The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology

Antiques, Revivals, and References to the past in Aztec ArtAuthor(s): Emily UmbergerSource: RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 13 (Spring, 1987), pp. 62-105Published by: The President and Fellows of Harvard College acting through the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and EthnologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20166764 .Accessed: 10/07/2011 18:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pfhc. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The President and Fellows of Harvard College and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology arecollaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics.

http://www.jstor.org

62 RES 13 SPRING 87

m itofoox ?ata?, y?iecni &v*i?t>locala>.

Figure 2. Sixteenth-century plan of ceremonial precinct of Tenochtitlan with the Templo Mayor of Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli, from Sahag?n's Primeros Memoriales. Paso y Troncoso

1905-1907; 6, part 3, pi. 11.

Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art

EMILY UMBERGER

Like other people around the world, the

Precolumbian inhabitants of the Americas were aware of the art of their predecessors. In several parts of the hemisphere, especially in the Andean and

Mesoamerican regions of "high civilization," this

consciousness of the material past took the form of

antiquarianism: the veneration and reuse of ancient

cities, collection of ancient objects, and creation of

archaizing copies. The purpose behind these revivals

varied, as did knowledge of the original cultures. To understand such revivals, one must attempt to

understand historical thought in the New World. The bulk of ideas about "the past" (a continuum of myth and history) was transmitted orally. Even in cultures that practiced some form of historical recording (in

manuscripts or on stone monuments), the amount

and nature of information were limited, and records were usually destroyed periodically as history was

"rewritten." History was conceived as cyclical rather

than linear. It was the result of a dialectic between the

past and the present, in which events were seen as

repeating types. Current happenings were interpreted to

fit patterns established by the past, and the past was

reconceived to accommodate present circumstances.1 This form of historical thought has two important

implications for the study of antiquarianism. In the first

place, revived objects, like past events, were used to validate and provide precedents for the present.

Second, the end result of such constantly evolving histories was not true history in the modern Western sense. As events moved into the more distant past they

gradually lost their historical specificity. For this reason, the inheritors of such traditions would have had as

much trouble matching them to ancient remains as the

modern scholar. In other words, if later people were

not the direct and immediate descendants of a previous culture, they had little specific knowledge of it, even

though they may have inherited many traits indirectly.

In most cases then, the material remains provided the

only direct link with earlier cultures, and antiquities thus played an important part in the formation of the historical consciousness of New World people (see Tom Cummins, dissertation in progress). Antiques and

archaizing objects brought the past and the present

together. Later people reused ancient monuments in

contemporary ceremonies and created new objects that combined within one image elements from both time

frames.

Although there are several important studies of

archaizing in Andean civilization,2 no one has directly addressed the phenomenon of antiquarianism in the

cultures of Mesoamerica (fig. 1).3 Evidences of later

activity at ancient sites are usually of secondary interest to archaeologists and are appended to reports focusing on the earlier inhabitants.4 Even a cursory survey of the

literature on Mesoamerica, however, reveals a number

of reused sites and antiques and possible revival styles. The most common examples of antiques deposited in

later contexts are carvings of jade (and other green colored stones). Jade carving began with the Olmecs, the first great artists of Mesoamerica, perhaps as early as 1000 b.c., in the Middle Preclassic Period.5 Olmec

jades were highly prized by later people, as attested by

1. For an explanation of some of these aspects in Aztec history, see Umberger 1981, passim. Like other Mesoamericans, the Aztecs

were very concerned with time and had a calendar of repeating dates

(i.e., the date 1 Rabbit recurred as a day every 260 days and as a

year every 52 years). Thus in their histories, cyclically recurring types of events tended to happen (that is, were made to happen or were

interpreted as happening) on dates of the same name. The events

could be either of the same type literally or seen as related

metaphorically.

2. See, for instance, Menzel (1960), Lyon (1966), Rowe (1971),

Berger (1976), and Cummins (dissertation in progress). There is also a vast literature on revivals of past styles in Western

civilization; for a comprehensive survey and bibliography specifically on classicism, see Greenhalgh (1978). For another study of attitudes

toward antique remains in Res, see Nercessian (1983). For studies of

archaizing in a different non-Western area, see articles in Murck

(1976) on Chinese art.

3. I am aware of only one article that treats Mesoamerican

antiquarianism as a phenomenon with important consequences for an

understanding of the archaeological record (Proskouriakoff 1968, and

comments by M. Coe and others following the paper). The only

monograph on the subject is Coe's (1966) study of an Olmec jade with Maya glyphs.

4. This is not to say that there is not good information on later

occupants in several reports. Although not their primary focus, Coe

and Diehl (1980, 1: 213 ff., and elsewhere) give detailed treatment to

the Early Postclassic reoccupation of the Olmec sites of San Lorenzo, Potrero Nuevo, and Tenochtitlan (in Veracruz); and Acosta in various

articles (see bibliography) gives a great deal of information on Aztec

presence at Tula.

5. Mesoamerican prehistory is traditionally divided into three

main periods: the Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic periods. The

following are the generally accepted subdivisions and durations of

these periods: Early Preclassic, 1500-1200 b.c.; Middle Preclassic,

64 RES 13 SPRING 87

Figure 1. Map of Mexico with inset of the Aztec area in Central Mexico. Stippling indicates the extent of the Aztec Empire. (The maximum expanse of ancient Mesoamerica extended farther to the north and south of the area covered by the map.)

those found in an Early Classic offering at Cerro de las

Mesas in Veracruz (Drucker 1955). During the same

period Maya artists carved glyphs on Olmec jades; and

the inscription on one, commemorating the accession

of a lord, indicates an evocation of the past for political

purposes.6 Olmec jades are also depicted in Classic

Period murals. At Teotihuacan they fall in streams of water from the hands of fertility deities (A. Miller 1973:

154-155, pis. 324, 326). In Late Classic battle scenes

at Cacaxtla in Central Mexico and at Bonampak in the

Maya lowlands, defeated warriors may be wearing Olmec pendants. Here Olmec jades seem to identify one group with the past in a negative sense (M. Miller

1986: 101-102). In the Early Postclassic after the fall of

Classic Maya civilization, antique Maya jades were

deposited along with Olmec jades in the sacred well at

Chichen Itza.7 Perhaps by this time they, too, had

become important signifiers of the past.

Beginning in the Late Classic, there is evidence in

various parts of Mesoamerica of reoccupation and reverence for ancient sites. At Laguna de los Cerros in

Veracruz and at Sin Cabezas on the Guatemala coast, monumental figurai sculptures of Preclassic date were

resurrected. In Veracruz the sculptures are Olmec, and at Sin Cabezas they are pedestal figures in the local

Olmec-related style. Those at Laguna de los Cerros (or similar sculptures) subsequently may have stimulated

Maya artists at Tonina to create the few sculptures in-the-round made in Classic Maya times (see

Proskouriakoff 1968: 126-128). Again in Veracruz

during the Early Postclassic San Lorenzo and two

nearby sites had major reoccupations one thousand

years after their abandonment by the Olmecs. The new

people took advantage of the original layout, and as a 1200-300 b.c.; Late Preclassic, 300 b.c.-A.D. 300; Early Classic, A.D.

300-600; Late Classic, A.D. 600-900; Early Postclassic, a.D. 900

1200; Late Postclassic, a.D. 1200-1521.

6. Coe 1966; Schele and Miller 1986: 119-120, pis. 31-32.

7. Proskouriakoff 1974: 14-15; Coggins and Shane 1984: nos.

52, 53, 162, 167, and others.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 65

consequence their ceremonial center resembled that

of another Olmec site (La Venta). Offerings were

deposited, Olmec artifacts were resurrected, and

sculptures may have been moved and reused (Coe and

Diehl 1980: 1, 35, 213ff., and elsewhere; Coe 1981:

136-139). In Central Mexico the Toltecs probably made pilgrimages to the deserted ceremonial center of

the sacred city of Teotihuacan, the mythical birthplace of the sun, in much the same way as described later in

Aztec times. At another ancient site, Chalcatzingo in

Morelos, a shrine, consisting of a broad stairway, altars, and platforms, was built below an Olmec rock carving

(Grove 1984: 167) at the end of the Early Postclassic.

After the fall of Tula around the same date, the

inhabitants of Central Mexico continued to imitate the

Toltecs' distinctive sculptural forms. From the foregoing it is evident that a regard for the cities and art of the

past was an important aspect of Mesoamerican culture.

In this paper, I will concentrate on antiquarianism

among the Mexica Aztecs of Tenochtitlan, the creators

of the last great culture to dominate Mesoamerica

before the Spanish Conquest.8 It has been generally acknowledged that the Mexica

copied the art forms of their immediate predecessors, the Toltecs,9 collected some antiquities (Batres 1900), and created a few pieces imitating the older styles of Teotihuacan (Umberger 1981: 80-81) and

Xochicalco.10 That these activities were much more

extensive than previously thought has only become

apparent with the excavation of their Great Temple, the Templo Mayor. With the new finds, it is now

appropriate to examine Mexica antiquarianism in

detail. Fortunately, in the case of the Mexica, whose

civilization flourished between 1428 and 1521, a

wealth of information was recorded during the century after the Conquest. Thus we can ascertain something of their attitudes toward past cultures, analyze

relationships between ancient and contemporary

objects, and hypothesize possible reasons behind their

collection, reworking, and revival of these styles.11

The Mexica Aztecs

The focus here is on the Mexica Aztecs12 of

Tenochtitlan, a city whose remains are now under

Mexico City. The Mexica were one of several

seminomadic groups who arrived in Central Mexico at

the time of (or soon after) the waning of Tula, the

capital of the Toltecs, who dominated the area prior to

1200. The Mexica founded Tenochtitlan and its twin

city, Tlatelolco, on adjacent islands in Lake Tetzcoco, in the first half of the fourteenth century. In the late

fourteenth century the people of Tenochtitlan acquired as ruler (tlatoani, speaker) Acamapichtli, the son of a

Mexica noble and a princess of Culhuacan, a city on

the south lake shore whose rulers were said to be the

descendants of the royal line of Tula.13 Thus the Mexica

8. At this point antiquarianism seems much more prevalent in

Mexica culture than in earlier Mesoamerican groups. And as Menzel

(1960: 597) notes of the situation in Peru, "antiques clearly [prove? of

greater attraction in some periods than in others. Imitations, in

particular, seem to be confined to certain periods." But, in the case

of the Mexica, to what extent is this the result of recent and fortuitous

discoveries and a lack of information on earlier cultures? Perhaps more extensive evidences of antiquarianism, especially archaizing

styles, will become apparent as chronologies are refined and

archaeologists and scholars focus on later reuse of sites and objects.

9. See, for instance, Beyer 1955; Moedano K?er 1947; and

Nicholson 1971: 118-119.

10. Nicholson 1971: 120, 122; Umberger 1981: 94-95, 219.

11. Although the information on antiquarianism is scattered, the

cumulative effect of focusing more on this phenomenon would

benefit Mesoamerican studies. Archaisms are direct and tangible connections between cultures ? and their investigation makes obvious

the fallacy of assuming that visual similarity indicates closeness in

time (Menzel 1960) and sameness of culture and meaning. In the end

such studies should lead to stricter definitions of the styles of different

cultures. The investigation of archaizing is also enlightening because

it reveals the part played by conscious choice in a culture's

acquisition of artistic elements, as opposed to a view that stresses

passive reception of "influences" (see Winter 1977; Von Staden

1976). What a later group is looking for and at, what they

understand, what they modify, and what they misunderstand are

all revealing. An awareness of the extent of antiquarianism in

Mesoamerica would also help explain generalized and less easily

defined influences from much earlier cultures. In the end the study of

archaisms should, in fact, contribute new insights into the problem of

continuity and disjunction between cultures in Mesoamerica by

focusing on the conscious receivers rather than the unconscious

donors. For discussions of continuity and disjunction, see Kubier

1967, 1973, 1977; Willey 1973; Nicholson 1976; Townsend 1979:

13-15, 71; Berlo 1983: 1-8.

