Maya Inscriptions from Hobomo, Campeche,Mexico

• mex1con Occasional Publications

Number 2

Maya lnscriptions from Hobomo, Campeche, Mexico

Karl Herbert Mayer

VERLAG ANTON SAURWEIN

©

1994 by VERLAG ANTON SAURWEIN, Möckmühl

Alle Rechte vorbehalten Satz: Stephan Günther, Hamburg Druc.k: Karle GmbH, Möckmühl

• mex1con Occasional Publications

herausgegeben von

mexicon

Nummer 2

Karl Herbert Mayer

Maya lnscriptions from Hobomo, Campeche, Mexico

1994

VERLAG ANTON SAURWEIN

Introduction

The ancient Maya ruins of Hobomo are located in the municipality of Hopelchen, in the northeastem part of the archaeological Chenes Zone, in the Mexican Stare of Carnpeche (Fig. 1). The ruins are situated approximately 2.5 km southeastof the small and modest Rancho Hobom6, from which the site received its present name. Hobomo is a very interesting and important site because of the hundreds of small carved limestone blocks which show intricate geometric designs (Figs. 29-34), anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures, and brief hieroglyphic texts. None of these carved stones were found in situ, but obviously they served as elements of fa~ade decorations. These carvings are not fragments broken from a larger entire, monolithic tablet, but are obviously individual elements that were placed in a larger composition in mosaic-fashion. No comparable artistic manifestations have yet been discovered in the Chenes Zone and this corpus of bas-relief stones must presently be considered as unique.

In the years of 1987, 1992, and 1993 a !arge number of these extraordinary relief sculptures were recorded, although many others were presumably looted and many stones are still hidden in the debris of fallen buildings and particularly in the dense vegetation that covers most of the ruins. Among the hitherto undocumented sculptured stones, ten bear glyphic images which are published here for the first time as photographs and as line drawings based on the photographs. Moreover, an unclassified stone monument with a carved glyph, and a painted capstone with glyphs are presented. Thecorpus of hieroglyphic inscriptions at Hobomo, encompassing twelve inscribed objects, appears to be rather modest, but a systematic search and eventual future archaeological excavations at the ruins will certainly bring additional inscriptions to light.

Tue Archaeological Chenes Zone

The Chenes Zone in the Northern Maya Lowlands is a vagucly defined geographical and archaeological region in the no1thern part of the State of Campeche and adjacent parts of the northwestern State of Yucatan. To distinguish between the principal architectural sty les various authors have divided the MayaLowlands into a number of subareas (see Pollack 1965, p. 379, Fig. 1; Culbert 1983, p. 5, Fig. l; Gendrop 1983, p. 16, Fig. 9). Whether or not the Chenes Zone can be regarded as a distinct cultural or archaeological entity with a particular coherentregional architectural style is a matter of debate and a subject of controversial discussion (Pollock 1970; Potter 1977; Gendrop 1983; Andrews 1985). In addition, George Andrews (1985; 1994) has defined a transitional archaeological region between the Chenes and Puuc Zones, where a blend of Chenes and Puuc style of architecture appears. lt is clear that the extent and boundaries of any geographical-archaeological areas are very difficult to define, but as a matter of convenience, the term Chenes Zone is employed here as proposed by Patrick Culbert in a zonation of the archaeology of the Maya Lowlands (Culbert 1983, p. 5, Fig. 1).

The name Chenes comes from the Yucatec Maya word chen, chhen, or eh' e' n, which means weil, cistern, or a cave with water (Barrera V asquez 1980, p. 131). Several modern settlement names in the geographical Chenes region include the word chen, for example, Bolonchen, Hopelchen, Kornehen, Becanchen, Pakchen, Dzibalchen, and Kankabchen.

The Chenes Zone has a long history of archaeological research, beginning with John L. Stephens (1963) and Frederick Catherwood in 1842, followed by Teobert Maler (n.d.; 1895; 1902), Eduard Seler (1916), and later by Alberto Ruz Lhuilher (1945), and Ricardo de Robina ( 1956). In a comprehensive study of the Chenes Zone Harry Pollock ( 1970) described eight sites with Chenes architecture: SantaRosaXtampak, Nocuchich, Chanchen, Nohcacab II, Dzibilnocac, EI Tabasquefio, Hochob, and Chunlimon, all already previously explored by Teobert Maler.

1

Since 1970 a multitude of Maya ruins in the Chenes have been discovered, so that presently more than 40 major ancient settlements in this particular region have been reported (cf. Nelson 1973; Ashmore 1981, pp. 231-234; Williams-Heck 1986; Andrews et al. 1987; Carrasco 1987; L6pez de la Rosa 1988; Andrews 1988; Dyckerhoff and Grube 1988; Prem and Grube 1988; Andrews 1989; Andrews et al. 1989; Benavides 1989; Zapata Peraza 1989; Robina 1991; Mayer 1993c; Andrews 1994; Williams-Beck 1994, p. 136, Fig. 2).

The Chenes Zone is a relatively sma11 archaeological region (cf. Andrews et al. 1989, p.85, Fig. 1; Andrews 1994, p. 251, Fig. 3), although its extent is not exactly known; recently it has been estimated that the Chenes Zone covers an area of approximately 3,800 square kilometers (Andrews 1994, p. 251). Thenumberof sites in the Chenes Zone is not very impressive, taking into consideration the huge number of sites in the State of Campeche: Roman Pifia Chan ( 1985, pp. 23-24) lists 316ruins, andAntonio Benavides (1989, p.475) reports thatmore than 800 sites have been registered.

Hieroglyphic Texts in the Chenes Zone Of the approximately 40 recorded major archaeological sites in the Chenes Zone of Campeche and adjacent Yucatan, only eight are known to possess hieroglyphic inscriptions, either carved or painted. These sites are Santa Rosa Xtampak, Dzibilnocac, Hochob, EI Tabasquefio, Tanholna, Nohcacab II, Kutza, and Hobomo.

At Santa Rosa Xtampak carved inscriptions occur on several stelae (Morley 1948, p. 49; Proskouriakoff 1950; Pollock 1970, pp. 59-63; Mayer 1980, 1982, 1984a, 1984b; Card6s de Mendez 1987, pp. 134-135), on one rectangular limestone altar (Mayer 1989), andon twowall panels from Structure 1, the Palace (Stephens 1963, p. 111, PI. XX; Maler 1902, pp. 222-223, Figs. 17-18; Proskouriakoff 1950, Fig. 94a,b; Pollock 1970, p. 54, Fig. 71). There are several painted capstones with hieroglyphic texts in the Palace, and one in Structure l of theNorthwest Group (Mayer l983a, 1984b, 1993a, 1993b). A polychrome painting on stucco exists inside Room 1 of the East Range of the Southeast Quadrangle, which may have been a horizontal glyphic band originally (Mayer 1993a).

At Dzibilnocac carved texts are tobe found on Stela 1 (Nelson 1973, pp. 37-41; Mayer 1983b) and on five fragmentary limestone panels (Mayer 1992). Three painted capstones bearing textual images areknown, namely Dzibilnocac Capstones 1, 3, and 4 (Maler n.d.; Seler 1916, Fig. 49; Bolz-Augenstein and DisseJhoff 1970, pp. 36-39; Bolz 1975, PI. XXXVI; Jones 1975, p. 95; Mayer 1978, p. 11; 1983a, pp. 27-29, Figs. 17, 19; Gallenkamp and Johnson 1985, p. 144, No. 76; Carrasco 1987; Murphy 1988, p. 47, Fig. 12, PI. 56; Dyckerhoff 1992).

The only known hieroglyphic text at the site of Hochob is painted on a capstone (Carrasco 1987, p. 17, Fig. 3).

Teobert Maler (n.d.) discoverect' a painted capstone with glyphs in the main structure at EI Tabasquefio in 1889, an inscription also seen by Harry Pollock three decades later (Pollock 1970, p. 21), but now possibly lost. Apparently, this text has never been recorded.

In 1987, several limestone fragments that bear short glyphic images were encountered at Hobomo, and more carvings were found in 1992, and 1993 showing glyphs; all the known carved texts from Hobomo are t:reated in the present work. h1 1987, a painted capstone with glyphs was also discovered (Mayer 1987a; 1987b), which is included in this report.

hl 1987, at Tanholna, in the south-eastern extremes of the Chenes Zone, an inscribed round altar of limestone bearing 14 glyph-blocks was found (Prem and Grube 1988, p. 67, Fig. 2).

Also in 1987, at Nohcacab II, two limestone monuments were discovered which show gl yphs; one monument is a stela, the other a rectangular slab with a long inscription (Dyckerhoff and Grube 1988).

2

Another recent discovery is an inscribed, fragmentary limestone colonnette found at the site ofKutza and currently on exhibit in the museum in the Baluarte de la Soledad in Campeche City (Williams-Beck 1986; Zapata Peraza 1989, p. 428; Mayer 1993c).

