji spellings for what is
here spelled with logographtc ClUJ "deer"
(see Grube and Nahm 1994: 705 for an
in-depth discussion of this entity). Diag-
nosticfeatures of the chi/ClUJ sign (figs.
5-6) include: vestigial antlers, a dotted
buccal region, long ears, and dark
patches either on the cheek or around
the eye. These features are all common
to painted depictions of deer, both in the
codices and on pottery (see figs. I3b and
7c; see also KBOB, K1182, KI339,
K2794). While depictions
Maya sculpture
of deer on
are much rarer than
painted examples, two examples of the
day-sign "Manik" from Site Q monuments
(fig. 7a-b) and an example of a deer from
a modeled-carved vase (K4336) also con-
form to the general features noted above
(as flret pointed out by Martin n.d.). In
abc
~tJ~'~
_...' ". '" ,"
.
F1gure6.
-Deer Heuer aI!ogruphs oj sylIabicchiftom
a. afterCoe 1973: 84. 85.
b. aflerCoe 1973: 86.
c. afterCoe 1973: 87.
d. after Grube 199J;fI{J. 3e.
THE MAYAVASE BOOK VOL. 6
a b
Figure 7. Monumental and
painted examples of Maya
deer.
a. The day -4 Manik-, Site Q
panelS: C2, TheArtInsHlute
of Chicago (after a drawing
by Ian Graham).
b. The day ~1Manik~, SiteQ
panel 9: AI, the coUection oj
Manuel Barbachano Ponce
(after Martin n.d.)
c. Deity impersonator with
deer headdress (after
K2011).
addition, however, such examples tend
to incorporate a "Caban- -curl motif on
their ears or around their eyes, and some
painted examples of Maya deer also incor-
porate this self same "Cabanv-curl motif
(fig. t«. and K414. K2023, K7I52).
SURFACE TREATMENT
The texts of both plates continue with
the four signs 'u. tz'i. b'a and 11spelling
d the possessed noun u-tz'fl[h]b'-il or "Its
Aj~i':"
writing", where disharmonic
i'~~,: sessednoun (Houston et al. 1998), a pat-
.~""::.
b'a may
indicate vocalic lengthening in the pos-
tern attested in some Mayan languages.
vaTious vessels.
While the Gardiner plate text (fig. 4b:D-F)
employs the fairly common "Shark-Head-
'u allograph (Stuart 1990) followed by
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
a b c d
Figure B. "Winking Head" aUographs ojsyllabic
a-b. after K4357.
c. after K4551.
d. after K2023.
T563a tz'i (Stuart 1987, 1989), T501 b'a
and the "worm Bird" allograph of Ii
(Grube 1991: 227-228), the Duke plate
(fig. 4a: E-H) employs far less common
allographs of most of these signs. Glyph
E of the Duke plate (fig.4a:E), a human
head with a closed-eye and dotted lower
cheek, has never, to my knowledge, been
discussed before. It seems to substitute
for the "Shark-Head" 'u of the otherwise
parallel Gardiner text, and this raises the
spectre of equivalence. Comparison with
other Uaxactun-etyle vessels (e.g.K2023,
K4357, K4551) does indeed reveal this
"wtnldng Head" sign to be a new 'u
allograph. as Identical signs (fig.8) regu-
larly substitute in identical contexts for
Tl, the "Shark-Head", the "Sacrtftctal
head", and "Muluc", all demonstrably
read 'u (Stuart 1990). Moreover, these
substitutions also extend to other con-
texts on both the Gardiner and Duke
plates, as is discussed further below.
Followingthe new 'u Sign, the Duke text
continues (fig.4a:F-H) with the "BatHead"
tz't, "Skull" b'a and already familiar
"Worm Bird" Ii allographs. Numerous
scholars (Grube 1991: 227; MacLeod
1990: 485-486; Reents-Budet et al. 1994:
1042
"ujrom uarious vessels.
125, 135-138, 155) have discussed the
predilection ofUaxactun and EI Sotz' art-
tets for employing these particular
allographs of tz't and b'a in tz'i-b'a
collocations, and for avoidingthe other-
wise common na-ja and na-ja-Ia colloca-
tions entirely. To these distinctive
Uaxactun regional traits can be added
a strong tendency to employ the previ-
ously-discussed "Deer Head" and "Wink-
ing Head" allographs of chi and 'u,
respectively, as both are seen primarily
if not exclusively on vessels belonging to
this style group (e.g. K1743, K2023,
K4357, K4551 and K5350, as well as the
plates discussed in this study).
FOLKCLASSIFICATION
The next seven signs of both plates can
be transcribed as 'u-la-ka-'u-WE'-'i-b'i
(fig.9)and transliterated as u-lak u-we'-
ib', These are two possessed nouns
couched in the form of a previously un-
recognizedcouplet that can be best trans-
lated as "bra/her clay vessel, his/her ta-
male-eating-Instrument [i.e. 'plate'j''."
Whereas the Duke plate (fig.9a: I-Klspells
u-lak by employing the prevtously-dte-
cussed "Wmking Head" allograph of 'u.
followedby Tl78 la and the 1738 "Fish"
allograph of ka spread over three glyph-
blocks. the Gardiner plate (fig.9b:G)com-
bines variants of all three signs into only
one compound, These signs are a rare
variant ofT13 "Death Eyes" 'u {see also
Coe 1973: vessels 77-B1 and 82-Al; and
Fahsen 1988: 5-F8l, Tl78Iaand theT25
"Comb"allograph ofka, all combined to
spell u-lak "his clay vessel"." While the
u-lak collocation is wen known. however,
the second part of this possessed noun
couplet is quite novel. and will therefore
be worth considering in some detail.
Each vessel employs a distinct 'u
allograph for the possessrve pronoun: on
the Duke plate (fig.9a:LJIt is the "Muluc"
'u variant (Stuart 1990), and on the
Gardiner plate (fig. 9b:H) it is an Early
3. While this particular construction has not been
discussed beJore,similar possessed noun couplets
have been noted elsewhere. ln fact. the u-jaay y_
uk'-ih' couplet, common to Clweholir-style vessels
(e.g. K198, 3199, 6998), 0CC'IlrS on drinking ves-
sels Inprecisely the same syntactic position as that
under discussion here. and can be tronslated as
"his gourd. his drinking-utensil" (MacLeod 1990:
368-369: and cJ Tzotzil hay "gourd. tortilla gourd",
Laughlin 1975: 148, andCh'o1uk'-um -pitcher,jug-,
AulleandAulie 1978: 125, wherethe-Vm suffix is
arwther instrumental suffix like the -Ib' seen In
glyphic examples, Wichmann n.d.: 109).