12. The term Aztec, which became popular in the nineteenth

century, is useful as a general designation for the related Nahuatl

speaking groups who inhabited Central Mexico in the Late Postclassic

Period (a.D. 1200-1521), although they did not refer to themselves as

such (Nicholson 1971: 116, n. 13). The people of Tenochtitlan and

their neighbors in Tlatelolco called themselves Mexica. Thus I am

using Aztec to refer generally to the cultures of the Late Postclassic

and their art and Mexica to refer specifically to Tenochtitlan and

objects found there (Tlatelolco is referred to only twice). I am calling

objects in the distinctive late fifteenth- to early sixteenth-century

style that centered in Tenochtitlan (sometimes referred to as the

Metropolitan Aztec style) either Late Mexica or Late Aztec, depending

on provenience. 13. It is generally thought that the Toltec line went to Culhuacan

66 RES 13 SPRING 87

established a connection with the legendary Toltecs, and it is assumed that they absorbed or inherited survivals of Toltec culture from Culhuacan and other

communities. Between 1428 and 1431 the Mexica

defeated their overlords, the Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco, won their independence, and formed an alliance with two other cities, Tetzcoco and Tlacopan. By the 1480s this Triple Alliance dominated a major part of

Mesoamerica, and Tenochtitlan was the imperial capital of a large tribute empire. The city was divided into

quarters ?

corresponding to the four quadrants of the world ?

by four streets that met at the sacred walled

precinct (fig. 2). At the center was the Templo Mayor (excavated between 1978 and 1982),14 surrounded by

other temples and platforms. The Templo Mayor was a

double pyramid-temple dedicated to Tlaloc, the ancient

Central Mexican rain god, and Huitzilopochtli, the Mexica tribal numen, who, as the politically dominant

deity in Mexico, was associated with the sun. The right side of the temple, Huitzilopochtli's shrine, was

conceived as representing Coatepec, the Serpent Mountain, the site of his birth in myth.

It is apparent from the visual evidence that the Mexica were absorbing a number of foreign styles during the second half of the fifteenth century, the

period of formation of their own great style (and

simultaneously the formation of the empire). The artistic situation in Tenochtitlan was very complicated at this time. According to the written sources, the Mexica

collected artworks frorq ancient sites and deity images from the temples of conquered towns, and they also

brought artists from neighboring towns to work in

Tenochtitlan. As in other parts of the world, both ancient and contemporary styles were probably imitated for the purpose of identification, authority, and prestige. However, there is also an aspect of conquest and humiliation involved in the Mexica's collection of

foreign objects and use of foreign artists. The deity images were actually "captured" and kept in a "prison temple," the Coacalco or Coateocalli (Sahag?n 1950 1982: bk. 2, 2d revised ed., 182), and artists were

made to carve monuments that commemorated their own defeat. This aspect of humiliation generally does not apply to the ancient objects (see Nicholson 1971 :

119, n. 17), except perhaps in the case of antiques from conquered territories outside the Aztec heartland.

The Mexica probably venerated all ancient sites in

general. The focus here will be on the three important cities that seem to have had special and distinctive associations for them: Tula, Teotihuacan, and

Xochicalco. Approximately sixty kilometers to the

northwest of Tenochtitlan was Tula (florescence, a.D.

900-1200), identified as the legendary Tollan in the written sources, the city of the Toltecs and their ruler

Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl (Our Lord, Feathered Serpent). As indicated above, the Mexica claimed partial descent and their right to rule from the Toltec line. The older city of Teotihuacan (a.D. 1-750), whose very

impressive remains are thirty kilometers to the

northeast, was associated with a more distant, cosmic

event, the birth of the fifth and final sun in mythic times. Finally, Xochicalco, a city sixty kilometers to the

southwest with a florescence postdating the decline of Teotihuacan (a.D. 650-900), seems to have been

associated with the invention of the calendar, which

the Mexica and other Aztecs inherited. All three cities

then were considered the sites of important beginnings, places of origin for the Aztecs. While their ideas on

Tula are best known, those on Teotihuacan are more

shadowy, and their attitudes toward Xochicalco are

least understood. The Aztecs probably referred to the inhabitants of these cities generally as Toltecs.15

The collection of antiquities

According to the literary sources the Mexica and

other Central Mexicans made ceremonial pilgrimages to

ancient sites (instances are given for both Tula and

Teotihuacan), were familiar with the surface remains, and dug for buried objects. They were especially interested in finding objects made of jade and

greenstone (chalchihuite, which (as seen above) were

highly valued in Mesoamerica and buried in offerings and graves as early as Olmec times. Proskouriakoff

(1974: 15) has noted that one passage in Sahag?n's Florentine Codex indicates that the Aztecs looked for

changes in surface plant growth and other signs as

indications of where to dig for ancient objects.

after the fall of Tula. Davies (1977: 300-301) further suggests that

Culhuacan existed in Toltec times.

14. For information on the Templo Mayor excavations, see Matos

1981; L?pez Portillo, Le?n-Portilla, and Matos 1981a; for recent

studies of the offering caches at the site, see Nagao 1985a and b.

15. Other ancient cities for which there may be evidence of Aztec

awareness include Teotenango in the State of Mexico and El Tajin in

northern Veracruz. In the relaci?n geogr?fica of the colonial (and

Aztec-period) town of Tenango, the area occupied by the ruins of

Teotenango is surrounded by a conventional Aztec-style drawing of a

wall (the ancient wall that is still there). The text says, "In ancient

times there was a town on the hill" (Paso y Troncoso 1905-1906, 7:

1 and map facing 1). Melgarejo Vivanco (1970: 15) suggests that

Mictlan (Place of the Dead) in the Aztec tribute province of Tuxpan (in Codex Mendoza) might have been El Tajin.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 67

Wherever they can see that something like a little smoke

[column] stands, that one of them is giving off vapor, this one is the precious stone. . . .

Then they dig. There they see, there they find the

precious stone, perhaps already well formed, perhaps

already burnished. Perhaps they see something buried there either in stone, or in a stone bowl, or in a stone

chest; perhaps it is filled with precious stones. This they claim there.

And thus do they know that this precious stone is there:

[the herbs] always grow fresh; they grow green. They say this is the breath of the green stone, and its breath is very fresh; it is an announcer of its qualities. In this manner is

seen, is taken the green stone.

Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 11,221-222

In Aztec thought, jade and greenstone were

associated with water and fertility because of their

color. They were also thought to attract moisture

(perhaps for this reason the Aztecs looked for a column

of mist and greener plants). In addition, a small piece of greenstone was placed in a cavity in the chest of

many Aztec sculptures to represent the heart.16 A

greenstone was put in the mouth of the dead for the same purpose and buried with the remains. For this

reason, and because of their discovery in caches and

burials at ancient sites and cemeteries, such stones

were probably associated with the ancestors in Aztec

thought.17

Archaeological remains in Mexico City indicate that

Mexica collecting was not confined to urban areas and

the cities mentioned above. Antiquities discovered in

Mexico City (see, for instance, fig. 3), mostly in offering caches at the Templo Mayor and in other areas, include

Teotihuacan masks and figurines (most of greenstone) and ceramic vessels, a Toltec ceramic vase, a Maya

jade, jades or greenstones from Oaxaca, a Preclassic

bib-and-helmet jade, and even an Olmec greenstone mask that was over two thousand years old in Mexica

times. Archaeologists have also discovered more than a

thousand objects from Guerrero (mostly greenstone masks and figures) as well as Mixtee greenstone

objects from Oaxaca and a Huastec shell carving from

northeast Mesoamerica. Because of problems with the

dating of Guerrero, Mixtee, and Huastec objects, it is

not known how old these pieces were in Mexica times

and what the Mexica's attitude toward them was. In

the case of the Guerrero objects, at least, some are

?AW ^b?F VbV ^^ ^* ??? Ebb*. mmB ^ ^^ ^"*

?^^ "

<B?V^

Figure 3. Antiquities discovered by Leopoldo Batres behind the Cathedral on Escalerillas Street, October 16, 1900:

(2) is a greenstone plaque from Oaxaca; (3) is a gray stone

Teotihuacan figure; (6) is a classic Maya jade head; (7) is a

greenstone plaque with a figure in Xochicalco style (Mexica

copy); (8) is a bib-and-helmet head (probably jade or

greenstone), culture unknown, Late Preclassic Period. Batres

1902: 24.

definitely old, and even if numbers of them were of

recent manufacture, they constituted the type of objects that were meant for burial. They therefore probably had

the same significance as objects actually excavated

from graves: they were associated with the predecessors of the present inhabitants (see Nagao 1985a: 96, n. 73).

Another category of interest is that of antiquities collected and modified by the Mexica. A group of

approximately fifty greenstone masks and figurines from

Guerrero found in Offering Chamber II at the Templo

Mayor (Phase IVb)18 is especially interesting because of

the addition of painted hieroglyphs and other motifs by the Mexica (Ahuja 1982). Two other antiques that

were probably modified by Aztecs are a Teotihuacan

greenstone figure with a late Postclassic inscription (see fig. 23) and an Olmec mask that may have been

16. The stones are usually missing, but some were found in

sculptures recently excavated at the Templo Mayor (Hern?ndez Pons

1982: fig. 13).

17. See Nagao 1985a: 50-52; and Thouvenet 1982, for further

associations of greenstone.

18. The Mexica periodically rebuilt the temple, constructing a

larger pyramid directly over the older one. Archaeologists found

seven main phases wherein the entire temple was rebuilt; there were

other additions to just the west-facing side.

For discussions of the dating of the phases, based on hieroglyphic date plaques, see Matos 1981a; L?pez Portillo, Le?n-Portilla, and

Matos 1981; Nicholson, in press; and Umberger, in press a. The

following is my estimate (based on Matos 1981a) of when the various

phases were visible (date of construction to date of covering by

later phase): Phase I, unexplored; Phase II, early rulers, 1390??1431 ;

Phase III, Itzcoatl, 1431 (probably finished)-1454; Phase IV,

Motecuhzoma I, 1454 (probably finished)-unknown date before

1481; Phase IVb, Motecuhzoma I, 1464-unknown date between

1469 and 1481; Phase V, Axayacatl, unknown date between 1469

and 1481 (Axayacatl's reign)-1483; Phase VI, Tizoc/Ahuitzotl, 1483

68 RES 13 SPRING 87

recarved by an Aztec artist (Easby and Scott 1970: no.

307). Both are of unknown provenience. A number of questions arise in relation to these

collected antiquities. How did the Mexica acquire them? Did they excavate them, or demand them as

tribute? What were the ideas behind their burial,

reworking, or reuse? Were they recognized as antiques or were some objects considered more as tribute from

conquered people? To what extent were the Mexica

sensitive to distinctions between styles and connect

them with particular sites or cultures, or are we seeing in their burial just a generalized evocation of the past?

Matos (1978: 15) notes that 80 percent of the objects found at the Templo Mayor are non-Mexica, and all of these are from tributary areas.19 Were such objects included in regular tribute from various parts of the

empire? Tribute lists mention (or picture) only unworked greenstone or strings of beads, although it is

possible that this category referred generically to all

greenstone objects, worked and unworked. Nicholson

(quoted in Nagao 1985a: 52) suggests that antiquities may also have been the result of looting after warfare.

Another possibility is that foreign leaders were required to bring them to Tenochtitlan as offerings on important occasions. One incident is described during the

rebuilding of the Templo Mayor in the reign of

Motecuhzoma I (Nagao 1985a: 33):

Seeing the speed with which his temple was being built,

King Motecuhzoma ordered all the lords of the land ... to

collect from all cities a great number of precious stones,

green stones . . . which they call chalchihuitls?[and

other types of precious stones], and each braza [1.67 M.]

that the building grew, these precious stones were to be thrown into the fill. . . .

Duran 1967, 2: 228; see also Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 357

Phases IV and IVb were built by Motecuhzoma I, and,

indeed, many greenstone objects were found in offering chambers on those levels.

