Seibal Vol. 7.1

Saxtanquiqui

Sactankiki

El Ceibal

From its source in Alta Verapaz, the Río de la Pasíon runs northward for about 80 km before changing course abruptly to the west, a course it then follows until it joins the Río Salinas to form the Usumacinta. For most of the 20 km preceding this bend, the river runs (or crawls, for it is sluggish) along the foot of an escarpment, which reaches its greatest height of about 110 m above the river some 4 km before the bend. It was precisely on this highest ground that the city of Seibal came into being, with its outlying settlements spreading over a broad stretch of terrain to the west, which falls gradually toward the Arroyo Petexbatun.

Until the early 1960s the only known approach to the ruins was from El Ceibal, once a montería, or lumber camp (and since then usually the site of a single dwelling), from whence a trail used to lead gently uphill for 4 km to Group A of the ruins. Then in 1961 a Peabody Museum reconnaissance party (Adams 1963) opened up the most direct feasible route to the ruins from a river landing. Now one can climb rather strenuously up a ravine that cuts into the escarpment, emerge near the southeast corner of the partial plan reproduced in this work, and follow the path to Group A.

At the beginning of the museum's Seibal Project, the old trail from El Ceibal was widened into some semblance of a roadway, up which all the provisions, water, and equipment were brought in by a four-wheel-drive pickup. Water is always scarce at Seibal, for the "little spring" that Maler mentions (1908, p. 11) has never been found, probably because it has ceased to flow. In 1966 FYDEP, the development agency responsible for Peten, opened a graded road from the town of Sayaxche, 14 km to the west, as far as the Project's camp, which had been built just south of Structure A-24. At the time of writing, this road from Sayaxche remains in good condition as far as the junction with a road leading south to Raxuja and thence to Coban, but the rest of the way to Seibal is often impassable for vehicles during the rainy season.

The discoverers of Seibal were almost certainly timber scouts working for the Hamet Mahogany Company, which established a lumber camp at El Ceibal in 1890.

The chain of events that was soon to bring these ruins to public attention began with the nomination of Federico Arthés in 1892 as the Guatemalan government's special commissioner charged with the task of collecting material for a Guatemalan exhibit at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago (Graham 1991). Since part of his mandate was to secure molds of Maya relief sculpture, Arthés engaged the services of a highly intelligent mestizo from Alta Verapaz, Gorgonio Lopez Toledo, who had mastered the technique of making papier-mâché molds while serving as Alfred Maudslay's assistant. With this man and a small retinue of peteneros, Arthés set out for Tikal, and there López successfully made at least one mold (of Stela 5). But then Arthés and López, daunted by the practical difficulties of working at such a remote and nearly waterless site, decided that, instead, they would try their luck at ruins near Sayaxche, where, according to reports heard in Flores, a number of splendid stelae had recently been found. Logistically, this site, now known as Seibal, would be far more convenient since it was accessible by water from Paso Real, 9 km downstream from Sayaxche, where a ferry-crossing of the Pasion was maintained by the government as a vital link in the route between Flores and Guatemala City.

At Seibal López successfully made molds of Stelae 2 (in two sections), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (in two sections) and of two stones from the hieroglyphic stairway. In due course plaster casts taken from these molds were exhibited in Chicago, labeled as coming from the ruins of Saxtanquiqui. Arthés (1893, p. 100, and 1991, p. 84) explained that this name derives from four monosyllables in the Lacandon dialect: "Sap - aclarar ó amanecer, Tan delante ó antes, y Qui, bueno ó sabroso," Maler, however, states that this fanciful name (Sactankiki in his version) was concocted by his guide under the following circumstances: "Eusebio Cano also told me that Señor Federico Artés considered the name Seibal too insignificant, and had asked him if he did not know a better name for the forgotten city, which still harbors such splendid monuments of a bygone civilization.... Cano helped Artés by an invention of his own. He told him that an aged Lacandon called José Couóh (Tarántula), who lived on the banks of the Chacrío, when he became communicative in his cups, had often told him with tears in his eyes that Seibal had been the capital city of his ancestors, and in the glorious days when they still ruled the land, before the accursed 'Sácmaax,' white monkeys, came in and ruined everything, the city had borne the proud name of 'Sáctankiki: The Comisionado especial seems to have been much pleased with this communication" (Maler 1908, p. 27).

