río bec graffiti: a private form of art

15 Pages·2014·0.71 MB·English

AncientMesoamerica,24(2013),433–447
Copyright©CambridgeUniversityPress,2014
doi:10.1017/S0956536113000278
RÍO BEC GRAFFITI: A PRIVATE FORM OF ART
Julie Patrois
Post-doctoralResearcher,CNRS-UniversitédeParisPanthéon-Sorbonne,UMR8096ArchéologiedesAmériques,21alléede
l’Université,F-92023,NanterreCedex,France
Abstract
Thisarticlefocusesongraffitirecordedinthemicro-regionofRíoBec(a10×10kmzonearoundGroupB),anartformwell-known
butlittlestudiedtodate.Incisedinplasteredsupports(wall,benches,ordoorjambs),graffitiisfoundonresidencesofallranks.Ameticulous
recordingmethodhasenabledustodistinguishtwoclasses:graffitiproducedduringabuilding’soccupationandthoseexecutedpost-
abandonment.Theformerwereprobablymadebytheresidencedwellersthemselves,childrenandadults.Theirproductions,whichcan
beconsideredauthenticartisticcreations,reflectedtheirunequaltechnicalcapacities,talents,ages,andinspirations.Thesubjectmatterwas
personal;remarkableindividualsoranimals,oroutstandingcollectiveeventsasmemorializedbyindividuals.Thesegraffitiemergeasthe
principalformofindividualexpression(retrievedbythearchaeologist)fromRíoBecsociety.Oncethebuildingswereabandonedandfullof
rubble,newgraffitists(occasionalvisitorsorsquatters)decoratedthestillaccessibleportionsofplasteredwallsandnotablyillustratedsome
specifictopics,suchasfemaleimageryandfabulousentitiesperhapsdrawnduringspecificceremonies.Intheregionasawhole,where
glyphicinscriptionsarescarce,graffitiprovideaprivilegedemicsourcefortheunderstandingofRíoBecsociety.
Timeless, graffiti are attested to since the Paleolithic, for every emergeasthemainandmostspecificformofindividualexpression
period and probably in every cultural area (Lascaux: Laming of this society. Theyare thus morewidely distributed than façade
[1959]; Pompeii: Garrucci [1856]; Gallo-Roman period: Barbet decorations, which appear restricted, when present, to the main
and Fuchs [2008]; present cultures: Brassaï [2002]; Ganz and building of each group. Moreover, given their location in the
Manco [2009], etc.). Graffiti are also present all over the Maya more private and intimate spaces of the residences (walls,
areawhere they mostly consist of naturalistic orabstract drawings benches, floors,doorjambsof thedwelling rooms), graffiti offera
incised on the smoothly stuccoed (a mortar of lime and sand) differentandcomplementarysourceofdata,closertothebuildings
wallsandfloorsofbuildings. occupants’conceptions,preoccupations,andwayofthought.
These striking Maya productions are often mentioned, but less After reviewing the available dataon Río Bec graffiti, the rich
documentedintermsofprecisedescriptionandillustrationinthelit- iconographic catalogue—elaborated in the Río Bec micro-region
erature(Mayer2009).Indeed,evenifgraffitiarereportedfornumer- by means of a systematic and rigorous recording method—is
ous Maya cities and known by every scholar, they are generally explored, while taking into account the accumulation of technical
considered of little interest at the moment of being reported, datasuchasdepthofincisionsandstyleof execution,and,above
recorded, and illustrated in field reports. The Río Bec region pro- all,theabilitytodiscerngraffitifromtheconfusedcontextofsuper-
vides a huge quantity of examples and information on graffiti. imposed drawings. The information obtained was combined with
Since its discovery at the turn of the twentieth century, the first chronological data and the resulting catalogue is divided into two
explorerers noted the presence of this form of expression. Along main categories: graffiti dating to the building’s period of occu-
witharchitecture,iconography,andsettlementpatterns,thesegraf- pation, and those made post-abandonment. Each category is
fiti attracted the attention of archaeologists and iconographers defined by means of a relative dating method that considers the
(Andrews 1989, 1999a; Baudez 1994, 1999, 2002, 2003; Eaton context of the graffiti; that is, their location and height compared
1972; Gendrop 1980, 1983, 1985; Martos López 1989; Merwin withthelineofthecollapseddebris.Thischronologicaldistinction
1913;RuppertandDenison1943;Schele1998).Exceptionalpres- demonstratessignificantvariationsinthedrawingstyleandthemes
ervationofthestill-standingRíoBecbuildings,duetothequalityof developed according to the period in which they were made.
theirmasonryandoftheirstuccolayers,certainlyfavoredthecon- Drawing on all data, it is possible to identify the graffitists and
stitution and preservation of an important corpus, albeit never the role graffiti played in their life, as reflecting their concerns
thoroughly analyzed or documented. Furthermore, in this region andfocusofinterestor,inotherwords,crucialdataalmostinaccess-
famousforitslackofinscriptions(HoustonandStuart1992;Stoll iblethroughotherformsofancientexpression.
1979), graffiti are probably one of the best emic sources for the Ialsosuggestthatduringbuilding’soccupation,everyoccupant
understanding of Río Bec society. As graffiti can be found in all oftheresidences,adultsandchildren,realizedabundantandubiqui-
types of residences, principal or secondary—from single-room tousgraffiti.Withunequaltechnicalcapacities,talents,andaspira-
ordinary houses to imposing palaces of 13 rooms—they clearly tions, those graffitists made productions of disparate qualities and
styles and of varying themes, even on the same wall, resulting in
different individual creations being gathered without pre-defined
E-mailcorrespondenceto:[email protected] organization or preliminary reflection. The subject matter of an
433
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
434 Patrois
individualcreationispersonalanddisconnectedfromothers,some andRuppert (Ruppert 1935,1943)mention thepresence ofmany
illustratingthe(plausible)familypatriarch,remarkableindividuals, graffiti. More recently a number of fortuitous discoveries have
warriors, musicians, elite members, or animals living in the sur- been made, especially at sites such as El Zotz (Houston et al.
roundings. Some also represent outstanding ceremonial episodes 2008)andTzibatnah(Kovácˇetal.2011).Moreover,theimportance
intheframeworkofcomplexcompositionsthatcanmeasureupto ofgraffitifortheunderstandingofMayasocietyhasbeenevaluated
2.5m in length. Incised on the intimate rooms’ walls of the during the first workshop organized at Valencia (2008) gathering
houses and only visible by a limited public, these graffiti appear scholars directly interested in this form of expression (Vidal
asapersonalandprivatemodeofexpressionIconsiderasanauth- LorenzoandMuñozCosme2009a).
