a maya ball game relief

The Art Institute of Chicago

A Maya Ball Game ReliefAuthor(s): Allen WardwellSource: Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies, Vol. 2 (1967), pp. 62-73Published by: The Art Institute of ChicagoStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4108782 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 16:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Art Institute of Chicago is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Instituteof Chicago Museum Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:19:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artic

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4108782?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


By ALLEN WARDWELL

A Maya Ball Game Relief SINCE the visit of John L. Stevens and Frederick Catherwood to Chiapas and the Yucatan Peninsula in 1839-41, and the publication of their classic Incidents of Travel, the Maya civilization has become the most extensively studied culture of ancient America. The various subsequent works of such scholars as Maudslay, Spinden, Proskouriakoff, Morley, and Thompson have presented a relatively clear picture of what is generally held to be our greatest native civilization. The awesome achievements of the Maya concerning the sciences of mathematics, astronomy, architecture and, possibly, even syllabic writing1 are matched by the iconographic complexity, beauty and technical proficiency of their finest artistic creations.

The Art Institute has recently acquired a Maya work that illustrates these latter characteristics, as well as having much to tell of one particularly important aspect of ceremonial life in the Classic period. It is a finely carved limestone relief fragment showing two figures, the remains of a series of glyphs, and a number of other revealing details (fig. 1).2 The most remarkable element of this relief is the great wealth of detailed carving on the glyphs and costumes. Much of this tends to be confusing at first glance, but careful study reveals a number of designs and details which gradually disclose much of the significance of the scene.

The reclining figure on the right is complete except for the losses around the face.3 The imposing headdress is surmounted by a serpent head, 692



Figure 1. Maya Ball Game Relief The Art Institute of Chicago, Ada Turnbull Hertle Fund. 65.407



64 Museum Studies 2

one of the most common animal forms in Maya art. At its base appears a knotted scroll design, and directly behind this is represented an elaborately woven textile band over which appear three bird heads, shown with their mouths open.4 Above the outstretched left arm, the headdress terminates in a large bird head from whose mouth spring a series of tasseled plumes that

gracefully fill the right hand corner of the relief. Such elaborately ornamented costume details are typical of Maya design during its late periods, and the great attention to details of dress are followed throughout the relief in a similar manner.

Two pieces of jewelry are worn by the reclining figure. There is an

earplug partly obscured by erosion, which is composed of a feather or textile ornament attached to a bar below which is the common disk of shell or jade. A small bead, probably of jade, is in turn affixed to the disk. A thick, beaded, six-strand necklace also hangs from the neck.

The torso of the reclining figure is completely obscured by a heavy costume. Three evenly spaced horizontal bars cover the upper part of the dress, and represent a type of dress worn during ceremonial ball games probably as a form of protection against the impact of the solid rubber ball. These

yokes, as they are known, appear over widespread areas of Mexico, and were made during the Classic period. The inclusion of one here gives the first clue

regarding the significance of the relief scene.5 The yokes that have survived are stone and consist of a single band usually having relief carved decoration. Here, the thickness of the yoke probably indicates that a wooden one is represented, particularly as a stone yoke of this size would have been extremely difficult to carry. Underneath, a geometrically patterned shirt or tunic is worn, the edges of which can be seen at the top, bottom, and upper end of the yoke.

Suspended from the necklace over the center of the yoke is an irregularly- shaped object that appears to be a textile bag, of unknown significance.6 Below, the costume falls in a series of tasseled fringes and elaborately knotted cords indicating three layers of clothing. The edges of the innermost skirt

covering the thighs are decorated with two unidentifiable figures (perhaps monkeys) in a familiar elbow-to-knee "hocker" pose. Superimposed over this skirt is a long sash hanging from a circular fringed form, the whole representing an intricate loincloth apron, a common element of Maya costume.7



A Maya Ball Game Relief 65

The overpowering sense of weight and excessive elaboration derived from the voluminous costume is further emphasized by various minor adorn- ments. On the right forearm is a cuff made of a series of intricately woven textile bands which cover the arm from the wrist to the elbow. The left wrist is decorated with a smaller bracelet of four rows of tubular shaped beads (either bone or jade) and a top border of knotted fringes. Two similar anklets are worn on each foot. These are again textile, knotted in the middle with a row of fringes on the bottom, with some loose fringes at the sides. On the right foot below the anklet is a rope which drops over the top of the foot and ends at the base of the toes.8 The one remaining piece of ornament is a knee pad tied to the right leg. It is an oblong piece of textile or hide with small decorative fringes in the center and longer tassels hanging from the bottom. The thick strap and knot attaching it to the leg can also be seen.