Classic variant
of the by now
farnlllar "Wink- Figure 9. Thefolk classlf/catfon secnons of the plates.
ing Head" sign
'u. The next sign on both plates, WE'
(fig. 9a: M and 9b: I), is a fairly clear
conflation ofT506 "Tamale" with a vari-
able human head sign. On the Duke
plate (fig. 9a:M). this is the polyvalent
"Youthful Head" sign which is the build-
tng block for a number of compound
signs in the script. and which I have
dealt with in detail elsewhere (see
Zender 1999: 63-65, 74-83).
On the Gardiner plate (fig.9b:I), this head
is the "Half Head" allograph ofT128. and
the T506 "Tamale" sign is placed in its
4. This collocolion wasfirst deciphered by Hous-
Lon and Taube (1987: 38-39). Its lranslallon as "his
bowln or "his platen has since gained wide accep-
tance among scholars (e.g. Grube 1991: 229;
MacLeod 1990: 298-300; Reents-BudetetaL 1994:
79-82; Stuwt 1989: 151; Swerolow 1999: 130).
However.lak also hieroglyphically labels such ob-
jects as clay bricks (Hoppan 1994: 83) and stone
incensarios (Stuart 1986b). Other valid glosses for
lak. at least in. Yukatek. include ~clayidol". ~clay
object" (Barrera Vasquez 1980: 433) and even
~clayjU9" (Heath de zapata 1980: 18B, 324), and
this suggests that a more general translation oj
lak as ~clay vessel" or ~clay object" may be more
appropriate.
THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
mouth, as though the head were eating
it. David Stuart (Stuart 1995: 39, 67;
Stuart et al. 1999: II: 36, 60) has noted
the suggestive behavior of this and related
compound signs in the script, and has
proposed a reading of WE' for these signs;
a reading based in large part on proto-
Ch'olan *we' "to eat bread-like foods (t.e.
tamales]"." Whlle no phonetic comple-
ments or substitutions in support of this
suggestion have yet been advanced, I
believe Stuart's reading has merit, and
so employ it here. Moreover, the following
5. While Ka.ufman and Norman (1984: 135) recon-
structproto-Ch'olan "we' IJi. 'toecr', Berlin {1968:
170, 213) lists we' as a nwnerical classljler in
Tzeltaljor 'bites offtJOd. primarily bread-like (Le.
tortillas. bread. etc.)" and as a transitive verb "to
eat breCldlikejoods" (ibid. 213). Brody (l97B: 196)
also argues for a restricted semantic range of the
we' term to corn-breads in ToJolab'aL glossing it as
'to eat something grainy but contiguous, e.g., tor-
tillas". and distingu!shing itfrom both k'ux rto eat
something crunchy" (like flesh) WId 10' -tc eat s0me-
thing soft. e.g.,fruit". Based partly on the strong
formal evidence proVided by the sign itself, I have
previously suggested the reconstruction: -we' vL
'to eat bread-like foods (i.e. tamales)" (Zender
1999: 76).
two signs, '1 and b'i (figs. 9a:N-O, 9b:J) ,
actually provide some substantial sup-
porting evidence, Whereas the Duke plate
text (fig, 9a: N-O) employs the personi-
fied form of De Landa's T679 'i and the
well-known TI029 "Serpent Head"
allograph ofb'i, the Gardiner plate text
(fig, 9b: J) employs the standard T679 '1
and an Early Classic variant of the same
T1029 "Serpent Head" sign. Together,
these two signs spell the common
Ch'olan instrumental eufftx -tb' (see
Bricker 1986: 44-45, table 20: Macleod
1987: figs. 9, 18, 23), which derives the
Instrumental noun we'-w' or "tamale-eat-
ing Instrument It.e. a plate)". from the
tntranetttve verb we', 6
6. See, jorinstance. Ch'olwe'-lb'-an vt. "rouse (for
eatingr (Amie and Aulie 1978: 129), where -Ib'
derives the same instrumental noun we see in the
script: we-tb' "bread-eating Instrument". In this
Ch'olexample, however; we-tb' has been rederived
by /he causativizing -an as the transitive verbal
stem we'-ib'-an "to use (for eating breadr (Aulie
andAulie 1978: 29; WId cf. Macleod 1987:Jig. 12
joran analysis of this su~as -a-n, CAUSATIVE-
lNCOMPLETIVEj,
 THE MAYAVASE BOOK VOL. 6
b
Figure 10. The junction sections oj the pla1es.
The 'I signs would seem to have two func-
tions in these collocations. First, their
initial glottal phonetically complements
the WE' logograph, providing some
measure of support for Stuart's deci-
pherment of this sign. Second, their
final vowel, -I, clearly anticipates the
vowel of the instrumental suffix -ib' in
much the same manner as the k'i of
the common yu-k'i-b'l (y-uk'-ib' "his
drinking-utensil") collocations antici-
pates the spelling of the same suffix
(Zender 1999: 74-75, 89-90, 121, 189;
see also Mora-Marin 2000).
It is worth mentioning here that one
Early Classic Naranjo plate (K5458,
glyphs C-D; and see Reents- Budet et al.
1994: 82, 150, 326) contains a text that
describes the vessel as 'u-WE'-ma, or
u-we'-em "his tamale-eating-instru-
ment", where the previously mentioned
-Vm instrumental suffix (Wichmann
n.d.: 109) performs the same function
as the -ib' on the Duke and Gardiner
plates. To the already burgeoning shelf
of classic Maya crockery, then, replete
with such vessels as thejaay, tzima,
1044
pok, chuh-ib', uk'-ib', lak and jaw-te',
among other rarer types, may be
added the intriguing we'-ib' and we'-
em "tamale plates".
THE FUNCTION OF TAMALEPLATES
The texts ofboth vessels continue, over the
next several glyph blocks (fig. 10), to
further implicate the precise function of
these vessels as being ta sale chyil ww:;y/
we'(el) or "for white venison tamales/
food". Both texts (figs. IDa: P and lOb:
K)employ the personified T565 ta as the
Ch'olan preposrtton til "for"(Macri 1991).
This is followed In both cases (figs. l Oa:
Q and lOb: L)byT58 SAK "white", which
takes a TI02 ki phonetic complement
on the Gardiner plate,"
7. Contrary to all theflndings oJMayan historical
linguistics. a recently proposed theory of dishar-
monIc spellings (Houston et af. 1998) UJQwd here
suggest a complex vowel in the pan-Maya word
for ·white-, an etymon for which there is ample
evidence of an ancient short vowel (i.e. pM ssaq.
Kaufman and Norman 1984: 130: and see Hous-
ton et al. 1998: 289). Fbr the moment, then. and
in the absence ojlinguistfc eezdence for a complex
vowel In /his word. I defer to the reconstructedform.
On the Duke plate (fig. lOa: Q) SAK is fol-
lowed by 1'671 chi, T60 jt and T24 Ii, all
occupying the same glyph block. The
Gardiner text (fig, lOb: L-N), however,
stretches the identical collocationover three
glyph blocks, and employs the previously
discussed CHIJ "Deer Head" logograph. fol-
lowed in the next glyph block by the T88 ji
allograph (see Stuart 1987) and an Early
Classic variant ofT24li. These signs all
target the word chg-ll, comprised of chfj
"deer" and the suffix -il, which forms
attnbutiveadjectivesfromnouns in Ch'oIan
languages (Bricker 198643 - 44). literally.
then, chfj-ilmeans "deer-Itke". However, it
is a modifier for various foodstuffs, as will
presently be seen, and this compels the
translation "venison",
Each text followsthis with a different sign:
the Duke text with the previously dis-
cussed compound sign WE' (fig. IDa: R)
and the Gardiner text (fig. lOb: 0) with
T506 WAAJ and its optional phonetic
complement jl. The T506 "Tamale Sign"
was independently deciphered by Bruce
Love (1989: 346-347) and Karl Taube
(1989), and clearly depicts a notched ball
of maize partly enwrapped by a leaf
(Taube 1989: 42-43, see especially figure
8). The prepositional phrase on the
Gardiner plate can therefore be read as