enticartisticmodeofcreationgiventhenumerousvisualandaesthe- Reported since the earliest pioneers’ work at Río Bec in 1911
ticaleffectsaddedtotheimages. (Merwin1913),graffitiweresubsequentlymentionedbymostscho-
This first category of graffiti is in clear opposition with the larswhohavestudiedorvisitedthesite.AlthoughMerwin(1913:
second,producedoncetheiroriginaloccupantshadabandonedall 80) budgeted little space in histhesis for these “incised designs,”
buildings andcollapsed materials hadfilledthem. Newcategories providingonlyashortdescriptionandpoorqualityphotoofagraf-
of graffitists, occasional visitors or squatters, intervened on the fito on Group B, Structure 6N1 (Merwin 1913:Plate 6, Figure1),
still accessible portions of plastered walls. They created graffiti Ruppert andDenison (1943:Figures 37–38) did their best todraw
with opportunistic, sharp-pointed tools, sitting on the debris. As the remarkable drawings that exist in Group V, Structure IV,
we shall see, their subject matter regroups human beings and Room2.Gendrop(1982)publishedashortarticleongraffitirepre-
animals as does the former category, but they also develop some sentingarchitecturalelements(housesandonetwin-toweredbuild-
exclusive topics like female imagery, fabulous entities, hybrid ing)andStoll(1979)wrotehisM.A.thesisonthegraffitiatRíoBec
animals, or grotesque creatures that may have been drawn during Temple B, illustrating each graffito found in the aforementioned
somespecificceremonies. edifice and developing a more global interpretation of this form
of artistic expression. Lastly, in his book on the Río Bec region,
Andrews (1999b) dedicated an entire chapter to what he called
MAYAGRAFFITIANDTHERIOBECCORPUS
“architectural graffiti” (all graffiti executed on architectural sup-
ThegraffitiatTikalarecertainlythemostfrequentlymentionedand ports),providingabroadoverviewofMayagraffitiandrepeatedly
moststudied.Maler(1911:Figures8–17)wasthefirsttoreportand drawingonexamplesfromRíoBectoillustratethesepoints.
illustratetheiroccurence,followedlaterbyShook(1951:Figures20 Given the number of direct and indirect mentions of Río Bec
and 21), Berlin (1951:Figure 7), Walker (1959), and Kampen graffiti, and despite a recurrent lack of illustrations, this form of
(1979).Publishedin1983,TrikandKampen’scataloguerepresents expression was of great interest at the start of the Río Bec project
acompilationofthenformerlypublishedandunpublisheddiscov- (2002–2010). Focusing on the eponymous site, studies of the
eries. It presents general data, illustrations, and locations of the local architectural and iconographic production were carried out
Tikalgraffiticorpus.Whiletheexcellentqualityoftheirreproduc- in a study zone of 100km² (Nondédéo and Patrois 2010). In this
tionsisreadilyappreciated,weregretthatmanyoftheseremainunu- micro-region, 73 monumental groups were discovered and regis-
sable.Inseveralillustrations,thesuperpositionofmanygraffitifrom tered during the survey. Each group includes a few structures,
asinglelocationorspacehampersanystudy;theoverlappingren- among which one or several buildings show standing architecture
dering the images illegible (see, for example, Trik and Kampen and façade decoration (Nondédéo et al. 2013; Taladoire et al.
[1983:Figure 84a], where one can potentially identify a human 2013). In 15 of the buildings discovered and/or mapped during
head, but cannot assert its association with a body lost in a surveyand excavations, atotal of 464 graffiti were systematically
jumble of lines; an undulating form is uneasily interpreted as a registered.ThefirststepforacompleteanalysisoftheRíoBecgraf-
serpentbody).Thislimitationintherenderingisduetotherecord- fiti wasto compile an exhaustive corpus, which includes both the
ing procedures, which mainly consisted of taking rubbings of the extant records (discussed above) and those discovered during our
incisedworks(TrikandKampen1983:2).Atthetimeoftheirpub- own research. Once identified in the field, graffiti datawere care-
lication there was no preliminary study of the quality, style, and fully recorded, including aspects of depth and quality of incision
depth of each incision—an indispensable procedure utilized to (fine,superficial,deep,etc.),withparticularattentionpaidtoindi-
isolate each element in the cases of superimposed graffiti. vidualizing each incised line, especially in cases of overlapping
Nevertheless, this defect, along with the absence of iconographic drawings. Those details, still available when the graffiti have first
study does not diminish the importance of the monograph. The been exposed, are ephemeral, since they disappear a few days
accessibility,exhaustiveness,andwidecirculationofthiscatalogue after contact with the air and sun. Photos were also taken, some
makeitaseminalcontribution,stillmuchusedyearsafteritspub- withalow-anglelight,todistinguishiconographicdetailsinvisible
lication. The Tikal graffiti are regularly mentioned in general orunintelligibleinnormaldaylight.Utilizingthisrecordingmethod,
Maya research literature (forexample, Schele and Mathews 1998: anexhaustiveregisterthatisbothsynthetic(alltheincisionsvisible
74–75; Valdés and Fahsen 2004:143), as well as more focused are reproduced) and analytical (each line is individualized, each
studies (Gendrop and Schávelzon 1982; Haviland and Haviland technicaldetailisindicated,andevensuperposedgraffitiaredistin-
1995;Hutson2011).ThatTikalgraffitihasreceivedmoreattention guished)wascreated(Figure1).Suchaprocesswascarriedoutin
thanthosefromothersites,doesnotmeanthatsimilarinciseddraw- order to recover as much information as possible regarding tech-
ings have not been registered elsewhere. Other Peten sites with niques of execution and incision quality of the drawings, as well
standing architecture, suchas Nakum (Hermes et al. 2001, 2002), astoallowforthemostobjectiveidentificationofthedrawings.It
San Clemente (Blom and Lafarge 1926) or Uaxactun (Smith is interesting to look at the same instances of graffiti recorded by
1950), also contain graffiti that have been briefly reported, some- different people; while the general rendering is usually similar,
times described, but rarely illustrated and studied. In northern details frequently differ from one researcher to another (see for
Yucatan, at Chichen Itza specifically, Morris (Morris et al. 1931) instance the famous graffito representing a litter carried by two
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
RíoBecGraffiti:A PrivateFormof Art 435
Figure1. Registerofgraffiti.ExampleofGroupB,Structure6N1,Roomd(westernwall),withmanypost-abandonmentgraffitiandonly
onedatingtothebuilding’soccupation(coveredbyrubble).Incasesofsuperimposition,lategraffitiareinblackandearlieronesin
grey.
individualsandrecordedbyMerwinandVaillant[1932:Figure31], between the floor and the rubble line, that is, drawings visible
Stoll [1979:Figure 115], Gendrop [1982:Figure 4], and Andrews onlyafterexcavationanddebrisremoval(between0and1.6min
[1999b:Figure56]). height) can be dated to the building’s occupation (between a.d.
