Figure 6, Stela 12, Pierdas Negras
Bumps/Beaded ScarsThere are several images of both men and women with bumps or disks on cheeks, under ears, on the chin and on foreheads, particularly in a vertical line in the center of the forehead (Plate 4, figure 4). Thompson refers to these and suggests the possibility that this "is neither tattooing nor scarification, but disks stuck on the skin" (Thompson, p. 24). However, there is no indication that these "disks" could be hung from anywhere, and as they are shown on captives who have been stripped of the rest of their ornamentation (figure 6), it is unlikely that they are "stuck" on the skin. This leads me to believe that these marks represent something permanent, and could possibly be either raised scars or implants.
Thompson goes on to compare the marks as found on the forehead to the caste marks of India, and suggests that they may only have ever been found on women. "They can hardly be ornamental, but might, perhaps, denote rank, group, or status"(p. 24). The theocratic model that Thompson follows, however, would lead to such a conclusion. Both of these suggestions can easily be dismissed, as there are numerous images of men with these "beads", and if they are status-symbols, they presumably would be consistent in various images of a single subject. In the case of Lady Xoc at Yaxchilan, Lintel 25 shows her bearing these marks on her forehead, whereas they are absent in both Lintel 24 and 26 (Plate 5, figures 14 & 15). Also, unless the slaves on Stelae 12 at Pierdas Negras were once high status people, their markings would not represent status.
These images usually show perfectly circular, uniformly raised areas. If they represent raised, keloided scars, there is the question of whether or not the Maya had skin that keloided easily. It is clear among African peoples that many groups were able to use this form of keloiding extensively over the body because dark skin seems to raise and keloid very easily, and it is possible that there is a genetic aspect to having skin with the ability to do this. Unfortunately for the sake of research, scarification is not practiced contemporarily among the Maya to determine whether or not this sort of imaging would be possible to create.
I have further reservations on the suggestion that these accurately represent raised keloids because of the symmetry and "perfection" of the visual representation of these marks. Granted this could only be in representation (more on this later), but in practice would it be possible, through scarring, to raise the skin so uniformly on so many different people? According to a contemporary body modification artist (Alexander, 1998), each and every person scars differently, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to create the same image/height/width of bumps on more than one person. However, it is highly likely that these permanent portraits were created to give the subject an aesthetic ideal, rather than accurately representing what they truly looked like.
Another possibility is that these markings are implants. Other cultures have been known to use implantation as a form of modification, where pearls, or other substances are placed beneath the skin. This process would create precisely the same visual as is suggested on the Maya, with perfectly symmetrically raised bumps wherever there was an implant. Because the Maya held jade to be such an important and precious substance, I thought that this would be a good candidate for such implants. However, if this were the case, it would be expected to find such beads near the skull at burials, and from what I have been able to find, there are none. However, if the implantation were done with an organic substance, would it not be possible that there would be no archaeological record of such a practice?
Linda Schele easily dismisses these markings as evidence of bloodletting:
...their identification is most easily made in the blood-letting scene of Yaxchilan Lintel 24, on which a kneeling woman is shown in the act of pulling a thorn-lined rope through her perforated tongue. Scrolls drawn with the same lines of dots emerge from the corners of her mouth, and since such an act would inevitably result in large loss of blood, the scrolls surely represent blood....It is of interest to note that this kind of dotted line appears on captive figures in exactly those locations known to have been used for blood-letting-the ears and various parts of the face.There are several points here that raise major contention, and frustration that Schele would group so many obviously unrelated aspects into one explanation. First of all, the tiny bumps that make up the scrolls on Lady Xoc on Lintels 24 and 26 in no way resemble the large, distinct, raised bumps that are found on many other images (figures 5, 14 & 15), including those on the forehead of Lady Xoc herself in Lintel 25. The scrolls almost appear to be a single, continuous line, and it is only after close inspection that these are indeed tiny dots (plate 5, these scrolls will be further discussed in the section on tattooing). Second, to suggest that the captives from the Pierdas Negras Stela 12 (figure 6) show dotted lines on "exactly those locations known to have been used for blood-letting" is preposterous, as there are no direct records of bloodletting from anywhere other than the tongue and the penis. De Landa talks about bloodletting from the ears, but nowhere is there any indication that blood was let from any other part of the face or forehead. These beads are frequently seen on the forehead, in a perfect vertical line or above the eyebrows, on the chin, on the cheeks, and under the ears (but not on them). In Hidden Faces of the Maya Schele refers to bumps on the chin and states that this represents blood, so the person must therefore have just perforated his tongue (Schele, 1997, p.87). To jump to such a conclusion is presumptuous, especially because if it were blood from a tongue perforation, the blood would be closer to the mouth, and all over the chin, not just in the few lines represented. Also, there are images of people with these bumps that are not in the process of bloodletting (such as a figurine of a couple cuddling pictured in Coe, 1973), and there are images of bloodletting without any indication of blood or dots.
Schele, 1984, p.21
Further, I feel that it is a huge leap to suggest that captives, especially those of low status shown on Stelae 12, would ever willingly let blood for the ceremonies of their captors. It is a possibility that there was a ceremony of "last rights" among slaves in which they practiced auto-sacrifice (or had bloodletting at the hands of their captors), but there is no evidence of this practice. Since we only have the archaeological record to support any claims on, I would maintain that the absence of bloodletting among slaves leads to lack of evidence that these dots are the results of bloodletting.
Unfortunately we are left again with the very real possibility that these images are not truly representative of the "real" image of the person depicted. In that way, it is impossible to make definitive statements over whether or not these dots were even permanent or not. Personally, I think the possibility is quite large that these raised bumps depict scars, as a result of any form of modification, bloodletting or other practice. If this were true, it would allow for the bumps on the penis for bloodletting (figure 7) and it would allow for the similarity of facial modification with these bumps.
Next: Tattoo
(back)