Photo. J. Cooper Clark

MAYA

Ruins at Palenque, Chiapas

Piedras Negras is a site of great interest. On the one hand the stelæ manifest a very great range of quality, on the other the dates commence early, though not so early as Tikal, and end in the same katun as those of that city. The rudest stelæ bear a rather interesting resemblance to the Huaxtec sculptures of the Panuco valley (Pl. [X, 1]; p. 108), while the best are of a type peculiar to this locality. The latter represent a figure en face, seated in a niche to which a ladder gives access, and before which a priest is sometimes represented standing (Pl. [XX]; p. 224). It may be noted in passing that the board, or, more likely, cloth with the footsteps marked on it, laid upon the ladder, is paralleled in the Dresden MS. by the streamer with similar markings attached to the tree which represents the god (see Fig. [58]; p. 264, lower register). The exact relations of Piedras Negras are difficult to determine. On the one hand certain points in connection with costume, notably the voluminous turban-like head-dresses seen on many of the figures, recall the art of Copan (e.g. Fig. [81]); on the other hand many of the flatter reliefs bear a distinct resemblance to those of Naranjo, without attaining the perfection of those at Menché. An interesting fragment represents a figure seated in profile with a colossal jaguar towering behind him; unfortunately only the feet and legs of the latter remain, but sufficient to show that the whole scene must have been almost a replica of one of the wooden lintels of Tikal. Jaguar figures, or men with jaguar masks and claws, or claws alone, also occur on stelæ at Seibal and Quirigua.

Fig. 82.—Stone relief; Temple of the Sun, Palenque.

(After Maudslay)

Palenque stands alone. Architecturally it is by far the most advanced of the cities of the central area, while the artistic qualities of the stucco reliefs, and the low-relief stone carvings (Figs. [49] and [52]), the technique of which appears to be based on stucco-work, place them in a category by themselves. It was, in fact, only at Copan and Quirigua that the Maya showed anything like mastery over stone. The deficiency lay no doubt not so much in the artistic faculties of the mason, as in the lack of suitable tools, but it is a fact that only at the southern sites he displayed definite signs of modifying the technique borrowed from wood-carving to suit a less tractable material. Even the fine reliefs of Menché are wood-carvings translated into stone, and the same applies to the reliefs at other sites, except perhaps to the figures in niches at Piedras Negras, which in other respects noted above display a certain similarity to the Copan sculptures. When the Maya artist began to develop the art of modelling in stucco he showed that the quality of his work depended to a great extent upon the plasticity of his material, while he had gained much in technique from his experience in stone. A peculiar feature of Palenque is the comparative restraint exhibited by the artist. That he still loved complexity of detail is shown by such reliefs as Fig. [61] (p. 297), but he no longer feared the vacant space, and appreciated its value as a background. The dates on the monuments do not assist us in any way to determine the epoch which saw the rise of Palenque. The initial series in the temples give dates relating to the first cycle or even before, that is to say more than 3000 years B.C., and as such they must be regarded as purely legendary. It is impossible to believe that the site was of early foundation compared with the others. It would be against all experience to suggest that the people who built Palenque could at a subsequent period have adopted the clumsy and unnecessarily laborious architecture of Tikal. On the other hand, the site of Palenque bears a certain similarity to that of Menché, including the presence at both of buildings with underground passages and chambers, though the “palace” at Palenque is a far more elaborate construction than the analogous building at Menché, being in fact a complex of associated buildings. All the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that Palenque is the latest of the central Maya sites, and that it is most closely associated with Menché. In further proof of the latter supposition I might mention the so-called “crosses,” surmounted by birds, held by the figures in more than one of the Menché reliefs, which have their counterparts in the “crosses” of Palenque alone. The significance of these I have already discussed on p. 257.

I think, then, that the various dates found on the monuments may be taken as a fair indication of the relative periods at which the various cities flourished, except of course those at Palenque. Arguments based upon the style of decoration alone are apt to be misleading, especially as far as the lesser sites are concerned, since it is only natural that at these the workmanship should be of an inferior and “provincial” character. Allowance too must be made for the varying capacity of local artists, and above all for the relative tractability of the local materials. The evidence of architecture is more valuable, and, to speak generally, supports the dates as given by the glyphs, though the possibility of greater conservatism at some sites, as compared with others, must not be overlooked. On the whole the best results must necessarily accrue from a careful consideration of all three, with due allowance for a natural tendency to quote dates relating to past and often mythical history.