Forus,technicaldata,andtheeffectstheyproduced,aretheprin- 550 and 950). These represent 61% of the corpus (n=286). In
cipal source of information exploitable by modern scholars who thisfirstset,acomplementarydistinctionispossiblewhengraffiti
cannotinterviewancientgraffitiststounderstandthemeaning,func- arerealizedonsuperimposedstuccolayers(resultingfromthetra-
tion, and importance of their creations. Technical aspects are rel- ditionalMayapracticeofregularlyreplasteringwalls).
evant inasmuch as the word “graffiti” (the plural of “graffito”) is The second class of graffiti (n=178) includes those located
used here in reference to the technique employed, rather than to above the rubble level, at a height greater than 2m (no graffiti
any supposed function. Indeed, without presuming the meaning have been registered between 1.6 and 2m), which are considered
given to thisterm bysome Maya scholars—casual inscriptions or to be more recent. Most of them clearly follow the rubble line
drawings on surfaces that were originally unintended for this suggestingtheyweremadeoncetheedificeswereabandonedand
purpose—I use it in its original meaning based on the Latin root partially collapsed. Furthermore, I differentiate earlier post-
ofthewordgraphium,thatis“scratch.”Noapriorifunctionisenvi- abandonment graffiti from others superimposed in later times.
saged,onlyatechnicalone—thenotionof“scratching”(evenif,in This distinction is complex and sometimes difficult to establish,
exceptional cases, Maya graffiti can include drawings made with as the composite drawings can become nearly incomprehensible
charcoal as at Payan, Mexico [see Ruppert and Denison 1943]). andalmostundecipherable.GroupB,Structure6N1representsthe
Moreover, it eliminates the possibility of any amalgam between best example of this chronological differentiation, as it contains
theMaya ancient graffiti and the illegal,transgressive graffiti cur- graffiti dating from both its occupation and post-abandonment
rentlyencounteredinourWesternculture. phases.Althoughthisistheonlycaseknowntodate,otheredifices
stillunexcavatedmaysharethesameparticularities,especiallythose
with visible post-abandonment graffiti (forexample, Ceibarico A,
DATINGANDEXECUTIONOFGRAFFITI
Structure 1, or El Porvenir, Structure 5). It is necessary to point
Thesystematicrecordingofpreservedgraffitidrewourattentionto out that modern graffiti, also executed post-abandonment, are
theissueofchronology.Sofar,noscientificmethodisavailablefor easily recognizable and distinguishable from pre-Columbian ones
aprecisedatingoftheseancientproductionsand,intheabsenceof in that they mostly consist of Spanish writing and will not be
sealed contexts, archaeology cannot readily provide additional addressedhere.
information. As an alternative, I propose an innovative, relative Localizationandheightofgraffitionwallsconstitutetwomain
method for dating the graffiti, which allows us to differentiate criteriatodetectthedifferent positionschosen bythegraffitists at
between those produced during the building’s occupation and the moment of incising (I consider a medium height of 1.5m for
those created post-abandonment (Patrois and Nondédéo 2009) aMayaadult;seePatroisandNondédéo[2009]).Thepostureand
(Table 1). This important chronological distinction relies on the heightofanartistwillhaveanimpactonthequalityofthegraffiti,
respectivelocationofgraffitionthewallsinrelationtotheinterior allowing us to infer the age of the graffitists; children typically
floorand level of accumulated rubble. I argue that graffiti located drawing at a lower height than adults (see below). Five distinct
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
436 Patrois
Table1. ThecorpusofRíoBecgraffiti
Structures Façadedecoration Graffitiduringoccupation Graffitipost-abandonment
Excavatededifices GroupA,Structure5N1 X 98
GroupB,Structure6N1 X 61 76
GroupB,Structure6N2 33
GroupB,Structure6N4 28
GroupD,Structure7N1 X 18
GroupD,Structure7N2 27
GroupD,Structure7N4 1
Unexcavatededifices CeibaricoA,Structure1 X ? 39
GroupII,Structure? ? 1
GroupIII,Structure1 X ? 3
GroupV,StructureIV 20
LaTortuga,Structure1 X ? 39
Thompson,Structure1 X ? 8
Thompson,Structure2 X ? 5
ElPorvenir,Structure5 ? 7
Total 286 178
Percentage 61% 39%
positionswereidentifiedandexperimentsconductedtotestthevia-
bilityofeach(Figure2).Theresultsarevalidbothforpre-andpost-
abandonment incisions, on the assumption that graffitists were
standing on the original floor level of the building, or directly on
thedebrismass.Position1—between0and.3m—iscertainlythe
most awkward, as graffiti are realized close to the floor or debris
level.Thedrawingsrecordedatthisheightareusuallycrude,super-
ficial,andsmallinsize.Position2—between.3and.6m—isrela-
tively “comfortable;” graffitists are seated, probably cross-legged,
with the drawing arm raised at torso level. The resulting graffiti
areofallstylesofexecution;basicorcomplex,crudeorelaborate.
Position3—between.6and.8m—isthatofgraffitistsseatedcross-
legged,withthedrawingarmrestingatheadlevel.Thispositionis
consideredperfectfordrawingonaverticalsupportand,infact,all
graffiticreatedatthislevelareofrelativelygoodquality,withhighly
preciseincisionandcomplexcompositions.Position4—between.8
and1.1m—istheoneofgraffitistsseated,theirlegsbentattheknee
andseatedontheirheels,withthearmraisedjustabovethehead.In
thisposition,mostofthegraffitirealizedarebasicdrawings,evenif
some rather precise details are still present. Lastly, Position 5—
between 1.1 and 1.4–1.5m—corresponds to graffitists standing
withtheirdrawingarmattorsolevel.Inthisnaturalposture,graffi-
tistsonlyneedtoslightlyinclinetheirheadtoseeclearlywhatthey
produce.Inthispositiongraffitiappearofarathergoodquality.No
imageswereregisteredabove1.6minrelationwiththefloororthe
debris level; it seems thus obvious that graffitists never used any
kind of pedestal or ladder to incise on thewalls higher than their
naturalsize.
