Herausgegeben vom Verein „Freunde der Völkerkunde" 1014 Wien Museum für Völkerkunde im Selbstverlag 1992

Sonderdruck

MAYA INSCRIPTIONS FROM DZIBILNOCAC, CAMPECHE, MEXICO

Karl Herbert Mayer

In early March 1987, when visiting the "Sala de Estelas," a museum in the Baluarte de

la Soledad in Campeche City, 1 observed near the entrance of the building a number of

archaeological stone artifacts, comprising nine fragmentary panels with carvings, two

carved cylindrical objects, and eight facade decorations, mainly x-shaped architectural

ornaments . Of the nine low-relief panels, three show moderately weathered hieroglyphic

texts; the two cylinders also bear brief texts. The remainder of the panels depict non­

textual images. According to information given by an employee of the museum, the

archaeological material was confiscated in 1986 in the town of Bolonchen de Rej6n,

Campeche. This information concerning the provenance of the unpublished carvings was

not correct, as Antonio Benavides Castillo, at that time director of the Centro Regional

Campeche of the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (INAH), later informed

me. Benavides (written communication, 17 December 1986; see also Benavides 1987)

explained that the place of origin of the artifacts was the large Maya site of Dzibilnocac

in the Municipio de Hopelchen in the northeastern part of the State of Campeche. When

a man from Iturbide, the modern settlement which partially covers the ancient site of

Dzibilnocac, excavated one mound in the patio of his property, he found the decorated

stones and the facade elements. All the finds are presently preserved in a storeroom in

the Fuerte de San Miguel in Campeche City; this fort actually partly serves as a "bodega"

for INAH's Centro Regional Campeche.

Dzibilnocac is an important Maya city in the Chenes Zone of Campeche, a region

from which (except for one stela and one painted capstone with texts) not many Maya

inscriptions have yet been reported.

In spite of the relatively brief text segments and the incomplete and eroded condition

Karl Herbert Mayer has for many years been engaged in the documentation of Maya inscriptions, mural paintings, and !arge sculptures. He is a board member of the International Society for Mesoamerican Research

, (Berlin) and director of the Austrian office of the journal Mexicon. Author's address: Hötzendorfstraße 8/4, A-Soro Graz.

III

of the recently discovered glyphic specimens, their publication might be of substantial

epigraphical and chronological importance, as one glyphic stone bears a calendrical state­

ment and its decipherment and interpretation could shed some light on the chronological

position of the other sculptures.

The Archaeological Chenes Zone

The Chenes Zone in the Northern Maya Lowlands is a very vaguely defined archaeological

and geographical region in northern Campeche. Various authors have divided the Maya Lowlands into a number of subareas to distinguish between the principal architectural

styles. The Chenes Zone is relatively small, compared with the Puuc Zone or the Rio

Bec Zone, but its extent is unknown and the southern part of the region is virtually

unexplored. As a distinct archaeological or cultural entity, the Chenes Zone has been the

subject of controversial discussion (Pollock 1970; Potter 1977; Andrews 1985; Carrasco

and Boucher 1985; Gendrop 1987). The debate concerning the extent and boundaries of the Chenes Zone, and whether its architecture is sufficiently distinctive to set this region

apart from other regions, cannot be evaluated here; the Chenes Zone will simply be

treated as a particular geographical-archaeological area as shown on the maps published

by Harry Pollock (1965: 379, fig. l), Patrick Culbert (1983: 5, fig . l), and George Andrews (1985: 10, fig. l) . The best-known archaeological sites in the Chenes Zone are, for example,

Santa Rosa Xtampak, Dzibilnocac, Hochob, and Tabasqueiio.

Hieroglyphic Texts in the Chenes Zone

The occurrence of Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions in the Chenes Zone is very limited ,

compared to the Puuc Zone in Campeche and Yucatan. The largest known corpus of

Fig. 1 Relief sculptures from Dzibilnocac. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1987.

II2

inscriptions is from Santa Rosa Xtampak, where hieroglyphs were found on stelae (Pros­

kouriakoff 1950; Pollock 1970: 59- 63), on a rectangular altar (Mayer l989a), and on

painted vault capstones (Mayer l983a; 1984: 40, fig. l).

Teobert Maler (n.d.) reported a painted capstone with glyphs in the main structure at

Tabasqueno, an inscription that was never recorded or published.