After the Exposition closed, the casts were given to the Peabody Museum, where photographs of them are still catalogued under the name Sactankiki. In the 1950s the museum agreed to transfer casts of three monuments as exchanges with other museums: Stela 2 and Stela 5 went to the Davenport Public Museum in Davenport, Iowa, and Colgate University received Stela 7.

In 1895, on the first of his two visits to Seibal, Teobert Maler spent four days photographing the stelae, among them Stela 1, which he himself had discovered; and in 1905, by then working under Peabody Museum auspices, he returned for three more days of photography. Maler's photographs and description, supplemented by photographs of the Chicago casts of Stela 9 and the tablets, were soon published (Maler 1908, pp. 10-28 and pIs. 3-10). It was in this work too, that the name Seibal was bestowed on the ruins. Some purists have disapproved of the spelling with initial s (one that Maler naturally inclined to, since in German c is used only in ligatures), but, as pointed out in this work (1:11, n. 2), it may not be too heinous an infraction of the rules of Spanish orthography to use this spelling because the word derives from a Caribbean language (Taino). A practical and perhaps more compelling consideration is that at this late date a change from the spelling consistently employed in archaeological literature would cause confusion and wasteful cross-referencing. Probably for the same reason the Mexican Instituto de Antropología e Historia has chosen to retain an absurd pseudo-Maya site-name, "Kohunlich," when it is no more than a garbled version of the name bestowed by Belizean lumbermen, "Cohune Ridge."

Sylvanus G. Morley paid two visits to Seibal lasting a total of two days. On his first visit in 1914, he was accompanied by Herbert Spinden, and their activities were mainly confined to making notes on the inscriptions. His second, in the following year, was the occasion of his being shown Stela 12 in an outlying area called by him Group B, although no group worthy of the name exists in that area. When Morley published his survey of Seibal inscriptions, incorporating the results of these visits (1937-38, vol. 2, pp. 239-289), he retained Maler's numbering of Stelae 1-11, while rightly rejecting Maler's naming of the inscribed tablets from the hieroglyphic stairway as Stelae 12-15.

No further contributions to knowledge of the site were made until 1948, when the vertebrate palaeontologist Barnum Brown (then aged 75) spent a day at the site, in the course of which he discovered Stela 13 (Adams 1963, p.93).

In 1961, when Gordon R. Willey had decided that excavations at Seibal should follow those he was directing at Altar de Sacrificios, he arranged for two exploratory trips to Seibal to be made by his students, the first by John A. Graham and Timothy Fiske, the second by Graham and R. E. W. Adams. On those trips they discovered Causeways I-III and Stelae 14-18; test pits were also dug, and a better plan made of the central area of Group A (Adams 1963).

In the following year, I made two one-day visits to Seibal, the first to record Stela 13, the second to examine Stela 12 (I. Graham 1967, pp. 100-103).

In 1964 I returned to Seibal for the first of two seasons as topographer for the Peabody Museum, assisted briefly by Fiske, then by Gair Tourtellot. In 1965 the museum began its four seasons of excavation, consolidation of structures, extended settlement survey, and the repair and resetting of stelae (Willey et al. 1975, Sabloff 1975, Willey 1978, Smith 1982, Tourtellot 1988,J. A. Graham 1990, Tourtellot 1990, Willey 1990). During the museum's later seasons I returned more than once to photograph and draw some of the sculpture. In 1989 and 1993, with this volume in view, I did further work of the same kind.

For the environmental setting of Seibal the reader is referred to passages in chapter 2 of Willey's introductory volume (Willey et al. 1975). A fuller general description of the site is given by Smith (1982, chapter 2), and detailed descriptions of Groups A, C, and D can be found in chapters 2, 3, and 4 of the same work.

The principal, or ceremonial, zones of Seibal were built on three pieces of high ground, which lie in a nearly east-west line. The largest, and by a small margin the most elevated, of these is the westernmost, Group A: it is an area measuring some 400 m north-south by 200 m east-west now seeming almost level, though test pits revealed uneven bedrock leveled with heavy deposition of fill. Here were erected buildings that define two very large plazas and one smaller one.