GRAFFITIMADEDURINGBUILDINGOCCUPATION
AtRíoBec,thegraffiticontemporaneouswiththebuildings’occu-
pation are widely distributed in most of the excavated residences
(Table1).Theseresidentialedificesvaryinsizeandorganization,
ranging from single-room structures (Group B, Structure 6N4;
Figure2. Graffitistsincisingonwalls:(a)GroupA,Structure5N2,Room
Group D, Structure 7N2) to 13-room structures such as Group A, h: Position 1; (b) Group D, Structure 7N1: Position 3; (c) Group A,
Structure 5N2. Therefore, graffiti do not seem to have been Structure 5N2, Room e: Position 4; (d) Group B, Structure 6N1, Room
restricted to certain categories of buildings, as they are found at d:Positions5and2.ReconstructionbytheAuthor.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
RíoBecGraffiti:A PrivateFormof Art 437
all places in the residential hierarchy—from undecorated to deco- thantherestofthehead.Inotherinstances,tocreateanimpression
rated ones (for example, Structures 5N2, 6N1, and 7N1). The of lightness, fine and swift incisions were made; a feather head-
only prerequisite is the presence of plastered walls, which poten- dress, superficially incised and barely visible, appears fluid and
tially excludes thatched-roof structures, kitchens, and, perhaps, diaphanous as if floating in the wind even on a flat surface
storage rooms. It is worth noting that Río Bec graffiti were never without any three-dimensional effect. The second argument is
incised in fresh plaster, but always on dry, sometimes already that all these images were executed with a great creative liberty,
painted,surfaces. showing diversity and dynamism—artistic characteristics almost
Withinresidences,theinciseddrawingsarelocatedexclusively totally absent from the repetitive motifs and the standardized
in rooms with benches and, more precisely, on their walls, canonstypicaloftheRíoBecsemi-publicartproductions(seedis-
benches, and/or on doorway jambs. Conversely, no graffiti were cussion below).
foundonexteriorfaçades,evenwhencoveredwithfinelyplastered ThecorpusofRíoBecgraffitiisorganizedintotwogeneralcat-
coats.ThesecharacteristicsseemtobespecifictoRíoBec,sinceat egories: one comprising isolated, stand-alone motifs; the other
otherMayasites,especiallyatTikal,graffitiarenotrestrictedtoresi- including motifs organized in complex compositions, generally a
dentialbuildings,butcanalsobefoundintemples(Structures5D-3 narrative scene which relates or illustrates an action. Within each
or 5C-1, for instance), and are incised on inneror outer plastered categorywasdefinedvariousiconographictopics:anthropomorphic
walls as well as on benches, floors, and vault soffits (Trik and and zoomorphic subjects, architectural, geometric, and sundry
Kampen1983:4). motifs. The isolated motifs make up 91% of the corpus (261 of
AtRíoBec—onasinglewallportion—basicstylizedorabstract 286motifs)(Figure4).Mostofthemcorrespondtoamoreorless
drawingscanbefoundsidebysidewithelaborateandrealisticgraf- faithful reproduction of a certain reality, with 34% almost totally
fiti.Theresultappearsastheaccumulationofvariousdrawingsof geometric or abstract (including the famous Mesoamerican game
differentstylesonaparticularpartofthewall(producedbydifferent of patolli). The anthropomorphic images are the most numerous
authors),ratherthananorganizedorintentionalgroupingofdiverse (45% of the isolated motifs) and show different styles: schematic,
designsinordertocreateaformalimage.Thesedisorganizedassort- stylized, and realistic (Figure 4a-4f). Despite this variation in
mentsofimagesonasinglesupport,forexample,donotimplythe style, each individual presents unique facial traits, a characteristic
total absence of artistic and aesthetical research. Although graffiti that differs strongly from well-known conventional Maya canons
often have nothing to do with conventional, particularly royal, that impose certain standardization and rigidity in the heads’ rep-
Mayaart,Isuggestthatgraffitiareanauthenticformofart—defined resentation. Some of the incised facial traits are individualized to
by Mauss (1967:67) as “produced and thought of in relation to the the point that the images could even be considered as “portraits.”
pursuit of aesthetic sensation”—rather than simple casual doodles Infact,Webster(1963:39)wentsofarastotalkof“selfportraits”
(Patrois2008).Twomainargumentssupportthisconsideration. in the case of some Tikal graffiti. The old man depicted on the
First, acertain aesthetic quality was sought when each incised northern wall of Room j (Group B, Structure 6N2) exhibits
drawingwasmade;visualeffectsoftenbeingaddedtoenhancethe unique facial features, such as an angled forehead, fine eyebrows,
graphic value of the produced images (Figure 3). Incisions of small rounded eyes, a large hooked nose, and a prominent mouth
varied depths were frequently used within a single graffito. For withfleshylips.Theindividualsrepresentedaregenerallyordinary
example,inGroupV,StructureIV,Room2,toindicatethatasun- persons without any specific garment, gear, or identifiable attri-
shade is either painted or embroidered with small geometric butes.Somemoreremarkableclassesofpeople,however,arealso
motifs,itsgeneraloutlineisincisedfairlydeeplywhileitsinternal portrayed: warriors with great spears or shields, musicians with
decorationistreatedmoresuperficially.Theadornmentthusstands trumpets,dancersormembersoftheelitewithfeatherheaddresses
out against the textile background and gives the impression of and adorned loincloths, for example. In this anthropomorphic
physical depth. Using the same technique, and in order to corpus,theindividuals’dynamismisnoteworthy:theyaregenerally
enhance the gaze of a human figure, eyes were incised deeper figured active and full of life in varying, often very energetic
Figure 3. Visual effects added to enhance the graphic value of the produced images: (a) differing depth of incisions (Group V,
StructureIV,Room2andGroupA,Structure5N2,Roomf);(b)superficialincisions(GroupA,Structure5N2,Roomf).