This brief overview shows that hieroglyphic texts are scarce in the Chenes Zone and many occur on painted capstones. Generally, all Chenes texts are published in an inadequate manner and none of the si tes with inscriptions have yet been covered in the fascicles of the "Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions", published by the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

History of Investigations at Hobomo

The ruins ofHobomo were firstreported by Alejandro Figueroa Tenorio in the Mexicanjoumal "Mexico Desconocido" in 1985. In an article dealing wich Maya ruins in the Chenes Zone of Campeche, he described his visits to Hochob, EI Tabasquefio, Dzibilnocac, and Santa Rosa Xtampak, and to a newly discovered archaeological site near Santa Rosa Xtampak, which he named "Homob6" (Figueroa Tenorio 1985). As this is the first known reference to this site and because the source is not easily accessible, the complete text referring to the ruins is cited here:

"Aproximadamente a 6 km de Xtampak hay otro sitio arqueol6gico que no ha sido consignado en ningun texto ni atlas arqueol6gico. Los lugarefios lo llaman JJomob6. Alli debi6 existir una especie de colosal tablero confeccionado a base de cientos o miles de mosaicos de piedra que rojden, en promedio, unos 40 por 60 cm, y pesan entre 8 y 12 kg cada uno. Durante nuestra visita aJ Jugar, tratamos de annar algunas partes y pudimos apreciar una especie de alegorfa a la agricultura, puesto quc se ven hombres adornados con 1icos tocados, danzando entre plantas, flores, enredaderas y mazorcas. Tambien destacan algunos guerreros de mayor ramafio que los danzantes, con lanzas. Este tablero se ha desplomado, desparramando cientos de mosaicos por los alxededores. Resulta dificil calcular las dimensiones que tuvo.

En la misma area encontramos dos aros del jucgo de pelota, finarnente trabajados y un gran numero de "chultunes" o cisternas. Posiblementc Homob6 fue un subuJbio o ciudad satelite de Xtampak, y por lo mismo no se le considera como una zona arqueol6gica en sf." (Figueroa Tenorio 1985, p. 16)

As indeed no archaeological site in this part of the Chenes Zone of Campeche was known and the report mentioned the surprising existence of a monumental stone mosaic, consisting of "hundrcds or thousands" of carved stones with anthropomorphic figures, I wrote a letter to the edi tors of "Mexico Desconocido" in 1985 in order to find out tbe address of the author (Mayer 1986) and to get in contact with him. As a consequence, in February of 1986 Figueroa wrote me a letter giving details on this new ruin and sent me seven color photographs he had taken at the site and showing the carved stones, two stone rings, banded colonnettes, a partially standing building with vault, and a red painted stone. Figueroa explained that he takes great interest in Mesoamerican archaeology and that he had been searching for several years for interesting and unexplored Maya sites on the peninsula of Yucatan. He visited the ruin near Santa Rosa Xtampak only once, in April of 1980. He observed three or four fallen masonry structures, only one of which was partly intact, including its vault. Concerning the mosaic stones, Figueroa confirmed that there were hundreds or possibly thousands, which were scattered over an area of about 1.5 square km, some very weathered, but many in perfect condition. Among these carved stones he also recognized some bearing glyphs, an observation he had not mentioned in his published report. The two stone rings he located there were considered as rings of a ballcourt. Near the structure with the vault he found a stone approximately 50 x 50 cm large with a glyph painted in red. The reason why he did not publish any of these sculptures in his article was because his 35 mm camera malfunctioned and he took

3

---

photographs only with a small pocket camera which were not suitable for reproduction purposes. In contrast to the reported name of the ruin as "Homob6'', in his letter he named it "Hobom6". Hobomo is a relatively frequent toponym and there are at least two other archaeological sites with this name in Campeche (cf. Müller 1960, p. 37; Pifia Chan 1985, pp. 24, 25, Nos. 9 1, 94). Etymologically, the term Hobomo is possibly derived from two Yucatec Maya words, from hobon and o.x. Hobon means something hollow (Barrera Vasquez 1980, pp. 214, 21 5), and ox is the ram6n tree or bread-nut tree, with the scientific name Brosimum alicastrum, Swartz (Ban-era Vasquez 1980,p. 611). The toponym Hobomo, therefore, could mean the place of the "hollow trunk of the bread-nut tree". The information and photographs provided by Figueroa proved tbat this newly discovered site is indeed important, particularly because of the quantity and quality of its relief stones ~md of its carved glyphic texts.

In March of 1987 an international team, consisting of George F. Andrews, Geraldine Andrews, Ursula Dyckerhoff, Hanns J. Prem, Uwe Gebauer, and the author, vis ited Hobomo with the intention of documenting the architectural remains and the strange stone sculptures. The team sta1ted by car from the town of Hopelchen and reached the Rancho Hobom6 via a di rt road that begins at a junction just north of Hopelchen and passes through the settlement of Rancho Sosa (see map in Andrews et al. 1989, p. 85, Fig. 1). The distance from Hopelchen to Rancho Hobom6 is about 30 km. lt should be noted, that it is also possible to reach Hobomo from the ruins of Santa Rosa Xtampak, but this route is longer and more difficult. The Rancho Hobom6 is a very small place with the main building constructed of perishable material. As no permanent water source exists at the rancho, water has tobe brought in barrels from Hopelchen. The lack of water is the reason that only a few people work at the rancho andin the surrounding agricultural fields.

Guided by Sandoval Uc, the party walked from the rancho to the ruins , which are situated more than 2 km southeast of the rancho. During a sho1t stay at the ruins two structures with vaults, designated Structures 1and2, were mapped (Fig. 2) and recorded and measurements and photographs were taken of numerous carved stones. The distance between Structures 1 and 2 is approximately more than 50 m. The two stone rings reported by Figueroa were not found, but theexistence of many chultuns, as well as the general appearance and dimensions suggested that these rings were originally parts of chultuns and not ballcourt markers. The aforementioned stone with the red glyph was rediscovered and proved tobe a molding stone, 27 cm thick, 72 cm long, and 60 cm wide. The very eroded painting is difficult to discem, but presents part of a human figure ralher than a glyph (Mayer 1987a). The existence of stones with carved glyphs was confirmed and additionally a capstone in Structure 1 with vestiges of painted figural and textual images was found. A large number of carved stones were in the debris on all sides of Structurc 1. No carved stones were found close to Structure 2, a large pyramidal mound with rooms on two or three levels, and with one excellently conserved vaulted room, indicating that originally the decorated stooes were associated with Structure 1. Besides the carved stones in the debri s, the majority of the stones were found mainly in several places and piles, indicating that sornebody had bad removed the stones from their original places and brought together at other places, possibly in preparation for removing the carvings from the ruins. At one place on flat ground more than 40 assembled reli.ef stones were encountered. The main motifs of the carvings were plumes, probably feather ornaments, parts of human bodies and many geometric designs. We attempted to find fitting pieces of themosaic stones, but were only able to join two stones, representing a human leg after reassembling. No Standard size of the re1iefs was apparent. A largenumberofthe stones was photographed, butonly adozen weremeasured with a tape. After recording the stones, they were turned with the reliefs to the ground in order to protect them from weathering and eventual milpa fires.

4

Many other fallen structures, mostly mounds, were observed, but none had exposed rooms or visible architectural details. A series of chultuns were seen, particularly around Structure 1, but none were inspected. The füll extent of U1e ruins could not berecognized as the site was very overgrown making a survey extremely difficult. As a result of this visit, two brief articles dealing with the discovery of the ruins and its carved mosaic stones and the painted capstone and the painted molding stone, were published in the same year (Mayer 1987a; 1987b).

One year later, in February of 1988, George and Geraldine Andrews revisited Hobomo in order to obtain architectural data from structures not seen during the two-hour visit in 1987. The ruins wcre very overgrown and the section ofHobomo seen the year beforecould not befound, however, another part of the ruins was discovered, with two bacily fallen buildings, designated Structures 3 and 4. Due to the heavy growth of brush and trees the Andrews' were unable to locate S tructures 3 and 4 in relation to Structures 1 and 2. S tructure 3 is a large building witb rooms on two levels, but only two rooms wcre sufficiently preserved to yield architectural data. Structure 4 is a badly collapsed building, approximately 50-60 m south of Structure 3, with doorway columns and large stone slabs fromjambs and lintels in the debris. The existence of the columns and the fact that the special ized stones are similar to those occurring in buildings in the Puuc Zone, makes Andrews suggest that Hobomo could be a "trans itional" site, with both Chenes and Puuc style architecture. In regard to sculptures and relief designs Anclrews found a round stone monument, probably an al.tar, about 1.10 m in diameter with a depression in the center of the top surface. Near Structure 3 numerous colonnettes and Puuc-type stone spools a:re in the debris and one carved stone with an image of a row of diamonds in the center. Four carved stones were found in the debris of Structure 4, probabl y capitals, showing horizontal and vertical bands and a guilloche design. The data compiled by Andrews in 1987 and l 988 are stil l unpublished, but in a recent s tudy Andrews regards Hobomo as a Chenes-style site, assigning it to the Chenes Site Type A, a type referring to a rather dispersed site on fl at to gently rolling terrain andlisting briefly thespecial features of Structures 1, 2, 3 , and4 (Andrews 1994,pp. 274, 276).