The North Plaza (or Northeastern, as it might perhaps more fittingly have been named) is the smallest plaza and is of interest chiefly for the ceremonial passage between the two low mounds along its eastern edge. This gives access to a stairway leading down to Causeway IV, which runs parallel to Causeway I for about 80 m before turning abruptly to the northeast for another 110 m. At the terminus there is a small rectangular terrace, locus of the plain Stela 23 and a carved altar, which was evidently the focus of much ceremonial activity (Smith 1982, p. 139 and fig. 101). A photograph of the altar is reproduced here, since none has yet been published. The altar's dimensions are: Ht 1.10 m, MW 1.50 m, MTh 0.23 m, Rel 1.0 cm.

The Central Plaza is dominated by two connected mounds standing side-by-side on its east side, Structures A-14 and A-10. Structure A-14 was a long, palace-type building, accessible from the plaza by a projecting stairway 38 m wide. The three lowermost steps of this stairway had hieroglyphic panels (Tablets 1-9) set into them at the north end, the center, and the south end. There is evidence (Smith 1982, p. 65) that these tablets were removed from an earlier building and reset in correct order in this later one, a view supported by a discrepancy of perhaps a century between the date of events recorded in the tablets and the very late date that ceramic evidence gives this possibly unfinished building (Smith 1982, p. 75). In contrast, the adjoining Structure A-10 was apparently constructed to support a temple built of perishable materials. It was ascended by a stairway relieved, a few steps up, by a terrace with flanking wall-panels (the so called Stelae 5 and 7) and with Stela 6 set in the center.

In one sense, the great Central Plaza is dominated by Structure A-24, at 18 m high about as tall as Structure A-10; but a small temple placed at the center of the plaza, Structure A-3, though only about 6 m high, is the focus of all attention, as once it must have been to an even greater degree when its upper facades were embellished with modeled stucco painted in bright colors. Its importance in late times is still proclaimed by stairways ascending all four sides of the substructure, each with a magnificent stela standing at its foot, while another stela of more ordinary quality stands within its vaulted chambers.

Directly east from Structure A-3, a wide stairway with balustrades leads down from the edge of the Central Plaza; at its foot the balustrades continue as borders of Causeway 1. This runs a little south of east for 250 m to reach a T-junction in the form of a rectangular platform, and this is the locus of two large stelae, numbers 14 and 15, and a fragmentary miniature stela, number 16. From here, Causeway III proceeds with unchanged direction, and Causeway II cuts off to the south-southwest. The junction is located on the middle piece of high ground of the three that were referred to above; on it stand about 40 other structures, a few of them obviously of ceremonial function, including a ball court. The existence of these in a topographically separate area led to its denomination as Group C.

Some 400 m from the junction, Causeway II crosses an embankment at the head of a barranco, or ravine, and swings south for another 100 m to reach a square platform on which stands a circular structure with a jaguarheaded table-altar set in front of its stairway.

One hundred meters after leaving the junction, Causeway III dips down into a gully (the beginning of another barranco) and from the lowest point a stairway climbs upward, providing access to Group D. In fact this is the only convenient access to Group D, for, unlike Group A, this group is very sharply defined by steep, even precipitous, declivities all round. So advantageous would these have been for defense during the Late Classic wars that perhaps the construction of special defensive works was considered unnecessary; none, at least, has been identified.

Group D was settled in the Late Preclassic Period, abandoned in the Early Classic, and developed again in the Late Classic. Though smaller than Group A, it has more structures packed into it, with many of these arranged round five plazas and several courts. The largest structure, D-32, 14 m high, stands on the east side of the Central Plaza with a plain stela set in front. From its top, a superb panorama unfolds (unless obstructed by trees in the foreground) across the low, swampy area on the other side of the river to hills in the distance.

The main plan reproduced in this volume is redrawn from my own plan as published in Willey et al. (1975, fig. 2). Its coverage has been reduced, without change of scale, to the minimum required to show the carved monuments. Some details have been omitted and minor mounds left unnumbered. The supplementary plan showing the location of Stela 12 is based on a quick transit survey that I made in 1989 down the path leading to this monument, with most of the topography taken from Tourtellot (1988). The relevant sheets of his map are named in upper-case lettering.

Stelae 1-21

Panel 1

Tablets 1-9

For the purposes of this work, the portion of Stela 6 that broke off and was later reset separately as a monument (Stela 22) is treated as part of Stela 6. For its setting as a separate stela see Smith 1982, pp. 138-9.