Recent archaeological reconnaissance and excavations in the Chenes Zone brought to

light carved or painted inscriptions at Dzibilnocac, Hochob, Hobomo, Nohcacab II, and

Tanholna (Carrasco 1987; Mayer l987b, l987c; Prem and Grube 1988; Dyckerhoff und

Grube 1988).

Nikolai Grube (1990: Appendix B) has compiled an extensive corpus of hieroglyphic

texts from northwestern Yucatan, also including texts from the Chenes Zone; his list

provides clear evidence for the scarcity of inscriptions in the Chenes region, as compared

with the occurrence of texts in the larger and more intensively investigated Puuc Zone.

Register of Inscriptions at Dzibilnocac

The Maya ruins of Dzibilnocac are located close to and partially beneath the modern

settlement of Iturbide, also known as Vicente Guerrero, in the Municipio de Hopelchen,

Campeche, and was first investigated in 1842 by John L. Stephens and Frederick Cath­

erwood (Stephens 1843). Teobert Maler (n.d.) visited the ruins in 1887 and 1889, took

photographs and made drawings, most of which remain as yet unpublished (Strecker and

Flemming 1981: 16) . Harry Pollack explored Dzibilnocac in 1936 and 1949 (Pollack 1936;

1970), and was followed some years later by Ricardo de Robina (Robina 1956: ro9-

II l).

The New World Archaeological Foundation of Brigham Young University studied

Dzibilnocac from 1968 until 1970 (DeBloois 1969, 1970; Nelson 1973), while Ram6n

Carrasco of INAH investigated and consolidated Structure A-1 at Dzibilnocac in 1982

(Carrasco 1987; Carrasco and Boucher 1985).

The various investigations since 1842 have brought to light hieroglyphs on one stela,

and painted texts on three capstones. The following notes offer a brief overview of these

four inscriptions .

Dzibilnocac Stela I

This limestone monument consists of several fragments, presently lying in the ruins and

on exhibit in Campeche City. The sculpture has been variously designated as a lintel or

a doorjamb, but very probably represents a stela. The fact that it consists of two main

fragments has given the impression that two different monuments exist. Stela l has been

repeatedly referred to, illustrated, and studied by numerous authors (Morley 193 8: 377;

Ruz Lhuillier 1945: 37; Morley 1948 : 76; Robina 1956 : 71, II, pl. XVIII c, d; Müller

1969: 32; Thompson 1962: 52, 348; Pollack 1970 : 32, 35, fig. 39; DeBloois 1970: 62;

Nelson 1973: 37, 39, 41, figs. 27-29; Mayer l983b).

IIJ

Dzibilnocac Capstone I

Teobert Maler (n.d.) discovered and recorded this painted capstone in situ in I 887 and

I889 in the western traverse room of the lower structure of Structure A-I, where it

remained until at least I964 (Murphy I988: 46). At some later date the capstone was

broken off the vault by looters and presently resides in the Rautenstrauch-Joest Museum

in Cologne, Germany, as part of the Ludwig Collection.

The capstone depicts a deity figure and the "Kan" day sign, glyph T - 506 (Thompson

I962), prefixed by a numerical coefficient of 9 and a subfix of 3, doubtlessly rendering

a calendrical statement. This painted capstone has been described and illustrated, as weil

as studied by a number ofauthors (Maler n.d.; Seler I9I6: 50- 54, fig. 49; Robina 1956:

7I, uo; Thompson I962: 388; Pollock I970: 25-27, 29, 3I, figs. 32 a, 32 c-left, 82;

DeBloois I970: 57; Bolz-Augenstein und Disselhoff I970: 36- 39; Nelson I973: I5, I6,

fig . II-left; Bolz I975: pi. XXXVI; Jones I975: 95, 99; Mayer I978: II, Pl.12; Mayer

I983a: 7, 8, I5 - I9, 27- 28, fig. 17-left, 29, figs. 18, 19; Murphy 1988: 46, 47, fig. 12,

pi. 56).

lt should be noted, that Dzibilnocac Capstone 2 has only a figural image and no text

(see Mayer I983a: 28, fig. I7-right, 29, fig . 20).