p s
Q R
~
~~
~.~..
Figure II. The oumership section afthe Gardiner Plate
ta sak chfjil waa) or "for white venison
tamales" Icf Yukatek keeh-el wah,
Barrera Vasquez 1980: 309, and sak
wah. ibid.: 709). On the Duke plate.
the context also calls for a substantive,
and I would suggest that we're!) is here
meant in a non-verbal sense simply as
"food" {ef. Ch'ol we'(el} "food". Attinasi
1973: 333), and that Its prepositional
phrase can be read as ta sak cntju
we'(el) or "for white venison food". While
this prepositional phrase comprises the
final passage of the Duke plate. and the
vessel's owner is left unspecified. the
Gardiner text (fig. 11) goes on to men-
tion the "ballplayer" titles of its owner
and his status as the "son" of the king
of Uaxactun.
As if any further evidence of this vessel's
affiliation to the Uaxactun regional paint-
ing tradition were necessary, the clear
Uaxactun emblem glyph (fig, 11: T-V)
frrmly links this vessel to the tradition's
type site. Considered In tandem with the
tremendous stmtlartttes in the subject
matter, sign-choice, and styl1stlc tech-
nique of both vessels, as well as their
adherence to the technical canons of the
Uaxactnn and El Sotz' school, I think
there can remain I1ttle question that both
THE MAYAVASE BOOK VOL. 6
'
§fS:~
·fi~~··~
of these plates are shining examples of
the Uaxactun scribal tradition.
Having discussed the major features of
the glyphs and their variation and hav-
ing placed them contextually within the
ambit of the Uaxactt1:n school, we are now
in a position to present a considered
transliteration and translation of the texts
in their entirety:
TIlE DUKE TEXT
'a??-ya k'ahl-aj y-fch u-tz'iib'-il u-lnk u-
we'-w' ta sak clUj-a we'(eU
M??, the ?? of the writing of his clay ves-
sel, (of) his plate for white venison food,
was fashioned"
TIlE GARDINER TEXT
'a??-ya k'uhl-aj y-ich u-tz'iib'-il u-lak u-
we'-w' ta sak chy-il waq} b'ate' pitz-Ul
u-yut-al kele'em k'ujul slyaJ chan ajaw
"??, the ?? writing of the clay vessel, Iof
the plate for white venison tamales of the
b'ate'. the ballplayer, the son of the Holy
Lord of Uaxactun, was fashioned"
While we are still some way from being
able to confidently read all of the elements
T u v
i!!!5lfg ~
of these important texts, Hhtnk It iselear
that. a sigiIificant portion of .._~e i:liero-
glyphic message on the~e~e5~els can:be
understood. This should. then, allow us
to make some comments on the.social
and functional roles that these~ vessels
Iikelyplayed~Maya courtly. life.
CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The fact that most polychrome plates are
found in royal tombs, coupled with
earlier interpretations of their hiero-
glyphic texts and iconography, has led
some scholars to see them as primarily
funerary offerings (Coe 1973, 1978;
Sharer 1994: 696-697). However, despite
the eo-called "kill hole" in the centre of
the Duke plate, and the depictions of
bizarre otherworldly deities on the plates'
tntertors,' I would resist seeing either of
these vessels solely as single-use tomb
furnishings for several reasons.
First, a number of scholars have suggested
that polychrome plates of the highest
quality were employed as presentation
wares for tamales and other foodstuffs
(Houstoi:t;Stuartand Taube 1989: 724;
Reents-Budetet al. 1994: 72-105; Reents-
Budet 1998: a function quite
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
.,
a
Ftgw"e 12.
ClasslcMaya depictions
of plates laden with ta-
metes.
b a. ofter coe 1973: 104,
105.
b. after a drawing by
Lin Crocker (FLAAR
1976.]'1{}. 38).
c. after K6059.
c 7201. Moreover, of those plates which
frequently depicted in scenes on otherves-
sels and monumental stone carvings.
wherein plates of shiking formal slmllarlty
to those discussed in this study are often
shown heaped with various types oftama-
les, either awaiting consumption (fig. 12;
and see K511, K1599. K2784, K43381 or
held outstretched in an act of offering by
various humans, supernatural animals.
and divinities (fig. 13). Such scenes
provide striking visual corroboration of
the glyphic decipherments proposed here,
and suggest that these plates truly may
have been designed to serve tamales.
Second, regarding the similar tradition
of Tfkal "dancer plates" (e.g. K5379.
K5358. K5603, K5076. and Gallenkamp
and Johnson 1985: 164) Reents-Budet
(1994: 198) has made a number of telling
arguments in favor of their use as food-
serving vessels analogous to the function
proposed here for the two Uaxactun-style
tamale plates. The interiors of a number
ofthese plates are highly eroded and some
have even been previously mended, and
this is consonant wtth their proposed
used as elite service vessels (ibid: 198;
see also Houston, Stuart and Taube 1989:
have been archaeologtcally recovered,
most are from non-funerary contexts,
including a sizable number from the fill
of Tikal's North Acropolis alone
(Coggins, in Gallenkamp and Johnson
1985: 164). Taken together, functional
use-wear and midden contexts both
strongly suggest that not all polychrome
plates can have been designed solely as
single-use tomb furnishings.
Third, only the rarest of vessels bear any
hint of mortuary rituals or themes in
either glyphic inscriptions or atten-
dant iconography. Instead, as outlined
above, the typical dedicatory text takes
the form of a "name-lag" that describes
the vessel's creation, folk classification,
function, and intended contents and of-
ten closes with the names of the vessel's
owner or patron, and more rarely with
the Signature of the scribe responsible for
its painting (Grube 1991; Houston and
Taube 1987; Houston, Stuart and Taube
1989; MacLeod 1990; Stuart 1989).
Indeed, the iconography and occasional
secondary hieroglyphic captions on
these vessels have also been shown to
relate far less to themes of death and
the afterltfe.fcf Coe 1973: 22; 1978)
than to scenes of feasting, dancing and
social life enacted in actual Maya courts,
temples and palaces (Freidel, Schele
and Parker 1993: Houston, Stuart and
Taube 1992; Reents-Buder. thtsvolume:
Reents-Buder et a1. 1994: 234-289). If
the primary function of Classic Maya
--
abc
Figure 13. Humans anddivinities hDlding laden tamale-
plates.
a. after K5450.
b. after a dmwu1g byJin Crocker (FlAAR, 1976.fiB. 38).
c. painted oopstDnJi jrom&ultaRosaXtampak (ajlerTaube
1989:.ftB.9j). '