ADAMS, RICHARD E. W. 

1963    "Seibal, Peten: una secuencia cerámica preliminar y un nuevo mapa," Estudios de Cultura Maya, Universidad Autónoma de México, vol. 3, pp. 85-96. México, D.F.

ARTHES, FEDERICO GUILLERMO

1893    "Breve descripción del departamento del Petén," El Guatemalteco: Diario oficial de la República de Guatemala, en Ia América Central, vol. 23, pp. 97-103 (31 May). Guatemala.

1991     "Breve descripción del departamento de Petén," Anales de la Sociedad de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala, vol. 65, pp. 77-93. Guatemala.

GRAHAM, IAN

1967    Archaeological Explorations in the Department of EI Peten, Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 33. Tulane University, New Orleans.

1991    "Federico Arthés y la presencia de Guatemala en la Exposición Mundial Columbina de Chicago." Anales de la Sociedad de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala, vol. 65, pp. 71-77. Guatemala.

GRAHAM, JOHN A.

1990 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Monumental Sculpture and Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 17, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

MALER, TEOBERT

1908 Explorations of the Upper Usumatsintla and Adjacent Regions. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 4, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1911 Explorations in the Department of Peten: Tikal. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 5, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

MORLEY, SYLVANUS G.

1937-38 The Inscriptions of Peten. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 437, 5 vols. Washington, D.C.

SABLOFF, JEREMY

1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Ceramics. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 13, no. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

SMITH, A. LEDYARD

1982 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Major Architecture and Caches. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 15, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

TOURTELLOT, GAIR, III

1988 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Peripheral Survey and Excavation; Settlement and Community Patterns. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 16, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1990 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Burials: A Cultural Analysis. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 17, no. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

WILLEY, GORDON R.

1978 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Artifacts. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 14, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1990 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: General Summary and Conclusions. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 17, no. 4. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

WILLEY, GORDON R, A. LEDYARD SMITH, GAIR TOURTELLOT III, and IAN GRAHAM

1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Introduction: The Site and its Setting. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 13, no. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Location

Found by Maler lying on its face near the northern edge of the South Plaza and northeast of Structure A-3. Reset by the Peabody Museum facing east as indicated by the butt, which was found in situ.

Condition

Broken at the level of the figure's toes (repaired before re-erection). The carved surface is in near pristine condition. The shaft shows a flaw at the top.

Material

Very hard limestone.

Shape

Tapers towards the base, but whereas the right-hand side bulges irregularly, the left side is straight. The top is rounded. The front surface is flat, apart from a slight hollow where the pectoral is carved. The sides and back were left rough, with the left side projecting beyond the border defined at the frontal plane.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Found by Arthés and López near the middle of a row of six stelae, all plain except for Stela 3, its neighbor to the north, in front of Structure A-6 (Smith 1982, p. 8). Re-erected by the Peabody Museum.

Condition

When found by Arthés, and later by Maler, the shaft was broken at the neck into two pieces, with small fragments missing from the top. At some later date the shaft broke across the lower legs. The carved surface remains in almost pristine condition except for flaking towards the top. In 1967 the shaft was repaired, with the small top fragments attached prior to resetting.

Material

Fine-grained and very hard limestone of brownish hue.

Shape

The front surface is well dressed but recedes towards the top before inclining forward again (see oblique photo). The right side is dressed smoothly but at a slightly obtuse angle; the left side departs more from flatness, while the back was left rough. The asymmetrical top corners appear to have been a feature of the original shaft.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only, except for featherwork of headdress extending round both sides for about 10 cm.

Photographs

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Found by Arthés and López, and later by Maler, lying fallen in the middle of a row of six stelae in front of Structure A-6, probably just to the north of Stela 2 (Smith 1982, p. 8). As its relatively light weight made it an inviting target for looters, the stela was removed during the Peabody Museum's Seibal Project to the Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, in Guatemala City.

Condition

In one piece and in excellent condition, though a rather uniform erosion has obliterared some fine details.

Material

A hard, fine-grained limestone.