In March of 1992, I made my second visit to Hobomo, accompanied and assisted by Stephan Merk. The goal of this visit was to document the carved stones around Structure 1 and the carved stones removed to different piles presumably by looters. The plan was to record all stones with low-re liefs , to mark their presentlocation on a plan, to measure each individual stone and to take photographs in black and white andin some instances in color. Due to several unforseen factors the planned project could not be carried out satisfactorily and only about 50 carvings were recorded. The main reason for the failu re was the fact that the site and its sculptures were heavily overgrown and no workmen could be obtained at Rancho Hobom6 who might have cleared part of the site with machetes to fac:ili tate the finding of sculptures. Despite theserestrictions, several mosaic stones were found that were not seen in 1987. One additional positive result was the exact geographical determination of the location of the ruins with a hand-held GPS navigator, as : Latitude 19° 42' 52N., Longitude 89° 36' 45 W. (UTM 16 Q BS 263819). This means that the ruins of Hobomo are located 6.5 km SSW from Santa Rosa Xtampak, and 15 km north of Dzibilnocac.

My third visit to Hobomo took place in March of 1993, lasted for parts of two days and was more successful. On one day, guided by members ofthe Sandoval family from Hopelchen and Rancho Hobom6, I relocated the section of the ruins with St:rnctures 3 and 4, recorded in 1988 by George Andrews and was finally able to tie this section to the part with Structures 1 and 2. Structures 3 and 4 are located more or less south of Structures 1 and 2 at an estimated distance of about l 00 m. Also in 1993 the site was obscured with the heavy growth of dense brush and vegetation, but with the help of my Mexican companions a large number of mosaic stones could

5

be found. Due to time limitations, logistic problems, and the weather conditions on the second day the recording was done in a hasty manner and the majority of the objects were not measured with a tape, but simply photographed together with a centimeter t:ape. The relief stones found on the surface were cleaned, photographed and put back in their places, with the carved surface down to avoid further deterioration by weather and milpa fires. Several stones not documented earlier were located and some carvings were observed inside a chultun close to Structure 1.

The brief work at Hobomo in 1993 considerably enlarged the known corpus of carved stones, although obviously a large number is still buried in the debris around Structure 1 and hidden somewhere in the high grass and bushes that cover the entire site.

The information gathered during the three visits to Hobomo is still to beanalyzed butseveral observations can already be mentioned. The relief stones are probably components of a !arge composition that was originally incorporated into a fa9ade. All mosaic stones have a short stubby tenon at their back, that was once set into the mortar of an exterior wall. The stones are of different sizes. The designs are only on one surface and are carved in a rather low relief. Several stones show plain borders or frames. As they are constituent elements of a }arge mosaic configuration and show only parts of a destroyed frieze, the original orientation of many designs is difficult to recognize. The carved designs can be divided into five major classes, although the diversemotifs arenot separated, but overlap on individual stones. There are geometric, anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, phytomorphic, and hieroglyphic images.

The geometric motifs are carved and on l y sometimes incised and show bands, crossed bands, plait or mat patterns, diamonds, lattice patterns, steps, frets, step-frets, stepped pyramid motifs, zig-zags, and zig-zag dentate motifs (Figs. 29-34).

The anthropomorphic figures are frequently rendered in a dynamic or dancing pose. Many fragments show feet, legs, hands, and arms, but curiously heads are missing and this absence could be explained by the fact that stones featuring heads were looted. Some hands are holding implements . The figures are adorned with feather omaments. Feathers and tasseled feathers are a common motif and it is not always clear if they are parts of feather headclresses. Some figures wear ornate collars and many show hipcloths, garters, and sandals.

Among the zoomorphic images I recorded only two avian creatures, one relief depicting a beautifully carved b.ird , probably a quetzal. Whereas Figueroa reported phytomorphic scenes, I did not observe any definite representations of plants or fruits.

The textual images are covered in this report. A comparative, preliminary study has shown that the mosaic stones at Hobomo are a unique wall decoration in the Chenes Zone. Two composite interior wall panels at Santa RosaXtampak (Maler 1902, pp. 222, 223, Figs . 17, 18; Proskouriakoff 1950, Figs. 94a,b) are composed of separate stones, but cannot be compared with the Hobomo mosaic composition. Multilithic panels and friezes occur at several sites in the Puuc Zone, for example at Uxmal (cf. Pollock 1980, pp. 226-229, Figs. 409-412; Graham 1992, pp. 121-133), Kabah (Pollock 1980, p. 194, Fig. 370, pp. 143-145, Figs. 288, 289), and Xcalumkin (Pollock 1980, pp. 443-446, Figs. 743-748). A very interesting multilithic fayade decoration is at the Puuc site of Xcochkax in Campeche, where hundreds of individual bas-relief stones have been found (cf. Andrews et al. J 987, pp. 53-54, Figs. 6, 7), but which are not very well-known and still unpublished. 1 consider the stone mosaic decoration at Xcochkax very closely related to the Hobomo example.

Outside the Puuc and Chenes regions the mosaic decoration is a common architectural feature at Chichen Itza in the Northem Plains Zone and many large-sized wall panels are composed of individual carved stones (cf. Proskouriakoff 1950, Fig. 108a,c; Ruppert 1952, Figs. 124b,c; 129c,d; 133d; 142e; Bolles 1977, pp. 224-228; Robertson 1994, pp. 205-207, Figs. 11-14).

6

In sum, the cut-stone architectural decoration of Hobomo is a unique artistic manifestation in the Chenes Zone and still poses many questions, and some questions can only be answered by archaeological excavations at the site. The present work focuses only on glyph-bearing mosaic stones ·and not on the large number of already documented non-glyphic bas-reliefs; research tobe conducted by the author will address this topic at a future date.

The Inscriptions at Hobomo

The few and superficial archaeological investigations at Hobomo since 1987 have brought to light a modest corpus of twelve objects bearing hieroglyphic inscriptions. These texts occur painted on one capstone and carved on ten small limestone blocks and on one unclassified stone monument. The painted capstone is designated as Hobomo Capstone 1; it is numbered as other painted capstones may be discovered if future archaeological research and excavations are conducted at the site.

Ian Graham (1975, p. 25) has recommended abbreviations formonumental and arc;hitectural inscriptions, mostly consisting of two and three letters, but has not established such a code for capstones, which were included in the d ass "Miscellaneous" (Msc.). The !arge number of capstones with inscriptions and with representational art induced me to establish an abbreviation for this monument type, namely "Cst." (Mayer 1983a, p. 6), a suggestion that has been accepted and recently adopted (Eggebrecht et al. 1992, pp. 519-520; Dyckerhoff 1992; Graham 1992, p.81 ). Typologically , the inscribed stones are probably parts of a fa9ade decoration and these architectural elements have no specific abbreviation recommended by Graham and therefore may be si mply classed under "Miscellaneous" or "Msc. ". As none of the carved stones seem to be complete, they will be preliminarily and arbitrarily referred to as "glyphic stone fragments", following a designation that was applied to fragmentary stone panels found at Dzibilnocac (Mayer 1992, pp. 117-119). Admittedly, this arbitrary designation is not very convincing and accurate, keeping in consideration that the individual carved stones are the constituent elements of a mosaic decoration incorporated into a fa9ade. Ian Graham (1975, pp. 9, 23, 24) has also proposed the employment of an abbreviated form of reference to all archaeological sites with inscriptions on stone, consisting of a three-letter code. In the most recent compilation of Maya sites with hieroglyphic texts and their pertinent three-letter code by Graham ( 1982) Hobomo is not included. As numerous Maya sites with hierogl yphic inscription have been discovered si nce the pu blication of this latest list, Berthold Riese ( 1993) has proposed new codes for these sites, which have not yet officially been approved by lan Graham' s Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions Project; Riese suggests for Hobomo the three-letter code "HBM". This abbreviation has already been used by Nikolai Grube (1994, p. 349).

In the description of the inscribed objects of Hobomo the right and left sides of an object are in terms of an observer facing the front of an object. Measurements are all metric. Glyphs have been transcribed by theEric Thompson (1962) catalogue system with the numbers preceded by "T-" to distinguish from other catalogue systerns. In regard to the published illustrations of carved texts they are presented at a standard scale of c. 1 :4 ( except Figs. 25, 26). A photograph and a line drawing corresponding to it are placed side by side to facilitate easy comparison of the two images.

The following notes offer a concise overview of twelve hieroglyphic texts that so far have been recovered at Hoborno.