polychrome plates were truly to serve
as tomb furnishings for the elite, surely
it would be odd that mortuary themes
and texts are so rare In the known
corpus of these ceramics.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly,
the texts on the Duke and Gardiner plates
are most specific when it comes to the
intended functions of these vessels. As
detailed above, the texts designate the
vessels as we'-fb' or "tamale-eattng-instru-
mente" and indicate that they were de-
signed to serve "white venison tamales"
or "white venison food". But how Ukelyis
this? Is there anything from the
etlmohistortc and/or archaeologicalrecord
to confirm or deny the presence of such a
foodstuff or function?
As it turns out. ethnohtstortc and ethno-
graphic accounts rdentifyventeon tamales
as among the most important of Maya
ritual foods. De Landa notes that durtng
the NewYear's festivities ofMuluc-years,
"They (the noblesl offered the image [of
Kinich Ahau) bread made with ... the
hearts oj deer' (Tozzer 1941: 144: and
see pp. 90-92 for the centrality ofTamales
to Postclassic Yucatec ritual). Tozzer
(1907: 161) also describes the associa-
THE MAYA VASE BQQK VQL. 6
tion of tortillas and "dishes of deer meat"
In Yucatan at the turn of the century..a
description not dissimilar from the Duke
vessel's "plate for white venison food".As
Basauri (1931: 152) notes, the Maya of
QUintana Roo in the 1920s also seem to
have prepared ritual breads wtthventson:
"s e prepara can una especie de
emparedados can 6 0 7 tortillas,
poniendo entre una y otra capa de carne
de caza , masa frita can espectas,
frijoles. etc. [it is prepared with a kind
of sandwich of 6 or 7 tortillas,putting
between one and the other a layer oj
game meat, fried dough with spices,
beans, etc.l" (1931: 152)
Moreover, as Bricker (1991) has pointed
out, clear depictions of venison tamales
are known from the Maya codices;'which
suggests that the practtcee dccumented
in the ethnohtstoric literature extend back
at least as far as the Late Po'stdassic
period. Where in the Dresden Codex (fig.
14c) these tamales are shown as a
stylized deer-hoof protruding from the
previously discussed T506 "Tamale"Sign,
the Madrid Codex (fig. Ida-b). portrays
them as deer-heads emerging from or
conflated with the same sign. This strongly
Figure 14.
Depictions oj deer tome-
tee from thePostclassic
Maya codices.
a. Madrid Codex, page
78d (after Bricker 1991:
288)
b. Madrid.,Codex. page
77d tafter ViUacortaand
VU!acorta 1976}
c. Dresden Codex, page
30b (after Bricker 1991:
286,292)
- b
suggests that these tama-
les were being singled out
as chijil waaj or keehel
waah "venison tamales". ~
C
Finally, Love (1989: 346-
347) and Taube's (1989) seminal deci-
pherment ofT506 as WAAJ, "tamale",
is illustrative both of the presence and
,-the importance of this foodstuff as
early as the Proto classic period (see
Taube 1989: 33-35).
This is seen perhaps nowhere more
clearly than on the aforementioned Early
Classic Naranjo plate {K5458J. itself
hieroglyphically labelled as a we 'em
orctamale plate", which depicts the
decapitated head of the Maize God, a
clearreference to corn-cobs and perhaps
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
even to tamales. This further suggests
that the iconography attendant to at
least some of these plates is related to
their function. In this connection. I might
also point out the anthropomorphic deer
depicted holding a plate of tamales in one
Late Classic vessel scene (fig. 13b), and
the not inconsequential consideration
that many vessels of the type herein iden-
tified as tamale plates depict deer and
deer-hunting scenes (e.g. K0344, K2249.
K2995, K4805. K5440; and see Reents-
Budet et a1.1994:248. 263) in a pattern
most suggestive of their possible use as
serving vessels for venison tamales (cf.
Houston et al. 1989: 724). These vessels
are all contemporaneous with the Gardiner
and Duke vessels. and can thus be taken
as further evidence for the association of
deer, tamales and polychrome plates.
Direct archaeological evidence for the use
of these vessels as service wares for veni-
son tamales is, predictably. somewhat less
forthcoming. Residue analysis of such
vessels has never been undertaken. and
would likely yield little useful data even if
attempted: the fugitive contents of Clas-
sic polychrome plates. devoured long ago
by humans. tomb mice or mtcroorgan-
isms. are unlikely to be revealed by such
1048
direct measures. However. given that we
can convincingly relate both the Gardiner
and Duke vessels to the Uaxactun and El
Sotz' regions. it stands to reason that in-
direct contextual evidence from the Carn-
egie Institution of Washington's 1924-
1937 Uaxactun project might serve to
test the hypothesis that Saxche Orange-
polychrome plates functioned as service
vessels for venison tamales.
Despite that the climatic conditions of
Uaxactun's tropical forest regime are
adverse to the preservation of bone,
a sizable inventory of deer bones from
burials, caches and middens were en-
countered. From the famous A-V pal-
ace complex (Kidder 1950: 72-78). a
sprawling succession of Early, Middleand
Late Classic residential structures,
ancestor shrines and tombs, Kidder
(1947: 1-3) describes the recovery of
worked deer-bone awls (ibid.: 54. fig.