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
438 Patrois
Figure4. Examples of isolated naturalisticdesigns.Anthropomorphicmotifs:(a) stylizedindividuals(GroupA,Structure5N2and
Group D, Structure 7N2); (b) naturalistic individuals (Group A, Structure 5N2); (c) “portraits” (Group B, Structures 6N2 and
6N1); (d) warrior (Group A, Structure 5N2); (e) trumpeter (Group A, Structure 5N2); (f) richly dressed individuals (Group B,
Structure6N1).Zoomorphicmotifs:(g)fish(GroupB,Structure6N4);(h)birds(GroupD,Structure7N2andGroupB,Structure
6N2);(i)batrachians(GroupB,Structure6N4).DrawingsbytheAuthor..
postures—walking, running or dancing. Static and stationary pos- Theseanthropomorphicandzoomorphicmotifsarepresentin
itions are almost absent. This specificity in graffiti style contrasts all the buildings with graffiti. They clearly belong to the graffi-
with therigidityofMayaroyalart (onstelae),orthestandardized tists’ familiarenvironment or to their private sphere(in the case
RíoBecsemi-publicartstyle(façadedecorations). of some plausible family patriarch portraits), which seem to
Some zoomorphic graffiti also belong to this first category: have been their main source of inspiration. One might expect
birds,riverfish,andbatrachians(amphibians)(Figure4g-4i).This thatthesecondcategoryofgraffiti,thecomplexscenes(25occur-
imagery is clearly reduced to specific species, many of them rences)(seeTable2),wouldalsobelinkedtothegraffitists’daily
related to the aquatic element, and the absence of others, such as life activities such as cooking orcrop growing. On the contrary,
forest creatures (jaguars, serpents, and so on) is remarkable. however, the narrative scenes are radically different and mostly
Nevertheless,thespeciesrepresentedobviouslyoccupiedarelevant show public events of exceptional nature, an observation appar-
placeintheresidents’lifesincesomeofthem(fish,frogs,andso ently equally valid for other known Maya graffiti, especially
on) are also carved in low relief on the north façade medial those of Tikal, Nakum, Yaxha, and La Blanca (Hermes et al.
molding of Group A, Structure 5N2 (see Michelet et al. 2004, 2001, 2002; Trik and Kampen 1983; Vidal Lorenzo and Muñoz
2013). The presence of numerous local rivers and aguadas may Cosme 2009b). These outdoor public manifestations areopen to
helptoexplainthisparticularinterestinaquaticcreatures. everyone and, de facto, rule out royal indoor ceremonies
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
RíoBecGraffiti:A PrivateFormof Art 439
Table2. Listofcomplexscenesdatingfromtheoccupationofthebuildings(25graffiti)
Location Iconography
GroupA,Structure5N2,Roomi Anindividualseatedinabuilding
Twoindividuals;anadultandachild
GroupA,Structure5N2,Roomj Threeindividualsinline
GroupA,Structure5N2,Roomf Possiblepoliticalscene:Twoindividuals(?)atthefootofabuilding
Politicalscene:Sixindividualsinandnearabuildingassistingattheerectionofastela
Possiblepoliticalscene:Anindividualatthefootofabuilding
GroupA,Structure5N2,Roome(innerwallsanddoorway Procession:10individuals(manywithsunshades)goingtoabuilding
jambs)
Humansacrifice:Anindividualspearingavictimonapanel
Procession:10individuals(trumpeters,warriorsandaverytallperson)inthreelinesgoingtoa
platform
Probableprocession:Anindividualonalonghorizontalline
Procession:Fiveindividuals(warriors,richlydressedindividuals)inline
Twoindividualswithfeatheredgarments
GroupB,Structure6N1,Roomb Twoindividualswithpossiblespear
GroupB,Structure6N1,Roomc Politicalscene:Twolitterbearersandanelite-member
Politicalscene:Oneindividual(featheredgarment)atthefootofapyramidalstructure
GroupB,Structure6N1,Roomd Probableprocession:Six(?)individuals(trumpeters,richlydressedindividuals)
GroupB,Structure6N2,Roomj Variedbeingsinabuilding
Potentialsexualscene:Twoindividuals
GroupB,Structure6N4,Northwall Humansacrificeorwarlikeact:Anindividualspearinganotherone.
GroupD,Structure7N1,westdoorjamb Humansacrifice:Anindividualspearingavictimonapanel
GroupD,Structure7N2,northwall Anindividualseatedinabuilding
GroupV,StructureIV,Room2 Procession:16individualsinalineandabuilding(with3individuals)surmountingthe
procession
3individualsclimbingupabuilding
Procession:17individualsinalinegoingtoabuilding
Procession:11individualsinalinegoingtoabuilding
commonlydepictedineliteMaya art (enthronization, ritual,and Lindley [2012]). In particular, the warlike graffiti have been con-
bloodletting ceremonies). Although there exists some simple sidered as representative of bellicose times inthe aftermath of the
scenes with only two or three individuals, several of these cityarounda.d.800:
imagesarecomplexnarrativescenesassociatingmanyindividuals
who participate or interact in the same event: feasts with music
and dance, sacrificial ceremonies, erection of a stela in front
of a residence, or the visit of a high dignitary in a palanquin
(Figure 5). These scenes likely correspond to factual events the
graffitists had taken part in, or witnessed, at Río Bec or else-
where—forexample,inalargepubliccenterlikeBecan.
Executionscenes,probablysacrificialrites,belongtotheseout-
standing graffiti; the victim is quartered on a vertical framework
while acostumedwarrior facing him stabs his bodywith a spear-
head(Figure5a).Theseritualsseemtohaveimpressedtheresidents
to the point that they were represented on two different edifices
belonging to groups a kilometer apart (Group D, Structure 7N1
and Group A, Structure 5N2). Depictions of human sacrifice are
notlimited to Río Bec,but also exist at other Maya sites, notably
TikalandNakum(TrikandKampen1983:Figure38a;Zralkaand
Hermes 2009:Figure 20). The recurrence of this imagerysuggests
that this peculiar sacrificial ritual was performed in Maya cities
(oratleastineverycityshowingthemotif),andthatthosedrawn
on the Río Bec walls could have been executed locally. With
respecttoquestionsofchronologyandgeography,itseemsimprob-
ablethatallinstancesofthisimageryillustrateauniqueandexcep-
Figure 5. Examples of complex scenes: (a) sacrificial rite (Group D,
tionalevent.Itisnotablethatwarlikeimageryandroyalorofficial Structure 7N1); (b) visit in a palanquin (Group B, Structure 6N1); (c-d)
religious iconography are absent from Río Bec, whereas they are scenesofprocession(GroupA,Structure5N2andGroupV,Structure
well-represented at Tikal (for example, “protector figures,” see IV).DrawingsbytheAuthor.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
440 Patrois
“thecontinuousbellicosemanifestationsthataffectedthisregion Processions are recurrently illustrated on Maya painted ceramics
attheendoftheeightcenturywerealsodocumentedbythegraf- andpaintings,buttheyrarelyprogressinthedirectionofaspecific
fitiinscribedonthestructures’walls,[…]reflectingthepreoccu- buildingasonthevasefromTikal(Deposit50)thatillustratesthe
pationoftheiroccupantswiththeinvolvementintheseactions, Teotihuacan and Maya encounter at the foot of two temples
leading them to reproduce drawings of prisoners and the
(Looper 2009; Schele and Freidel 1990:162, Figure 4:26). If so,
capture of palanquins of enemy rulers.” (Valdés and Fahsen
wasthisimageimportedfromanothersitewheresucheventstook
2004:143)
place? The existence, at other sites, of graffiti roughly illustrating
the same event leads us to believe, again, that those processions
NothingsimilarhasbeenobservedinRíoBecgraffiti.Incontrast, tookplaceatRíoBec.Althoughperhapsoccuringintheonlyarchi-
on Group B, Structure 6N1, a remarkable scene represents the tectural groups organized around a public plaza following the
peacefulvisit ofadignitary,probablycomingfromaneighboring centrallowlandpattern;thatis,GroupV,whereseveralofthepro-
group or, perhaps, region farther afield. Unique in the corpus cession graffiti are registered, or Group II and Kajtun (Nondédéo
(Figure 5b), it is verysmall in size (15cm high) and of elaborate andLacadena2004;Nondédéoetal.2013).