7

1 . Hobomo Capstone 1 Dimensions: Condition:

Description:

l nscription:

Remarks:

Height: ca. 70 cm; width: ca. 30 cm. The stucco-covered capstone has a severely damaged surface with remaining paintings only on the bottom section. The rectangular stone is still in situ and as both ends are embedded in mortar of the vault construction its complete dimensions are unknown. The single glyphic horizontal band at the bottom is partially hidden by mortar and the vault stones and therefore difficult to discem. The text consists of four glyph compounds (Al -Dl) which are painted in red on the white stucco surface. Originally, there was obviously a figural image above the glyphic band of which only faint traces are recognizable at the lower right section. The visible remains of the scene show three stacked glyphic signs. A double curved line in front of these glyphs may represent the back of a seated individual. The red pigment of the original scene, probably depicting a human figure or deity, has fallen off, so that presently only a negative image is preserved. The calligraphic text is probably painted with a red specular hematite paint; apparent]y two different brushes have been used to create a very fine and a thicker line. In the lower right comer of the capstone the negative image of three stacked glyphs, very faded, can easily be identified as Kan glyphs, T-506, phonetically read as kan/wah, and generalJy considered to mean maize, tortilla, and the maize tamale wah. T-506 frequently occurs in similar groupings in the Maya codices, especially in context that deal with food offerings, for example in Codex Dresden 42a, 34a, and 27c, and in Codex Madrid 34-35. Kan signs occurfrequently outside of epigraphical contexts in representational images and also in capstone paintings; on Santa Rosa Xtampak Capstone 1, God K holds a dish containing two Kan symbols (Mayer 1983a, p. 38, Fig. 36; Taube 1989, p. 44, Fig. 9f). The hieroglyphic band at the bottom of the scene is partially obscured and consists of four glyph-blocks (Al -Dl) . One Ahau glyph (T-533) andT-565, theSerpentSegmentGlyph (Thompson 1962; Kurbjuhn 1989,p. 75), are easily recognizable, whereas mortar hides the lower parts of some glyphblocks and the last compound is almest invisible. Nikolai Grube (written communications, May 1987, and April 1994) remarks that the inscription is too eroded to facilitate a reasonable interpretation and transcribes it as follows:

Al T-24.533:24? Bl T-229.516:59 Cl T-V.61 ?:565a Dl T-V or X.?

Grube, in a preliminary interpretation of this text, comments that the glyph at A 1 appears in thecodices as ahardly understood augural glyph , discussed byGünter Zimmermann (1956). At B 1 the glyph compound can be read phonetically as a-ahk' ot-ti, "he danced" (see Grube 1992), and the compound at Cl can be read as ho yu-ta, "five yut??". The painted capstone is installed in Room 2 of Structure 1 at Hobomo (Fig. 2) and the only inscription at Hobomo still in situ. l t is the central one of five capstones spanning the vault of a room 215 cm long and 280 cm wide. The bottom of the capstone image faces south. Painted capstones occur in the Northem Maya Lowlands in the Puuc, Chenes, and Rfo Bec Zones, as well as in

8

the Chichen ltza region. To the south, painted capstones are known from Tikal, Guatemala, .and Caracol, Belize. In the Chenes Zone monochrome and polychrome central capstones are known from Santa Rosa Xtampak, Dzibilnocac,

· Hochob, Dzibiltun, and EI Tabasquefio (Jones 1975; Mayer 1983a; Carrasco 1987; Mayer 1993a).

Photographs: Mayer 1987a, p. 99, Fig. 1; Figs. 3, 4

2. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 1 Dimensions: Condition:

Description:

Jnscription:

Photograph: Drawing:

Height: 33 cm; width: 28.5 cm; thickness: 2 1 cm; relief depth: 1.5 cm The roughly rectangular limestone appears to be broken on all sides and the carved surface is moderately eroded. The bas-relief represents a vertical band with a horizontal bar and zig-zag designs; to the right and left of this object are two verticaJly arranged texts. There is one glyph compound at the left (Al) and probably two compounds at the right side (Bl-2). Nikolai Grube (1993) comments thefollowing on this text: "The left column starts with the day sign Ahaw in the day sigri cartouche. Under it is the coefficient XIII. Tue fact that the day sign has no coefficient is very rare. Could it be that the text is broken, and the corresponding coefficient was written on the broken part or on a different stone? The coefficient of thirteen cannot go with the day sign as it is written below. I suspect that the two glyphs once spelled a Yucatec K' atun Ahaw date, where the first glyph names the day on which the current K 'atun will end, while the coefficient thirteen ( or fourteen, if the left part of the text is missing) numbers the current tun. If the text is complete and no part is missing, the coefficient of the Ahaw could have been simply "one". lf the coefficient was one, it often was not written. Tue 13th tun in K ' atun 1 Ahaw ends· either on 9.9.13.0.0 or on 10.2.13.0.0. To me, the first date seems tobe too early and the last date too late, given that the majority of texts from the Chenes/ Southern Puuc area dates in between 9.14.0.0.0 and 9.18.0.0.0. On the other band, we have a 9.10.13.0.0 date on Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 3. The 9.9.13.0.0 date would be one K 'atun earlier. A second row of glyphs is written on the extreme right of t:he stone. Most of the glyphs is missing, since the stone is eitber broken or the text continued on a different stone. So much is missing that the glyphs cannot be read". Fig. 5 Fig. 6


Description:

f nscription:

Height: 36 cm; width: 36 cm; thickness: 18 cm; relief depth: 2 cm The square relief panel is moderately weathered and some small pieces are broken off from the upper right-hand corner and from the bottom. The bas-relief depicts two bunches of feathers, a vertical band or staff decorated with two horizontal bars and zig-zag designs and a textual image. The decorated vertical band matches the one represented on Glyphic Stone Fragment 1. The vertical glyph column contains two glyph-blocks (Al-2). Grube (1993) writes the following: "The first of the two glyphs is T-528: 116 tun-ni, "Tun". Certainly, there was a number over the Tun glyph. Could this stone have been under Glyphic Stone Fragment 1? Then the coefficient of 13 would be paired

9


with a tun glyph, as expected. Note that the bar to the right of both stones is decorated with the same trilobed elements. lt is very hard to see what the second glyph shows. Except for the T-125 ya suffix 1 have no idea what the second glyph is. lt should be a verb, due to its position after the date". Fig. 7 Fig. 8


Description:

lnscription:


Height: 29 cm; width: 24 cm; thickness: 16 cm; relief depth: 2 cm The stone panel is in relatively good condition and only small pieces are chipped off from the edges. There is a plain frame on the top, indicating that the top section of the bas-relief remains complete. The bas-relief depicts two feathers on the left side and possibly three plume tips in the lower right-hand corner. There is also an unexplicable spiked element in the lower left-hand corner. A textual image appears within a rectangular space. There are two glyph-blocks arranged vertically (A 1-2) and a portion of a human head in side-view, facing left, which is probably also a glyph compound (Bl). On top, the carving has a plain, horizontal frame. Grube (1993) describes the incomplete glyphic panel in form of an inverted L as follows: "The first two glyph blocks, one written over the other, represents the Tun-Ahaw date "13th Tun in 12 Ahaw". Tue K 'atun 12 Ahaw ended on 9.11.0.0.0. The date thus corresponds to 9.10.13.0.0 1 Ahaw 3 K'ank'in (November 17, 645, Julian). This shows that the Hobomo texts are much earlier than the great majority of texts from Northwest Yucatan and provides a slight chancethatthedateonHobomoGlyphicStoneFragment 1is9.9.13.0.0. Thetext continues with a broken glyph that shows a human head. No reading can be given. Under the head three bars can be seen that might have spelled the number fifteen. The context is unknown". Fig. 9 Fig. 10


Description:

lnscription:


Height: 33 cm; width: 22 cm; thickness: 20 cm; relief depth: 1.5 cm The carved stone is badly broken and large portions are missing from the right side and bottom. The surface is only slightly weathered. The bas-relief renders some feathers in the upper half andin the middle a glyphblock within a rectangular space. There is only one glyph compound (Al) and this one is incomplete at the right side. The main sign shows the day sign Lamat, T-510, a sign also connoting "star" and "Venus" (Kurbjuhn 1989, p. 65). Grube ( 1993) describes the fragment as a "sculptured stone with two regularly shaped sides. In the center, a glyph panel with one single glyph is visible. lt is the day sign Lamat in its cartouche and witb a prefixed coefficient of two. lt is the first part of a Calendar Round date 2 Lamat (number - month)". Fig. 11 Fig. 12

10


Description:

I nscription:


Height: 21 cm; width: 29 cm The stone panel has only one original edge, namely the top; all other sides are fractured. The carved surface is moderately weathered. There is a horizontal, plane frame element on the top of the fragment. At the lefthand side are the remains of a bunch of f~athers, of which four tips are recognizable. Within a frame element, of whicli only part of the left side and the top survive, there are two glyph-blocks. The two glyphic compounds are arranged horizontally (Al-Bl), and Grube (1993) comments that "the outlines of the glyphs are very unusual and irregular. Apart from identifying the glyphs as real writing, 1 cannot identify the signs. I cannot even say where is the top and the bottom". Fig. 13 Fig. 14


Description: I nscription:


Height: 19 cm; width: 16 cm; thickness: 21 cm; relief depth: 0.5 cm The carving is a fragment and all sides are broken. The carved surface is only slightly eroded. On an inve1ted L-shaped, raised panel are two glyph blocks; both are incomplete. Tue two glyph compounds are placed side by side (Al-Bl). Grube (1993) provides the following information: "The glyph panel in form of an inverted L shows at least two glyphs. The first seems to be T-1:501:?, u ba-?, "the representation of'. This is probably the introductory glyph to texts referring immediately to the scene shown. The number of glyphs that followed this glyph and preceded the next glyph preserved on this fragment cannot be determined. The glyph to the right of the u ba glyph is T-743.?, a-„. Since the context is not known, a further interpretation is not possible". Fig. 15 Fig. 16


Descriprion:

I nscription:


Height: 26 cm; width: 20 cm The panel shows a vertical frame at the right-hand side, indicating that this is the original edge; all the other sides are broken. The bas-relief is rather weathered. At the right side is a plain frame element. There is an incomplete text in the upper left corner and in the lower left corner is an unrecognizable figurative design. From the original glyph column only two compounds survive ((Al-2). Grube (1993) notes the following: "The glyphs are only partially preserved. Apparently , the panel extended over several stones. I cannot identify the upper glyph. The lower glyph is T-11 :568a, u-lu. This combination occurs frequently as the second part of the glyph for "the sculpture of' (the so-called "lu-bat"). There is a small chance that this is the case here, too". Fig . 17 Fig. 18

11


Description:

I nscription:


Height: 26 cm; width: 18 cm Thefragmentis broken on all sides and the bas-relief is considerably eroded and some small pieces are flaked off. The relief shows outlines of an unrecognizable representation and a head in profile, turned to the left; the head could be of a rabbit or gopher and is a gJyphic irnage. A single glyph (Al) remains of the original text. Grube (1993) describes the object thus: "A small fragment with the left side and upper side regularly carved, while the right and lower part seem to be broken. The fragment shows rests of an unknown design as well as at least one glyph block. The glyph seems tobe the head of an animal, perhaps T-7 59 or T-7 57, though a secure identification is impossible. An affix of unknown identity is postfixed to the main sign". Fig. 19 Fig. 20


Description: Inscription:


Height: 14 cm; width: 25 cm; thickness: 22 cm; relief depth: 0.8 cm The stone panel is diagonally broken on the top and a fracture is at the right edge. The relief is rnoderately weathered and some small pieces are chipped off. The bas-relief shows the vestiges of a glyph column. Of the vertically arranged text only parts of two glyph-blocks remain (Al-2). Grube (1993) gives the following descripti.on: "A stone with two regularly shaped sides. Tue stone contains part of a glyphic panel with the lower part of one glyph and the numerical coefficient of another glyph. The lower part of glyph Al is the suffix T-23, na. The upper part of glyph A2 is the numerical coefficient 13 or 18 (if another bar was written on the connecting piece)". Fig. 21 Fig. 22

11. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 1 O Dimensions: Condition:

Description:

lnscription:


Height: 13 cm; width: 25 cm The carved stone is a fragment and appears tobe broken on three sides; only the left side is probably in its original condition. The carved surface is moderately weathered. The bas-relief depicts two tips of feathers and a partial cartouche of glyphs. At the left side and the bottom are plain frame elements. Tue orientation of the carving is uncertain. Nikolai Grube (written communication, April 1994) comments on the inscription as follows: "The cartouche contains what seems to be a day sign and the coefficient fifteen. Other possible coefficients can be recognized. lt is impossible to say which day sign is represented, and how the coefficient of fifteen is integrated into the context. The day sign can have no coefficient higher than thirteen. Since it is not even possible to detennine which side is up, nothing else can be sa id about the text". Fig. 23 Fig. 24

12

12. Hobomo Monument 1 Dimensions: Height: 25 cm; width: 68 cm; thickness: 59 cm; relief depth: 2 cm Condition: The stone block is battered and broken on most of its edges and a larger piece is

missing from the left-hand corner of tbe top section. The bas-reJief is moderately weathered and some carved parts are chipped off. The original shape was probably rectangular.

Description: Typologically, this massive stone slab is difficult to categorize and even its original orientation is uncertain. lt is probably not part of a stela or doorjamb, but perhaps it functioned as a free-standing monument, like an altar. Its large size indicates that it was hardly used as an architectural element or as part of a fac;ade decoration. Because the sculpture could not be classified accurately, I designated it simply as a "monument". Two of the surfaces of the monolith have carved bas-reliefs: the front and the top.

Jnscription: Nikolai Grube (writtencommunication, April 1994) comments on the image on the horizontal top smface as foHows: "This side is carved with one single glyph. The main sign of the glyph is T-548, known as the "Tun" sign, though its original reading probably was hab. lt has a standard T-142 ma suffix. The superfix cannot be identified with certainty, although its outl in es suggest it could be either T-28, the K'atun superfix, or T-124, the superfix of the Initial Series lntroductory Glyph. Since this glyph is out of context, it is impossible to determine which of these interpretations is correct". The vertical front surface shows a plain frame on the top and a complex design, which is difficult to comprehend. Grube describes the enigmatic image as follows: "The upper edge of the carved side is limited by a single carved line. Two "glyphoids" and two other iconographic elements, perhaps water markings, are visible on that side. The glyphic elements resemble glyphs, but I doubt that they can be read as true writing, hence they are called glyphoids".

Photographs: Figs. 25 (top), 27 (front) Drawings: Figs. 26 (top), 28 (front)

Conclusions

AIJ of thc presently known hieroglyphic inscriptions from Hobomo are incomplete, eroded, and rather short. Several of the texts on the mosaic stones contain calendrical information, although this i nformation is problematical because of the fragmentary condition of the inscriptions. The only complete and obviously unequivocal calendrical date occurs on Glyphic Stone Fragment 3, deciphered by Nikolai Grube as the Tun-Ahaw date "13 Tun in 12 Ahaw'', which can be placed in the Long Count date 9.10.13.0.0 1 Ahaw3 K'ank'in, corresponding to 645 A.D. The Tun and Ahaw combination is an abbreviated calendrical notation system, also known as the "Short Count", or "Yucatecan Method" (Thompson 1937; 1950, pp. 197-203; Morley et al. 1983, pp. 559-561). The Tun-Ahaw dates were widely used as an alternative dating system in northern Yucatan; this particular calendar system specifies a date by connecting a Calendar Round date with a numbered Tun placed within a current K'atun ending on a numbered day Ahaw. Such dates recur only once every 18,980 years. Tun-Ahaw dates were first identified at Chichen Itza and at surrounding sites, like Yula and Halakal, but occur atmany sites in the Puuc Zone, for example at Uxmal, Nohpat, Labna, Oxkintok, Xcalumkin, and are also known from the large Chenes sites Santa Rosa Xtampak (Grube 1994, pp. 343, 344), and Dzibilnocac (Mayer 1992, pp. 118, 119).

13

If Grube's reading of the date on Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 3 can be verified, this would be the earliest known written date in the Chenes Zone. Unfortunately, the calendrical information on Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 1 is too eroded and broken to pennit a secure reading, but Grube suspects that there is also a Tun-Ahaw notation, possibly referring to 9 .9 .13.0.0 of the Long Count, which would imply that this glyphic stone has a date one K' atun, or about 20 years earlier. In case this hypothesis proves to be correct, then Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 1 represents the earliest known written date in the Chenes Zone. For the moment, one could consider Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 3 as having an obviously secure date, expressed in the Yucatecan Method, and equivalent to 645 A.D.

The hitherto earliest known hieroglyphic date in the Chenes Zone is on Santa Rosa Xtampak Stela 5, discovered by HarryPollockand H. B. Roberts in 1936(Pollock1970,pp. 59-63). This monument shows on top an Initial Series Introductory Glyph, followed by four calendrical gJyphs with numerical coefficients (Proskouriakoff 1950, Fig. 80,b; Mayer 1984b, p. 42, Fig. 2). This Long Count date was deciphered by SyJvanus Morley as probably "9.15.19.0.0 6 Ahau 18 Tzec (?)" (Morley 1938, p. 371), assuming that this date probably refers to the K'atun-ending date 9.16.0.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Tzec. Grube (1994, p. 343) reads this date as 9.15.19.0.0 6 Ahaw 17 Zec, a date that corresponds to 750 A.D. (Garcia Campillo 1993).

There is another stone monument at Santa Rosa Xtampak, Stela 7 (Proskouriakoff 1950, Fig. 86,a), which also features a Long Count date, deciphered by Morley as probably "9.15.19.17.14 9 Ix 7 Tzec (?)" (Morley 1938, p. 371). Grube (1994, p. 344) reads this date as 9.15.19.17.14 4 Ix 6 Zec, which corresponds to 751 A.D. (Garcfa Campillo 1993). All other dates on the Late Classic period stelae from Santa Rosa Xtampak bear no Long Count dates and the dates assigned to Stelae 3 and 8 by Proskouriakoff (1950, p. 159) are very doubtful.

The inscriptions from Dzibilnocac and their calendrical content are very problematic. On Capstone 1 (Seler 191 6, Fig. 49) the "Kan" sign, T-506, is painted with a nurnerical coefficient of 9 as prefix, and a subfix of 3, which has been interpretated as calendrical information by Herbert Spinden (Robina 1956, pp. 71, 110), andChristopher Jones (1975, p. 95), buttheglyphand-numbers combination is probably of a non-calendrical nature (Dyckerhoff 1992, pp. 11, 12). The inscription of Stela 1 from Dzibilnocac (Mayer 1983) yields no convincing calendrical date and only the recently discovered Glyphic Stone Fragment 2 (Mayer 1992, pp.118, 119) bears a ShortCountdate, whichGrubereconstructed as theLong Countdate 9.16.13.0.02 Ahaw 8 Uo, corresponding to February 26, 764 (Jul ian), or March lst, 764 (Gregorian).