Two of these accessories further serve to identify the reclining figure as a ballplayer. Proskouriakoff illustrates two knee pads of similar but less elaborate form with the information that: "Pads to protect the knee were worn by ballplayers on one leg, but occasionally on both"9 (see below). Similarly, the heavy bracelet on the right arm is comparable to others also illustrated and described by her: "An entirely different sort of wristlet is made of soft material . . . a variant of this is very high and may have served as an arm guard, for it is often worn by figures that are dressed as ballplayers." 10

Although the standing figure on the left is in a somewhat more damaged condition, many of the costume elements that remain are similar to those of the reclining figure. The front of the headdress, of which only the outline can now be seen, was probably in the form of an animal head surmounting the forehead of the figure. Behind this was added another form of decoration, the details of which are now impossible to conjecture. Below this area, the headdress terminates in a series of double tasseled plumes such as those already noted on the headdress of the reclining figure. The tips of the plumes are just visible over the right forearm of the figure. This forearm is protected by another thick ball-playing wristlet, and on the left wrist is a small bracelet of intricate workmanship somewhat comparable to the bracelet on the left wrist of the reclining figure.

The top portion of both legs remain, and the standing figure has two



? .-.• •, .

I

?- . :

K

I .

r

,,• .'4,.

#4 ? . .

" .

4,... ? ,". .• .. . .

..., ,

44,14 ., -,

,

.

, , ,

.?

?, ? -.

ch • , , , ! "

,, •. ,:I

'4 • .4,\ . ,.'. .

S ?

,,

4 4 #4. $ 4

4,.~I ">2'r

qI.' 4,*4




knee pads, a form of dress already noted. The pad on the left knee is a round, thick textile form that seems to be woven in the shape of a highly stylized mask. Below the pad are attached heavy tassel bands, such as those decorating the knee pad of the reclining figure. Of the knee pad worn on the right leg only the top has remained; it is of similar construction but lacks the elaboration of the other two. The fact that the pad is facing outwards, towards the "frame," indicates that the figure stands in a splayfooted position, a common late

Maya pose.11 Besides these similarities, there are a number of new elements of dress

apparent in the costume of the standing figure. Hanging from the center of the heavy beaded collar is a flat bar ornament with a carving in the form of a skull in the middle. It is of a known type "common at Naranjo and Piedras Negras in the Ornate and Dynamic Phases of the Late Classic [period]." 12 Below this pendant, a broad, knotted sash is worn around the waist, and affixed to the front of this is a large, flat ornament. This is another object associated with the ball-playing costumes. It is a form known as a "hacha" (axe head) because of its narrow two-dimensional shape, and it was sometimes worn in conjunction with a yoke such as that around the waist of the reclining figure.13 Hachas are familiar as surviving stone sculptures and, as here, are often carved to represent a skull. Additional embellishment in the form of tightly twisted textile fringes can be noted at the back and bottom of the hacha.

The tip of a geometrically woven garment on the right leg, directly above the knee pad and the loincloth apron, which falls between both legs is composed of a series of triangular designs. Above, and in front of the right knee pad, are two thick textile folds of indistinct function. The tip of the

right foot can just be seen in front of the large damaged area at the lower left of the relief, but enough remains to show that a sandal is worn.

Between the two figures are two unusual elements. One, a step form

directly in front of the standing figure, is actually an architectural detail

representing the bench that formed the side of a ball court. Ball courts of

varying dimensions appear at all of the important Maya sites. A detail shared

by all of them is the bench-like wall that runs along the entire length of the

Figure 92. Enlarged detail



68 Museum Studies 2

court on both sides. Extensive archaeological investigations have been carried out concerning the architecture of Maya ball courts. Studies at Piedras Negras were supervised and published by Linton Satterthwaite in 1944. In some of his isometric reconstructions, the bench-like arrangement of the side walls is almost identical to this detail of the relief,14 although here it is obviously shown in small scale.

The other notable element is the large round object directly over the bench. Given the ball-game paraphernalia described in the costume details as well as the inclusion of an architectural element from a ball court, it seems apparent that this must be the ball itself. Again there is a discrepancy of scale, as it has been theorized that the ball used in the Maya area "was five to eight inches in diameter, and weighed about five pounds."15 The depiction of balls of such massive scale is also found at Copan on three stone discs from the ball court which served as boundary markers for the game.16 At Chichen Itza, the four identical reliefs on the sides of the ball court show a large round object in the center that is decorated with a skull, and probably also represents a ball of enlarged size.17

The rest of the carving on the relief consists of a series of glyphs, found on the base of the ball court, on the ball, and in two vertical panels in the center and in the upper right-hand corner. If the glyphs are calendrical, the damage which has occurred at the top of the relief has destroyed the series so that it is now impossible to arrive at an exact date. (It is probable, however, that the glyphs are non-calendrical.)