Dzibilnocac Capstone 3

This painted capstone was discovered by Ram6n Carrasco in I982 in a very bad condition.

lt was restored and is now housed in the Museo Regional de Antropologia in Merida,

Yucatan. The stone was found in Structure A-1, in the northern room of the temple

adjoining the east tower ofthe architectural complex (Carrasco 1987: 16 - 17). A complex

image is painted in red on a buff-colored stucco cover, portraying a deity figure , framed

on top and at the bottom by horizontally placed glyphic bands. The original text was

composed of approximately ten glyph blocks. This capstone has been discussed by Flora

Clancy (Gallenkamp andJohnson 1985 : 144, no. 76) and Carrasco (1987: 16- 17, fig. l).

Dzibilnocac Capstone 4

Like Capstone 3, this one was also discovered by Carrasco in 1982. He found the piece

in the northeastern room of Structure A-1, Sup-P . Unfortunately, the capstone consists

of three broken fragments and most of the stucco cover is missing; however, enough

remains to recognize the small piece of a horizontal glyphic band at the bottom, showing

at least two glyph blocks. This capstone has been described and illustrated by Carrasco

(I987: 16, fig . 2, 17).

This rather limited corpus ofhieroglyphic inscriptions at Dzibilnocac can now be modestly

enlarged by the aforementioned five inscribed stone fragments, which incidentally were

excavated in 1986. One of the panel fragments, preliminarly designated as Glyphic Stone

rr4

Fragment 2, is of essential importance as it contains a piece of calendrical information,

interpreted by Nikolai Grube as a Long Count date of 9. r6. r 3 .o.o. 2 Ahau 8 U o, equivalent to 764 A.D.; this date in the Late Classic period is convincing and the only plausible date

found in the inscriptions at Dzibilnocac. The various readings of calendrical dates of Stela

r (Robina r956: 72) and of Capstone r (Robina r956: 7r, rro; Jones r975: 99) are problematical and highly doubtful.

To what extent the non-glyphic panel fragments were originally associated with the

glyphic panels cannot be ascertained. The carved panels without glyphs, all of similar dimensions, are not described here.

I. Dzibilnocac Colonnette Fragment I

Dimensions: Height : 25 cm; diameter: r9 cm; relief depth: r cm Condition: The sculpture is moderately eroded and chipped in some places. The bottom

is probably broken off. Originally, the small column was apparently much higher.

Description: The carved stone is of a cylindrical shape and shows on top a plain frame,

implying that the sculpture is complete on the top, but lacking a larger portion of the

lower section. The front bears a hieroglyphic text, bordered on the left and right sides

by vertically running grooves. The textual image is fragmentary and contains four glyph blocks, carved in low relief.

Inscription: The hieroglyphic text is arranged in a vertically placed double column of

glyph blocks. According to Nikolai Grube (written communication, January r992), the four glyph compounds (Ar- B2) represent a dedication formula for stone sculpture char­

acteristic ofhieroglyphic texts from northwestern Yucatan. Grube transcribes the text as

follows:

Ar T -229.6 r7 : r25 Br T-r2r: 7r]a.r8r

A2 T-45 .? .? B2 T-?

" Initial Sign" (a glyph introducing texts)

"Flat-Hand Verb"

Fig. 2 Colonnette Fragment r. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1990.

T T 5

Remarks: Typologically, the sculpture fragment is probably part of an architectural dec­

oration and not part of a free-standing monument. No comparable all-glyphic colonnettes

exist, but some carved cylinders with figural designs are known from the Puuc and Chenes

Zones in the Northern Maya Lowlands, e.g., a sculpture attributed to Uxmal (Mayer

1989b, No.72) and two colonnettes once embedded in Structure 1 (Palace) of the Chenes

center ofSanta Rosa Xtampak (Maler 1902: 225; Pollock 1970: 55, fig. 73 ; Mayer 1987a :

pi. 16; Card6s de Mendez 1987: 159- 160; Mayer 1989b: 11). Originally, the Santa Rosa

Xtampak facade colonnettes were approximately 200 cm high and had a diameter of 21

to 25 cm; Maler described these carvings as "half columns" and Pollock as "split columns."

Carved facade colonnettes have a plain section in the back and a carved design in front,

covering half or three-quarters of the circumference.

Photograph: Fig. 2

2. Dzibilnocac Colonnette Fragment 2

Dimensions : Height: 33 cm; diameter: 19 cm; relief depth: 1 cm

Condition: The cylindrical stone is moderately weathered, and since neither a top, nor

bottom frame exists it can be concluded that portions from the top and bottom are missing;

therefore the fragmentary sculpture is possibly the central part of a once higher carving.