An overview of hieroglyphic dates in the Cbenes Zone demonstrates that only the sites of Santa Rosa Xtampak, Dzibi]nocac, and Hobomo bear calendrical dates that can confidently be placed in the Long Count. The earliest written date is found at Hobomo on a stone dating back to 645 A.D„ the next aJready 105 years later on Stela 5 from Santa Rosa Xtampak, and the latest date is recorded on a stone fragment from Dzibilnocac. The Hobomo date is of special interest, as it may represent one of the earliest examples of tbe calendrical Tun-Ahaw notations in the Northem Maya Lowlands, suggesting that this "Yucatecan Method" originated somewhere in the Chenes and Puuc regions of Northwest Yucatan. The Hobomo date is also of importance to the chronological position of the architecture of Hobomo, as no ceramic or radiocarbon investigations, which would assist in the dating of the archaeological remains, ha ve been undertaken at the site. The epigraphical evidence from Hobomo makes it possible to place the architectural cornplexes in a time frame; moreover, the date on Glyphic Stone Fragment 3 implies an earlier evolution of the Chenes architectural style than previously assumed. There are many implications of this inscribed stone panel, but one of the most important aspects lies in the fact that this calendrical statement pushes the written history of the ancient Maya in the Chenes Zone back more than a century, to the middle of the seventh century A.D.

14

Acknowledgements

To the following individuals who either assisted mein the course of my fieldworks at Hobomo or helped me in the preparation and publication of this report 1 am very grateful: George F. Andrews; Antonio Benavides CastiJlo; Cri stina Bredt-Kriszat; Raymundo Calder6n Lara; Nicholas P. Dunning; Ursula Dyckerhoff; Roberto Dzul Yam; Alejandro Figueroa Tenorio; Jose Miguel Garcfa Campillo; Uwe Gebauer; Nikolai Grube; Erwin Heine; Stephan Merk; Hanns J. Prem; Berthold Riese; Sally Robinson; Natal Sandoval; Renan Sandoval; Anton Saurwein; Martin Seger; Elke Wagner; and Renee Lorelei Zapata Peraza.

My thanks go to Nicholas P. Dunning for the creation of the map of the northem Chenes Zone, and to Nikolai Grube who drafted all the line drawings of the inscribed stones from photographs and analyzed and interpreted the hieroglyphic texts. 1 deeply appreciate the help of Stephar1 Günther for preparing text and illustrations for the publication.

I wish to express appreciation for cooperation extended by the Mexican Instituto Nacional deAntropologfae Historiaandforauthorizing thenecessary fieldworkin 1987, 1992,and 1993. The 1987 fieldwork was conducted under permission granted by Antonio Benavides and the Centro Regional Campeche (Oficios 401-012-87; 401-013-87). The 1992 fieldwork was authorized by Lorena Mirambell Silva oftheConsejo deArqueologfa (Oficio No. C.A. 401-36-185-92), and the 1993 fieldwork by Mari Carmen Serra Puche of the Consejo de Arqueologfa (Oficio No. C.A. 401-36/028).

Financial support of the 1992 fieldwork was generously granted by the Austrian Science Research Fund (Project No. P9011-SPR).

Zusammenfassung

Die Maya-Ruinen von Hobomo befinden sich im Munizip von Hopelchen, im mexikanischen Bundesstaat Carnpeche, 6,5 km südsüdwestl ich von den Ruinen von Santa Rosa Xtampak und 15 km nördlich von den Ruinen von Dzibi lnocac. Hobomo liegt ungefähr 2,5 km südöstlich vom kleinen Rancho Hobom6, von welchem die Ruinen ihren Namen erhielten. Die archäologische Stätte ist sehr zerstört und nur vier gemauerte Gebäude sind soweit erhalten, daß wesentliche architektonische Details vorhanden sind. Obwohl Hobomo in der archäologischen Chenes Zone liegt, lassen einige ar·chitektonische Besonderheiten vermuten, daß die Architektur teilweise dem hybriden Chenes-Puuc Stil zuzuordnen ist, einem Stil, der konstruktive und dekorative Züge kombiniert, die in der Puuc Zone wie in der Chenes Zone in der Spätklassischen Periode vorkamen. Die BedeutungvonHobomo in der Maya-Archäologie liegt im Vorhandensein von hunderten, verstreuten Flachreliefs aus Stein, die geometrische, anthropomorphe, zoomorphe undhieroglyphische Darstellungen aufweisen. Diese ungewöhnlichen reliefierten Steine befinden sich nicht mehr in situ, dürften aber ursprünglich als Fassadenschmuck gedient haben. Die Rückseiten der Steine zeigen kurze Zapfen, die darauf hinweisen, daß sie in einem Mauerwerk eingebettet waren und dort offensichtlich einen Mosaikdekor bildeten. Aus der gesamten Chenes Zone ist bisher keine einzige vergleichbare Bauskulptur bekannt geworden.

In den Jahren 1987, 1992 und 1993 wurden die freiliegenden Reliefsteine, soweit sie zugänglich waren, systematisch aufgenommen, vermessen und photographiert. Aus der Fülle des dokumentierten Materials wurden nunmehr jene elf Flachreliefs ausgewählt, die hieroglyphische Inschriften besitzen und die hier erstmals vorgestellt werden. Außerdem wird ein bemalter Gewölbedeckstein p'ubliziert, der einen Hieroglyphentext zeigt. Bedauernswerterweise sind alle Inschriften kurz und unvollständig. Einige der Steine mit Inschriften weisen kalendarische

15

Daten auf. Das einzige komplette und anscheinend eindeutige Datum befindet sich auf einem Stein, der als "Glyphisches Steinfragment 3" designiert wurde. Ein sogenanntes "Tun-Ahaw" Datum gibt " 13 Tun in 12 Ahaw" wieder, das in das Long Count Datum 9.10.13.0.0 1 Ahaw 3 K'ank'in plaziert werden kann, einem Datum, welches dem 17. November 645 n. Chr. entspricht. Wenn die Lesung dieses Datums korrekt ist, handelt es sich hier um das früheste geschriebene Datum in der ganzen Chenes Zone. Das früheste Datum, welches aus dem nahegelegenen Zentrum von Santa Rosa X tarn pak bekannt ist, erscheint auf Stele S, ist jedoch 1 OS Jahre später. Das Kalenderdatum auf dem Glyphischen Steinfragment 3 ist nicht nur für die zeitliche Bestimmung der architektonischen Manifestationen von Hobomo relevant, sondern insbesondere auch für die historische Entwicklung speziell in der Chenes Zone von Campeche, einer Region des nördlichen Maya-Tieflandes, in der bisher nur wenige vorspanische Schriftzeugnisse entdeckt werden konnten.

Resumen

Las ruinas mayas de Hobomo, pertenecientes al municipio de Hopelchen, Campeche, Mexico, se hallan situadas a unos 6,5 kms. al sudsudoeste de las ruinas de Santa Rosa Xtampak y a 15 kms. al norte de las ruinas de Dzibilnocac. Las ruinas, ubicadas aproximadamente a 2,5 kms. al sudeste del rancho Hobomo, recibieron su nombre del mismo. EI sitio arqueologico se encuentrasumamentedestruido, excepto de solo cuatro edificios que aun conservan detalles arquitect6nicos esenciales. Si bien Hobomo esta situada en la zona arqueologica Chenes, los elementos arq uitect6nicos permiten suponer, que su arq uitectura corresponde al estilo hfbrido ChenesPuuc. Dicho estilo combina trazos constructivos y decorativos, los cuales aparecieron durante el perfodo Clasico Tardio tanto en Ja zona Puuc como en la zona Chenes. La impo11ancia de Hobomo para la arqueologfa maya reside en Ja existencia de cientos de piedras labradas con relieves de buena calidad, que muestran representaciones geometricas, antropomorfas, zoomorfas y jeroglfficas. Estos relieves extraordinarios no se encuentran in süu, pero deben haber adornado originalmente en forma de mosaico la fachada de un edificio.

En los aiios 1987, 1992 y 1993 se inventariaron, midieron y fotografiaron sistematicamente los relieves disperses en la superlicie del sitio arqueol6gico. Dei abw1dante material documentado, se eligieron aquellas once piedras con inscripciones jeroglificas, que seran presentadas aqui por primera vez. Ademas aparece en esta publicacion una tapa de b6veda pintada, que muestra un tex to jerogl ffico. Lamentablemente todas las inscripciones cncontradas son cortas e incompletas. Algunas de las piedras con inscripciones presentan datos del calendario. La unica fecha aparentemente clara y completa se encuentra sobre la piedra designada "Fragmente de Piedra G Hfico 3 ". Se trata de una fecha denominada "Tun-Aha w", tratandose de " 13 Tunen 12 Ahaw", y puede ser ubicada dentro de la Cuenta Larga en 9.10.13.0.0 1 Ahaw 3 K 'ank'in, que corresponderfa al 17 de noviembre de 645 d. C. Si la lectura es correcta, se trataria de la fecha escrita mas temprana de toda la zona Chenes. EI dato mas temprano conocido en el centro cercano de Santa Rosa Xtampak se encuentra en la Estela 5, pero corresponde a 105 anos mas tarde. La fecha sobre el Fragmento de Piedra Glffico 3 no es solo relevante para datar los restos arquitect6nicos de Hobomo, sino tambien especiaJmente para el desarrollo hist6rico en la zona Chenes de Campeche y en la historia cultural de los mayas del norte de la Peninsula Yucateca.