Shape

Sides roughly parallel in lower half, then narrowing towards an irregularly rounded top. The front is smoothly finished but wavy. Back and sides roughly hewn.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photographs

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Maler described Stela 4 as having been adorned by a fine low relief representing a richly clad personage of rank, but broken into so many pieces that he could make nothing of it (1908, p. 15). It then disappeared from view for the next sixty years until, during a hiatus in vigilance at the site, an intruder noticed it and dug in search of a cache. On hearing of this discovery, I went to the site, but had only enough time to brush dirt from the front surface of the stela, sketch it, and take hasty photographs. Somewhat better photographs were taken in 1993. The stela had evidently fallen on its back, and perhaps only later was cracked into pieces by a falling tree, since the fragments lay undisturbed in their correct relative positions. In this respect the stela does not conform to Maler's description, but it is unlikely to be another since it was found close to the position shown on Maler's rough plan of the site. There it remains, as found, and buried once again under a thin covering of soil.

Condition

Broken into six large and four small fragments. The surface is badly eroded except in the lower-left region.

Material

A limestone neither hard nor fine-grained, with a high content of shells and grit, and showing several naturally recemented fissures.

Shape

Front fairly flat; sides nearly parallel, though the right side bulges somewhat. Top flattish.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photographs

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing partially revised by controlled light.

Location

Found by Arthés and López; whether lying against the base of Structure A-1O or fallen on its face is unknown. It had been set into the west side of A-lO, just south of the projecting lower stairway and landing. It remains where found.

Condition

One large full-width portion survives, lacking top and bottom, and representing perhaps two-thirds of the original slab. During the Seibal Project a fragment from the upper-left corner was found and cemented in place. Much of the carved surface has flaked off; loss of detail due to erosion is minor.

Material

Limestone.

Shape

Sides tapering somewhat towards the top. The front surface is dressed flat; the sides are beveled, making the back narrower than the front.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photograph

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

According to Arthés (1991, p. 84), he and his men extracted the main portion of the shaft from where it lay beneath a mahogany trunk 8 m in circumference. Maler recognized that it had been set centrally at the foot of the stairway up the west side of Structure A-10, which starts from a landing reached by five broad steps. The top of the shaft eluded all searches until 1964, when I found that it had been carried 27 m from where it fell, and reset upside-down, probably in the Postclassic Period. As such it is catalogued as Stela 22 (see Smith 1982, pp. 138,139), but treated here only as part of Stela 6.

Condition

When knocked down, probably by a tree that fell nearly a thousand years ago, the lower portion of the stela fell on its face, and was thus protected from erosion. The right halves of three glyphs, however, became detached at some time from a cleavage plane that runs through the shaft at an angle of about 25 degrees to the front surface. Two pieces of the lost glyphs were found by the Seibal Project and cemented in place, but they have since fallen off and disappeared. The upper fragment, after removal and precarious resetting (Smith 1982, p. 138), also fell facedown. Three glyphs are fairly well preserved, four are badly damaged, and one has split off entirely. The original top is also badly damaged.

Material

Limestone of markedly laminated texture.

Shape

A well-shaped shaft with parallel sides; top of unknown form.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photographs

Graham. Note: part of the upper border is not shown, since the photo is of Stela 22 as re-erected with that portion set in the ground.

Drawing

Graham, based on field drawings corrected by artificial light, except for the two small fragments, the only record of which is photographic.

Location

In situ when seen by Arthés and López, lying against the foot of Structure A-IO on its west side, where originally it had been set into the masonry facing, just north of the projecting lower stairway.

Condition

Intact, though cracked horizontally at the level of the figure's shins, and below that, vertically down the center. The upper-left corner is missing and the edges are damaged, but the general condition is remarkably good, with only local losses of detail through weathering.

Material

Limestone.

Shape

Parallel sides, flat top, and flat front surface. The sides are beveled, making the back narrower than the front.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Found by Arthés and López lying on the ground. If face-down, as its good condition suggests, they must have turned it to make a mold. The stela had been set in front of the south stairway of Structure A-3.

Condition

Intact. Two cracks disfiguring the front surface cannot be attributed to its fall, for they are natural blemishes in the stone. There is another blemish just below the pectoral, a hole connecting with an internal cavity. The carved details are in general very well preserved, except for small losses here and there. The stela was re-erected by the Peabody Museum.

Material

A hard, fine-grained limestone.

Shape

Tapers towards the base, with straight edges. The top is canted, with a sharp upper-left corner and a well-rounded one on the right. The plane of the carved surface is flat but slightly "twisted." Back and sides are well dressed.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photograph

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Found broken by Arthés and López, with the left-hand fragment still standing in situ in front of the west stairway of Structure A-3. Re-erected by the Peabody Museum.

