Mixtec Writing and Society Escritura de Ñuu Dzaui
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2008 71
Gerardo Gutiérrez Mendoza
Four Thousand Years of Graphic Communication in the Mixteca- Tlapaneca-Nahua Region
Archaeologists who study Mesoamerican writing systems have typically done so by borrowing methodologies created by linguists specialized in Old World writing (Mar- cus 1992; Prem 1971; Prem and Riese 1983; Whittaker 1992). Such approaches are based on the basic assumption that writing systems are merely used to represent speech. Typical classificatory approaches to writing systems, define types such as ‘phonetics’1
or ‘phonograms,’2 (Dubois et al. 1983:234-35). Regardless of their usefulness as clas-
sificatory devices, these categorical approaches have proven inadequate for capturing the complexity of Mesoamerican writing systems (see Boone 2000:31-63). They are also symptomatic of a current polemic between those who consider ‘real’ writing to be limited to glottographic3 systems, thus removing most Mesoamerican systems from
consideration (exclusivists) and those ‘inclusivists,’ who believe that semasiographies4
need to be considered as ‘real’ writing (see Urcid 2001:6). Evaluating communication systems based on rigid categories prioritizing phoneticism over other criteria disregards the majority of Mesoamerican inscriptions, carvings, and paintings. Here, I approach native graphicacy5 using communication theory, as I am more interested in the general
process of how ancient people transmitted cultural information graphically and not in the usage of a particular type of writing.
The Information Transmission Model
Perhaps the best-known communication model was first proposed by electrical engineer Claude Shannon in 1949, and subsequently reworked by Warren Weaver (Shannon 1948;
1 Speech sounds with a set of distinct symbols for every sound.
2 Characters representing the smallest phonetic units of language capable of conveying a distinction in
meaning.
3 Systems based on the graphic codification of language sounds.
4 Visual communication based on images representing entities or objects that are culturally specific. 5 The ability to communicate through graphic devices. Graphicacy consists of a variety of techniques, rang-
ing from pictures to graphs and diagrams. All graphics employ two-dimensional space to represent concepts and ideas. In graphicacy, the meaning is related to the spatial relation of symbols (Balchin 1976).
72 Four Thousand Years of Graphic Communication in the Mixteca-Tapaneca-Nahua Region
Shannon and Weaver 1949). Shannon’s original model was intended as an information transmission model, applicable for engineering purposes in telecommunications. Never- theless, Weaver’s interpretation, along with Harold Lasswell’s contributions, succinctly described as: ‘Who says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect?’ (Severin and Tankard 1997: 47), converted this model into one that could be applied to many fields, from psychology to political science (Cherry 1957).
The goal of any communication system is to transmit data to a particular destination. In its simplest form, the Information Transmission model consists of a source, a chan- nel that conveys the message, and a recipient who receives the message. Practically speaking, this system will also include an encoder between the source and signal, and a decoder between the signal and the recipient (Figure 1). A distracting, but apparently inevitable, part of every communication system is noise. Noise is any unwanted attribute in the signal-channel portion of the system that interferes with transmission efficiency.
The strong advantages of this model were its simplicity, generality, and quantifiabil- ity. Such advantages drew serious academic attention to human communication and in- formation theory, leading to further research. Nonetheless, the model has been criticized for its oversimplification of the human communication process and its disregard for meaning construction (Carey 1989; Ellis and McClintock 1990). This criticism moti- vated the emergence of many competing theories on human communication addressing ‘meaning’, primarily in the fields of semantics and semiotics (Kodish 1993; Ogden and Richards 1946; Osgood 1976). Considering the pros and cons of the original model, I believe it can be effectively adapted and applied to the study of Mesoamerican com- munication systems.
Mesoamerican Graphicacy as a Communication System
In the Mesoamerican world, I believe the primary source of events and stimuli record- ed by any graphic technique was the sociopolitical, economic and religious reality of the altepetl, the Nahuatl concept for the primary political unit (García 1987; Gutiérrez
Figure 1. Shannon-Weaver-Lasswell’s transmission of information model: ‘Who says what in which chan- nel to whom with what effect’.