16

Bibliography

ANDREWS, George F. 1985 Chenes-Puuc Architecture: Chronology and Culturallnteraction. Arquitectura y Arqueo

logfa: Metodologfas en la Cronologfa de Yucatan, Paul Gendrop, Editor, pp. 10-39. Etudes Mesoamericaines, Serie II-8, Centre d 'Etudes Mcx ica i nes et Centroamericaines, Mexico, D.F.

1988 Recent Discoveries at Two Chenes Archaeological Sites in Mexico. Mexicon, Vol. X, Nr. 4, pp. 70-76. Berlin

l 989 Four Unique Free Standing "Towers" in the Chenes Archaeological Region. Cuademos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana, No. 11, pp. 16-24. Mexico, D.F.

1994 Architectural Survey of the Rio Bec, Chenes, and Puuc Regions: Progress and Problems. H idden Among the Hills: Maya Archaeology of the N orthwest Yucatan Peninsula; First Maler Symposium, Bonn, 1989 ,H.anns J. Prem, Editor, pp. 247-288. ActaMesoamericana, Vol. 7. Verlag von Flemming, Möckmühl

ANDREWS, George F., Ursula DYCKERHOFF, and Han11s J. PREM 1989 Macoba, Campeche, Mexico: A Preliminary Report. Mexicon, Vol. XI, Nr. 5, pp. 85-90.

Berlin

ANDREWS, George F., Paul GENDROP, Vfctor RIVERA, Juan Antonio SILLER, and Alejandro VILLALOBOS 1987 Reconocimiento Arquitect6nico en la Region de los Chenes, Campeche, Marzo 1986.

Consideraciones Generales. Cuadernos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana, No. 10, pp. 51-84. Mexico, D.F.

ASHMORE, Wendy (Editor) 1981 Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. A School of American Research Book. University

of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico

BARRERA V ASQUEZ, Alfredo (Editor) 1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex: Maya-Espafiol, Espafiol-Maya. Ediciones Co:rdemex,

Merida

BENA VIDES CASTILLO, Antonio 1989 Investigaci6n arqueo16gica 1980-1987 en Campeche, Mexico. Memorias del Segundo

Coloqui0 de Mayistas, Vol. 1, Mercedes de la Garza, et al. , Editors, pp. 469-483. Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico, Mexico, D.F.

BOLLES, John S. 1977 Las Monjas: A Major Pre-Mexican Architectural Complex at Chichen Itza. University

of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma

BOLZ, Ingeborg 1975 Sammlung Ludwig: Altamerika. Ethnologica, N.F., Vol. 7. Aurel Bongers, Reckling

hausen

17

BOLZ-AUGENSTEIN, Ingeborg, and H. D. DISSELHOFF 1970 Werke Präkolumbischer Kunst. Die Sammlung Ludwig, Aachen. Beschreibender Ka

talog. Monumenta Americana, Vol. VI. Gebrüder Mann, Berlin

CARDOS DE MENDEZ, Amalia 1987 Estudio de la Colecci6n de Escultura Maya del Museo Nacional de Antropologfa.

Colecci6n Catalogos de Museos. Tnstituto Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia, Mexico, D.F.

CARRASCO V ARGAS, Ram6n 1987 Nuevas. Tapas de B6veda Decoradas, en la Region Central de Yucatan. Mexicon,

Yol. IX, Nr. l, pp. 16-20. Berlin

CODEX DRESDENSIS 1975 Codices Selecti, Series C-Manuscripts from Central America, Vol. 54. Comments by

F. Anders, H. Deckert, and R. Krusche. Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz

CODEX PERESIANUS (CODEX PARIS) 1968 Codices Selecti, Series C - Manuscripts from Ccntral America, Vol. 9. Introduction by

Ferdinand Anders. Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz

CODEX TRO-CORTESIANUS (CODEX MADRID) 1967 Codices Selecti, Series C - Manuscripts from Central America, Yol. 8. Introduction by

Ferdinand Anders. Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz

CULBERT, T. Patrick (Editor) 1983 The Classic Maya Collapse. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series.

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico

DYCKERHOFF, Ursula 1992 Eine Maya-Deckenmalerei aus der Sammlung Ludwig. Kölner Museums-Bulletin,

Heft 3/1992, pp. 4-14. Museumsdienst Köln, Museen der Stadt Köln, Köln

DYCKERHOFF, Ursula, and Nikolai GRUBE 1988 Hieroglyphic Monuments from Nohcacab II. M.exicon, Vol. X, Nr. 1, pp. 2-3. Berlin

EGGEBRECHT, Eva, Arne EGGEBRECHT, and Nikolai GRUBE (Editors) t 992 Die Welt der Maya. Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim, und Verlag Philipp

von Zabern , Mainz

FIGUEROA TENORIO, Alejandro 1985 Los Chenes, Vestigio de la presencia Maya en Campeche. Mexico Desconocido, No. 99,

pp. 13-16. Mexico, D.F.

GALLENKAM.P, Charles, and Regina Elise JOHNSON (Editors) 1985 Maya: Treasures of an AncientCivilization. Harry N. Abrams, New York, New York

GARCIA CAMPILLO, Jose Miguel 1993 Epigraffa y desarrollo hist6rico en el Yucatan prehispanico. Manuscript. Madrid

18

GENDROP, Paul 1983 Los Estilos Rfo Bec, Chenes y Puuc en la arquitecturamaya. Universidad Nacional Au

t6noma de Mexico, Mexico, D.F.

GRAHAM,Ian 197 5 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Vol. 1: Introduction to the Corpus. Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

1982 Corpus of Maya Hierogl yphic Inscri ptions, Vol. 3, Part 3: Y axchilan. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

1992 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Vol. 4, Part 2: Uxmal. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Unjversity, Cambridge, Massachusetts

GRUBE, Nikolai 1992 Classic Maya Dance: Evidence from Hieroglyphs and Iconography. Ancient Meso

america, Vol. 3, pp. 201-218

1993 The Hobomo Glyphic Stones. Manuscript. Benque Viejo del Carmen

1994 Hieroglyphic Sources for the History of Northwest Yucatan. Hidden Among the Hills: Maya Archaeology of the N orthwest Yucatan Peninsula; First Maler Symposium, Bonn, 1989, Hanns J. Prem, Editor, pp. 316-358. Acta Mesoamericana, Vol. 7. Verlag von Flemming, Möckmühl

JONES, Christopher 1975 A Painted Capstone from the Maya Area. Studies in Ancient Mesoamerica, TI, John A.

Graham, Editor. Contributions of the University of Califomia Archaeologica1 Research Facilüy, No. 27, pp. 83-110. Berkeley, California

KURBJUHN, Kornelia 1989 Maya: The Complete Catalogue of Glyph Readings. Schneider and Weber, Kassel

LOPEZ DE LA ROSA, Edmundo 1988 Witzina, Un sitio recientemente registrado en la regi6n Chenes. Boletin de la Escuela de

Ciencias Antropol6gicas de la Universidad de Yucatan, Vol. 15, No. 88, pp. 3-11. Merida

MALER, Teobert n.d. Penfnsula Yucatan. Descripciones de las Ruinas antiguas de la civilizaci6n Maya.

Manuscript, 3 volumes. Teobert Maler Estate, lbero-Amerikanisches Institut, Berlin

1895 Yukatekische Forschungen. Globus, Vol. LXVIII, Nr. 18, pp. 277-292. Braunschweig

1902 Yukatekische Forschungen. Globus, Vol. LXXXII, Nr. 13 u. 14, pp. 197-230. Braunschweig

MAYER, Karl Herbert 1978 Maya Monuments: Sculptures of Unknown Provenance in Europe. Acoma Books,

Ramona, Cal ifomia

19

MAYER, Karl Herbert 1980 Maya Monuments: Sculptures of Unknown Provenarrce in the United States. Acoma

Books, Ramona, California

1982 Schutz für Stelenfragmente von Sta. Rosa Xtampak, Campeche, Mexiko. Mexicon, Vol. IV, Nr. 4, pp. 60-61. Berlin

1983a Gewölbedecksteine mit Dekor der Maya-Kultur. Archiv für Völkerkunde, Vol. 37, pp. 1-62. Wien

1983b La Estela 1 de Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico. Informaci6n, No. 5, pp. 30-42. Universidad Aut6noma del Sudeste, Campeche, Campeche

1984a Maya Monuments: Sculptures ofU nknown Provenance in Middle America. Verlag von Flemming, Berlin

1984b Major Maya Art in a Merida Collection. Cuadernos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana, No. 1, pp. 40-47. Mexico, D.F.

1986 Autentico interes en la zona maya. Mexico Desconocido, No. 107, p. 4 . Mexico, D.F.

1987 a Two Maya Painted Stones from Campeche. Mexicon, Vol. IX, Nr. 5, pp. 99-100. Berlin

1987b Titel/Cover. Mexicon, Vol. IX, Nr. 6, pp. 117-118. Berlin

1989 An Unpublished Maya Inscription at Santa Rosa Xtampak, Campeche. Cuadernos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana, No. 11, pp. 25-28. Mexico, D.F.