execution: it shows a high-status individual shaded by a parasol
and seated in a palanquin that is decorated by a serpent motif
which, in fact, forms its frame. The sedan chair is carried by two DISCUSSION
figures,handsraisedabovethehead.Thelitterbearersarerealisti- ProfusionandubiquityaretheprincipalcharacteristicoftheseRío
cally represented, bending under the weight—walking painstak- Bec productions. While semi-public decorations on façades (for
inglyasifthescenewashappeningbeforeoureyes. example, addressing outsiders from the coresident group) are
Butthemostremarkableofthesescenes,alsothemostimposing limited to the main edifice of each group, graffiti abound in all
as they can measure up to 2.5m in length, illustrate processions types of residences. For modern-day people that take particular
(Figure 5c and 5d). The five occurrences in Group V, Structure care of their inner dwelling, walls and floors remaining clean and
IV, and Group A, Structure 5N2, are much alike in their compo- intact, this intensive “wall marking” (for example, the northern
sition: in a festive procession, the participants converge with wallofGroupB,Structure6N4,withupto28graffitionasingle
music and dance toward a single edifice. Some are likely elite wall[seePatrois2004])canbeinterpretedasaformofdefacement,
members, suggested by the fact that they are protected by an orevenasadegradationoftheconstruction.Gendropgivesagood
adornedsunshade;othersaretrumpeters,simpleparticipants,orwit- exampleofthisWesternviewpointthatcannotenvisagethepossi-
nesses.Aremarkableindividual,drawninadifferentstylethanthe bility of “touching” the house walls. For him, the unique expla-
others,isclimbingupthestairsofthebuilding.Probablyapriest,he nation for this “degradation” is troubled times with no leading
iscarryingspecificaccessories—afanorstaff.Anotherindividualis authority:
waitingfortheprocessiondirectlyontheedifice.Thelatterconsists
of a pyramidal platform supporting an edifice with a thatched “…unaépocaenquemuchosdelosprincipalesmecanismosde
double-sloped roof, a recurrent building type in these scenes, yet la autoridad habían desaparecido o se hallaban en avanzado
never shown as an isolated motif. Representations of the famous proceso de desintegración, al grado de tolerarse que lugares
twin-towered structures, considered emblematic of the Río Bec hastaentoncesintocables,nosólofueronconvertidosenmeras
architecturalstyle,arenotpresentintheRíoBeccorpusofgraffiti. viviendas,sinoquevieransusparedescubrirseindiscriminada-
mentecontodogénerodeinscripciones”.(Gendrop1982:129;
The only example known is from the site of Chicanna (Gendrop
translatedbyJuliePatrois)
1982:137). In these scenes, various visual techniques were used,
[…atimewhenmanyofthemainmechanismsofauthority
resulting in complex compositions: to show that the individuals
had disappeared or were disintegrating completely, to the
are walking (supposedly) on the ground, a horizontal line was
degree of tolerating that places formerly sacred were not only
drawn under their foot—the indication of a groundline is a well- convertedintomeredwellings,buthadalsotheirwallscovered
known graphic process commonly used in artistic imagery. The withallsortsofindiscriminateinscriptions.”]
effect of blowing wind is also added to the scenes to create a
certain coherency and dynamic: in Figure 5d, for example, this Nevertheless,incontemporaryMayahouses,graffitiappeartotally
seems to be clearly indicated by feathered headdresses and orna- integrated with day-to-day domestic life. Nowadays, this practice
mentations of the parasol (ribbon and feathers) that all extend can still be observed, particularly in northern Yucatan, where the
outward in the same direction. Another technical example is pro- innerwallsoftraditionalhousesarecoveredwithnumerousgraffiti
vided by building imagery. Realistic and well-proportioned in and drawings, as well as inscriptions (Olivier Le Guen, personal
itself, its size relative to close-by human figures is not realistic as communication 2010). They are created by every family member
buildingandindividualshavethesameheight,butaminiatureindi- and/orinhabitant,fromchildrenincisingtheimageofaschematic
vidualislocateddirectlyinsidethesuperstructuretocreateacertain house to the grandfather making calculations (Figure 6). Far from
visualcoherencewiththeotherpersonages(seeHouston1998). the idea of degradation, the young ones are not reprimanded for
Theiconographicrecurrencelinkingthefiveprocessiongraffiti their action, as the adults do exactly the same; to enforce the
isnoteworthysincetherearenoknownsakbeorbuiltpathwaysor banalcharacterofthisactivity,wemustaddthatitisnotexceptional
avenues, no public plazas in the Río Bec groupsto facilitate such to see graffiti incised on fresh color-painted walls. This detail
grandceremonies,andnotevensuchedificeastheonerepresented. accentuates the evidence of an act realized during everyday life,
It is thus legitimate to wonder about the location in which these whichlikelyfindsitsrootsinpre-Columbiantimes.
events took place. Did they occur at the settlement itself, or else- Thepopularityofsuchaformofarthascertainlybeenfavored
where? Were they possibly at Becan? Do these graffiti reproduce due to the ease of execution, as it requires no specific technical
an unknown standardized image presented on other kinds of skills or training (Patrois 2008). Furthermore, any simple sharp
architectural support, ceramics, paintings, or decorated textiles? pointed instrument was enough to incise the stucco, even though
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
RíoBecGraffiti:A PrivateFormof Art 441
anthropomorphic,isgenerallychildish:roundheads,ovaleyes,the
mouth represented by a unique horizontal line, etc. By contrast,
drawingslocatedhigheronwallsareusuallymorecomplexandelab-
orate,withabetterqualityofincision—themostelaboratecertainly
being created by experienced graffitists; persons with engraving
training, experience, or technical knowledge. The Río Bec walls
thus bear the scars of varied graffitists with unequal technical
capacities, talents, ages, and aspirations. Here, I disagree with
Webster(1963:39)whosuggestedforTikalthatthisextremevaria-
bility was due to graffitists of different social status, being either
“priests orofficials,” or“ordinary citizens.” Ifwe fullyacceptthis
proposition, it would mean that individuals of distinct status and
occupations potentially incise on the same wall. The restricted
accesstobuildings,theintimatelocations,andthefactthatgraffiti
were created during building occupation render this hypothesis
ratherunconvincing.