Description: The short stone cylinder has a plain back and bears a textual image containing

six glyphic compounds on the convex front section, framed at the left and right sides by

vertically placed grooves.

Fig. 3 Colonnette Fragment 2. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1990.

II6

Fig. 4 Colonnette Fragment 2. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1987.

Inscription: The hieroglyphic text is composed of a vertically arranged double column

and contains a total of six glyph blocks (Ar- B3). Nikolai Grube (written communication,

January r992) mentions that the text is illegible. Remarks: Typologically, this column fragment certainly represents a portion of a facade

ornament. The style of the carving as well as its diameter imply that this fragment is part

of the colonnette described in the preceding entry. The fact that this assumption cannot

be proved at present has caused me to treat this item separately.

Photographs: Figs. 3, 4

3. Dzibilnocac Glyphic Stone Fragment I

Dimensions: Height : r7 cm; width: 24 cm; thickness : r 8 cm; relief depth: r cm

Condition: The stone is moderately eroded and apparently forms part of an originally

larger panel. One can surmise that the bottom part of the panel is missing. Description: The roughly rectangular stone panel appears tobe a fragment ofa once !arger composition. The back is plain and the front shows two glyph compounds carved in bas­

relief. There is a plain horiziontal border on the top of the sculptured design, indicating

that the text represents the beginning of a longer inscription. Inscription: The surviving text consists of two horizontally placed glyph compounds

(Ar - Br), separated by a vertically placed plain bar element. Grube (written commu­

nication, January r992) observes that the glyph block at Ar is unrecognizable, and that

Br can be transcribed as T-r87: 5r3, "u k'aba" ("the name of' '), a compound frequently

associated with nominal phrases of architectural structures at Puuc sites like Xcalumkin,

Xcocha, and Xkombec.

Remarks : The stone fragment is probably part of a wall decoration and not a portion of

Fig. 5 Glyphic Stone Fragment r. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1987.

II7

a free-standing monument. Whether the size of the panel is original or was reduced at a

later date cannot be determined. lt can be suggested that this item, as well as the other

specimens recently found at Dzibilnocac, are pieces of a mosaic-like wall tablet or facade

decoration as known, e.g., at the Puuc site of Xcochkax or the Chenes site of Hobomo

(Mayer I987c).

Photograph: Fig. 5

4. Dzibilnocac Glyphic Stone Fragment .{ ;,,

Dimensions : Height: 3I cm; width: 22.5 cm; thickness: I8 cm; relief depth: I.5 cm

Condition: The carving is moderate! y weathered, and all four edges appear to be battered.

Some small pieces are broken off the bottom part.

Description: The roughly rectangular fragment undoubtedly represents part of a larger

composition combining figural and textual images. The bas-relief shows several scroll

designs in the upper half; underneath the scrolls is a horizontal plain border and the remains

of a hieroglyphic text.

Inscription: The surviving text is arranged horizontally and consists of a fragmentary

glyphic band. Three glyph-blocks (AI - CI) are recognizable; the block at AI is incomplete

at the left side, and only the remains of the left portion exist of block Bi. The glyph

compound BI is suffixed with a numerical statement given in the bar-and-dot system

and representing the number I 3. Two bars and three dots remain of block BI; it is not

possible to determine whether a third bar originally existed or not. Grube (written

communication, January I992) transcribes and deciphers the fragmentary writing as fol­

lows:

rr8

Fig. 7 Glyphic Stone Fragment 3. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1987.

Fig. 6 Glyphic Stone Fragment 2. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1987.

Ar T-95: 552 Br T -XIII.528P: II6

Cr T-XIII.?

(the month sign Uo)

r3 (thirteenth Tun)

r3 ? (in Katun r3 Ahau ??)

Grube states that the calendrical statement represents a Short Count date, which can be

reconstructed as the Long Count date 9.r6.r3.o.o 2 Ahau 8 Uo, corresponding to 26

February 764 Qulian). Photograph: Fig. 6

5. Dzibilnocac Glyphic Stone Fragment 3

Dimensions : Height: 3r cm; width: 28 cm; thickness : r5 cm; relief depth: r.5 cm

Condition: The moderately eroded bas-relief has battered edges and some minor pieces are chipped off from the upper right-hand corner and from the upper left side.