1992 Maya Inscriptions from Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico. Archiv für Völkerkunde, Vol. 46, pp. 111-122. Wien

1993a Mural Paintings at Santa Rosa Xtampak, Campeche, Mexico. Manuscript. Graz

1993b Two Unpublished Paintings from Santa Rosa Xtampak, Campeche. Manuscript. Graz

'J 993c A Maya Inscription from Kutza, Campeche, Mexico. Manuscript. Graz

MORLEY, Sylvanus Griswold 1938 The Inscriptions of Peten, Vol. IV. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Publication 437.

Washington, D.C.

1948 Check List of the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum and Check List of All Known Initial and Supplementary Series. Division of Historical Research, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Cambridge, Massachusetts

MORLEY, Sylvanus Griswold, George W. BRAINERD, and Robert J. SHARER 1983 The Ancient Maya. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California

MÜLLER, Florencia 1960 Atlas Arqueol6gic.o de la Republica Mexicana, 2: Campeche. Instituto Nacional de

Antropologfa e Historia, Mexico, D.F.

MURPHY, Francis S. 1988 Dragon Mask Temples in Central Yucatan (1952-1972). Scribe Ltd., Hong Kong

20

NELSON, Fred W., Jr. 1973 Archaeological Investigations at Dzibilnocac, Campeche, Mexico. Papers of the New

World Archaeological Foundation, No. 33. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

PINA CHAN, Roman 1985 Cultura y Ciudades Mayas de Campeche. Gobiemo del Estado de Campeche. Editora del

Sureste, Mexico, D.F.

POLLOCK, Harry E.D. 1965 Architecture of the Maya Lowlands. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 2,

pp. 378-440. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas

1970 Architectural Notes on Some Chenes Ruins. Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology, William R. Bullard, Jr., Editor. Papers of tbe Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 61, pp. 1-87. Cambridge, Massachusetts

1980 The Puuc: An Architectural Survey of the Hili Count.ry of Yucatan and Northern Campeche, Mexico. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 19. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

POTTER, Daniel F. 1977 Maya Architecture of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Middle American

Research Institute, Tulane University, Publication 44. New Orleans, Louisiana

PREM, Hanns J. , and Nikolai GRUBE 1988 Tanholna, a Chenes Site. Mexicon, Yol. X, Nr. 4, pp. 67-68. Berlin

PROSKOURIAKOFF, Tatiana 1950 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publica

tion 593, Washington, D.C.

RIESE, Berthold 1993 Abkürzungen für Maya-Ruinenorte mit Inschriften. Materialien der Maya-Inschriften

Dokumentation, Nr. XII. Bonn

ROBERTSON, Merle Greene 1994 The Iconography of "Isolated Art Styles", that are "Group Supported" and "Individual

Supported" Occuring at Chichen Itza and Uxmal. Hidden Among the Hills: Maya Archaeology of the Northwest Yucatan Peninsula; First Maler Symposium, Bonn, 1989, Hanns J. Prem, Editor, pp. 197-2 11. ActaMesoamericana, Vol. 7. Verlag von Flemming, Möckmühl

ROBINA, Ricardo de 1956 Estudio Preliminar de las Ruinas de Hochob, Municipio de Hopelchen, Campeche.

Editorial Ateneas, Mexico, D.F.

1991 Arquitectura insertiva. Cuadernos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana, No. 15, pp. 12-32. Mexico, D.F.

. 21

RUPPERT, Karl 1952 Chichen Itza: Architectural Notes and Plans. Carnegie Institution of Washington,

Publication 595. Washington, D.C.

RUZ LHUILLIER, Alberto 1945 Campeche en la Arqueologfa Maya. Acta Anthropol6gica, Vol. I, Nos. 2-3. Mexico,

D.F.

SELER, Eduard 1916 Die Quetzalcouatl-Fassaden Yukatekischer Bauten. Abhandlungen der Königlich

Preußischen Akademie der Wjssenschaften, Jahrgang 1916, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, pp.1-85, Plates I-XII. Berlin

STEPHENS, John L. 1963 Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, Vol. II. Dover Pu bl ications, New York, New York

TAUBE, Karl 1989 The Maize Tarnale in Classic Maya Diet, Epigraphy, and Art. American Antiquity,

Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 31-51

THOMPSON, J. Eric S. 1937 A New Method of Deciphering Yucatecan Dates with Special Reference to Chichen Itza.

Contribution to American Archaeology, No. 22. Camegie Institution of Washington, Publication 483. Washington, D.C.

1950 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An lntroduction. Camegie fnstitution of Washington, Publication 589. Washington, D.C.

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

WILLIAMS-BECK, Lorraine A. 1986 La regi6n Centro Yucateca: Investigaciones prelimi nares en el area Chenes, Campeche.

First preliminary report for the Consejo de Arqueologfa del Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia, Mexico, D.F., October, l 986. Manuscript

1994 The Chenes Ceramic Sequence: Temporal, Typological, and Cultural Relations within a Regional Framework. Hidden Among the Hills: Maya Archaeology of the Northwest Yucatan Peninsula; First Maler Symposium, Bonn, 1989, Hanns J. Prem, Editor, pp. 133-163. Acta Mesoarnericana, Vol. 7. Verlag von Flemrning, Möckmühl

ZAP AT A PERAZA, Renee Lorelei 1989 Arqueologfa del Noreste de Campeche. Memorias del Segundo Coloquio Intemacional

de Mayistas, Vol. I, Mercedes de Ja Garza, et al., Editors, pp. 427-448. Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico, Mexico, D.F.

ZIMMERMANN, Günter 1956 Die Hieroglyphen der Maya-Handschriften. Universität Hamburg, Abhandlungen aus

dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde, Band 62, Reihe B. Cram, de Gruyter & Co., Hamburg

22

Illustrations

23

N

A '

' '

' .... _.-....... „----'i.--._. -_, 1

1

... .......

' I Hunto Chac

... NOCUCHICH

A. NOHCACAB II

1 1 „

SANTA ROSA XTAMPAK

HOBOMO A.

, ,

, , , , ,

, , „ , , -,

,' DZIBILNOCAC

Dzibalchen ... „

.... ... .... .... .... ' " ' HOCHOB A.

0 10 L-~~~.L-~~--'km

5 ' ' ' ' '

: Gulf of : Mexico ~

... -

Fig. 1. Archaeological map of the northem Chenes Zone. Drawing by Nicholas P. Duruling, 1994

24

-

, " ... ,

1 1

' ' \ \ r • 1 ,

1

' , 1 1

1 I ,

1 -,-

N~

STRUCTURE 1

STRUCTURE 2

0 6

METERS

Fig. 2. Sketch plan of Structures 1and 2 at Hobomo. Drawing by George F. Andrews, 1987

25

Fig. 3. Hobomo Capstone 1. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1987

Fig. 4. Hobomo Capstone l. Detail. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1987

26

Fig. 5. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 1. Fig. 6. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 1. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993 Drawing by Nikolai Grube, 1993

Fig. 7. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 2. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993

Fig. 8. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 2. Drawing by Nikolai Grube, 1993

2'7


Fig. J 1 . Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 4. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993

28

.. . . : . : ·. ·. ·. „:: . . ... . . . · ... ·.:_:_·. -.·

. : „·.: .'·.·:: .„ ·: -:::: . . . : . .. ·· ..



Fig. 13. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 5. Photograph by K. 1-1. Mayer, 1993

Fig. 15. Hobomo G lyphic Stone Fragment 6. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993

29

......... . . . .. . . .





Fig. 19. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 8. Photograph ·by K. H. Mayer, 1993

Fig. 20. Hobomo Glyphic Stooe Fragment 8. Drawiog by Nikolai Grube, 1993

30

-

Fig. 21. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 9. Fig. 22. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 9. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993 Drawing by Nikolai Grube, 1993

Fig. 23„ Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 10. Fig. 24. Hobomo Glyphic Stone Fragment 1.0. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993 Drawing by Nikolai Grube, 1994

31

Fig. 25. Ilobomo Monument 1 (top). Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993. (Scale 1:9)

Fig. 26. Hobomo Monument 1 (top). Drawing by Nikolai Grube, 1994. (Scale 1 :9)

Fig. 27. Hobomo Monument 1 (front). Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993

.. . . . . . . .. : ..... . . . . . . . . "" . ....

• •• •••• • ..... •• 1 •• . . . . . „ •• . ·l-~~~~~~--.. · ... · .· : : ... . ·. . . . . . . . ,___,.,._ ..... ___ r-_"' . . ~ . „ ••• . . . . . .

Fig. 28. Hobomo Monument l (front). Drawing by Nikolai Grube, 1994

32

Fig. 29. Hobomo Relief Stone 1. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993

. 'liJ" ~:, ~ j:„„._ ....... _ ..... _~----~:::::::: ...

. „ . . .„. .·:

Fig. 30. Hobomo ReliefStone l. Drawing by Nikolai Grube, 1993

33

Fig. 3 1. Hobomo Relief Stone 2. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993

Fig. 33. Hobomo Relief Stone 3. Photograph by K. H. Mayer, 1993

34

Fig. 32. Hobomo Relief Stone 2. Orawing by George F. Andrews, 1987

Fig. 34. Hobomo Relief Stone 3. Drawing by George F. Andrews, 1987

Maya Inscriptions from Hobomo, Campeche,Mexico

Documents

Transcript of Maya Inscriptions from Hobomo, Campeche,Mexico