82, c, 1-4),a realistically-carved deer-hoof
pendant (Ibld.: 57, fig. 45) and several
worked antlers (tbtd.: 59). Even more com-
pelling. however, are the numerous white
tail (Odocoileus spp.) and brocket
(Mazama spp.) deer bones excavated from
thewell-stratttled refuse dump on the edge
of the Group Aplatform (Kidder1947: 60j.
These deer bones were found in associa-
tion with thousands ofTzakol 3 and Te-
peu 1 polychrome sherds. not a few of
which were Saxche Orange-polychrome
plates of dramatic formal similarity to the
Duke and Gardiner plates (cf. Smith
1955: figs. 34-36; and see also figs. 7i,
72f. 72j and 73. a, 1 for intact examples
recovered from the tombs of Structure
A-I).The archaeological data from Group
E are similarly encouraging. Excavations
conducted from 1926-1937 uncovered a
large number ofrefuse foodbones of both
the Odocoileus and Mazama species of
deer (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937:
204).8 At least one of these bones. the
distal end of a humerus. showed marks
of having been intentionally cut. perhaps
for the extraction of marrow (ibid. 2061.
The Group E middens date to the same
relative time period as the Gardiner plate
(cf. Ricketson and Ricketson 1937: 2941,
and the same refuse heaps that provided
the deer bones also contained numerous
sherds of Late Tzakol and Early Tepeu
8. Neither the refuse food bones nor the rodent
bones were counted (ef. Ricketson and Ricketson
1937: 204), thDugh aU were identified by Dr. Genit
S. MaIer Jn, of the United States National Museum,
and Dr. Glover Allen of the Museum of Compara~
tive Zoology, Harvard University.
----;-,
: :
, ,'.1
- ""~~:r~
~
plates (ibid.: 255-277, 284), as well as a
worked antler similar to those encoun-
tered in the Group A midden (ibid.: plate
69, d, I). Moreover, some 60 dishes (15
with ringed bases. 45 with tripod legs) of
similar design as the Gardiner plate were
"collected ... from outside and inside
primary and secondary butldtnge around
E Plaza" Itbtd.: 255) and much other
material "was found resting on the floors
of temples" (tbtd.: 270).
Such contexts are. of course, well in keep-
ing with recent interpretations of the use
of such range-type structures as E-X in
competitive feasting (Reents, this volume).
Moreover, It may also be of some relevance
that Burial E5 of Structure E-X contained
an adult skeleton in association with 3
phalanges of a deer (ibid.: 206. plate 69.
e, 24). Considered in tandem with the
deer bones, antlers and shattered tamale
plates associated with the middens of the
range-type structures of both the
Uaxactun A and E Groups. these contex-
tual lines of evidence tend rather to
confirm the hypothesis that such struc-
......h tures were locales for the preparation and
ingestion of venison tamales from Saxche
Orange-polychrome service wares.
THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
While I do not dispute what may have of competitive feasting (Reents-Budet,
ultimately been a funerary context for this volume). Indeed, Landa's
at least the Duke plate. this study has Relaci6n de Las Casas de Yucatan
demonstrated that the vessels in describes just such practices for the late
question had most likely seen previous Postclassic period:
and rather extensive use in the palace ..... they have two ways of cel-
compounds of either Uaxactun or EI ebrating these feasts; the first,
Sotz' as elite tamale-serving vessels. 9 which is that of the nobles and
However, this is more than just a of the principle people, obliges
question of the use to which these ves- each ... to give another simi-
sels were put at various stages of their lar feast. And to each guest
l1fe histories. Rather, I think that a they give a roasted fowl,
strong case can be made that the value bread, and drink in abun-
of such works of art stemmed directly dance: and at the end of the
from their association with social celebra- repast. they were accustomed
tion, either in the context ofinterpersonai to give a manta to each to
or interpolity gift exchange (Houston. wear, and a little stand and
Stuart and Taube 1992: 506; Reents- vessel, as beautiful as pos-
Budet 1998: Reents-Budet et al. sible." (Tozzer 1941: 92).
1994: 72-105: Taschek and Ball
1992: 494-495) and/or in the context Such reciprocity seems to have obtained
in all matters related to interpersonal
9. Note thut I do not suggest that these polychrome
interaction, for De Landa also tells us
vessels were either foca-prepamttan or cooking
utensils. As Hendon (1987, 1997: 39) has demon- that "[t]he Indians in making visits al-
strrned at Copan, such functions were probably ways take with them a present to give,
reserved on!yfor rms!ipped., monochrome or inte- according to their rank; and the per-
rior-slip bowls. all of which show evfdence ofbwn- son vtstted gives another gift in return"
lng. both inside and out, and use-wear commensu-
rate with tlJelrutililarianjWlCtwns. The plates dis-
cussed In this study show signs of use-wear only
ITozzer 1941: 97). These important
considerations, coupled with a consid-
on their interior surfaces. weU in keeping with their eratton of the function of polychrome
proposed use as tamale-serving vessels. ceramics in competitive feasting, food
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6

