Are we countermapping here? Can the overlay of hieroglyphic ‘property qualifiers’ onto distributions of materials and structural features derived from archaeological excavation at a Late Classic Maya site be considered a shake-up of normative methods of cartographic representation? While most countermapping efforts focus on landscape cognition of under-represented groups – and often are linked to Indigenous land claims or statements of landscape sovereignty (e.g. Wainwright and Bryan 2009, McAnany et al. 2015) – this claim to countermapping is entirely a projection onto the past. The pronounced reflexivity of countermapping efforts among geographers – whether it empowers or harms local peoples, whether it is a genderdiscriminatory process, or whether it creates boundaries where none previously existed – is absent from this study. Yet, this application of hieroglyphic ‘property qualifiers’ arguably does move towards common ground with what Johnson et al. (2006) refer to as critical cartographic literacy, which is a transmodern approach to cartography that is mindful of the call to critical consciousness issued by educator Paolo Freire blended with a desire to grapple with the colonialities of Western cartography, all the while forefronting Indigenous cartographies and ontologies. This brings us to the question of what an Indigenous cartography of Late Classic Maya communities may have felt and looked like and whether this study begins to approximate it? Globally, most archaeological research takes place in contexts that are ‘text free’ in the sense that there are no documentary sources – be they Indigenous writing systems, European chronicles, or other sources of information – against which archaeological materials can be examined. Ever since the decipherment of Classic hieroglyphic texts began to mature in the 1990s, hieroglyphs have provided extraordinarily rich insight on many facets of royal existence, including politics, dynastic histories, and social difference. Probing deeper, Stephen Houston et al. (2009) used texts and iconography to explore the aesthetics of colour and later Classic Maya relationality (Houston 2014), and finally the privileged position of young royal males who are both subject and agent of much that is glossed as Classic Maya society (Houston 2018). From this research and that of many others, we glimpse the decidedly ‘royal male gaze’ that is the positionality of the hieroglyphic record, which gives one pause about universalizing that gaze to all sectors of Late Classic society. Maya hieroglyphic texts contain nothing that approaches social history; the royal court was the be all and end all. For places that did not support a scribe who painted or carved in a durable medium there is scant mention in texts that are preserved in stone, pottery, or stucco at royal courts. Nor is there reference to the thousands of COMMENT

中文翻译：

---

声称在伯利兹 Say Kah 进行反映射

我们在这里进行反映射吗？是否可以将象形文字的“属性限定符”叠加到源自古典玛雅晚期遗址考古发掘的材料和结构特征的分布上，这是否可以被视为对制图表示规范方法的改组？虽然大多数反制图工作侧重于代表性不足群体的景观认知——并且通常与土著土地主张或景观主权声明有关（例如 Wainwright 和 Bryan 2009，McAnany 等人，2015 年）——但这种反制图主张完全是对过去。地理学家之间的反制图工作的明显反思性——无论是赋予当地人权力还是伤害当地人，无论是性别歧视过程，还是它是否创造了以前不存在的边界——在这项研究中是不存在的。然而，这种象形文字“属性限定符”的应用可以说确实与约翰逊等人的观点有共同之处。(2006) 将其称为批判性制图素养，这是一种超现代的制图方法，它铭记教育家保罗·弗莱雷 (Paolo Freire) 发出的批判意识的呼吁，并融合了应对西方制图殖民主义的愿望，同时始终走在土著制图的前沿和本体。这给我们带来了一个问题，即晚期经典玛雅社区的土著制图可能有什么感觉和外观，以及这项研究是否开始接近它？在全球范围内，大多数考古研究发生在“无文本”的背景下，即没有文献来源——无论是土著书写系统、欧洲编年史、或其他信息来源——可以根据这些来源检查考古材料。自从 1990 年代对经典象形文字的破译开始成熟以来，象形文字为皇室生活的许多方面提供了极其丰富的见解，包括政治、王朝历史和社会差异。更深入地探索，斯蒂芬休斯顿等人。（2009 年）使用文本和图像来探索色彩美学和后来的经典玛雅关系（休斯顿 2014），最后是年轻的皇室男性的特权地位，他们既是许多被称为经典玛雅社会的主体又是代理人（休斯顿 2018 ）。从这项研究和许多其他研究中，我们瞥见了明显的“皇家男性凝视”，这是象形文字记录的位置，这让人们停顿了一下，将这种目光普遍化到晚期古典社会的所有部门。玛雅象形文字文本不包含任何接近社会历史的内容；宫廷是一切的一切。对于不支持使用耐用介质进行绘画或雕刻的抄写员的地方，在皇家宫廷中保存在石头、陶器或灰泥中的文本中鲜有提及。也没有提及数以千计的 COMMENT