Description: The fragment has the same height and a comparable bas-relief design as the

item described in the foregoing entry, suggesting that they somehow belang together,

an observation corroborated by the hieroglyphic text, which may be a continuation of the text of Glyphic Stone Fragment 2. The figural image on top of the bas-relief is difficult

to comprehend and consists of several elements, perhaps parts of a standing human figure.

The lower section shows a textual image bordered on top by a small, horizontally based

plain border.

Inscription: The incomplete hieroglyphic text is composed of three whole glyphs and the

remains of a fourth glyph at the right side. The text is arranged horizontally (Ar - Dr?).

Grube (written communication, January r992) transcribes and deciphers the first three

glyphic compounds as follows:

Ar

Br

Cr

T-533.r25 T-229.6r7: 125

T - r87: 7r3a: r3o

(day sign Ahau)

(Initial Sign)

(rare form of the Flat-Hand Verb)

Grube supposes that this text is a continuation of the text on Glyphic Stone Fragment 2,

as indicated by the "Ahau" glyph. The following glyphic formula occurs frequently at

the Puuc sites ofXcalumkin, Xcocha, Xkombec, and Itzimte and is similar to the Primary

Standard Sequence (Grube r985) known from Maya ceramic inscriptions and also found

as an introductory element of monumental stone texts from the Puuc Zone in Campeche

and Yucatan.

Photograph: Fig. 7

Acknow ledgements

For generous assistance in preparing this article I wish to express my gratitude to Antonio

Benavides Castillo and Sergio C. Palacios-Castro, Centro Regional Campeche, INAH,

Campeche City; Nikolai Grube, University of Bonn; and Sally Robinson, Vienna. Per-

rr9

mission to take photographs and measurements of archaeological stone sculptures in the

state of Campeche in 1987 was generously given by the Centro Regional Campeche,

INAH (Oficio 401-012-87).

Bibliography

Andrews, George F.

1985 Chenes-Puuc Architecture: Chronology and Cultural Interaction. Arquitectura y Arqueo­

logia : Metodologias en la Cronologia de Yucatin. Etudes Mesoamericaines, Serie II- 8: ro- 39.

Mexico, D.F.

Benavides Castillo, Antonio

1987 Campeche: Monuments from Itzimte and Dzibilnocac. Mexicon 9(2): 29 . Berlin.

Bolz, Ingeborg

1975 Sammlung Ludwig: Altamerika. Ethnologica, N.F. 7. Recklinghausen: Aurel Bongers.

Bolz-Augenstein, Ingeborg and H . D. Disselhoff

1970 Werke präkolumbischer Kunst. Die Sammlung Ludwig, Aachen. Beschreibender Katalog. Monu­

menta Americana 6. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann.

Card6s de Mendez, Amalia

1987 Estudio de la Colecci6n de Escultura Maya del Museo Nacional de Antropolog{a. Colecci6n

Catalogos de Museos. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

Carrasco Vargas, Ram6n

1987 Nuevas Tapas de B6veda Decoradas, en la Region Central de Yucatin. Mexicon 9(1): 16- 20.

Berlin.

Carrasco Vargas, Ram6n and Sylviane Boucher

1985 Nuevas perspectivas para la cronologia y el estudio de la arquitectura de la region central

de Yucatan. Arquitectura y Arqueologia: Metodologias en la Cronologia de Yucatan. Etudes

Mesoamericaines, Serie Il-8: 56- 68. Mexico, D.F.

Culbert, T. Patrick (ed.)

1983 The Classic Maya Collapse. A School of American Research Book. Albuquerque, NM:

University of New Mexico Press.

DeBloois, Evan I.

1969 Santa Rosa Xtampak and Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico. Katunob 7(2): 18- 19. Greeley,

CO.

1970 Archaeological Researches in Northern Campeche, Mexico. Unpublished M.A. thesis,

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Weber State College, Ogden, UT.

Dyckerhoff, Ursula and Nikolai Grube

1988 Hieroglyphic Monuments from Nohcacab II. Mexicon ro(1):2-3 . Berlin.

Gallenkamp, Charles and Regina Elise Johnson (eds.)

1985 Maya: Treasures of an Ancient Civiliziation. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams.

Gendrop, Paul

1987 Nuevas consideraciones en torno a los estilos Rio Bec y Chenes. Cuadernos de Arquitectura

Mesoamericana ro: 39-49. Mexico, D.F.