service, and gift exchange, suggest that ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

the social currency accruing the owner
of such vessels was itself the reason that I would like to thank Meredith Chilton
these socially active works of art may and Diane Wolfeof the Gardiner Museum
have been interred with them in their of Ceramic Art, Toronto. Ontario, for their
tombs. That is, despite the fact that many kind invitation to study the Gardiner
such vessels are ultimately encountered collections. I would also like to thank
by the archaeologist (or the looter) in Dorte Reents-Budet for her kind invita-
mortuary contexts, we really must step tion to present some of my work at the
back from earlier assumptions that Maya Universe Symposium, in October.
would make of this a raison d'etre. 1999. at the Royal Ontario Museum.
Toronto. Many of the ideas presented in
No one assumes that interred rulers did this paper first surfaced durtng discus-
not enjoy a previous, rather different sions with Dorie Reente-Budet and
social life from that implied by the tombs Stanley Guenter over that weekend in
that so often form their final resting Toronto. and are the better for the both
places. Similarly, as has been demon- of them having commented upon them.
strated in this analysis of the contempo-
raneous texts, iconography and archaeo-
logical contexts pertaining to these ves-
sels (buttressed by evidence from the
ethnohistoric and ethnographic records)
the presence of tamale-serving plates in
mortuary contexts is perhaps best un-
derstood as the retirement of vessels
originally intended for far less austere,
sacrosanct and ceremonial purposes.