It is difficult to answer questions about the

significance of the burial of the unmodified antiquities, in particular, because most were found in offering

caches, and there seems to be no purposeful pattern behind their deposit (Nagao 1985a: 52). Antiques of

different cultures appear to be mixed indiscriminately with certain types of Mexica objects. Perhaps they were

meant to be references to the past and ancestors in

general (rather than to specific societies), or perhaps many (those of greenstone) were buried also because of

the connection of greenstone with water. Could the

accumulation of greenstone objects at the temple also

represent the "heart" of the empire, as greenstone does

in the chest of a sculpture? Or could the burial of

objects extracted from burials and offerings in different

parts of the empire relate to the Mexica's efforts to

make their city an imago mundi, a miniature ?mage of

the empire? There was a temple for conquered gods and a zoo and gardens for animals and plants from

different parts of the empire. In addition, even the

human and animal sacrifices at the Templo Mayor were from all areas. Perhaps, then, the idea was to

rebury sacred offerings from all parts in the center.

Unfortunately, present evidence can take us no further

toward the solution of these questions. It is probable that a number of these ideas were operating at the same time.

Although most collected antiques were unmodified, a few were reworked or reused in ways that relate to

their origins: the Teotihuacan figure was recarved

with the date of a mythical event associated with

Teotihuacan; and glyphs on some of the modified

Guerrero objects may name their places of origin, which would also make them seem to be items

collected after conquest or as tribute. Others in this

group have hieroglyphic dates that may provide clues

to the circumstances of their burial.

Archaizing artworks

In the case of archaizing copies of artworks,

architecture, and motifs from past cultures, a distinction

should be made between revivals and survivals of

ancient forms (see Greenhalgh 1978: 20-24).20 A

revival is the result of the direct observation of an

original object, and constitutes a conscious and

(begun)/1487 (finished)-ca. 1500; Phase VII, Motecuhzoma II, begun soon after flood of 1499/1500-destroyed 1521. Presumably the

objects found within a phase were deposited during the time it was

visible. This schema of dates applies only to objects found in the -

recent excavations of the Templo Mayor and nearby platforms and

pavements. Objects found outside this context must be dated on the

basis of other criteria, that is, style and hieroglyphic dates.

19. Although in styles originating in areas outside the Aztec

empire, the Olmec mask and Maya jade found in Tenochtitlan may

have come from within the empire. The Olmec mask is made of a

stone from the Puebla-Oaxaca-Guerrero area south of the Valley of

Mexico (Matos 1979) and could have been found in any part of

Central Mexico, especially Guerrero. Maya jades have also been

found in Central Mexico and in Oaxaca.

20. Greenhalgh writes specifically of classical revivals in Western

art, and although his general discussion is useful for the consideration

of non-Western art, his final definition is too narrow. "Only when the

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 69

purposeful reference to the past. A survival, on the

other hand, is the result of a chain of replications of a

form with or without knowledge of its original source.

It is often difficult to draw a line between the two

categories, and to find the links in the chain between

early and late types. A specific problem for this study is

that in some cases we cannot determine whether a

sculpture is an antique, an early Mexica copy, or a

non-Mexica Aztec copy, because of our ignorance of the parameters of all styles involved. This is due in part to the confusion of the archaeological record at the ancient sites by the activities of later people and in part to lack of studies. We are familiar with the distinctive

late Aztec style that was centered in Tenochtitlan (see, for example, figs. 11, 15), but many non-Mexica Aztec or early Mexica objects are in rough or less distinctive

carving styles and are recognizable mostly because of

their imagery rather than surface qualities. This is

especially a problem in the case of early copies of

Toltec types in which recognizable Aztec imagery is

lacking (see, for example, fig. 10).

Nevertheless, a number of Mexica imitations can be

distinguished, and they appear to be limited to objects and motifs in the styles of the three cities that are the

focus of this study. It should also be noted in the case

of these consciously archaizing imitations that the

Mexica were aware of the culture of origin and that

they chose to refer to a particular style or site because it was relevant to the occasion for which the object was

created. In other words, these references to ancient

styles were not generalized or haphazard evocations

of the past. Although it is difficult to date Mexica

sculptures and link them with events in history (see

Umberger 1981), a few enlightening examples have

hieroglyphic dates or original context to give clues to

the circumstances of their creation.

Even though the Mexican purposes were related to

the site in question, however, they did not necessarily

fully understand the forms they were imitating. Despite their legends and traditions about the cultures of the

past and their inheritance of many forms and ideas, when they were faced with the material remains, they had to evolve their own interpretations. The degree of

understanding varied according to each culture and

object. For this reason and because of the demands of

the event commemorated, one cannot assume that the

original and the copy had the same meaning.

Toltecs and Chichimecs21

In the written sources, the Toltecs, the previous inhabitants of Central Mexico, are described as great

artists. The word for artist, in fact, is toltecatl, literally, "a person from Tollan," and art is toltecayotl, "the

Toltec thing."

There [was] no real word for their name. Their name is

taken from ? it comes from ? their manner of life, their

works. The Tolteca were wise. Their works were all good, all perfect, all wonderful, all marvelous; . . .

Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10, 165-166

It is apparent in the literature that the term Toltec was

often meant to refer specifically to the inhabitants of

Tula (Tollan) Xicocotitlan. At other times, however, it

is used more broadly, to describe the inhabitants of

Teotihuacan and other ancient cities,22 just as Tollan is

appended to the names of several cities?for instance, Tollan Chollolan (modern Cholula).23

And these, the traces of the Tolteca, their pyramids, their

mounds, etc., not only appear there at the places called

Tula [and] Xicocotitlan, but practically everywhere they rest covered; for their potsherds, their ollas, their pestles,

their figurines, their armbands appear everywhere. Their

traces are everywhere, because the Tolteca were dispersed

all over.

Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10, 167

As Davies notes, "both Tollan and Toltec are

concepts as much as proper names" (1984: 210; see

also 1977: ch. 2). It seems probable that the Aztecs

used the term Toltec in the broader sense to designate all their urban predecessors in Central Mexico, in

contrast to the Chichimecs, nonurban inhabitants, or

barbarians.24 Both categories were broadly applied to a number of different groups, and their general connotations were of civilized and settled versus

nomadic, uncultured, and barbarian (which was not

necessarily negative). The Mexica and their neighbors all claimed a dual Toltec-Chichimec heritage. Their

histories begin with the migration of their Chichimec

ancestors into Central Mexico before the foundation of

ideals of Roman civilization join a selective interest in Roman style are we entitled to call the product a revival" (p. 24). In this passage

he is actually defining a renaissance rather than a revival.

21. For detailed studies of Toltec history and the ensuing time of

Chichimec (Early Aztec) activity in Central Mexico, see Davies 1977

and 1980. 22. Alva Ixtlilxochitl's (1975-1977, 1: 272) list of Toltec cities

includes Tula, Teotihuacan, Toluca, Cuauhnahuac, Cholula, and

others.

23. According to Heyden (1983), Tollan, literally meaning "place of reeds and rushes," may signify the watery and fertile environment,

which was thought appropriate for the site of a great city. 24. See Carrasco (1982) on the Aztecs' linking of the Toltecs and

their leader Quetzalcoatl with urban culture in Mesoamerica.

70 RES 13 SPRING 87

settlements and intermarriage with descendants of the

Toltecs (who were themselves descendants of earlier

Chichimec groups). The contrast between Toltecs and Chichimecs and

their descendants is shown through distinctions in

costume both on Mexica sculptures, such as the Stone

of Tizoc (fig. 4), and in pictorial manuscripts (which

although Colonial period in date, reflect preconquest ideas). Toltec warrior costumes and paraphernalia,

visible on such sculptures as the colossal Atlantean

figures at Tula (fig. 5), include the "butterfly" pectoral (this could also be on the front of the headdress), a

headdress of upright feathers and a long feather

panache, a bird on the front of the headdress, a

triangular apron over the loincloth, a disc on the back, and an atl-atl. Nonwarrior attributes consist of woven

dyed cotton cloaks, a ceremonial jacket (xicolli), the

blue pointed crown of a lord (xiuhuitzolli), and woven

reed thrones (icpalli). In contrast, Chichimec costumes

and paraphernalia consist of headgear featuring a

headband and a variety of small feather decorations, bows and arrows, animal skins, maguey fiber cloaks

(which seem to represent a stage between skins and

dyed cotton cloaks), and bundles of reeds for seats.

The purpose behind the contrast between Chichimec

and Toltec clothing varies according to context. A

Figure 4. Tezcatlipoca dressed in Toltec warrior outfit and

conquering the deity of another town, dressed in non-Toltec,

or Chichimec, garb, Stone of Tizoc, Mexica, 1481-1486,

MNA.

contrast between warriors can indicate a distinction

between civilized conquerors and uncivilized

conquered groups, as on the Stone of Tizoc, where the

representatives of the Mexica are dressed in Toltec

warrior costumes and their enemies are dressed in

Chichimec costumes.25 Or a contrast in civilian clothing can indicate a change through time from an uncivilized

to a civilized state, for instance in Sahag?n's Primeros

Memoriales (Paso y Troncoso 1905-1907: 6, ill. 18

and others), where the costumes of the kings of various

towns change from Chichimec to Toltec after the defeat

of the Tepanecs in 1428. The Mexica did not always

identify the Toltec past as superior to the Chichimec

past. On the Temple of Sacred Warfare, Motecuhzoma

II is dressed as a Chichimec in contrast to the dead

figures below who wear Toltec costume parts

(Umberger 1984: 72-73, and figs. 2, 3). Thus the

Mexica sometimes invoked one heritage, sometimes the

other, depending on the circumstances.

The Toltecs, however, were the symbols of the art

producing past.

The Toltecs of Tula26

In Aztec sources, Tollan was the legendary city of

Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, a great culture hero, ruler, and

religious leader, whose reign ended in disgrace and

25. At first I thought that the Toltec warrior costume worn by the

figures on the Stone of Tizoc was an archaizing outfit, not what

actual Mexica warriors wore. It is only represented on stone

sculptures and not in manuscript representations of warriors, and from

descriptions it seems not to have been worn in actual warfare. Aztec

warriors wore body-length fitted costumes. The ruler wore an outfit

representing the flayed skin of Xipe Totee. However, Wray (1945) has

pointed to a similar contrast at the Toltec-Maya city of Chichen Itza

(on the Yucatan Peninsula) between warriors in sculpture who wear

the typical costume described above and those who wear simpler costumes in mural paintings depicting an actual battle. Wray suggests

that the costume worn in stone reliefs is reserved for scenes of a

ceremonial or formal nature (thanks to my student Pamela Jones Pailet

for pointing out this contrast in Toltec art).

Klein (in press) has recently analyzed Mexica bench reliefs (to be

discussed later), where figures wear some of these Toltec costume

parts. She decided that these are the costumes that were worn by

kings and warriors for the procession into Tenochtitlan after battle

and for the subsequent bloodletting ceremony. If this Toltec costume

was used just for ceremonials, it is interesting that it is depicted in

conquest scenes even though it was not worn in warfare.

See also Anawalt (1985) on other aspects of Toltec clothing and

Pierce (1981) on a similar contrast between warriors in an unusual

sixteenth-century church mural at Ixmiquilpan. 26. The following discussion of Mexica contact with Toltec art is

limited mostly to objects in Central Mexico, since I am assuming their

knowledge was based on local remains. In some cases, however,

related examples at Chichen Itza may indicate the broader range of

examples that were once visible at Tula.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 71

flight. Quetzalcoatl was the prototypical priest and the

first to institute bloodletting. The Aztecs also probably inherited their warrior societies and other institutions

from the Toltecs. In addition, there is a connection

between Tula and Huitzilopochtli. The Mexica during their migration stayed for a while near the city at

Coatepec, where they dammed a river and established a settlement. It was here that Huitzilopochtli was born, or rather reborn as the sun, according to modern

interpreters. Tula (fig. 6), identified as the legendary Tollan by

Jim?nez Moreno (1941), is located in the state of

Hidalgo.27 Tula Grande, the area of the main Toltec

occupation of the site, features a plaza with an

adoratorio (small platform) in the center and a number

of structures around the periphery: a west-facing

pyramid-temple (Pyramid C), probably the main

pyramid of the site; a smaller pyramid-temple on the

Figure 5. Atlantean warrior figure on Pyramid B at Tula, Toltec, H. 4.6 m. By permission of INAH.