120

Graham, Ian

1975 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Vol.1: Introduction to the Corpus. Cambridge, MA:

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Grube, Nikolai

1990 Hieroglyphic Sources for the History of Northwest Yucatan. Paper presented at the First

Maler Conference on the Archaeology of Northwestern Yucatan, Universität Bonn.

Jones, Christopher

1975 A Painted Capstone from the Maya Area. Studies in Ancient Mesoamerica, 2 Oohn A.

Graham, ed.). Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 27:

83 - l ro. Berkeley, CA.

Maler, Teobert

n.d. Peninsula Yucatan. Descripciones de las Ruinas antiguas de la civilizaci6n Maya. Manuscript,

3 volumes. Teobert Maler Estate, Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut, Berlin.

1902 Yukatekische Forschungen. Globus 82(13 - 14): 197- 230. Braunschweig.

Mayer, Karl Herbert

1978 Maya Monuments: Sculptures of Unknown Provenance in Europe . Ramona, CA: Acoma Books.

l983a Gewölbedecksteine mit Dekor der Maya-Kultur. Archiv für Völkerkunde 37: l - 62. Wien.

1983 b La Estela l de Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico. Informaci6n 5: 30- 42. Campeche.

1984 Major Maya Art in a Merida Collection. Cuadernos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana l: 40- 47.

Mexico, D.F.

l987a Maya Monuments: Sculptures of Unknown Provenance; Supplement 1. Berlin : Von Flemming.

l987b Two Maya Painted Stones from Campeche. Mexicon 9(5): 99-roo. Berlin.

l987c Eine Maya-Reliefskulptur aus Hobom6, Campeche. Mexicon 9(6) : rr7- l 18. Berlin.

l989a An Unpublished Maya Inscription at Santa Rosa Xtampak, Campeche. Cuadernos de

Arquitectura Mesoamericana l l: 25 - 28. Mexico, D.F.

l989b Maya Monuments: Sculptures of Unknown Provenance; Supplement 2. Berlin: Von Flemming.

Morley, Sylvanus G.

1938 The Inscriptions of Peten, Volume IV. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Publication 437.

Washington, DC.

1948 Check List of the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum and Check List of all known Initial and

Supplementary Series. Cambridge, MA: Division of Historical Research, C arnegie Institution

of Washington.

Müller, Florencia

1969 Atlas Arqueol6gico de la Republica Mexicana 2: Campeche. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional

de Antropologia e Historia.

Murphy, Francis S.

1988 Dragon Mask Temples in Central Yucatdn (1952-1972) . Hang Kong: Scribe Ltd.

Nelson, Fred W., Jr.

1973 Archaeological Investigations at Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico. Papers of the New W orld

Archaeological Foundation 33 . Provo, UT.

Pollock, Harry E. D.

1936 The Architectural Survey. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Yearbook 35: 122- 125. Wash­

ington, DC.

121

1965 Architecture of the Maya Lowlands. Handbook of Middle American Indians 2: 378 - 440.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

1970 Architectural Notes on some Chenes Ruins. Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology

(William R. Bullard, Jr., ed.). Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 61:

l - 87. Cambridge, MA.

Potter, Daniel F.

1977 Maya Architecture oj the Central Yucatan Peninsula , Mexico. Middle American Research

Institute, Tulane University, Publication 44. New Orleans, LA.

Prem, Hanns]. and Nikolai Grube

1988 Tanholni, a Chenes Site. Mexicon 10(4): 67 - 68. Berlin.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana

1950 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 593.

Washington, DC.

Robina, Ricardo de

1956 Estudio Preliminar de las Ruinas de Hochob , Municipio Hopelchen, Campeche. Mexico, D.F.:

Editorial Ateneas.

Ruz Lhuillier, Alberto

1945 Campeche en Ja Arqueologia Maya. Acta Anthropologica 1(2-3). Mexico, D.F.

Seler, Eduard

1916 Die Quetzalcouatl Fassaden yukatekischer Bauten. Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1916, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 2. Berlin.

Stephens, John L.

1843 Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, Volume 2. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers (Reprint:

N ew York, NY 1963: Dover Publications).

Strecker, Matthias and Karl-Friedrich von Flemming

1981 Photos and Drawings by Teobert Maler: A Preliminary List. Internationale Gesellschaft für

Mesoamerikaforschung, Contribution r. Berlin .

Thompson,]. Eric S.

1962 A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

122