A Refutation of R. G. Baker's Thesis of Recarving and Alteration of Maya Monuments
Citation in a reputable publication of the idea put forth by R. G. Baker (1962) that Maya monuments were altered and recarved from time to time makes it necessary to evaluate the thesis. Examination of the evidence presented by Baker leads to the conclusion that most of the putative alterations are...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American antiquity 1968-01, Vol.33 (1), p.102-103 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 103 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 102 |
| container_title | American antiquity |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | Adams, Richard E. W. |
| description | Citation in a reputable publication of the idea put forth by R. G. Baker (1962) that Maya monuments were altered and recarved from time to time makes it necessary to evaluate the thesis. Examination of the evidence presented by Baker leads to the conclusion that most of the putative alterations are the result of differential weathering, and unfamiliarity with Maya sculpture. In addition, Baker has interpreted 19th-century mutilation as being ancient. Finally, Proskouriakoff's historical interpretation of the function of Maya sculpture and glyphic texts (1960, 1963, 1964) leads to a definitive refutation of Baker's hypothesis. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2307/277781 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1296025549</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_2307_277781</cupid><jstor_id>277781</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>277781</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c190t-d4a85756aea922ab3055120522de37ef902f634264ab95fb2cc74d2898e42dd63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kF1LwzAUhoMoOKf-hoCg3nSenCRNczmHTmFDKPO6pG06O7dmJq2wf-90w48Lrw4cnvd54SXknMEAOagbVEol7ID0kKOMJMTikPQAACPFWXxMTkJYADAOPOmRdEhTW3WtaWvXUFfRdEDHA3prXq2_CnT2YkMdvv62MP69bubUNCUdLlvrvzNTszF06ppuZZs2nJKjyiyDPdvfPnm-v5uNHqLJ0_hxNJxEBdPQRqUwiVQyNtZoRJNzkJIhSMTScmUrDVjFXGAsTK5llWNRKFFiohMrsCxj3icXO-_au7fOhjZbuM4328qMoY4BpRR6S13uqMK7ELytsrWvV8ZvMgbZ517Zbq8f3SK0zv9PXe91ZpX7upzbX61_0Q_D_XGG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1296025549</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Refutation of R. G. Baker's Thesis of Recarving and Alteration of Maya Monuments</title><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Adams, Richard E. W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Adams, Richard E. W.</creatorcontrib><description>Citation in a reputable publication of the idea put forth by R. G. Baker (1962) that Maya monuments were altered and recarved from time to time makes it necessary to evaluate the thesis. Examination of the evidence presented by Baker leads to the conclusion that most of the putative alterations are the result of differential weathering, and unfamiliarity with Maya sculpture. In addition, Baker has interpreted 19th-century mutilation as being ancient. Finally, Proskouriakoff's historical interpretation of the function of Maya sculpture and glyphic texts (1960, 1963, 1964) leads to a definitive refutation of Baker's hypothesis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-7316</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2325-5064</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/277781</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, US: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Bones ; Excavations ; Facts and Comments ; Monumental sculpture ; Refutation ; Stelae ; Weathering processes</subject><ispartof>American antiquity, 1968-01, Vol.33 (1), p.102-103</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1968</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c190t-d4a85756aea922ab3055120522de37ef902f634264ab95fb2cc74d2898e42dd63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/277781$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/277781$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27869,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Adams, Richard E. W.</creatorcontrib><title>A Refutation of R. G. Baker's Thesis of Recarving and Alteration of Maya Monuments</title><title>American antiquity</title><addtitle>Am. antiq</addtitle><description>Citation in a reputable publication of the idea put forth by R. G. Baker (1962) that Maya monuments were altered and recarved from time to time makes it necessary to evaluate the thesis. Examination of the evidence presented by Baker leads to the conclusion that most of the putative alterations are the result of differential weathering, and unfamiliarity with Maya sculpture. In addition, Baker has interpreted 19th-century mutilation as being ancient. Finally, Proskouriakoff's historical interpretation of the function of Maya sculpture and glyphic texts (1960, 1963, 1964) leads to a definitive refutation of Baker's hypothesis.