Abstract
AbstractThe common assumption that Maya stelae record contemporaneity of carving, style, erection, and calendar date is challenged by evidence that shows instances in which (1) stylistic inconsistencies have been caused by alterations of a monument during different periods of time; (2) the latest recorded glyphic date is not the date of erection but rather the date of the latest completed alteration of the monument; (3) the practice of recarving and the associated innovations served as determinants of change in stylistic development. Physical evidence of the removal of carved elements and recarving is reviewed for carved wooden lintels at Tikal and stelae at Xultún, Yaxchilán, Uaxactún, Quiriguá Tikal, Naranjo, Piedras Negras, and Copán. Details of substela chambers, the placement of caches, the presence of multiple floors, and the condition of stela bases at Copán, Quiriguá, and Uaxactún indicate that stelae were raised in position as well as recarved. It is suggested that the period of the original erection of a monument is most closely related to the earliest date present, while the latest date present refers only to the latest completed alteration of the monument.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