// j)

Canal ^ Vv /r S~^ Locality ..

S/f I I Tula Grande \

IsJuXer ro La %teX\nSv?>jhSs^ ((fe- /*7^ ! J?'liiiilHH'llli'LL

' v2$f ? Cerro El . il

vi\ ^^^^ ^\\ ^V Cie,it0. il

? ii. Escarpment IK ' . Aztec remains v?v

'

-All periods ^^?S^C

Figure 6. Map of Tula in Aztec times with inset of plan of Tula Grande. (A) Ball Court I; (B) Pyramid B; (C) Pyramid C; (D) Burned Palace; (E) Ball Court II; (F) Skull Rack; (G) Grand

Vestibule; (H) Central Adoratorio; (I) Palace of Quetzalcoatl; (J) Palace East of Vestibule; (K) Aztec Adoratorio; (L)

approximate location of Mexica reliefs on Cerro La Malinche.

After Diehl 1983: fig. 12 and map 37 (with additions).

north side (Pyramid B) flanked by three complexes of

colonnaded rooms, called the Burned Palace, the

Palace of Quetzalcoatl, and the Palace East of the

Vestibule; the Grand Vestibule in front of the stairway of Pyramid B; two ball courts, one behind Pyramid B

and another along the west side of the plaza; a platform that once probably supported a skull rack (tzompantli) east of the ball court; and an unexcavated long, low

structure on the south side.

Tula was reoccupied after the collapse of Toltec

power. It was a significant town at the time of the

Spanish Conquest (Diehl 1983: 166-169), and there were intermarriages between its ruling line and that of

Tenochtitlan (Davies 1980: 8). Aztec-period remains at

Tula include a palace on the hill of El Cielito, which

was still occupied in Colonial times; buried caches and

scattered ceramics, of both early (Aztec II) and late

27. For archaeology at Tula, see Acosta (1940, 1941, 1945, 1954,

1956, 1956-1957, 1957, 1960, 1961, 1964) and Diehl (1981,

1983).

72 RES 13 SPRING 87

types (Aztec III);28 Aztec-period burials and sculptures; and adoratorios in the main area of Tula Grande. Diehl

(1983: 168-169) does not believe that Tula Grande was the center of the late Aztec town, because the

extensive damage to that part of the site made it

uninhabitable. Pyramid C was completely looted and

destroyed, and its revetment removed. Pyramid B, which had once been decorated on all sides with

reliefs of birds, animals, and composite monsters, was

stripped, except for one area on the east side that was

hidden by a later structure. The shrine on top of the

pyramid was destroyed, and a ramp was cut into the rear of the temple, presumably for removal or burial

of the sculptures on top. Parts of these sculptures (all

being composed of several stacked pieces) were found on the ramp and behind the pyramid. These comprised four 4.6 M. tall Atlantean warrior figures (fig. 5), piers

with warrior reliefs, and cylindrical column sections

decorated with feathers, which presumably represented feathered serpents (one tail section was also found at

the site). The palaces were burned, and many of the

bench reliefs representing processions of warriors were

removed from their rooms and from the vestibule

connecting the palaces and pyramids. There is also

evidence of looting of buried caches, for instance in the

Canal Locality Temple. Other Toltec sculptures found at Tula (most not in their original contexts) include

chacmools (see fig. 13) (all but one broken), small

supporting figures (telamones), miscellaneous relief

panels, and other types.

According to archaeologists, the destruction and

looting of Tula probably began soon after the Toltec

period and continued until the Conquest. Aztec groups are usually blamed for much of the damage to the site.

In contrast to Teotihuacan, where it is known that the center was systematically destroyed at the fall of the

city, it is not clear how much damage was done at the

time of the fall of Tula, or how much happened later

(see Diehl 1981: 292; and Mill?n, in press: n. 43). That

Aztec groups did loot the city is indicated by a well

known passage in Sahag?n:

Then there they [the Toltecs] went?they went to live, to dwell on the banks of a river at Xicocotitlan, now called Tula. . . . And they left behind that which today is there,

which is to be seen, which they did not finish ? the so

called serpent column, the round stone pillar made into a

serpent. Its head rests on the ground; its tail, its rattles are

above. And the Tolteca mountain is to be seen; and the

Tolteca pyramids, the mounds, and the surfacing of

Tolteca [temples]. . . . And Tolteca bowls, Tolteca ollas

are taken from the earth. And many times Tolteca jewels?

arm bands, esteemed green stones, fine turquoise,

emerald-green jade?are taken from the earth. . . .

Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10, 165

The amount of looting done by the Mexica

specifically, however, is still in question. As will be

seen, the archaeological materials found to date in

Mexico City do not support the idea of massive looting of the site, and passages in written sources indicate that

people other than the Mexica of Tenochtitlan went to

Tula and removed art. In the 1420s their neighbors in Tlatelolco took a statue identified as the god

Tlacahuepan from Tula back to their city (Historia de

los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 1973: 60).29 There are

no mentions of similar practices in other towns, like

Culhuacan, during the period intermediate between the

Toltecs and the Mexica.

There is evidence, however, that Tlaxcala, a

Nahuatl-speaking town that was never conquered by the Aztec Triple Alliance, had strong memories of Tula.

Motolinia (1971: 78) mentions that the Tlaxcalans had

two deity ?mages, a large one, on which they put a

mask that had come from Tula, and a small one that

they had brought with them from Puyauhtlan, their

place of origin on the border of the state of Tlaxcala

(Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 2, 2d ed. revised, 43, n. 12). Given that the Tlaxcalans carried artworks

from Tula and elsewhere, it is interesting that two

Toltec telamones now in Vienna were collected in

Tlaxcala.30 Judging from their style, these sculptures

probably originated in Tula. In addition, among

sculptures attributed to Tlaxcala are two chacmools and

a related type of standing figure, who holds a circular

28. Aztec Black-on-Orange ceramics fall into three pre-Hispanic

style groups. Aztec I and II correspond to ceramic spheres centering on Culhuacan and Tenayuca respectively and dating to ca. 1150

1350. Aztec III ceramics correspond to the period of Tepanec and

Mexica dominance in Central Mexico, ca. 1350-1521. The presence of Aztec III ceramics at Tula may indicate Mexica activities.

29. According to Sahag?n (1950-1982: bk. 2, 2d ed., revised,

175) Tlacahuepan was a deity closely associated with Huitzilopochtli

(the god of Tlatelolco as well as Tenochtitlan), especially during the

festival of Panquetzaliztli, which celebrated Huitzilopochtli's birth

and subsequent victory over his enemy siblings (by extension the

deities of conquered groups). In myth (Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 3,

2d ed., revised, 17), Tlacahuepan was one of the "sorcerers" along with Huitzilopochtli and Titlacahuan (Tezcatlipoca), who predicted and helped effect Topiltzin Quetzalooatl's downfall.

30. Becker-Donner 1965: nos. 122 and 123, pp. 17-18, pi. 31, color pi. 6. The sculptures were collected by Philipp J. Becker and

given to the Museum f?r V?lkerkunde, Vienna, in 1897. Becker kept a record of towns where he acquired objects.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 73

Figure 7. Mexica reliefs representing Chalchiuhtlicue, the water goddess, and Quetzalcoatl letting blood, probably

carved in 8 Flint 1500, Cerro La Malinche, overlooking Tula Grande.

frame at waist level.31 All three are probably local

productions imitating Toltec types.32 The written sources do not mention the Mexica's

taking of ancient deity images from Tula, but they do

indicate Mexica pilgrimages to the site on important occasions associated with Quetzalcoatl. In 1519

Motecuhzoma II sent his priests to Tula to bury some

pieces of biscuit that his messengers got from the

Spaniards then in Veracruz. Afraid to eat it, Motecuhzoma said that

it belonged to the gods and that to eat it would be a

sacrilege. He told the priests to carry it solemnly to the

city of Tula and to bury it in the temple of Quetzalcoatl,55 since those who had arrived here [the Spanish] were his sons. The priests took the biscuit, placed it in a gilded gourd, wrapped the latter in rich mantles and made a long

procession to Tula. Along the way they incensed it and

sang hymns honoring Quetzalcoatl, whose food they carried. Once it had reached Tula it was buried in his

temple with great honors.

Duran 1967, 2: 510-511; translation, Duran 1964: 267

Another important evidence of Mexica presence at

Tula is a group of reliefs on the La Malinche hill across

the river from Tula Grande (fig. 7). These represent a

frontal image of Chalchiuhtlicue, the Aztec goddess of water and floods, faced by a profile Quetzalcoatl, who

stands before a rampant feathered serpent (a Toltec

convention)34 and lets blood from his ear. These reliefs

31. One of the chacmools is in the Museo Nacional de

Antropolog?a (Seier 1960-1961, 2: 817, fig. 17) and the other is

in a private collection (Von Winning 1960). The standing figure is

in the Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a (Nicholson and Berger 1968,

fig. 18).

32. The details of Motolinia's discussion of the larger sculpture in

Tlaxcala reveal other connections with Tula and the Toltecs. It was a

colossal figure (three estados, ca. 6 M. tall) and represented the

Tlaxcalans' main god Camaxtli/Mixcoatl, who was the father of

Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. If it had the striped legs and net bag that are

the usual characteristics of Mixcoatl, it would have resembled the

colossal figures associated with Pyramid B in those details, as well as

size. On the occasion of the god's main festival, the vestments of

Quetzalcoatl were brought to Tlaxcala from Cholula, the center of

Quetzalcoatl's worship in Aztec times. After they were put on the

statue of Camaxtli with the mask from Tula, it was said, "Today Camaxtli goes out as his son."

33. It is not known which structure this might have been. We

have no record of Aztec-period names for features at the site. There is

a glorified description of Quetzalcoatl's Tula (Sahag?n 1950-1982:

bk. 10, 166), but it cannot be matched with the remains.

34. This convention is common at Chichen Itza, and although rarer it is also represented at Tula ? for instance, the central figure of

the relief in the Palace East of the Vestibule (fig. 9). Its presence in

the Malinche reliefs and on other Aztec objects indicates a strong association with Tula.

74 RES 13 SPRING 87

Figure 8. Central section and several figures in procession on bench reliefs, reused as construction materials in Phase III of the

Templo Mayor (ca. 1431-1454), discovered in 1913, Mexica, H. 55.9 cm. (with cornice). The original location and arrangement

of the reliefs are unknown, nor do they form a complete set. On exhibit at the MNA are a total of eight figures facing right, twenty

figures facing left, plus the two central figures.

were most likely carved in 1500 (the date 8 Flint next

to Chalchiuhtlicue), as part of ceremonies petitioning the goddess to stop a flood in Tenochtitlan. The flood

had begun with the building of an aqueduct in the

previous year, 7 Reed, a year associated with

Quetzalcoatl. On a monument carved to celebrate

that occasion, the rampant feathered serpent behind

Ahuitzotl identifies him with Quetzalcoatl. The

profile figure of Quetzalcoatl at Tula, then, is either

Quetzalcoatl standing in for the king or Ahuitzotl

himself, petitioning the goddess to stop the flood. The

connection between Quetzalcoatl and these events

explains the presence of the reliefs at Tula (see

Umberger 1981: 129-132, 157-164).35

Moving to Tenochtitlan, the main features of the

layout of Tula seem to have been duplicated by the

Mexica. The plan of the sacred precinct in Sahag?n's Primeros Memoriales (fig. 2) depicts a west-facing main

pyramid, aligned with an adoratorio, a skull rack, and a ball court to the west. As for the archaeological remains, the only certain Toltec object is a plumbate vessel found in an offering on Phase II of the Templo

Mayor (Mus?e du Petit Palais 1981 : no. 37).36 Plumbate

vessels are lustrous wares, which were made on the

Pacific Coast of Guatemala and traded widely during the Toltec period. Since examples were common at

both Tula and Teotihuacan, they could have been

associated by the Mexica with both sites.