</description><subject>Bones</subject><subject>Excavations</subject><subject>Facts and Comments</subject><subject>Monumental sculpture</subject><subject>Refutation</subject><subject>Stelae</subject><subject>Weathering processes</subject><issn>0002-7316</issn><issn>2325-5064</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1968</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kF1LwzAUhoMoOKf-hoCg3nSenCRNczmHTmFDKPO6pG06O7dmJq2wf-90w48Lrw4cnvd54SXknMEAOagbVEol7ID0kKOMJMTikPQAACPFWXxMTkJYADAOPOmRdEhTW3WtaWvXUFfRdEDHA3prXq2_CnT2YkMdvv62MP69bubUNCUdLlvrvzNTszF06ppuZZs2nJKjyiyDPdvfPnm-v5uNHqLJ0_hxNJxEBdPQRqUwiVQyNtZoRJNzkJIhSMTScmUrDVjFXGAsTK5llWNRKFFiohMrsCxj3icXO-_au7fOhjZbuM4328qMoY4BpRR6S13uqMK7ELytsrWvV8ZvMgbZ517Zbq8f3SK0zv9PXe91ZpX7upzbX61_0Q_D_XGG</recordid><startdate>196801</startdate><enddate>196801</enddate><creator>Adams, Richard E. W.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Society for American Archaeology</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>FIXVA</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>HZAIM</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>196801</creationdate><title>A Refutation of R. G. Baker's Thesis of Recarving and Alteration of Maya Monuments</title><author>Adams, Richard E. W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c190t-d4a85756aea922ab3055120522de37ef902f634264ab95fb2cc74d2898e42dd63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1968</creationdate><topic>Bones</topic><topic>Excavations</topic><topic>Facts and Comments</topic><topic>Monumental sculpture</topic><topic>Refutation</topic><topic>Stelae</topic><topic>Weathering processes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Adams, Richard E. W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 03</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 26</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>American antiquity</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Adams, Richard E. W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Refutation of R. G. Baker's Thesis of Recarving and Alteration of Maya Monuments</atitle><jtitle>American antiquity</jtitle><addtitle>Am. antiq</addtitle><date>1968-01</date><risdate>1968</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>102</spage><epage>103</epage><pages>102-103</pages><issn>0002-7316</issn><eissn>2325-5064</eissn><abstract>Citation in a reputable publication of the idea put forth by R. G. Baker (1962) that Maya monuments were altered and recarved from time to time makes it necessary to evaluate the thesis. Examination of the evidence presented by Baker leads to the conclusion that most of the putative alterations are the result of differential weathering, and unfamiliarity with Maya sculpture. In addition, Baker has interpreted 19th-century mutilation as being ancient. Finally, Proskouriakoff's historical interpretation of the function of Maya sculpture and glyphic texts (1960, 1963, 1964) leads to a definitive refutation of Baker's hypothesis.</abstract><cop>New York, US</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.2307/277781</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0002-7316 |
| ispartof | American antiquity, 1968-01, Vol.33 (1), p.102-103 |
| issn | 0002-7316 2325-5064 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1296025549 |
| source | Periodicals Index Online; JSTOR |
| subjects | Bones Excavations Facts and Comments Monumental sculpture Refutation Stelae Weathering processes |
| title | A Refutation of R. G. Baker's Thesis of Recarving and Alteration of Maya Monuments |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T02%3A37%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Refutation%20of%20R.%20G.%20Baker's%20Thesis%20of%20Recarving%20and%20Alteration%20of%20Maya%20Monuments&rft.jtitle=American%20antiquity&rft.au=Adams,%20Richard%20E.%20W.&rft.date=1968-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=102&rft.epage=103&rft.pages=102-103&rft.issn=0002-7316&rft.eissn=2325-5064&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/277781&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E277781%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1296025549&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_2307_277781&rft_jstor_id=277781&rfr_iscdi=true |