1050
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6

REFERENCES

Aulie. H. Wilbur. and Evelyn W. de Aulie

Brody, Jill
1978 Diccionario Ch'ol-Espailol, Espanol-Ch'oL Sene de
1978 To Have and to Hold: Gapping in Tcjolabal. In Papers
Vocabularios y Dtcctonartos Indfgenas Mariano Silva
in Mayan Linguistics, ed. by N. C. England, pp. 196*
no. 21. Instituto Lingufsttco de Verano. Mexico, D.F.
202. University Museum, Missouri.
Coe, Michael D.
Atttnasi. John
1973 The Maya Scribe and his World. The GroUer Club,
1973 Lak. Tan: A Grammar of the Chol (Mayan) Word. Un-
New York
pubUshed Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Chicago.
1978 Lords of the Underworld: Masterpieces of Classic
Ball, Joseph W.
Maya Ceramics. The Art Museum, Princeton Univer-
sity Press, Princeton, N.J.
1975 Cui Orange Polychrome: A Late Classic Funerary Type
from Central Campeche. Mexico. In Contributions of
Fahsen. Federico
the University of California Archaeological Research
1988 A New Early Classic Text from Tikal. Research Re-
FacUlty 27: 32-39. University ofCalffornia, Berkeley.
ports on Ancient Maya Wrttlng 17. Center for Maya
Research. Washington D.C.
Basaurt. Carlos
1931 Tq;olabales, Tseltales y mayas: Breves Apuntes Sobre
Gallenkamp, Charles. and Regina Elise Johnson (editors)
Antropologia, Etnographia y Lingufstica. Talleres
1985 Maya Treasures of an Ancient Civilization. Harry N.
Graftcos de la Naci6n, Mexico. D.F.
Abrams, New York.
Berlin, Brent
Grube, Nikolai
1968 Tzeltal Nwneml Classifiers: A Study in Ethnogmphic
Semantics. Mouton, Paris. 1989 Observations on the HistOlyofMayaHierogIyphic Writing.
In SeventhPa1enque Round Table. 1989. ed.. byV. M.
Fields, gen. 00. M. G. Robertsonpp. 177-186. The Pre-
Bricker, VIctoria R
ColumbfanArt Research Institute. San Francisco.
1986 A Grwnmar of Mayan Hieroglyphs. Middle American
1991 An Investigation of the Primary Standard Sequence on
Research Institute Publication 56. Tulane University.
Classic Maya Ceramics. In Sixth Palenque Round
New Orleans.
Table. 1986. ed. by V. M. Fields. gen. ed. M. G.
1991 Faunal Offerings inthe Dresden Codex. In SfxthPalenqu.e
Robertson pp. 223-232. University of Oklahoma Press,
Row1.dTab1e, 1986. 00. byV. M. Fields, pp,285*292.
Norman.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
Grube, Nikolai and Werner Nahm
1994 A Census ofXibalba: A Complete Inventory of Way
Characters on Maya Ceramics. In The Maya Vase
Book. Vol. 4: A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of
Maya Vases. ed. by Justin Kerr, pp. 686-715. Kerr
Associates. New York.
Hall. Grant D., Stanley M.Tarka, Jr., W. Jefffrey Hurst, David
Stuart. and R. E. W. Adams
1990 Cacao Residues in Ancient Maya Vessels from Rio
Azul, Guatemala. AmerlcanAntiquily 55(1): 138-143.
Heath de Zapata, Dorothy Andrews
1980 Vocabularto de Mayathan. Merida, Mexico.
Hellmuth, Nicholas M. (editor)
1976 Tzakol and Tepeu Maya Pottery Paintings: Portfolio
of Rollout Drounnqs by Barbara Van Heusen, Persis
Clarkson. Lin Crocker. FIAAR.
Hendon. Julia A.
1987 The Uses of Maya Structures: A Study of Architecture
and Artifact Distribution at Sepulturas, Copan. Hond-
uras. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, DepartmentofAnthropol-
ogy,Harvard University,Cambridge.MA.
1997 Women's Work, Women's Space, and Women's Status
Among the Classic Period Maya Elite of the Copan
Valley, Honduras. In Wornen in Prehistory: North
America and Mesoamerica (Regendering the Past).
ed. by C. Claassen and R. Joyce. pp. 33-46. University
of Pennsylvania Press.
1052
Hoppan. Jean-Michel
1994 Nuevas Datos Sabre Las lnscripciones de Comalcalco.
In U Mut Maya V, ed. by Carolyn and Tom Jones. pp.
79-86. Arcata, CA.
Houston, Stephen D., John Robertson. and David Stuart
1999 Quality and Quantity 111 Glyphic Nouns and Adjectives.
Paper presented at the European Mayanist Conference,
September 1999. Copenhagen.
Houston, Stephen D.• John Robertson, and David Stuart
1998 Disharmony in Maya HieroglyphicWriting: Linguistic
Change and Continuity in Classic Society. In Anatomia
de W1a Civilizacion: Approxtmaciones
interdisciplinarias a la Cultura Maya, ed. by A.
Ctudad Ruiz et aI., pp. 275-296, Sociedad Espanola
de Estudios Mayas. Madrid.
Houston, Stephen D., David Stuart. and Karl Taube
1989 Folk Classification of Classic Maya Pottery. American
Anthropologist 9(13): 720-726.
1992 Image and Text on the "JauncyVase". In The Maya
Vase Book. Volume 3: A Corpus of Rollout Photo-
graphs of Maya Vases. ed. by -Justtn Kerr. pp. 499-512.
Kerr Associates. New York.
Houston. Stephen D., and Karl Taube
1987 "Name Taggtng" in Classic Mayan Script: Implications
for Native Classifications of Ceramics and Jade
Ornaments. Mexican 9{2): 38-41.

Hurst, W.Jeffrey, R. A. MartinJr .. Stanley M. Tarka .Jr., and
Grant D. Hall
1989 Authentication of Cocoa in Ancient Mayan Vessels
using HPLCTechniques. Journal of Chromatography
466: 279-289.
Kaufman, Terrence S. and William Norman
1984 An Outline of Proto-Cholan Phonology. Morphology,
and Vocabulary. In Phoneticism in Maya Hieroglyphic
Writing, ed. by J, S. Justeson and L. Campbell, pp.
77-166. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Publica-
tion no. 9. State University of NewYork,Albany.
Kidder, Alfred V.
1947 The Artifacts of Uaxact.un Guatemala. Carnegie Institution
of Washington Publication no. 576. Washington, D.C.
Lacadena, Alfonso
1995 Evolucion Formal de las Grafias Escriturarias Mayas:
Implicaciones Historicas y Culturales. Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Facultad de Geografia e Historia,
tjntverstdad Complutense de Madrid.
Laughlin, Robert M.
1975 The Great Tzotzil Dictionary oj San Lorenzo
ztncccnrdn. Smithsonian Contrtbuttons to
Anthropology no. 19. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6
Love,Bruce
1989 Yucatec Sacred Breads Through Time. In Word and
Image in Maya Culture: ExploratlDns in Language,
Writing, and RepresentatlDn, ed. by William F. Hanks
and Don S. Rice, pp. 336-350. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
MacLeod,Barbara
1987 An Epigrapher's Annotated Index to Gholan and
Yucatecan Verb Morphology. University of MiSSOUri,
Columbia.
1990 Deciphertng the Primary Standard Sequence. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, the
University ofTexas. Austin.
Macri, Martha
1991 Prepositions and Complementizers in the Classic
Period Inscriptions. In Sixth Palenque Round Table,
1986. ed. by V. M. Fields, pp. 266-272. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Martin, Simon
n.d. Some Observationson Site Q and RelatedTexts. Un-
published ms. in the possession ofthe author, dated 1991.
Mathews, Peter and David M. Pendergast
1979 The Altun Ha Jade Plaque: Deciphering the Inscrip-
tion. Contributions of the University oj California
Archaeological Research Facility 41: 197-214.
 THE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6