Condition

In three large pieces and ooe small, the latter being the only surviving fragment of a long sliver that sprang at breakage from between the lower-left fragment and the full-length, right-hand fragment. Mended before re-erection.

Material

A hard, fine-grained limestone.

Shape

Tapers slightly towards the base, with straight sides; the top may originally have been flat. The base of carving tilts downwards to the left. The front is nearly flat; the back, well dressed; the sides irregularly rounded.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photograph

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Found standing by Arthés and López in front of the north stairway of Structure A-3.

Condition

Intact and extremely well preserved. A slight inclination of the stela towards the east was corrected by the Peabody Museum, and a stainless steel cramp was embedded across a crack low down on the west edge.

Material

Very hard, homogeneous, and fine-grained limestone.

Shape

Tapers asymmetrically towards the top, with an almost straight left edge and an unevenly curved right edge. The top is rounded. The front is flat; the sides and back are well dressed.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light, and checked against the 1893 plaster cast.

Location

Found standing by Arthés and López in front of the stairway on the east side of Structure A-3.

Condition

Unbroken except for some losses on the right-hand side, towards the base. The stone shows a tendency to spalling, and the lower portions are badly damaged, perhaps by fire (though Maler's attribution of this to careless use of fire for drying the molds must be rejected since the plaster cast reproduces the same deteriorated surface).

Material

Fine-grained limestone.

Shape

Parallel sides with low, rounded top. Front perfectly flat; back and sides well dressed.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light and checked against the 1893 plaster cast.

Location

Found by Morley (1937-38, voL 2, pp. 263-264) lying broken on the east side of a large mound now designated Structure 10G-1 (Tourtellot 1988, p. 41). From Stela 1, this stands at 2.4 kill distance and a bearing of 170 degrees.

Condition

When discovered, two fragments had broken off the top of the shaft, the larger of which had lost its carved surface owing to separation at a bedding plane about 4 em from the carved surface. Although Morley's photograph is extremely poor, it seems to show other areas detached but still in place, and serious losses only at B1 from weathering and at 85 and 86 from detachment. By 1962 the stela had been engulfed in a miIpa, and the separated layer had broken into smaller fragments. Some were lost, but the surface stilI preserved much of its fine detail. Further losses had occurred by 1989, and in the following year the stela was reported to have suffered further damage in an utterly senseless episode, reputedly at the hands of a disgruntled former employee of the Instituto de Antropologia e Historia.

Material

Hard, fine-grained limestone.

Shape

Tapers very slightly towards the base, but sides are not dressed straight; top may originally have been flat and level.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photographs

Graham, 1962 and 1989 (both mosaics).

Drawing

Graham, based on field drawings made in 1962 and 1989 without use of controlled light and on Morley's photo.

Location

Found by Barnum Brown in 1948 (Adams 1963, p. 93) lying face-up in the center of the large terrace east of Structure A-24. From the way it fell it had dearly faced east. The stela was reset in its original location by the Peabody Museum in 1967.

Condition

Unbroken. Athaugh a considerable loss of surface due to weathering is evident from indurated inclusions now standing proud from the surface, little of consequence would seem to have been obliterated from the design. A crack curving through the upper-right area does not penetrate far through the stone and represents a fault in the stone rather than damage from its fall to the ground.

Material

Hard, fine~grained limestone containing extremely hard inclusions. Natural cracks in the stone were anciently filled with plaster.

Shape

Irregular: the right-hand side is straight whereas the left bulges irregularly; the top slopes downwards to the left and is poorly finished. The front is far from flat, having a pronounced trough running horizontally across at shoulder level. The back is roughly dressed.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a 1962 field drawing and later revision.

Location

Found by J. A. Graham and Fiske in 1961 lying broken on the platform at the junction of Causeways I, II, and III. Re-erected by the Peabody Museum.

Condition

The shaft was broken near the base of carving, and the portion above the headdress had broken into one large and several smaller pieces. The upper third of the sculptured surface is largely obliterated, a narrow strip of the lower left edge is missing, and there is damage to the figure's left shoulder; otherwise the preservation is excellent. Looters at some time began sawing the shaft, but gave up on finding the stone too hard. Repaired prior to re-erection.