Diehl (1983: 27) suggests that many sculptures were

removed from Tula and taken to Tenochtitlan. The

candidates for Toltec sculptures in Mexico City are

close in iconography and general form to sculptures at

Tula, but in all cases there are significant differences,

indicating that they are Mexica copies. Two types of

sculptures are involved: bench reliefs with processions of warriors and a group of four warrior figures in-the

round. The bench reliefs are usually identified as

Mexica (Beyer 1955; Moedano K?er 1947; Nicholson

1971: 11 7-118), but the figures are usually called

Toltec (Nicholson 1971: 111, fig. 31, 119). Procession reliefs, which must have originally

decorated benches, have been found on two phases of the Templo Mayor, where they were reused as

construction materials. One group, discovered in 1913

(Beyer 1955), was set into the side wall of the pyramid

platform of Phase III (fig. 8). Another group discovered

in the recent excavations served as paving blocks on

the northwest corner of the terrace in front of the

pyramid (Phase IVb) (I have not seen them at close

enough range to discuss them).37 A third group was

found in their proper (presumably original) context?

on the sides of benches in the interior rooms of the

Platform of the Eagles, a structure to the north of the

Templo Mayor (possibly Phase V [Matos 1984b: 19]). The benches have projecting sections, which seem to

be places of special focus, as on the benches in the

vestibule and palace areas of Tula.

The procession reliefs, although similar to those still

remaining at Tula (and likewise crude), are not in

styles represented at the site. In addition, the Mexica

35. The site of Huitzilopochtli's birth, the hill of Coatepec in the

province of Tula (location unknown), was the object of a pilgrimage in Motecuhzoma I's reign (Duran 1967, 2: 217). It was also said that

after the Conquest, the image of Huitzilopochtli from the Templo

Mayor was hidden in a cave near Tula (Padden, 1970, 266, 270).

36. An example of a reworked plumbate piece is a very similar

dog vessel of unknown provenience, which has traces of stucco and

blue paint on the surface. Ulf Bankmann recently suggested that it

may have been renovated by the Aztecs and pointed out that blue

dogs are depicted as accompanying the dead in Aztec manuscripts

(Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum 1986: vol. 2, no. 130).

37. The reliefs are visible as dark blocks in Matos 1984a, ill. after

p. 63, lower left corner.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 75

Figure 9. Figures on projecting section in situ inside entrance to Palace East of the Vestibule at Tula, Toltec, H. 45 cm.

The figure in the center has a feathered serpent behind him. After Acosta 1954: fig. after p. 80.

processions proceed from opposite directions and meet

at a central section, featuring a pair of important personages flanking a zacatapayolli, a grass ball for the

deposit of sacrificial points.38 This type of composition is characteristic of both the Platform of the Eagles reliefs

and the ones discovered in 1913. In the case of the

former, where the reliefs are still in their proper

context, the central scenes are on the fronts of the

projecting areas. The arrangement of the reliefs

remaining at Tula (many are missing) indicates that the

figures proceeded from left and right toward the

stairway of Pyramid B, but there are no comparable central scenes. The only projecting area that still has

relief decoration features an important person, but in a

different manner (fig. 9). The other figures, in profile,

proceed around the projection from right to left toward

Pyramid B. The central figure on the front is highlighted

by frontal presentation (with head turned back toward

the procession) and a rampant feathered serpent behind

him. The remains of the back of the next figure to

the left indicate that the procession continued toward

the pyramid stairway.39 Finally, a number of motifs

represented in the Tenochtitlan reliefs are found only in

Mexica art, for instance, the zacatapayolli and the

smoking mirrors on the figure (probably a king) to the

left of the center in the relief illustrated here (fig. 8). Moedano K?er (1947) has also pointed out that certain

weapons are only depicted in the Mexica reliefs (atlatls,

darts, and lances) and that the xiuhuitzolli headgear is more common. Whether there were intermediate

examples of bench reliefs between the Tula and Mexica versions is unknown.40

The four warrior figures in question (fig. 10) were

found in 1944 in the area to the west of the Templo Mayor (12 Guatemala Street) together with a late-style Mexica copy (fig. 11) (Mateos Higuera 1979: 213

214). Actually the latter is a copy of only three of the

earlier figures (the fourth wears a skirt), which, although dressed in typical Toltec warrior outfits and resembling the colossal Atlantean figures at Tula in general form,

38. Klein (in press) has recently suggested that the Platform of the

Eagles was the Tlacochcalco Cuauhquiauac, the House of Darts at the

Eagle Gate, which was a place for bloodletting by the ruler and

warriors (thus, the central focus on bloodletting instruments in the

reliefs). She suggests the same purpose for similar rooms at Tula and

Chichen Itza, and quotes Matos (personal communication) as saying that there is another, unexcavated room of this type flanking the south

side of the Templo Mayor, complete with bench reliefs.

39. Another set of related reliefs was once located around the

upper fa?ade of the open patio of Room 1 of the Burned Palace at

Tula. Found broken and scattered on the floor of the room, their

arrangement was hypothetically reconstructed by Acosta (1954: 112) as follows: a series of recumbent figures flanking and facing central

bowl-like objects containing an unidentified mass with projections, one in the center of each wall. If this is the proper reconstruction,

there is a similarity to the Mexica reliefs in that a cult object is

featured in a composition with a central focus. In addition, there are

procession scenes with a central focus on a similar object (which

does not look like a Mexica zacatapayolli) at Chichen Itza (Moedano

K?er 1947: 127). Thus the type existed on the Toltec horizon, but

none remains at Tula.

40. It is interesting that the reliefs found in Mexico City were

associated with phases of both early and late date at the Templo

Mayor (Phases III, IVb, and V). By Phases IVb and V the Mexica's

distinctive late style had evolved, yet the reliefs on those levels are

not in the late style. They either were reused from earlier buildings or

were made by artists not practicing the late style. There are other, less

finely carved sculptures on these levels ?the serpent heads that

decorate Phases IV and IVb, for instance. Providing a contrast is a

late-style version of this type of procession relief, the Stone of the

Warriors, which was probably created between 1450 and 1480 and

therefore roughly contemporary with Phases IVb and V. This

monument (Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a; Nicholson 1971: 124,

fig. 57) represents a similar procession of warriors around the sides of

a single large block, which, like the projecting sections of the bench

reliefs, served as a seat or altar.

76 RES 13 SPRING 87

Figure 10. One of four warrior figures found at 12 Guatemala Street (formerly Escalerillas Street) behind Cathedral, Mexica/

Aztec, H. 1.15 m., MNA. By permission of INAH.

were almost certainly not made by the Toltecs. The

only small standing human figures at the site, the

telamones with upraised arms, are smaller in size

(Wendy Schonfeld, personal communication) and not at

all similar in style. Schonfeld has also observed that the

four figures have holes in the chests for the insertion

of jade, an Aztec characteristic not found on Toltec

figures, and that these holes were part of the original

conception. (Note the low position of the necklace and

pectoral to allow for the hole.) It is therefore probable that the four figures are earlier Mexica sculptures, derived either from the Atlantean figures or a smaller

Toltec version (now lost), and then copied by a later

Mexica artist. The differences between the two Aztec

versions are interesting. The copy is point for point very close in terms of pose, proportions, and paraphernalia. However, it has the typical and unmistakable attributes

of the late aesthetic?the inflated surfaces contrasting with flat surfaces, greater projection of planes, enlarged hands, and carefully articulated sandals, hands, feet,

Figure 11. Late Mexica copy found in same location, H. 1.30

m., MNA. Photograph courtesy INAH.

and border details. The characteristics of this aesthetic

appear in early form in figures from Phase IV of the

Templo Mayor (1450s) and in developed form in the

Coyolxauhqui relief sculpture on Phase IVb (1460s).

Thus, although the date of the four matching figures is

unknown, the late-style copy probably postdates the

mid-1460s.41

The chacmool is another important sculptural type derived from the Toltecs.42 Pre-Mexica versions made

in Central Mexico in the period after the fall of the

Toltecs, for instance those at Tlaxcala, must have been

purposeful, overt references to Tula. The Mexica would

also have known the chacmool to be a Toltec type; of

41. Found at the same site with the five figures was a block with

the date 12 House on it (Mateos Higuera 1979: 214, no. 24-1456).

I have not seen an illustration and do not know if the date has a

cartouche indicating a year or whether it can be used to date the

other sculptures found with it (1465 and 1517 were 12 House years). 42. Much has been written on chacmools; for a new interpretation

and review of the literature, see M. Miller 1985.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 77

the many examples at Tula (fig. 13), two were found in

an area of possible Mexica activities near the Aztec

adoratorio in front of Pyramid C. Several chacmools

have been discovered in Tenochtitlan (one in the early

style and three in the late style). These Mexica versions, even the early one, could never be mistaken for Toltec

originals. They are more the result of a series of replicas rather than of firsthand study.

The chacmool on Phase II of the Templo Mayor (fig. 12) is the earliest datable Mexica version. The outline

and arrangement of masses of the Tenochtitlan

sculpture are distinctively different from the Tula type, which is a standardized form at the site. Replacing the flat upper surface and container of the Toltec

chacmools is a large three-dimensional bowl sitting on

the stomach and held by hands with splayed fingers.43 There are two other Central Mexican chacmools

with this same emphasis on the round bowl, one of

unknown provenience now on the pyramid of Santa

Cecilia Acatitlan in a northern suburb of Mexico City

(fig. 14) (Solis 1976: 13, fig. 25) and one in the site museum at Tula. Both are missing their heads, are

rougher in style than the Mexica chacmool, and lack

the painted decoration and costume details. The

Mexica chacmool was visible on the platform of

the Templo Mayor before and during the war of

independence from the Tepanecs and was covered by 1431, when the temple was rebuilt for the coronation

ceremonies following the war (see Umberger, in press a). The three chacmools, then, probably represent a type

popular during the time of Tepanec domination before

the political rise of the Mexica.44 Although their

interrelationship is unknown, it can be said that the

Tenochtitlan version is more monumental and more

artistically advanced. There is already the Mexica

propensity for articulating details of costume. In

addition, unlike the other two chacmools, some

costume parts are of Toltec origin ? the triangular

apron, the garment covering the upper body, and the

blocklike earplugs. This indicates knowledge of the

original source of the chacmool form and the Mexica's more conscious and explicit form of archaizing.

The late-style Mexica chacmools (fig. 15)45 likewise are not specifically related to the Tula type, and again

they seem to have developed from the earlier post Toltec version. However, the Mexican consciousness of

the relationship of this distinctive form to the past is

evident in the wearing of antique picture-plaque jades (to be discussed below) and the identification of two of

the chacmools with an ancient god, Tlaloc.46 Thus it can be said that Mexica chacmools are the result of a

continuing tradition, but with knowledge of their source

in Tula, and they were meant to recall this link to the

past.

One interesting question concerns the identification

of chacmools with deities. In the most recent discussion

of chacmools in Mesoamerica, M. Miller (1985: 15-17)

points out that in addition to the two late Mexica

chacmools with Tlaloc attributes, the early chacmool at

the Templo Mayor is associated with Tlaloc because of

its placement in front of the god's shrine. From this

she suggests that the chacmool form in Mesoamerica

is generally associated with Tlaloc. Earlier Central

Mexican chacmools, however, including those at Tula, seem not to be elaborated with recognizable deity attributes. The attributes on the only whole example at

Tula (fig. 13) include the ''butterfly" breastplate and

triangular apron worn by the Atlantean figures at the

site, as well as a knife on the shoulder and the pointed headdress of a lord. The breastplate and crown may

identify the figure as Xiuhtecuhtli, the old fire god, or

they may just identify him as a Toltec lord. Thus I agree with Esther Pasztory (in press) that the association of the

chacmool and Tlaloc in late times is probably a Mexica

invention, not a survival from the deep past. As

will become apparent in the following examples of

archaizing sculptures, the Mexica often combined an

old form with deity characteristics differing from the

original model. At this point, I think that the Tlaloc

chacmools are more likely to be the result of a

43. Although without the detailed articulation of fingernails, lines, and knuckles of the late style, this is the earliest dated example

showing the Mexica focus on hands.