Mora-Marin. David Robtcsek. Francis

2000 The Syllabic Value of Mayan T77 as k'i. ResearchReports 1978 The Smnking Gods: Tobacco in Maya Art. History.
on Ancient Maya Writing 46. Center for Maya Research, and Religion. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman.
wasWngtonD.C. Sharer. Robert J.
1994 The Ancient Maya. Fifth edition. Stanford University
Knowles, Susan Marie Press. Stanford, California ..
1984 A Descriptive Grammar of Chantal Maya (San Carlos
Dialect). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Department of Smith, A. Ledyard
Anthropology, Tulane University 1950 Uaxactun. Guatemala: Excavations of 1931-1937.
Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication
Reents, Doris Jane no. 588. Washington.
1985 The Late Classic Maya Holmul Style Polychrome
Pottery. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Smith, Robert E.
Texas, Austin. 1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun. Guatemala.
2 Volumes. Middle American Research Institute
Reents-Budet. Done Publication no. 20. Tulane University. New Orleans.
1998 Classic Maya Painted Ceramics and the Stories They
Tell. In Maya, ed. by Peter Schmidt. Mercedes de la Garza, Stuart. David
and Enrique Nalda, 271-295. Rtaaolt, New York and Italy. 1986a The Hieroglyphs on a Vessel from Tomb 19. Rio Azul.
2000 Feasting Among the Classic Maya: Evidence from the In Rio Azul Reports. NO.2: The 1984 Season. ed. by
Pictorial Ceramics. In The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus R. E. W. Adams. pp. 117-121. University of Texas.
of Rollout Photogmphs oj Maya Vases. Volwne 6, ed. San Antonio.
by Justin Kerr. Kerr Associates. New York. 1986b A Glyph for "Stone Incensarto". Copan Notes 2. Copan
Acropolis Project and the Instituto Hondureflo de
Reents-Buder, Dorte. Joseph W. Ball, Ronald L. Bishop. AntropoIogia e Historia.
Virginia M. Fields. and Barbara MacLeod 1987 Ten Phonetic Syllables. Research Reports on Anclertt
1994 Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Maya Writing 14. Center for Maya Research, Washington
Period. Duke University Press, Durham and London. D.C.
1988 The Rio Azul Cacao Pot: Epigraphic Observations on
Ricketson. Oliver G .. Jr .. and Edith Bayles Ricketson the Function of a Maya Ceramic Vessel. Antiquity
1937 Uaxadun. Guatemala: Group E 1926-1931. Carnegie 62(234), 153-157.
Institution ofWashington Publication no. 477. Washington.

1054
 TIfE MAYA VASE BOOK VOL. 6

1989 Hieroglyphs on Maya Vessels. In The Maya Vase Book, "Thcmpeon, J. Eric S/'
Volume 1: A Corpus oj Rollout Photographs oj Maya '1962" "ACatalog ofMciya Hieroglyphs. University of
Vases, ed. by Justin Kerr, pp. 149-160. Kerr Associates, 'Oklahoma Press';"Norman.
New York.
1990 The Decipherment of "Directional Count Glyphs" in Tozzer, Alfred M.
Maya Inscriptions. Ancient Mesoamerica 1(1): 213-224. 19'0'7 '" A::.'~omparatiue·StudY;{Jj'tfU!· Maya and' LacClndones.
s"Madnl11an. NewYork.·:\,\',"'···' , ,'. " .
Stuart, David S .• Stephen D. Houston. and John Robertson i94CLanda'~ Rel.d?16ri"de,~;Cosas de Yuc~ A Transla-
1999 Recovering the Past: Classic Maya Language and ",' " iiOf{P~pers of th.'e P~ab~dy Museum of American
Classic Maya Gods. In NotebookJor the XXUIrd Maya Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 18.
Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas, pp. II: 1-96. Depart- Harvard University, Cambridge.
ment of Art and Art History, University of Texas, Austin.
-:Wichmann. Seren
Stuart, George E. , n.d A Ch·om.' Morphological Sketch. Unpublished ms .•
1988 Guide to the Style and Content of Research Reports on January 1999.
Ancient Maya Writing. Special supplement to Research
Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 15. Center for Maya Wisdom, Charles
Research. Washington, D.C. 1949 Materials on the Chorti Language. The University of
Chicago Microfilm Collection of Manuscripts of
Swerolow. Joel Cultural Anthropology. 28. Chicago.
1999 The Power ofWtitlng. National Geographic 196(2):110-132.
'Zender, Marc
Taschek, Jennifer T., and Joseph W. Ball 1999 Diacritical Marks and UnderspelIing in the Classic
1992 Lord Smoke-Squirrel's Cacao Cup: The Archaeological Maya Script: Implications for Decipherment. Un-
Context and Socio-Historical Significance of the published M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology,
Buenavista "crauncy Vase". In The Maya Vase Book: A University of Calgary.
Corpus oJRoUout Photographs qfMaya Vases, Volume 3.
ed. Justin Kerr. pp. 490-497. Kerr Associates, New York.

Taube, Karl A.
1989 The Maize Tamale in Classic Maya Diet. Epigraphy,
and Art. American Antiquity 54(1): 31-51.