Material

Limestone.

Shape

An irregular column tapering to a blunt extremity, lenticular in section.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photographs

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artifidallight.

Note

A concrete cast of this stela stands over the tomb of Miguel Angel Asturias in the Pere Lachaise Cemetery, Paris.

Location

When found by J. A. Graham and Fiske in 1961 it lay broken into several pieces on a low platform at the junction of Causeways I, II, and III; apparently it stood immediately south of Stela 14. No photograph or drawing was reproduced in Graham's report (1990, pp. 56, 57), but James Porter made an unpublished drawing of the stela for Graham, based on his information. In 1993 I briefly studied four of the fragments, which remained not far from where they were found.

Condition

Two pairs of fitting fragments show remains of carving, these in turn being almost congruent with each other, although not fitting. Graham found another fragment showing an area of carved design, but this eluded me, perhaps because of further erosion. The general condition of the stela is very poor and would appear to have deteriorated considerably since discovery.

Material

Limestone of fine grain, now become very soft.

Shape

Probably a tall, narrow, and tapering shaft, similar to Stela 14 though not as thick and, like it, somewhat lenticular in cross-section.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photograph

Graham.

Drawing

Graham; based, as to the lower four fragments, on photographs, rough field notes, and Porter's unpublished drawing, and entirely on the latter for the upper portion. Since in Porter's drawing no outline of the upper fragment is provided, the broken line in mine is entirely conjectural.

Location

Found by Fiske and J. A. Graham in 1961, lying broken on the platform at the junction of Causeways I, II, and III, its main fragment lying exposed but facedown about 2 ill south of Stela 14. The few fragments that were found were transferred to the Museo Nacional de Arquealogía y Etnología, Guatemala City.

Condition

The front surfaces of the known fragments are in near pristine condition; the inscribed left-hand side has been weathered into illegibility.

Material

Dense, fine-grained, yellowish limestone showing at mid-thickness a layer of small bubblelike cavities.

Shape

Front flat; left side dressed perpendicular to front, but the next-largest fragment, presumed to be from the righthand side, has its side dressed obliquely, widening toward the back. The back is flat but roughly dressed.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front and left side.

Photographs

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by raking light.

Location

Found by J. A. Graham and Fiske in 1961, lying at the foot of the upper stairway of Structure A-24. Re-erected by the Peabody Museum.

Condition

Broken in half. The lower half lay face-down, and much of its carved design survives in spite of considerable erosion and pitting; but the upper half, which lay face-up, retains little of it. Mended before fe-erection.

Material

Limestone.

Shape

Tapers towards the base, with a fairly straight left edge, and on the right, one that bulges markedly. One comer is somewhat angular, the other rounded, and the top slopes down to the left.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photograph

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Found during the Peabody Museum's reconnaissance in 1961, with its butt in situ, set in the center of the first two steps of the stairway on the east side of Structure A-20. Re-erected by the Peabody Museum.

Condition

Broken into three pieces, one of which was never found. The largest portion, carrying most of the carving, fell face-down and remained quite well preserved. A long sliver that broke off the left edge is also missing. Repaired before re-erection.

Material

A grainy limestone containing many quartz inclusions, also flaws which were filled with stucco and, where necessary, modeled by the Maya.

Shape

Tapers slightly towards the base, with an irregularly rounded lop. The front is fairly flat, as is the back; the sides are moderately well dressed.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Found by I. Graham in 1964, lying face-down about 8 m to the west of the stairway of the terrace in front of Structure A-5, and close to the axis of stairway and pyramid. Re-erected by the Peabody Museum.

Condition

Intact except for a fragment broken off at upper left. The carved surface above the glyph panel is in excellent condition, with scarcely any loss of detail, but nearly half of the glyph panel has been effaced, perhaps deliberately in J. A. Graham's opinion (1990, p. 57). Repaired before re-erection.

Material

Fairly close-grained limestone of brownish hue.

Shape

Irregular, with a strongly convex, or bulging, left side and concave right side. The top corners are chamfered rather than rounded, and the top is nearly flat. The front surface was dressed fairly flat in the upper half but undulates lower down. The sides and back were roughly finished.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing corrected by artificial light.