I am not experienced in the complex science of deciphering Maya glyphs, and it has been difficult to arrive at any but the most tenuous conclusions regarding these. Careful comparison between our glyphs and those published and deciphered by J. Eric S. Thompsonl8 have revealed some similarities but none have been conclusive. Correspondence with Linton Satterthwaite19 has been helpful but has not led to actual decipherment. The question must, therefore, await the efforts of future scholarship which may have at its disposal other carvings from the same group as ours with glyphs on them to fill gaps in our knowledge.

Now that the relief has been described, it is possible to examine the various elements of design that serve to place it within a relatively fixed period




Figure 3. Enlarged detail



70 Museum Studies 2

of time. Proskouriakoff's painstaking analysis of late Maya sculpture traces the stylistic development of many monuments of the late classic period to their culmination in a phase to which she has given the name "dynamic" and the dates 751-811 A.D. by the Goodman-Martinez Hernindez-Thompson cor- relation of the Maya and modern calendars. Much of what she writes of the stylistic properties of this particular period can be generally applied to our relief: "There is a significant shift of emphasis during the Late Classic Period from static forms to unbalanced forms . . . As it concerns the figure itself, this tendency is expressed by focusing attention on the gesture or action of the personage portrayed . . . Many late figures either lean slightly in one direction or bend at the waist ... Its effect is to produce a composition based on curved lines rather than on a strict vertical axis of symmetry."20 "Minor forms are distorted and acquire a quality of unbalance which causes in the observer a feeling of faint stress or tension, directing his attention along certain lines and giving the suggestion of motion ... Plumes sometimes . . . undergo sudden changes in direction as they approach the confining margin of the field."21

In addition, Proskouriakoff notes specific details as belonging to the later period. The elaborate detailed ornamentation so evident here and the

splayfooted pose of the standing figure have already been mentioned as late-

period conventions. The use of the bar ornament such as that worn by the

standing figure is cited as "particularly common in the Usumacinta area in Late Classic times,"22 and a collar is illustrated from a Dynamic Phase stela at Itsimte of practically the same form as that supporting the above bar ornament.23

As to the origin of this relief, Proskouriakoff, through details of dress, has tentatively placed it "in the southwestern portion of the lowland area [of Guatemala or Mexico]."24 Linton Satterthwaite generally concurs in sug- gesting the "Middle Usumacinta [river] above Piedras Negras."25 The great amount of minute detail evident throughout the whole composition and the full flowing forms of the costumes relate to some of the carvings from Yaxchilan, a site of major importance that is in this particular area. A group of lintels now in the British Museum display these characteristics,26 and the Cleveland Museum has acquired a relief of similar detail that is probably also from

Yaxchilan.27 Returning once again to Proskouriakoff's study, there is a descrip-




tion of the Usumacinta style which can again be applied to the overall features of the Art Institute relief. "The late Usumacinta school of sculpture is probably the finest that the Maya ever produced. Although its main regard was for the subtly suggested motion and dynamic balance of form, it retained a conserva- tive predilection for natural forms and sensitive, regular lines. Moreover, it was never violent in its expression or too intricate and ornate in its design ..."28

One last problem concerns the original function of this sculpture. Reliefs of this small size are not common Maya products, the usual reliefs being in the form of steles or lintels from five to seven feet in length. As is noted above, markers designating the areas of the ball court playing field are sometimes part of the ball court architecture, but they are usually round disc forms and are invariably larger than our example. All that is known of its history is that it appeared in the New York art market along with three other reliefs of similar height, one a panel of glyphs, the other two depicting two other ballplayers in comparably elaborate costumes. It may be theorized that all of these carvings decorated some part of a ball court structure,29 but it is not possible to suggest their exact use or location.

In spite of these many questions that remain, it is appropriate that a Maya sculpture of this period, provenance, and quality become a part of the Institute's small but distinguished group of Maya objects. Although not large, and typically lacking its original coloring as well as showing some unfortunate damage to the glyph areas and figures themselves, our relief presents a careful documentation of some important aspects of ancient ceremonial life. There is considerable evidence of the degree of accomplishment of the ephemeral crafts of textile weaving and personal adornment which are rarely-if ever-known to us in their original states. Also, there is much specific information regarding the regalia and ceremonial importance of the ball game. As a religious observ- ance, it required the sort of fabulous dress shown here; as a sporting event, it must have been an extremely rough game owing to the need of protective clothing in the form of thick knee pads and arm guards and the heavy yoke which was apparently used to hit the ball.30

The ideal acquisition for the Art Institute should combine high esthetic

quality and fineness of execution with some indication of the social customs, religion or history of the society which produced it. The ball game relief fulfills



72 Museum Studies 2

these requisites admirably, and adds considerably to the distinction of the Institute's collections of ancient American art.