Contrary to what can be observed in modern societies where
graffitiareexposedonpublicsurfaces(publicwalls,subways,rail-
road cars, and so on; see Malland [2007, 2010]), Río Bec graffiti
were realized exclusively in private rooms. This intimate space
parexcellenceanditswallsbecometheidealsurfacesforprojecting
personalaspirations.Notsurprisingly,specificiconographicthemes
Figure 6. Modern graffiti realized in a traditional house, village of
weredevelopedthere,especiallytheonesthatcertainlyboreapar-
Kopchen,Yucatan,Mexico.PhotoscourtesyofOlivierLeGuen.
ticular significance for the graffitists: eminent human beings
(parentsorancestors?),valuableanimals,orremarkablecollective
itseemsthatflintflakesorprojectilepointswerepreferredasbetter manifestations.Noneofthemhavedirectconnectionwiththesemi-
adaptedforincising.Thetechnicalsimplicityofthismeansofartis- publicimageryexposedontheexteriorfaçades.Thisislikelydueto
ticexpressionincreasedthenumberofparticipantswhich,inturn, theaudienceforwhichitwasintended.Asalreadymentioned,graf-
resulted in a range of highly diverse styles and the production of fitiwereonlyvisible/accessibletoalimitednumberofpersons:the
uniqueworks. residenceinhabitantsoreventhesoleoccupantsoftheroom(apart
Easyexecutionandlocalizationacrossmanydifferentdwellings fromthegraffitiondoorjambs,whichmighteventuallybeseenby
invite us to think that graffiti production concerned all the resi- visitors).Givensuchagenerallyrestrictedaudience,itislogicalto
dence’s inhabitants. Based on the diversity in styles and different inferthatthisformofartdidnothavethesameconcernsaspublic
heightsofdrawingsonwalls,thecorpusanalysisstronglysuggests art.AtRíoBec,essentiallyexposedonexteriorfaçadesandroofsof
thattheinhabitantsthemselveswerethegraffitists.Maler(1911:56), themajorresidencesineachgroup,semi-publicimageryconsistsof
discussing Tikal graffiti, and without anyotherargument than his fantasticzoomorphiccreatures.Iandotherscholarsinterpretthem
ownintuition,alsoattributedthosecreationstothebuildingsoccu- as terrestrial monsters related to the Earth as nourishing land,
pants: “upon this [finest white stucco] the occupants skilled in domain, territory, and sources of power (Baudez 1994, 1999,
writinganddrawingmadeinciseddrawings….”Andrews(1999b: 2002,2003;NondédéoandPatrois2007,2010).ThisspecificRío
233) forwarded the same proposition: “… [this] supports my Bec imagery has little to do with the Late and Terminal Classic
belief that the graffiti were executed by the original occupants of royalMayaartexpressedmainlyonstelaeorinthearchitecturaldec-
thebuildings,bothatTikalandelsewhere.”InthecaseoftheRío oration of official buildings (Proskouriakoff 1950; Sanchez 2005;
Bec houses, this hypothesis is further supported by the fact that ScheleandMiller1986).
theinciseddrawingswererestrictedtothemostprivateandintimate ItsrecurrenceacrosstheRíoBecsettlementiscertainlyinduced
spaces within dwellings—rooms with benches or elevated floors, bysocialandpoliticalconcernsofanaturedifferentfromthosenor-
whichweregenerallyinaccessibletooutsidersandvisitors.Asmen- mallyfoundinMayacities,wheretheimageofthealmightyruler
tioned earlier, no graffiti was ever found on building façades, the wasthe one most produced and displayed for the eyes of all. The
only constructed plastered sector potentially accessible to visitors archaeologicalrecordshowsthattheRíoBecmicro-regionhadno
or foreigners. To draw in their own house, the graffitists tried to centralizing authorities, and that the numerous monumental
comfortably develop what can be considered as their creative groups constituting its society formed a complex hierarchy with
activity, sitting on a bench, on the floor, or standing up (Patrois marked continuity from one rank to the other (Nondédéo et al.
