12 
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, TECHNICAL PAPERS 
FIGURE 11-FRONT VIEW OF TUXTLA 
STATUETTE SHOWING INITIAL SERIES 
“much of the weathering took place 
within the last few decades after the stone 
was exposed.” Then he goes on to state 
that the general art style of the figure ac¬ 
companying the inscription represents a 
much later development of art than the 
date indicated and that it is in fact Aztec 
in style rather than Maya, and that the 
human jawbone accompanying the numeral 
12 is the Aztec day sign Malinalli. Fur¬ 
thermore, he points out that other monu¬ 
ments in the region are undoubtedly Aztec 
and illustrates a near-by altar with a stand¬ 
ing human figure and the inscription “8 
Deer” in Aztec characters. He also points 
out that the provenience of the stela is well 
outside the recognized Maya area and sug¬ 
gests that the date may represent an Aztec 
imitation of a Maya Initial Series. 
Let us consider each of these points in 
turn. 
Morley has pointed out that while the 
Aztec day sign Malinalli is indeed repre¬ 
sented by a jawbone, so is the Maya sign 
for Eb; and that the Initial Series on the 
El Baul stela when calculated in fact ar¬ 
rives at the day 12 Eb, as recorded in the 
Initial Series by the Maya bar and dot 
system. 
As to the art style of the human figure 
represented, we are dealing with a subject 
frequently difficult to demonstrate and a 
problem which is often a matter of in¬ 
dividual impression. Certainly it is one on 
which differences of opinion may well be 
expected. To this observer the El Baul 
figure looks much more Maya than Nahua, 
and as good an example as any to demon¬ 
strate this contrast is the near-by figure 
illustrated by Waterman for comparison 
(figure 10, a). The Baul figure appears to 
me less rigid and in somewhat better 
perspective. The position of the figure is 
easier and more natural. I see nothing in 
its general treatment or art style incom¬ 
patible with early Maya sculpture, either 
postulated or existing. For further com¬ 
parison, I introduce the Baktun 8 figure on 
the Leyden plate (figure 10, b), the earliest 
known dated standing figure, which is cer¬ 
tainly more elaborate than that on the Baul 
stela, and which to my eye the latter re¬ 
sembles much more closely than it does the 
Nahua figure. 1 
In attempting to compare art styles in 
cases of this sort, the writer found to his 
surprise that most writers simply made 
categorical statements to the effect that cer¬ 
tain art styles were similar or different, 
and in most instances these statements have 
been accepted and carried on in the litera¬ 
ture without benefit of detailed analysis. 
As this is the case with Waterman’s gen¬ 
erally accepted statement regarding the El 
Baul stela, I will take the time here to list 
a few specific points of comparison of the 
three figures illustrated in figure 10. 
Both “b” and “c” make generous use of 
scrolls and curves, a common feature of 
Maya art. There are no scrolls on “a”, and 
even the slight curves on the feather head¬ 
dress are stiff and heavy. 
The feet of “b” and “c” are similarly 
treated and shown in proper perspective in 
profile, the pointed toe of the rear foot 
touching the heel of that in advance. 
The feet of “a” are shown all out of 
perspective, the 5 toes being delineated on 
each foot and the feet are well separated. 
The knees of “b” and “c” are close to- 
1 The Morleys have shown the close resemblance 
of the art style on the Leyden plate to the early 
figures on stelae at Tikal. 
AN INITIAL SERIES FROM TRES ZAPOTES 
13 
gether with the separation of the rather 
long slender legs taking place below the 
knees, one foot slightly in advance of the 
other. 
The knees of “a” are widely separated, 
the lower legs having short bulging calves. 
In “b” and “c” the shoulders are in Y\ 
profile with the elbows flexed and the hands 
closed. 
In “a” the shoulders are square to the 
front and the arms are straight and rigid, 
the fingers stiff and extended. 
In “b” and “c” the details of ornament 
are done in somewhat impressionistic style 
and are elaborate in treatment. 
In “a” the ornamentation is realistic in 
treatment and severely simple in style. 
This list of comparisons could be ex¬ 
tended much further, but it seems to me 
the above are sufficient to illustrate the 
point which has a bearing on the principal 
reason for the rejection of the El Baul date 
as being contemporary. 
The undeniable presence of Nahua monu¬ 
ments in the vicinity of El Baul, in view 
of other considerations, does not seem to me 
necessarily to have any bearing on the an¬ 
tiquity of this particular monument, espe¬ 
cially since none of them bear any resem¬ 
blance to it. 
The Nahuans were evidently totally un¬ 
acquainted with the bar and dot system of 
numeration and it seems highly improbable 
that they would have imitated a Maya 
Initial Series as an art motive, let alone 
an Initial Series that is correctly calculated. 
The fact that the monument is found well 
outside the classical Maya area appears to 
me a point in favor of its age rather than 
the contrary. Tres Zapotes and San 
Andres Tuxtla are also well outside the 
generally recognized Maya region. In view 
of the comparatively recent advance that 
has taken place regarding knowledge of 
chronologic sequence in Middle American 
ceramics, an investigation of the mound 
where the stela was found and a compari¬ 
son of its pottery with that of Santa Lucia 
Cosmuahualpa and other near-by Nahua 
mounds might do much to cast light on 
this point. 1 
1 Throughout this article, for the sake of con¬ 
venience, the writer has occasionally referred to 
the makers of the early Initial Series of Tres 
Zapotes, Tuxtla and El Baul as though they were 
Maya. They may or may not have been. The 
origin of the Maya constitutes a larger problem 
than intended by the scope of this paper. 
FIGURE 12-INITIAL SERIES FROM LINTEL 
49, YAXCHILAN (AFTER MORLEY) 
THE TUXTLA STATUETTE 
The Tuxtla statuette was found about 
15 miles from Tres Zapotes. 2 This geo¬ 
graphic proximity, together with the close 
stylistic similarity of their Initial Series, 
makes it the most obvious object of com¬ 
parison with Stela “C”. Their dates are 
in fact recorded in such a parallel manner 
that they resemble each other more closely 
than either resembles any other Initial 
Series known. The Initial Series of the 
Tuxtla statuette has a simple trifoil intro¬ 
ducing glyph followed by a vertical column 
of simple bar and dot numerals. At the 
base of the column is a terminal glyph evi¬ 
dently an unknown day sign form with its 
numerical coefficient placed vertically to the 
left. The month sign is suppressed (fig¬ 
ure 11). 
Stela “C” is broken off in such a manner 
that the introducing glyph, if one existed, 
is missing. The remaining portion of the 
Initial Series parallels exactly that of the 
Tuxtla statuette. Since Stela “C” is also 
broken off through the lower part of the 
2 Holmes, 1907. 