NOTES

1 Complete agreement as to whether actual writing did exist has not yet been reached among scholars. Betty Bell, in her appraisal of the Maya civilization which is included in S. G. Morley The Ancient Maya, Stanford, 1956, third edition, gives the following summary. "Alone of New World civilizations, the Maya developed what can truly be considered a system of writing in which the characters were not merely pictographs or mnemonic devices. Maya hieroglyphic writing was long thought to be entirely ideographic, but recent studies have indicated that many of the glyphs may be syllabic. It was thus at least in the process of becoming a phonetic system, its characters coming to represent sounds rather than objects or ideas." p. 428.

2 Accession number 65.407. Wall panel. Limestone. 97/ in. high, 17 in. long. Upper Usuma- cinta River area, Mexico or Guatemala. Late Classic period. Ada Turnbull Hertle Fund.

3 The facial features of many Maya relief figures show damage of this nature, thus producing some support for the theory that such vandalism was intentional and may have occurred during a revolution directed against a priestly aristocracy at the end of the Classic period. Whatever the cause of the damage here, the extent of the erosion indicates that it is not recent.

4 Spinden points out the prevalence of "birds, entire or in part ... on the more elaborate headdresses of the priests and warriors on the monuments." H. J. Spinden Maya Art and Civilization, Indian Hills, Colorado 1956, p. 79.

5 A good summary of Veracruz yoke types and an analysis of their significance appears in M. Covarrubias Indian Art of Mexico and Central America, New York, 1957 pp. 170-195.

6 Bags are quite common accessories of Maya costume, but are more usually carried and equipped with handles. See T. Proskouriakoff A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1950, p. 95, fig. 33, E 1 and E 6.

7 Ibid. Figs. 24-26 8 Although it seems odd that the other foot is without this form of apparel, Proskouriakoff

points out the existence of "a type of covering worn on one foot by figures from the ball court at Chichen Itza." (ibid. p. 88)

9 Ibid. p. 81. The illustrations are a' and b' on p. 85 10 Ibid. p. 80. Ill. B2, p. 79 11 Ibid. p. 22. "The adoption of the pose in which the figure stands with its feet pointing

outwards . . . is virtually an unfailing criterion of the Late Classic Period." 12 Ibid. p. 66, VIII E. Proskouriakoff also notes this ornament in use at Copan. Two that are

somewhat more elaborate, but similar types from Coba and Naranjo are also illustrated (fig. 22, C4)

13 The Covarrubias reference (supra, note 5) also deals with hacha types from Veracruz.




14 Satterthwaite, L. Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture. Part IV Ball Courts University Museum, Philadelphia, 1944, p. 41, figs. 17, 18. Personal communication with Mr. Satter- thwaite has served to further confirm this connection: "On your stone, the artist seems to have drawn the profile of a sloping bench ball court structure at a small scale between the players." Letter, July 6, 1965.

15 Collier, "A Maya Ball Game," Chicago Natural History Museum Bulletin, Vol. 34 no. 9 Sept. 1963, p. 2. Stern, T. states that the ball's "size is suggested by bas-reliefs and figurines as being half that of the human head." The Rubber Ball Game of the Americas, Monographs of the American Ethnological Society Vol. XVII, 1950, p. 35. The present writer does not know of any reliefs or figurines which would fall into this category.

16 Morley, S.G. The Inscriptions of Peten, Vols. 2-4, illustrations for the tailpieces. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Pub. no. 437, Washington, D. C. 1937-8. Also mentioned by Ekholm, G. Probable Use of Stone Yokes, American Anthropologist, Vol. 48, no. 4, 1946, plate 2. These markers are now in the Copan Museum.

17 Proskouriakoff, T. op. cit., fig. 106c 18 Thompson, J. Eric S. Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, University of Oklahoma Press, 1960.

A Catalogue of Maya Hieroglyphics, University of Oklahoma Press, 1962. 19 Letter, May 5, 1966 20 Proskouriakoff, T. op. cit. p. 23. 21 Ibid. p. 181 22 Ibid. p. 64 23 Ibid. fig. 21, a4g and p. 59 24 Letter, July 5, 1965 25 Letter, July 6, 1965 26 Two are illustrated in the 1938 British Museum Guide to the Maudslay Collection of Maya

Sculptures from Central America, pl. 10 and fig. 30. Proskouriakoff, op. cit., gives the location of illustrations of all the other lintels, p. 198-9

27 Hawley, H. A Maya Relief, Cleveland Museum of Art Bulletin, March, 1963, fig. 1 28 Proskouriakoff, T. op. cit. p. 149 29 Satterthwaite mentions this possibility: "In both cases [the two ball courts at Piedras

Negras] there were sculptured panels on the structures themselves and I have no doubt that was the case with your piece despite its small size." Letter, July 6, 1965.

30 Ekholm, G. op. cit., p. 602



a maya ball game relief

Documents