andNondédéo2009). 2013).Theirpoliticalorganizationwasbased,notsomuchonthe
Itisworthbearinginmindthateveryresident,withoutrestriction centralizingpowerofasingleindividualasseeninthecentrallow-
ofage—adultsandchildren—couldincisegraffiti.Thelowestgraf- lands but, instead, on the competing, perhaps formally shared
fiti,almostatfloorlevel,anuneasypositionforanadult(Position1), powers of the “noble” families living in the most decorated resi-
were probably the work of children (see Hutson 2011). This pre- dence in their group, and possessing the associated land. I feel
sumptionis also based onthecommand ofthegesture andon the that the most powerful families would decorate their residence in
physical force necessary for a precise incision that is visibly aremarkablewayfortwomainreasons:(1)todenotethattheterri-
lacking in the lower graffiti, which is always crudely and superfi- torywherethehousestandswastheirdomain,infrontofneighbor-
cially incised. Subjectively, and within the limits imposed by our ingfamiliesheadingtheirowngroupsituatedashortdistanceapart
Western vision, the rendering of these lower drawings, mostly (350monaverage;seeNondédéoandPatrois[2010]);and,(2)to
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press
442 Patrois
displaytheirownsocialidentitybydistinguishingthemselvesfrom 2006). To make the edifice recognizable, the graffitist took the
neighboringsocialgroups,andevenfromcoresidentsinsecondary troubletodepictitwithitstwofloorsanditssingularexternaldec-
housesofthesamegroup. oration(insetpanelsdividedintobandseachornamentedwithgeo-
Consequently, semi-public decoration on Río Bec residences metric motifs and molding ornamented with various designs,
provide information on the agrarian, if not more political, worries probablepseudo-glyphs)(Figure7b)suggestingthattheywerepre-
of people or, more specifically, on relations between neighboring occupied with marking their house andsocial groupidentityeven
groups as well as within each group. Of acollective nature, these within this private area. This type of image clearly underscores
concernsdonothavemuchtosayaboutthedwellersandtheirper- theemblematiccharacterofthefaçadedecorationasasortofiden-
sonalaspirations.Thelatterare,nevertheless,accessiblebymeans titysignal applied to the physical house, and also to the house as
ofprivategraffitiart.Façadedecorationispre-definedandcodified, part of a social grouping. Similarly, in the same structure, Room
responding to artistic official canons due to its relatively public g offers the motif of a perishable house set on a circular mass
function, whereas graffiti, private and intimate, did not impose (Figure 7c), probably expressing the idea of a bounded land con-
any restriction or formalism on their creators. To some degree trolled by the House—in other words, the idea of property. The
they are the result of spontaneity. Here, I agree with Walker’s proximityofthisdrawingtotwoincisedceramicvesselswithdeco-
(1959:194) definition which states that ancient graffiti were ratedlipandcover,mostlikelyofdomesticuse,emphasizestheresi-
“private statements about directly observed events not masked by dentialaspectoftheedifice.Bothgraffititogethermaybetheonly
the formality or conscious effects found in pieces intended for onesinourcorpusthatwecanrelatetoidentity,land,andproperty,
moreobviousdisplay.”Intheirownresidences,graffitistsfeltfree as well as emblematic themes generallyexpressed in the Río Bec
tocreateartworkaccordingtotheirfeelings,moods,andpreoccupa- semi-publicimagery.
tionsofthemomentorcentersofinterest:persons,animals,oreven
objects or scenestheysaweverydayor more occasionally. Young
POST-ABANDONMENTGRAFFITI
(1969:170)hasmadethesameobservationaboutPhrygiangraffiti.
Thus,inprivacy,thethemeofthezoomorphicmonster,sorecurrent, Thesecondgroupofgraffiticonsistsofthoseincisedafterthebuild-
orevencompulsoryintheRíoBecsemi-publicimagery,disappears ings’abandonment,asinferredbytheirlocationjustabovethelevel
completely. Others replace it, the most frequent being human of debris. These were executed with diverse objectives, under
figures. While rare in Río Bec semi-public art—the only depicted variousconditions,andtheyprobablydatetoseveralperiods.
individuals being probably local chiefs—the anthropomorphic Themajorityofthesegraffitiappearasopportunisticandunpre-
motifs are ubiquitous in the graffiti corpus, including individuals meditated creations. Incised in partiallyor totally collapsed build-
of distinct ages and occupations, whether singularor mundane. If ings that had been abandoned by their inhabitants, these peculiar
diverse life stages are well represented and clearly distinguished, graffitimusthavebeentheworksofoccasionalvisitorsorsquatters.
curiouslythisisnotthecasewithgender.Todate,alltheindividuals Probablyunrelatedwiththegroupoccupants,theywereprobablyof
registered are exclusively masculine (with perhaps one exception Maya origin, and from the pre-Columbian or just post-Conquest
beingapotentiallynakedbreastidentifiedonahuman-formgraffito period, as indicated by the nature, themes, and the style of the
at Group A, Structure 5N2), identified feminine images occurring imagesgenerated.Itisimportanttoaddthatthosepost-abandonment
subsequent to the buildings’ occupation (see below)—data which creations cannot be considered late copies of ancient motifs, since
tend to confirm our relative dating. As both age and gender are the rooms were full of debris and the early graffiti totally hidden
determinant in the definition of each individual status within a from plain view. If some thematic recurrences can be observed
social group, such exclusion is disconcerting. Also perplexing is between occupation and post-abandonment graffiti (anthropo-
the total absence of prosaic themes likevegetation, trees or fruits, morphic, zoomorphic, or abstract themes), the most recent motifs
the sprouting of seeds, oreven rain and/or sun. Thusthe presup- areuniqueandrestrictedtothesecond,post-abondonmentgroup
posed‘totalcreativefreedom’andvariedsourceofinspirationactu- Despitethespontaneousnatureoftheserealizations,itisnotable
allydonotleadtotheglobaleverydaylifeimagerythatonemight that graffitists selected the best-preserved plastered walls of col-
expect but,instead,to privileged and,toacertain point,restricted lapsed buildings for incising, and they looked for a convenient
topics. If not taboo, gender, reproduction, and fertility seem to rubbleslopeallowingacorrect,evencomfortable,sittingposition.
havebeenamongthelatter. If the appropriate physical conditions for creation seem to have
When personages take part in narrative scenes, the events beenessentialtothem,thiswasnotthecasefortheirtools.Therudi-
depicted are often collective and probably reflect acertain reality. mentary character of the incisions, almost excisions, leads one to
As previously suggested, the represented processions could have supposethatthetoolswereofpoorquality,probablyopportunisti-
taken place at plaza groups (for example, Groups II, V, or cally foundon thespot: sharpfragments ofstone debris, bone,or
Kajtun). Extending this argument, it is possible to envisage that any hard material. Those makeshift tools, not really adapted,
theindividualslivinginneighboringgroups(themajoritywithout allowed the execution of deeper, larger (sometimes up to 2m in
public spaces) witnessed the ceremonies and were strongly length), and objectively cruder images than those created in
impressedbywhattheysaw.Oncebackintheirdwelling,intheir earlier occupational phases. These technical remarks do not erase
private sphere, they reproduced the public event, as a simple the existence of an obvious aesthetic concern. In every post-
homage or with the intent of memorializing it. This strong link abandonment graffito, attention to aestheticism is noted in the
between public and private visions is even more obvious when addition of apparently insignificant details, but which noticeably
thehouseidentity(markedbyaspecificdecoration)isclearlyindi- enrich and embellish the work: eyebrows surmounting schematic
cated(Figure7).Suchisthecasewiththethreegraffiti (repetitive, eyesorfinescratchesatthetipsofbirdfeet,forexample.
butnotidentical)discoveredinRoomfofGroupA,Structure5N2 The post-abandonment graffiti were apparently produced in
(Figure7a):theseimagesrepresent5N2itself,aspubliceventstake the same opportunistic conditions as examples observed in other
place in front of it (the erection of a stela among others) (Patrois spaces and times, as nowadays tourists leave a trace of their
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536113000278 Published online by Cambridge University Press