Gerardo Gutiérrez Mendoza 73 2003; Lockhart 1992). The tlacuilo, Nahuatl term for scribe, painter and sculptor,6 plays
two roles in this model: first, as the original sender of the message, the one who tries to capture the reality of the altepetl, his/her own mental elaborations and/or the thoughts of a patron; and second, as the encoder of the message (Figure 2). The Mesoamerican tlacuilo possesses a basic corpus of conventionalized symbols with which the oral lan- guage and daily life experiences are converted into graphic language. Mesoamerican graphicacy has a variety of codes, ranging from petroglyphs, Olmec symbology, Epi- Olmec, Zapotec and Maya glyphs, and Mixtec and Central Mexican picture writing (Prem and Riese 1983). Even though these codes share many common and standardized features, they also have temporal, regional, cultural and language specific variations that we, as modern interpreters, have not yet understood nor accounted for.
Applying the Informational Model (Figure 2), a message consisted of a text with a meaning, which the tlacuilo intended to codify and transmit through the spatial arrange-
6 See Molina 1971; Siméon 1997. Mesoamerican languages do not have separate words for writing, sculpt-
ing, or painting (Urcid 2001: 4); there is a single verb to refer to all three actions, in contrast to European languages.
74 Four Thousand Years of Graphic Communication in the Mixteca-Tapaneca-Nahua Region
ment of two-dimensional, and sometimes three-dimensional, graphic symbols on a spe- cific channel. The channel is the physical media on which the message is depicted: cave walls, wood, rock slabs, leather, paper, cloth, ceramics, mats, or even the landscape. The recipient played two roles: first, as the intended receiver of the message; and second, as the decoder of it. To decode the message, which ideally is to recreate the tlacuilo’s pro- posed meaning, the receiver needs certain knowledge and skills. It would be necessary for the decoder to have some understanding of the specific oral language and cultural codes used by the tlacuilo; this is especially true for understanding combinations of semasiographies and glottographies. Graphic symbols may change meaning depending on the context in which they are presented. Context can change the meaning of specific symbols by the special combination of other accompanying elements or by a modified use of the spatial arrangement of the symbols.
In the creation of cultural codes and the capacity to understand ancient messages through time, a group’s long-term memory plays an important role, especially if the graphic codes are used as mnemonic devices to assist the receiver’s memory in recreat- ing more detailed narration. If any sociopolitical event, such as migrations, wars and epidemics, causes loss of the long-term group’s memory, later receivers will not be able to fully understand the message, even if they can ‘read’ it. Similar to this latter process, the living experience of the individuals [making reference here to the philosophic con- cept of Erlebnis (Gadamer 1988: 96-97) may improve or impede the understanding of the text. That is, if a possible receiver did not participate in a particular experience (such as a ritual in which secret and hidden meanings of graphic symbols were passed on), he/ she may be lacking key knowledge to fully understand such texts, even if in principle, he/she can superficially ‘read’ them. For example, it is well known that the Maya made use of a secret language called Zuyua, which was used to test the noble background of aspirants to administration offices; it is likely that such esoteric languages were wide- spread throughout Mesoamerica and perhaps reflected in many ancient inscriptions.
Turning again to the receiver, it is important to note that he/she occupies a specific so- cial position. In Aztec society, for example, there were pilli (noble) or macehual (com- moner) and each had been trained accordingly to perform specific roles. For a message intended to be seen by multiple receivers, it is likely that individuals from different social hierarchies would assign different meanings to such text. In addition, receiv- ers were not necessarily living people. Some messages may have been addressed to supernatural beings; among such messages were petitions and magic spells intended to protect the scribe or his/her patrons. In fact, the receiver and the sender may have been the same person. In this case, the codes may be individualized and only understood by the sender.
As mentioned above, the weak point of the original Information Transmission model is in semantics. ‘Meaning’ was unimportant from the mathematical point of view and the semantic aspects of communication were irrelevant to the engineering problem at hand (Shannon and Weaver 1949). Shannon and Weaver were only interested in how
Gerardo Gutiérrez Mendoza 75 accurately a message could be transmitted and not in how meaning is conveyed or how it affects behavior.