44. An early ceramic example of a chacmool with bowl-shaped container was found at Culhuacan in a stratigraphie level with

early Aztec ceramics (Aztec I and II) (S?journ? 1970: [1051). This

association seems to indicate a pre-1350 date for the initiation of the

bowl-shaped container on chacmools. It is of unknown size (but

presumably small, given the material) and missing its head, as is true

of most Central Mexican chacmools.

45. The other two chacmools are of about the same date as the

one illustrated, judging from their style and imagery, but they are

both badly damaged. One is in the Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a (Seier 1960-1961, 2: 819, fig. 18) and the other is in the Museo de

Santa Cecilia Acatitlan (Solis 1976: 12, figs. 22-24). The

interrelationship of the three sculptures is unknown.

46. Pasztory (in press) points out that the Tlaloc chacmool (fig.

13) also has a trapeze-and-ray in his headdress, an ancient symbol associated with Tlaloc and not depicted in Aztec art.

78 RES 13 SPRING 87

14

Figure 12. Early Mexica chacmool in situ on Phase II (ca. 1390-1431) at the Templo Mayor, in front of Tlaloc sanctuary. By

permission of INAH. Figure 13. Toltec chacmool, in situ at Tula, H. 66 cm. By permission of INAH. Figure 14. Early Aztec

chacmool, provenience unknown, H. 46, L. 83 cm., Sta. Cecilia Acatitlan. By permission of INAH. Figure 15. Mexica Tlaloc in

form of chacmool and wearing antique jade or copy of antique jade, found in 1944 at corner of Venustiano Carranza and Pi?o

Suarez Streets, probably 1500-1507, H. 54, L. 78 cm., MNA. By permission of INAH.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 79

conflation of a form associated with the Toltecs and an ancient Toltec god (see discussion below of the

Teotihuacan-form Tlaloc sculpture).47 Other very unusual (and problematical) archaizing

objects are a pair of cylindrical pedestal vessels made of an orange-colored ceramic (fig. 16) that were found buried in the Phase IVb terrace of the Templo Mayor. Carved in a panel on the front of each vase is the motif of a standing figure with rampant serpent behind him. As Nicholson and Keber suggest, the vases are

imitations of an X Fine Orange vessel type (1983: 95).

Although no exact prototype is known, both the vessel

type and figurai motif were common in Toltec times.

Cylindrical pedestal vessels in various wares have been found all over Mesoamerica. True X Fine Orange vessels bearing Toltec motifs seem to have been made on the southern Gulf Coast and are found principally in

Veracruz and the Yucatan Peninsula. Strangely, no true

X Fine Orange has been found at Tula (Diehl 1981 :

289), but rather a related type, which Acosta called

Polished Orange (1956-1957: 91). Nicholson and Keber cite as a prototype for the Mexica vessels a vase

in Vienna (fig. 17), of unknown provenience, which is a Toltec-period ware imitating X Fine Orange (Christian

Feest, letter, April 1, 1986; see also Nowotny 1959:

136-137). It has the same shape and a carved panel,

although the scene is multifigured. Acosta found pieces of another related vase at Tula (fig. 18)

? probably a

bell-shaped pedestal vessel (also a common form in

Toltec times). Of interest is the relief panel depicting a

profile male figure with feathered serpent behind. It is not known if there was an original closer to the Mexica

vases, which is quite possible, or if the artist conflated a Toltec-period vase type with a Toltec type of

composition.48

The vases were buried next to the monumental

Coyolxauhqui Stone, representing Huitzilopochtli's defeated enemy sister, at the base of the Huitzilopochtli side of the Templo Mayor. They contained incinerated

human remains. From their location one would assume

that it was the cremation of an important person,

possibly Motecuhzoma I, who died in 1469, a date

associated with this phase by Matos (1981a: 50; see

Umberger, in press a). If these were a king's funerary vessels, the use of a Toltec period form would be

appropriate (Nicholson, in press). It is interesting that

although the figurai prototype is Toltec, the Mexica

arranged the vases in the holes in which they were

buried to conform to a Mexica type of composition; the

profile figures on the two vases were oriented toward

the west and faced each other. This pairing of figures is

commonly used for representations of kings, as in the

central section of the bench reliefs found in 1913 (fig. 8). Klein (in press) suggests that this composition type is

associated with the passing of power from one ruler

to another at the time of a death and accession. In

addition, the figures are dressed in deity costumes

that would not have been found in Toltec prototypes. One seems to be a combination of Mixcoatl and

Xiuhtecuhtli, the Old Fire God, and the other is a form

of Tezcatlipoca standing before a feathered serpent (Nicholson with Keber 1983: 95-96).

Several other large Toltec-like ceramic vessels (fig. 19) were found in the interior rooms of the Platform

of the Eagles. There are eight vessels altogether, six

with what Matos and other archaeologists identify as

weeping Tlaloc faces (Matos 1984b: 20). Large braziers

decorated with Tlaloc faces have been found in many

parts of Mesoamerica and date from Toltec times up to

the Conquest (Fernando Robles, letter, June 12, 1986). In photographs (Matos 1984b: photos 9, 10; 1984a: ill.

on 102-103) the vessels at the Templo Mayor look very like a Tula ceramic type, called Abra Coarse Brown by recent archaeologists (Cobean 1978) (fig. 20). There are two basic problems with these related ceramics at

Tenochtitlan and Tula. First, it is unclear whether

47. I think it is a coincidence that two chacmools at Chichen Itza

have Tlaloc faces or Chac (Maya rain god) faces on their earplugs

(Miller 1985: 17), given the lack of evidence of Tlaloc associations on

the chacmools between these and the Mexica versions.

48. Another similar vase, but of true X Fine Orange, is a bell

shaped pedestal vessel from Chichen Itza. Painted around the sides is

a procession of Toltec warriors with feathered serpents behind them.

Again, only parts of the vase remain. It was classified by Brainerd

(1958: fig. 89a) as an imported ware from Veracruz, Cerro Montoso

Polychrome. Another, beaker-shaped orange vessel in Vienna has

pairs of Toltec warriors in carved panels on opposite sides (Becker

Donner 1965: no. 124, p. 18, pi. 32; Nowotny 1959: 134-136).

Mayer (1844: 106-108) illustrates this vessel and says it was found

on the Cerro del Tesoro (Tula Grande).

Besides the affiliation with X Fine Orange, the Mexica vessels

from the Templo Mayor seem to have other connections with

Veracruz. The figure on the one illustrated (fig. 16) has two left

hands, something that is rare in Aztec art proper but characteristic of

the Aztec provincial style around Castillo de Teayo, Veracruz, and

Huastec shell carvings. This may perhaps indicate a Veracruz artist

and Mexica awareness that Toltec-type ceramics are found in

Veracruz. The reference is still to the Toltecs, given the strong connection between Tula and the man with serpent motif, evident in

the Malinche reliefs (fig. 7).

80 RES 13 SPRING 87

Figure 16. Mexica imitation Fine Orange vessel with

representation of Tezcatlipoca with feathered serpent behind,

Offering 14, Templo Mayor, Phase IVb (ca. 1464-1481), H. 33 cm. Photograph by Salvador Guil'liem Arroyo, courtesy INAH.

those at Tula are Toltec or Aztec; and second, the

relationships between the various vessels need to be

clarified through technical and stylistic analysis (they are currently being studied by Francisco Hinojoza). Acosta found fragments of this vessel type and late

Aztec ceramics scattered around the Aztec-period adoratorio next to Pyramid C at Tula (Acosta 1954:

107-111, pis. 51-52).49 He thus believed that the

vessels were Aztec productions inspired by Toltec types and suggested that they were used in a ceremony

featuring ceramic breakage like the New Fire Ceremony (1954: 114). Cobean (1974: 35), however, decided

from the context of the remains of another vessel found

next to the Canal Locality Temple that the known

examples at Tula are probably Toltec period in date.

Figure 17. Toltec-period imitation Fine Orange vessel,

provenience unknown, H. 24.8 cm. Photograph courtesy

Museum f?r V?lkerkunde, Vienna.

The eight vessels in Mexico City give rise to new

questions about the whole group; and the answers at

this point are inconclusive. There is nothing about any of these vessels that recalls the late Aztec style so well

known in other media. Yet Eduardo Matos (letter, April 22, 1986) does not think there is any evidence of

Mexica repairs to the Tenochtitlan vessels?which

would suggest that they are Mexica productions, as

would their size and number.50 On the other hand, Robert Cobean (letter, September 25, 1986) thinks

that the Templo Mayor vessels are probably Toltec

productions (on the basis of style), although they vary from the Tula vessels in details. Large storage areas,

where the Mexica could have discovered such vessels

49. The adoratorio was built next to Pyramid C after the latter was

stripped of its revetment, and thus it is dated to post-Toltec times.

Whether it is early or late Aztec is unknown. Acosta (1954: 111)

believed that the platform and the scattered ceramics around it,

including the Abra Coarse Brown fragments, were late Aztec, that is,

Mexica period (some of the ceramics definitely are).

50. In addition, Mexica "fancy" ceramics are not well known and

may vary from the styles evident in other media (this is true of Aztec

III Black-on-Orange ceramics).

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 81

Figure 18. Pieces of Polished Orange vessel found at Tula:

(A) relief of man and feathered serpent; (B) painted (fresco)

decoration; (C) reconstruction of vase (support hypothetical); present location unknown. Acosta 1942-1944: fig. 30.

intact, have been excavated at Tula (Diehl 1983: 89

and pi. 31). Whatever the exact situation, the discovery of such closely related examples in a Toltec context at

Tenochtitlan and in a late Aztec context at Tula

suggests that the Mexica thought of the form as Toltec.

There is another interesting Templo Mayor vessel,

representing a skeletal figure, which Nagao (1985a:

72-73) suggests is a copy of a plumbate vessel in a

light greenish stone.51 Other sculptures which seem to

be in a style somewhere between Toltec and Mexica, are two reliefs of birds of prey clutching hearts, like

those on Pyramid B at Tula, but finer in carving style,

polychromed (rather than stuccoed in white), and

including additional motifs in the background.52 In summary, it must be pointed out that the few true

Toltec and Teotihuacan objects found to date in Mexico

City do not implicate the Mexica in the extensive

looting apparent at the two cities. There are many more

Mexica imitations than antiques. It is also evident from

the written sources on Teotihuacan that large sculptures of deities, including Tonacatecuhtli who was thought to

be a "Toltec" god (Alva Ixtlilxochitl 1975-1977: 1,

272-273), were worshiped by the Mexica and their

neighbors at the site (see below). Whether these were

ancient or modern ?mages is unknown, but their

presence does indicate that that city was treated with

respect, and was not considered merely a place to be

Figure 19. Toltec (?) ceramic brazier with face possibly of rain

god, located inside the Platform of the Eagles north of the

Templo Mayor, possibly Phase V (ca. 1469-1481).

Photograph by Salvador GuiNiem Arroyo, courtesy INAH.

Figure 20. Abra Coarse Brown ceramic brazier, reconstructed

from fragments found around post-Toltec adoratorio abutting

west side of Pyramid C at Tula, Toltec (?), H. 50 cm., site

museum, Tula. By permission of INAH.

51. See Matos 1981a: color ill. after photo 28; compare with

Seler 1960-1961, 5: 579, fig. 263.

52. There might also be a 1 Reed date, consisting of an

arrow and a dot in the upper right. The reliefs were given to the

Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1893 by the painter Frederic E.

Church, who had acquired them in Tampico on the Gulf Coast.