Location

Found during the Peabody Museum's 1961 reconnaissance at the foot of the lower stairway on the east side of Structure A-24, but the fallen upper part was not turned until 1965. Re-erected in 1967.

Condition

Broken in two when found and showing some erosion, especially on the right-hand side where the quality of stone is inferior. Repaired before re-erection.

Material

Limestone of uneven quality, with a stratum of coarse breccia coming to the surface toward the right-hand side and back.

Shape

Sides more or less straight and tapering towards the base; the top asymmetrically peaked; the back roughly dressed and rounded, making the shaft thicker on the centerline.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing checked by artificial light.

Location

Found lying face-up when rubble was cleared from the center room of Structure A-3 in 1965. Re-erected by the Peabody Museum two years later.

Condition

Broken in three pieces and rather badly eroded despite the protection it has had from rain and moss, but its stone is inferior to that of Stelae 8 to 11.

Material

A medium-grained limestone, not very hard.

Shape

A well-dressed shaft, tapering slightly towards the base, with rounded top.

Dimensions

Photograph

Graham.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Drawing

Graham, based on a field drawing checked by artificial light.

Location

Found in 1965 by Smith in the rubble of collapsed masonry on the east side of Structure A-11.

Condition

In excellent condition except for a breakage not affecting the carved area along the lower-right edge and corner.

Material

Limestone.

Shape

An ordinary masonry facing stone, with well-dressed surface, and originally of rectangular outline.

Dimensions

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photographs

Graham.

Drawing

Graham, based on his photograph and plaster cast.

Location

Eight whole or fragmented stones, now recognized as components of the hieroglyphic Tablets, were found by Arthes and Lopez lying at the foot of the stairway leading up the west side of Structure A-14, and molds of these were made. Maler considered these to be fragments of stelae, and numbered them as such. They were found at two loci: the southern end of the projecting stairway, and near its middle. During the Peabody Museum excavations of the structure, other sculptured stones were found, including those from the northern end of the stairway. Only five were in situ, the others having probably been wrenched out of place by the roots of falling trees. Among the portions definitely missing were a stone carrying the left margin of Tablet 6 and another carrying a narrow slice of Glyph JJ and the right margin of the same tablet. It has been suggested by Smith (1982, p. 65) that as these carried insignificant glyphic material- they were left behind when all the other components of the tablets were removed in antiquity for resetting in this structure.

The Seibal Project left the stairway unrestored, and the inscribed stones (except for the main part of Tablet 6, which remains in situ) were stored in a shelter at the site. The following stones identified by glyphblocks, have since been stolen: Tab.l, A, Bi

Tab.2, K, L; Tab.3, R, and K. H. Mayer informs me that the sawn-off face of Tab.4, W, X is presently in storage at TikaL I have been unable to establish whether the blocks corresponding to Glyphs I and J in Tablet 2 and glyph M and part of N in Tablet 3 were ever foundi if so, they were not photographed. Regarding the lefthand portion of Tablet 4, I have followed John Graham (1990, fig. 1) in placing the only "floating" fragment there, although with this arrangement the two halves of Glyph T do not appear congruent.

Condition

The individual stones composing the tablets varied greatly in quality, and therefore in condition, notwithstanding Smith's statement (1982, p. 65) that all the stones are of his Type 2 (or hard) stone. The three constituent parts of Tablet 5 are excellently preserved, whereas the portion of Tablet 3 carrying columns N to P was of a stone that had lost practically all cohesive strength, and was to fall to pieces of its own weight soon after being unearthed.

Material

Limestone.

Shape

Each tablet is composed of two or three blocks. The front and the upper surfaces are well dressed, as are the sides when they abut other stones within the frame of an inscription.

Dimensions

A full record of dimensions cannot be given owing to the incompleteness of the stones. Since the figures available for complete tablets do not vary widely (except in regard to thickness), only the range of measurements is given.

Carved Areas

Front only.

Photographs

Graham.

Drawings

Graham, based on field drawings corrected by artificial light, on Maler's and Morley's photographs, and on photographs of the 1893 plaster casts.

Remarks

With the discovery of stones unknown to Morley, some still in situ, a better reconstruction of the original setting of all the component parts became possible. It then became necessary to introduce new nomenclature, and this was done by J. A. Graham (1990, p. 8). Discarding Morley's numbering of them as Panels, Graham employed the term Tablets so as to avoid confusion.