Clothing

Facies A individuals are still Classic in their esoteric knowledge of writing and iconography because much of their regalia and rites have significant, direct, and deep roots in the Classic (Scheie and Mathews 1998; 182-195; Stuart 1993: 339). Tepejilote, Petexbatun, Classic, or “archaic” antecedents for most Bayal elements and poses have been recognized, if underplayed, in favor of the exotic non-Classic ones (usually read as “foreign” rather than “late”) (Graham 1973; Graham 1990; Scheie and Mathews 1998; Stuart 1993). Facies B stelae may show more “exotic” traits simply because they are generally decades later than Facies A, or perhaps show statuses (like holders of “curved sticks”) not previously represented (Stuart 1993: 336-344). Indeed, Scheie and Mathews (1998) appear to be “untelling” earlier views (Mathews and Willey 1991; Scheie and Freidel 1990: 385-389) by arguing that it was true Classic Maya, arriving at Seibal, who brilliantly innovated the Facies A embodiment of the Classic tradition.

Another conclusion is that the alleged uniqueness of the large corpus of eleventh-cycle monuments at Seibal is part and parcel of the non-Classic qualities of its art. It is not trivial that these monuments postdate the great bulk of Classic Maya stelae (and are chronologically “post-Late Classic”): one would expect differences to appear through both error and innovation, particularly while situated in the historical and processual forces at play in the wider Epiclassic world (Diehl and Berio 1989).

Graham’s (1990) analysis and grouping (seriating) of the stelae at Seibal argue for stylistic change from Tepejilote to late Bayal. Rather than speculating on four different elite-level “foreign” migrations (Tepejilote, Petexbatun, Facies A, Facies B), the sequence may represent stylistic evolution, possibly within a single group, in parallel with an accelerating rate of change elsewhere in the later Classic period (cf. Stuart 1993). Graham notes (1990) that the artistic and technical qualities expressed in the monuments become less Classic, less competent, less graceful, more distorted, flatter, cruder, and laconic in the compass of only 40+ years.® Technical skill to handle large structures and monuments may have been lost, for Graham (1990: 6) thinks that some of the final monuments were inspired by miniature art, like amulets of the sort found in the Cenote of Sacrifice at Chichen Itza (Ringle et al. 1998: Figure 20), or on fine paste pottery (Sabloff 1970: 403).

Finally, we infer from the widely dispersed “sources” of the art of Seibal that it is an historical, perhaps experimental, syncretism of diverse inspiration, rather than an elite - or site-unit intrusion from any one place. For example, the presence of Chichen Itza “slipper” footwear on Stela 14 is curious, for it is only at Seibal that the “complete” pair of them is shown, the Chichen examples are always worn with a sandal of another type (Proskouriakoff 1950: 86; Graham 1973; Kowalski 1989), as if a misunderstanding, or melding, of the Seibal original. Of course, if one were partial to the “Great Man” theory of history, Wat’ul is the named individual who is situated at the base of the Terminal Classic, clearly a charismatic, erudite, and innovative agent, who would have reigned a k’atun before “Knife-Wing,” and two k’atunob before Kak’upacal appeared at Chichen Itza, the alleged source of so many similarities (dates from Kelley 1976, cited by Kowalski 1989; 177).