Critics of the model suggest there is no information or meaning in a graphic message per se. Information and meaning arise only in the process by which readers actively make sense of what they see, therefore meaning is a construction (Chandler 1994). If so, then ‘Meaning Construction’ is not solely restricted to the receiver. The sender also actively makes sense of the real world and actively tries to record it on a specific chan- nel, using a code that makes sense to the intended readers. Thus, on the one hand, the first meaning construction is made by the person who is performing the sender-encoder segment of the model. On the other hand, the person who is performing the decoder- recipient segment of the model may construct not just one meaning, but multiple ones (2, 3, 4…α), every time he/she readdresses the text. The same applies in situations in which there is more than one recipient.
A message will not perform its function unless it is prepared in a legible and compre- hensible way for the receiver for whom it is intended. So it is likely that the Mesoameri- can tlacuilo had in mind the possible recipients at the moment in which the message was codified. Although archaeologists and epigraphers have invested great efforts in record- ing, describing, and interpreting Mesoamerican graphicacy systems, unfortunately, the ancient senders did not codify their messages with us in mind. This is why, as modern interpreters, we cannot be certain we understand the original purpose of the message, the intentions of the sender, and what he/she expected from the receiver. This last point is perhaps the least advanced line of research. For example, we do not know what a tlacuilo of the Middle Formative period expected from the intended receiver(s) look- ing at a Saint Andrew’s Cross. Did our hypothetical sender expect reverence from the receiver, a body action, a verbal reply, no action at all? Perhaps we will never know it. A recipient’s reaction to the message may or may not produce feedback. If feedback is produced, however, it may be addressed either to the tlacuilo or directly to the altepetl
sociopolitical system within which the tlacuilo functions.
In the original Information Transmission model for telecommunications, the noise element only affected the channel-signal segment, causing distortion in the efficiency to convey the message. Nonetheless, in adapting the model to Mesoamerican graphicacy, it is possible that noise, as an altering element, may be present in every segment of the communication process. Noise may occur from a distorted perception of the reality on the part of the sender; a lack of mastery in understanding the graphic corpus on the part of the receiver; a lack of standardization in the corpus; and/or errors in the painting process, carving or sculpting of the message over the channel. Noise may also arise in the receiver’s reaction to the message, especially with unexpected feedback and reac- tion to specific messages. Figure 2 displays a diagram adapting the original Information Transmission model to Mesoamerican graphicacy systems, specifically to those found in Eastern Guerrero.
76 Four Thousand Years of Graphic Communication in the Mixteca-Tapaneca-Nahua Region
Ancient Communication Systems of Eastern Guerrero
Here I address the development of graphicacy in Eastern Guerrero as an effort by indig- enous groups who inhabited this area to communicate their ideas and interests. Eastern Guerrero (Figure 3), a set of narrow valleys along the Tlapanec River Basin in the Sierra Madre del Sur, is also known as the ‘Mixtec-Nahua-Tlapanec’ region, a name used in anthropological circles since the publication of Schultze-Jena’s book Indiana: Bei den Azteken, Mixteken, und Tlapaneken der Sierra Madre del Sur (1938). Subsequent scholars have continued using this term to highlight the multi-ethnic complexity of this region inhabited by these three linguistic groups, as well as the Amuzgo of the Costa Chica region (Muñoz 1963, Matías 1997, Jiménez y Villela 1998).
The data presented here has been gathered during ongoing systematic research in Eastern Guerrero since 1999 (Gutiérrez 2002). A key site survey over more than 6000 sq km has brought to light unknown monuments carved with semasiographies, as well as providing me the opportunity to revisit other graphic evidence published decades ago in journals that are difficult to find.7 For the study of the early Colonial period, I have
made use of scanned images and 35 mm photographic slides taken from the original codices of Azoyú 1, Azoyú 2, and the Lienzo Genealógico de Tlapa-Azoyú, residing in the National Antropology Library (Biblioteca del Museo Nacional de Anthropología e Historia) in Mexico City. The other primary sources used were Colonial administrative documents consulted at the National Archives (Archivo General de la Nación) also in Mexico City.