Similar finer carvings at Tula represent hearts pierced by arrows

(Diehl 1983: pi. 16 after p. 72).

82 RES 13 SPRING 87

looted. Likewise, the evidence of pilgrimages to Tula

and the burial of offerings seem to suggest the same

thing.

Teotihuacan53

If Tula was associated in Mexica thought with

Quetzalcoatl, warrior figures, dynastic legitimacy, and

cultural precedents, Teotihuacan was linked with a

sacred, cosmic event at the beginning of the present era

of time?the birth of the sun. In the year 1 Rabbit, the

fourth era of time ended in a great flood and the fifth era began with a period of darkness that lasted until 13

Reed, twenty-six years later,54 when the gods gathered at Teotihuacan for the birth of the new sun. After a rich

god failed to leap into the fire that would transform him into the sun, a poor, sore-ridden god dared and

became the 4 Movement sun. Then the rich god

jumped into the ashes and became the moon (Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 7, 3-9).

The best-known Aztec reference to specific features at the site of Teotihuacan is also found in the Florentine

Codex:

Offerings were made at a place named Teotiuacan. And

there all the people raised pyramids for the sun and for the moon; then they made many small pyramids where

offerings were made. And there leaders were elected. . . .

And when the rulers died, they buried them there.

Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10, 191-192

Teotihuacan (fig. 21) was the largest Precolumbian

city in Mesoamerica, covering eight square miles. Its

population, estimated up to 125,000, was only equaled or exceeded by that of Tenochtitlan. The plan has two

wide avenues oriented toward the cardinal directions and dividing the city into four quarters. The avenues

meet at a point in front of a great ceremonial-civic

complex, the Ciudadela, which encloses the so-called

Temple of Quetzalcoatl. The northern end of the north south avenue, the Street of the Dead, is limited in access by a palace complex and features the two largest

pyramids in the city, the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon. In 1971 a cave was discovered under the west

facing Pyramid of the Sun. This was apparently an

important place of pilgrimage from early times and

probably the original source of the city's power.

Figure 21. Teotihuacan in 1865, as it appeared before restoration. Seler 1960-1961, 5: 406, fig. 1, by permission of

Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.

Periodically at unknown times in its history, the long passageway was sealed by walls (which were later

broken), and although an Aztec sherd was found near

the entrance, it is not known if the Aztecs were aware

of the cave (Heyden 1975: 134). Acosta removed all

materials from its floor for study. Unfortunately, the

results were never published (Mill?n 1981: 233), so the

dates of use are not known. Mill?n (in press) suggests the possibility that Teotihuacan's original attraction

was the same as in Aztec times, its claim to be the

birthplace of the sun,55 and that the cave under the 53. For an overview of Teotihuacan archaeology, see Mill?n

1973, 1981.

54. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1973: 5; Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas 1973: 32, 36.

55. A variation on this suggestion, made by Davies (1984: 210), is

that the fifth and final sun was born after the fall of Teotihuacan.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 83

pyramid was an appropriate place for this and other

types of origins?a symbolic function of caves

throughout Mesoamerica (see Heyden 1975). There

may have been a cave under the Pyramid of the Moon

also (see Kubier 1982: 50). The most noticeable characteristic of Teotihuacan

architecture is the talud-and-tablero (sloping base

supporting rectangular panel) profile of the stepped levels of its pyramid platforms (see fig. 28). Mural

paintings, the city's main art form, once covered all

surfaces with bright polychromy. Although sculpture is rarer at Teotihuacan, the city's artists did create some

distinctive forms, such as anthropomorphic face masks

and braziers representing the Old Fire God supporting a container. In addition to the sloped line with

rectangular panel, another popular combination of

shapes was a curvilinear solid on a truncated cone.

Like Tula, the peripheral areas of Teotihuacan were

reoccupied after its fall in around 750; the sacred

center, however, was totally destroyed, and although used for ceremonies by later people, it was never again inhabited. In late Aztec times, Teotihuacan was within

the jurisdiction of Tetzcoco, Tenochtitlan's ally, and there were five Aztec communities, notably San Juan Teotihuacan and San Francisco Mazap?n, near and on

the ruins. There is some evidence of Aztec presence in the ceremonial center?for instance Aztec-period

burials on the east side of the Ciudadela and possibly an adoratorio in front of the Pyramid of the Sun. The

well-known Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl, which featured

sculptures of double-headed, feathered serpents, was

stripped of these sculptures, except for a section that was covered by a later platform. When this was done

and by whom is not known.

Evidence of the appearance and use of Teotihuacan in Aztec times is found in the 1580 Relaci?n de

Tecc?ztlan y su partido (Paso y Troncoso 1905-1906, 6: 221-222). In the map accompanying the relaci?n

(fig. 22), two large pyramids and seven smaller

platforms are located around a rectangular area,

presumably the north part of the north-south avenue,

containing the words "or?culo de Montecuma." The text identifies the two main pyramids, the largest as the

Pyramid of the Sun and the one to the north as the

Pyramid of the Moon. On the summit of the Sun and

facing west was a stone idol of Tonacatecuhtli (Lord of Sustenance), of one piece of stone and three brazas

tall (about 5 M.). On a lower platform in front of the

pyramid was a smaller idol called Mictlantecuhtli

(Lord of the Dead). Another idol three brazas tall and

representing the Moon was on the Pyramid of the

Moon. Around this pyramid were many other platforms, on the largest of which were six other idols called the

brothers or siblings of the Moon.56 "To all of these the

priests of Montesuma, lord of Mexico, went, with the

said Montesuma, each twenty days to sacrifice." Every fourth year there was a ceremony in a great plaza between the pyramids, during which wrong-doers were

punished on a small platform two estados high (ca. 4 M.). The question is whether the Aztecs were reusing

Teotihuacan deity ?mages found at the site, images of

their own, or a combination of the two. According to

early sources (see Pe?afiel 1900: 34), the sculptures were destroyed by Bishop Zum?rraga in the sixteenth

century. However, two large Teotihuacan period

sculptures at the site could be the remains of these

deity images. One is the 3 M. tall sculpture of a female

deity discovered in 1889 at the southwest corner of the

Figure 22. Detail of map of Tecciztlan and environs showing site of Teotihuacan (in center), from relaci?n geogr?fica o? 1580. Paso y Troncoso 1905-1906, 6: map after p. 222.

56. Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975-1977, 1: 272-273) gives much of the

same information about the Aztec-period idols at Teotihuacan: "Los

?dolos de los tultecas que antiguamente tuvieron, fueron los m?s

principales que fue Tonacateuhtli, y hoy en d?a est? su personaje en

el c? Ipyramidl mas alto, que es dedicado al sol, de este pueblo

JTeotihuacanl, que quiere decir dios del sustento, y |a| su mujer ten?an Jporl otra diosa, y dicen que este dios del sustento era figurado al sol y su mujer a la luna, y otras diosas que llamaban las hermanas

del sol y luna, que todav?a hay pedazos de ellas en los cues de este

pueblo. . . ."

It is interesting that the relaci?n and Alva Ixtlilxochitl indicate the

Aztecs' connection of Tonacatecuhtli, Lord of Sustenance, with the

sun and the main west-facing pyramid of Teotihuacan, which may have been a double temple like the Templo Mayor (to be discussed

further on). This information complements Nagao's (1985b)

identification of the mysterious Two-Horned God images found in a

number of caches at the Templo Mayor as representations of the same

deity (also known as Ometecuhtli, Lord of Duality).

84 RES 13 SPRING 87

plaza of the Pyramid of the Moon; the other is a

fragment of a similar sculpture found nearby (Seler

1960-1961, 5: 435-437, fig. 27, pi. 17, nos. 1, 2). The most interesting remains are death images that

may have been associated with the Mictlantecuhtli

platform. Beyer (1922 170-171: pi. 82a, b) suggested that two profile skull sculptures found about 100 meters

east of the Pyramid of the Sun were part of this shrine, either left there from Teotihuacan times or moved there

by the Aztecs. In 1963 Chadwick excavated a large

sculpture, representing a frontal skull framed by a large

pleated circular element, near the platform in front of

the Pyramid of the Sun. This he suggested may have

been the death god image described as being on the

platform (Mill?n 1973: fig. 21b).57 Another possibility is a sculpture in the Teotihuacan site museum (see fig. 25), which one can assume (from the two Mexica

copies to be discussed below) was visible in Aztec

times, although its original location at the site is

unrecorded. The sculpture is a Janus figure, with

skeletal faces on front and back. The body is a

truncated cone with stylized ribs, four arms, and a row

of skulls in relief around the base. These skulls match

in details the large profile skull sculptures found

previously near the Pyramid of the Sun. They share the

distinctive upturned curl in the nose area, the volute

where the jaw and cheek meet, and the knot behind

the head.58 These similarities may indicate that the

three sculptures were part of the same ensemble.

The large plaza with platform used for punishment of

criminals may be either in front of the Pyramid of the

Moon or at the Ciudadela, or, less likely, the smaller one in front of the Sun.59

There are several aspects of the layout of

Teotihuacan that are repeated in Tenochtitlan. Both

cities were organized by grid plans and two main

north-south and east-west avenues meeting in the

center. Both also had a main west-facing pyramid, but

that of Tenochtitlan was placed at the meeting place of

the avenues, rather than to the north. According to

Mill?n (1976: 238), the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun may have had two shrines on top also. If so, some

evidence points to its having been shared by rain and sun deities, as in the case of the Mexica temple.60

Actual Teotihuacan objects found in Mexico City include figurines, masks, and ceramic vessels, cached

at and near the Templo Mayor61 and in front of a small

temple to the south (near the corner of Pi?o Suarez and

Izazaga streets) (Gussinyer 1970a). An important modified antique of unknown

provenience is a Teotihuacan serpentine figure inscribed in Postclassic times with the dates 13 Reed

and 1 Flint on its chest (fig. 23). In the Mexica calendar

these were two years at the middle of the fifty-two-year

cycle, the most important position in the cycle. Thirteen Reed was the date of the sun's birth at

Teotihuacan, and 1 Flint was a date of multiple references of political importance to the Mexica

(see Umberger, in press b). It was the date of

Huitzilopochtli's birth, the year the Mexica left on their

migration from their homeland, and the year they overthrew the Tepanec capital city (1428). When

inscribed together with the date of the sun's birth, it

probably signified the birth of the "Mexica sun" in a

political sense, and the ascendance of the Mexica as

the people of the sun.62 Both dates were associated

57. Von Winning (n.d.) suggests that this sculpture is actually

Aztec, because death images are very rare at Teotihuacan, but I agree

with Esther Pasztory (letter to Von Winning, December 2, 1980) that

its style is consistent with that of other Teotihuacan sculptures. She

cites a Teotihuacan mural that depicts skulls (A. Miller 1973: 57,

fig. 47).

58. This same type of skull is presented frontally in the mural

cited by Pasztory, indicating the Teotihuacan origin of the type. 59. Other early sources of information on Teotihuacan are the

Mazap?n maps (Kubier 1982) of which there are three copies,

showing the layout of the city in the early colonial period and

including N?huatl glosses naming many parts of the site, the north

south avenue, for instance, which was then, as it is now, called the

Street of the Dead. The maps indicate other places of significance to

the Aztecs, for instance, a "place of reverence" west of the Pyramid of the Moon and a "place of burials in honor of the sun" behind the

Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl in the courtyard of the Ciudadela, which

may possibly correspond with Aztec-period burials recently excavated

in Structure 1R on the east platform (Martinez and Jarquin 1982: 45;

Romero 1982). An Aztec III jar was associated with a child's burial, which was accompanied by a fragment of a Teotihuacan sculpture

(not illustrated). An adult burial nearby included two vases of

Tetzcoco Red-on-Black ware. See Kubier's analysis of the N?huatl

glosses of the Mazap?n maps and discussion of other early maps of

Teotihuacan. See also Hodge (1984: 117-132) for further information

on Aztec-period Teotihuacan.

