Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:49:36.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ceremonial Bar and Associated Features of Maya Ornamental Art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Walter W. Taylor
Walter W. Taylor*
Affiliation:
Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1913, Spinden published his monumental work on the artistic forms in Maya culture. Since that time, many of his statements have assumed axiomatic character in the literature and discussion of Maya archaeology. However, as was to be expected, new information has tended to modify some of the generalizations put forward in 1913. In the present paper, I would like to offer evidence to support the hypothesis that certain artistic compositions, treated separately by Spinden, actually are members of a single complex, and then to review some of his generalizations in the light of this evidence and Maya chronology.

The complex which I propose to demonstrate consists of the Ceremonial Bar, the Bar Pendant, and the Frieze-mask. It is my thesis that the Bar Pendant is the conceptual equivalent of the Ceremonial Bar and, in actual practice, is substituted for the latter. Similarly, the Friezemask is conceptually connected with the Bar and, thus, directly or indirectly, with the Pendant.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , July 1941 , pp. 48 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gann, T. 1897–8. Mounds in Northern British Honduras. Nineteenth Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, Pt. 2. Washington.Google Scholar
Gordon, G. B. 1905. The Serpent Motive in the Ancient Art of Central America and Mexico. Transactions, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania, Vol. 1, Pt. 3. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Joyce, T. A. 1916. Central American and West Indian Archaeology. London.Google Scholar
Lothrop, S. K. 1924. Tulum, an Archaeological Study of the East Coast of Yucatan. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 335. Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J. A., Editor 1928. Examples of Maya Pottery in the Museum and Other Collections. Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Maudsley, A. P. 1889–1902. Archaeology, Biologia Americana. London.Google Scholar
Morley, F. R. and S. G., . 1938. The Age and Provenance of the Leyden Plate. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Contribution 24. Washington.Google Scholar
Morley, S. G. 1933. “The Calakmul Expedition.” Scientific Monthly, Vol. 37, No. 3.Google Scholar
Morley, S. G. 1938. The Inscriptions of Peten. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 437. Washington.Google Scholar
Saville, M. H. 1919. A Sculptured Vase from Guatemala. Leaflets, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Vol. 1. New York.Google Scholar
Seler, E. 1915. Beobachtungen und Studien in den Ruinen von Palenque. Berlin.Google Scholar
Seler, E. 1916. Die Quetzalcoatl-Fassaden Yukatekischer Bauten. Berlin.Google Scholar
Spinden, H. J. 1913. A Study of Maya Art. Memoirs, Peabody Museum, Vol. 4. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Spinden, H. J. 1918. “Recent Progress in the Study of Maya Art.” Proceedings, Nineteenth International Congress of Americanists. Washington.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. E. 1939. The Moon Goddess in Middle America. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 509, Contribution 29. Washington.Google Scholar
Thompson, J E., Pollock, H. E. D., and Charlot, Jean 1932. A Preliminary Study of the Ruins of Coba, Quinlana Roo, Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 424. Washington.Google Scholar
Tozzer, A. M. and G. M., Allen. 1910. Animal Figures in the Maya Codices. Papers, Peabody Museum, Vol. 4, No. 3. Cambridge.Google Scholar