Pre-Olmec Graphicacy8
From 8000 to 2000 BC, Mesoamerican peoples began experimenting with plant repro- ductive cycles and domesticated the basic triad of crops: corn, beans and squash, as well as others, like avocado. Although the archaeological record in Guerrero is poorly known for this period, regional exploration has uncovered fragments of Late Archaic human occupation, including possible campsites in the Huamuxtitlan Valley (Figure 3), as rep- resented by the presence of triangular chert points and flakes and a lack of ceramics and obsidian. Several sites with rock carvings and paintings were also located that may date to the Late Archaic or Early Formative, such as several petroglyphs with geometric designs found at the sites of Zacualpan and Zapotitlan Tablas and the important site of Piedra Pinta-Totomixtlahuaca. Piedra Pinta consists of a rock outcrop along the Omitlan
7 All line drawings were digitized in Autocad from recent digital photos of the monuments. The author took
the photos and rendered the drawings in Autocad, unless otherwise specified.
Gerardo Gutiérrez Mendoza 77 River, with a boulder 8 m long, 3.4 m wide, and 1.80 m in height (Figure 4). Its surface is completely covered by some 100 petroglyphs, with designs varying from a simple holes or clusters of hole to more complex geometric designs, including a double cross motif, which occurs in several places on the rock.
The other relevant example of early graphicacy in Eastern Guerrero can be seen in the Cauadzidziqui9 rock shelter in Ocoapa (Figure 3), where more than 140 paintings were
executed on a single rock face. Although the Cauadzidziqui paintings are framed in an area 25 m long by 5 m high, the majority are clustered together in a smaller section of some 21 sq m, where the wall has a large, flat, smooth surface (Figure 5).
The first layer of the mural consists of geometric motifs in red paint. Common depic- tions include squares and ovals with parallel interior lines. Also frequent, particularly in the upper half of the mural, are crosses and double cross designs – which are two parallel lines crossing the vertical at a perpendicular angle. All of the crosses are framed
9 Cauadzidziqui means ‘cave where one plays’ in Mixtec.
78 Four Thousand Years of Graphic Communication in the Mixteca-Tapaneca-Nahua Region
by a curved line that encloses the primary axes. This image is also found repeatedly on the Piedra Pinta-Totomixtlahuaca (Gutiérrez 2002) and has been reported from cave and rock paintings at Chalcatzingo (Apostolides 1987: 194). At various points in the mural, there are complex scenes in which simple human figures raise their arms; in one case a group of three figures raise their arms toward an element that looks like a sun. Other interesting elements in red include plant designs that appear to emerge from circles, perhaps depicting plants growing from seeds, although it is unclear which plant species is being depicted.
Figure 4. Schematic overhead view of the petroglyphic corpus of Piedra Pinta, Tototmixtlahuaca.
Gerardo Gutiérrez Mendoza 79 How do we know that these graphic representations are Late Archaic or Early Forma- tive? It is speculative to propose a specific date for petroglyphs and paintings, since such activities are a long-standing tradition in Mesoamerica and North America, particularly geometric forms. However, these designs are different from the better-known Classic and Postclassic iconography found in Eastern Guerrero. The strongest evidence sug- gesting that at least some of the petroglyphs and paintings are pre-Olmec in date comes from the Cauadzidziqui rock shelter itself.
Olmec Graphicacy
In 1989, ethnographer Samuel Villela published a brief article reporting an Olmec mural painting in the Mixtec town of Ocoapa, Guerrero. Villela recorded a complex mural of 140 motifs painted in red, white, and yellow. Since two of the largest, most elaborate motifs were executed in Olmec style, he believed the entire mural was Olmec in date (Villela 1989: 38-39). When my team and I visited the mural of the Cauadzidziqui rock shelter in 2000, we realized that the pictorial stratigraphy was more complex than Vil- lela had realized. Two Olmec anthropomorphic characters painted in white and yellow actually overlay the red graphic symbols described above. Given that the mural is dete- riorating due to water infiltration and that Villela’s report was never fully published, we undertook a new recording of the images to better understand the different stages of the mural’s creation. We developed a topographic map of the rock shelter and catalogued the images. Ultraviolet, red, and infrared lights were used to better identify hidden designs
80 Four Thousand Years of Graphic Communication in the Mixteca-Tapaneca-Nahua Region
and to determine whether some images overlay others. In this case, the Olmec paint- ings in white and yellow cover images of geometrics painted in red, what we believe to