60. Associated with Tlaloc, the rain god, are the cave (his name

means "path through the earth" in N?huatl) and the child sacrifices

found at the corners of the stepped levels of the pyramid (Heyden 1975: 141). Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975-1977, 1: 272-273), after his

description of the "Toltec" city of Teotihuacan, states that the Toltecs

sacrificed children to Tlaloc. The pyramid's western orientation, the

cave as a birthplace, and its Aztec-period name may indicate solar

aspects. 61. Batres 1902: pis. on 19 and 24 (see fig. 3); Mus?e du Petit

Palais 1981: nos. 11, 90.

62. See Umberger, in press b, on the political use of the solar

metaphor.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 85

with the image of the sun on the great Calendar Stone, and their placement on this Teotihuacan figure is

appropriate because the sun was born at that city.63 However, although the dates can be interpreted from

the Mexica point-of-view, there is a problem with

seeing the inscription as Mexica because of its variant

style. The Flint date, represented as a knife with face

and speech scroll, could be Aztec, but the Reed date is

atypical, consisting of two reed arrows with points visible (in the Mixtee manner) rather than the usual

reed shaft and leaves emanating from a vase seen in

cross-section (see fig. 35). There are two possibilities: either the inscription is that of a non-Mexica group

using similar symbolic associations,64 or a foreign artist

working for the Mexica. At present I do not know the

answer, but I think the latter explanation is possible because of the speech scroll on the Flint date. As far as

I know, speech scrolls occur only on Aztec dates.

There are two late Aztec-style monuments that use

arrows for Reed dates, and another Aztec period

sculpture at Castillo de Teayo, Veracruz, with the dates 1 Flint and 13 Reed in a nonconventional, provincial

style.65 The atypical style of these inscriptions of

0 ?w> <jg?

^r ?o?

Figure 23. Teotihuacan greenstone figure with Late Postclassic

inscription, 1 Flint and 13 Reed, on chest, provenience unknown, H. 34 cm. Photograph by Peter Windzusz, by permission of Museum f?r V?lkerkunde, Hamburg.

63. Parts of two similar greenstone figures were found in

the House of the Priests adjacent to the Pyramid of the Sun at

Teotihuacan (Seler 1960-1961, 5: 434, fig. 26). Could the Hamburg

figure have come from this area also? If so, its association with the

date of the sun's birth would have been especially appropriate. 64. There is some evidence that these two dates were important

and had similar symbolic associations in Early Postclassic times. The

connection of 13 Reed with the sun goes back at least to Xochicalco, where it is inscribed on the back of Stela 3; on the front of the same

monument is 4 Movement, the calendric name of the sun in Aztec

times (see Caso 1967: 186, pi. 3). I feel that the inscription of these

two dates together indicates the same symbolic association with the

sun that they had in later times (on the relationship of 13 Reed and 4

Movement, see Umberger 1981: 203-204). That the date 13 Reed

was significant at Xochicalco is indicated by its appearance on three,

possibly four, monuments (Berlo, in press). One Flint does not appear in the known Xochicalco inscriptions.

However, in the written sources it is associated with the migrations of groups besides the Mexica, which probably indicates that it had

political associations before the Mexica expropriated it. One Flint and

13 Reed are inscribed on two boxes excavated by local people at

Tolcayuca, Hidalgo (Cossio 1942: photos 10, 14; these boxes were

called to my attention by H. B. Nicholson, personal communication).

Most of the other materials at the site are Mazap?n (Toltec period), and the carved dates, which are very difficult to see in the

photographs, are unconventional in relation to Mexica inscriptions. The boxes may thus indicate the linking of the two dates in pre-Aztec times.

65. For the two Aztec objects with arrows for reed dates, see Caso

1967: 68, fig. 20; Nicholson 1956: 99, fig. 3. For the stela at Castillo

de Teayo, see Seler 1960-1961, 3: 417, fig. 8; Umberger 1981a:

134-135, 200.

86 RES 13 SPRING 87

politically important dates can perhaps be explained by the Mexica's habit of forcing artists from outside

Tenochtitlan to carve monuments for them. Two such

incidents are recorded in the written sources. On one

occasion during the 1450s, the Mexica made Tepanec artists carve a sacrificial stone on which was depicted the defeat of their own nation (Alvarado Tezozomoc

1975: 318-319). The year of that defeat, 1 Flint, may

very well have been carved on the monument. At

another time also in the reign of Motecuhzoma I, on

the day 1 Flint, Huitzilopochtli's ceremonial day, artists

from nearby communities were brought to Tenochtitlan

to carve images of the gods that Huitzilopochtli had

conquered (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 356).66 In the category of archaizing monuments are four

platforms (Boone 1985: 179) and four stone sculptures. A bust-length death figure (fig. 24), found in 1900 in

front of and on axis with the Huitzilopochtli half of the

Templo Mayor, seems to be a copy of the death figure in the Teotihuacan site museum (fig. 25; this is the only

known Teotihuacan example of this type). The Mexica

version was found in battered condition under a pre

Hispanic floor in front of a small west-facing platform. It reproduces the general shape and motifs of the

Teotihuacan figure (four arms, stylized ribs and skulls

around the base), but has only one face. Made of

greenstone, the image was further modified by the

addition of Aztec deity characteristics. It wears the head

decoration of Coyolxauhqui, Huitzilopochtli's enemy sister whom he killed soon after his birth at Coatepec. In addition, on top of the head the representation of the

sign for grass (malinalli) including its flowers (xochitl)

may refer to Malinalxochitl, another enemy sister, whom Huitzilopochtli abandoned near Malinalco, a town south of Tenochtitlan, during the Mexica

migration (Peterson 1983: 122). The figure is dead, like

Coyolxauhqui, but not decapitated. Its location in

front of the temple, which represented Coatepec, is appropriate for a Coyolxauhqui image (other

Coyolxauhqui sculptures were placed on that axis), and the use of greenstone is not unprecedented in

representations of this deity.67 The sculpture then must

Figure 24. Mexica bust-length, greenstone figure of

Huitzilopochtli's dead enemy sister, found by Batres on Escalerillas Street in 1900, H. 76 cm., with drawing of

headdress, MNA. By permission of INAH.

be some sort of embodiment of the defeated, traitor

sisters. The reason for using a Teotihuacan prototype is

unknown.

Another sculpture (fig. 26) (Seler 1960-1961, 2:

843-846) similar to the greenstone death figure but of

gray volcanic stone and without the Coyolxauhqui headdress, was found with four cihuateteo, death

goddesses, at the corner of 16 de Septiembre and Isabel

la Cat?lica streets. It has hair like a cihuateotl (sing.) and therefore may represent an archaizing version of

that type; the date 7 Flower on top of the head may be a calendric name. It is interesting that the Mexica used

the same model for figures with different identities, a

Coyolxauhqui type and a cihuateotl. Perhaps this

66. "... y habiendo tenido noticia todos los principales del

mando de Moctezuma, y para el dia proprio que llaman Zetecpatl |1

Flint], ... y allegada gran copia de piedra gruesa y pesada, de mas

de un estado, y otros dos estados de alta y grueso, mandaron venir

de Tezcuco, Tacuba, Cuyuacan, Atzcapotzalco, Chalco, Xuchimilco

canteros buenos para labrar los bultos de cada dios sugeto ?

Huitzilopochtli, han de estar en las cuadras lof the Templo Mayorl." 67. See the colossal head of Coyolxauhqui and a small mask,

both of green colored stones (Nicholson with Keber 1983: color pis. on 48, 51).

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 87

Figure 25. Teotihuacan death god, original location at Teotihuacan unknown, site museum. Photograph courtesy

INAH.

difference accounts for their varying fates. The

Coyolxauhqui figure, representing the enemy of

Huitzilopochtli, was destroyed in pre-Hispanic times

and interred below a pavement; the other was not

damaged. The dating of these two late-style archaizing

sculptures is difficult. They may have been made in the 1480s or 1490s, in the reign of Ahuitzotl, with other

female death deities.68

The four Teotihuacan-style structures include two

Red Temples flanking the north and south sides of the

Figure 26. Mexica gray stone, archaizing cihuateotl, found at

corner of 16 de Septiembre and Isabel la Cat?lica Streets, H. 1.14 m., MNA. By permission of INAH.

Templo Mayor, another, more distant platform to the

west of the Templo Mayor (on Guatemala Street, now

in the garden of the Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a), and a fourth one north of the Templo Mayor (near the corner of Argentina and Justo Sierra Streets).69 They all feature the typical Teotihuacan talud-and-tablero

profile, and at least one, the Red Temple north of the

Templo Mayor, has pseudo-Teotihuacan paintings in

the form of broad vertical bands, each containing a

large red-rimmed eye, on the sloping talud (fig. 27). On

the alfardas (sloping panels) framing the stairway the

bands are horizontal. Bands with eyes represent liquid at Teotihuacan and are ubiquitous at the site. Although

68. Unfortunately, the correspondence of the 1900 excavation to

the recently defined levels of the Templo Mayor is unknown. The

greenstone figure has a Tlaloc earth monster on the bottom very like

that on the great Coatlicue and Yolotlicue sculptures, which may date

from around 1491, the date 12 Reed carved on both (Umberger 1981: 77-78). The gray stone figure was found with a colossal head

bearing the same date (Mateos Higuera 1979: 226-227).

69. See Matos 1981b: 258-267, for information on one of the

two Red Temples; Gussinyer 1970b, for the platform on Guatemala

Street; Matos 1964 for the one on justo Sierra Street.

88 RES 13 SPRING 87

Figure 27. Red Temple with Teotihuacan-style ta/ud-and-tab/ero and paintings of bands

with eyes, north side of Templo Mayor, Phase VI (1483 - ca. 1500), Mexica.

Photograph by Salvador Guil'liem Arroyo, courtesy INAH.

they usually are small in scale and pertain to borders, there are examples of large-scale bands, arranged either

horizontally or vertically in the main field (fig. 28).70

Stylized seashells on the frame of the tablero of the Red

Temple probably indicate that the bands, which have

alternating blue and yellow backgrounds, likewise

represent liquid. The platform farther north is painted with a Tlaloc design (Matos 1964: fig. 2). Tlaloc was

an ancient god associated with Teotihuacan, but the

painting does not follow Teotihuacan conventions.

Boone (1985: 179) comments that all four platforms with ta/ud-and-tab/ero profiles would have recalled

Teotihuacan also because of their bright polychromy,

in contrast to the other buildings in the ceremonial

precinct, which were probably white.

During the recent excavations, an important

archaizing sculpture was found in the area behind the

Red Temple with pseudo-Teotihuacan paintings (fig. 29). It is a late Mexica sculpture of Tlaloc in a pose derived from Teotihuacan sculptures of an old man

carrying a brazier on his head, which modern scholars

interpret as representing the Old Fire God (fig. 30). This

is a typical Teotihuacan type found in several places in the city, and thus is comparable to the Toltec

chacmool. The Mexica version is, in fact, very close in

style and iconography to the Tlaloc chacmool (fig. 15).

Both figures wear heavy jade necklaces with antique

picture-plaques and carry vessels, one full of water and

I_/ \ Figure 28. Teotihuacan paintings of bands with eyes on platform at Zacuala,

Teotihuacan. After S?journ? 1959: fig. 32.

70. See also A. Miller 1973: 44, pis. 6, 7.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 89

the other with an ?mage of the water god himself on

top. Although some scholars suggest that the figure in

the pose of the Old Fire God is a conflation of Tlaloc

and the Old Fire God (Nicholson with Keber 1983: 35;

L?pez Austin, in press), I do not think there are any intentional references to the original Teotihuacan deity

on the sculpture. Even the eyes in the decorative band

around the vessel, typical motifs on the Teotihuacan

sculptures, are misunderstood and transformed into

flowerlike forms. In Mexica times, the fire god, Xiuhtecuhtli, had taken a different form, and it is

possible that the artist did not know the identity of the

Teotihuacan deity. Or if he did know its identity, he

chose to ignore it, borrowing only its distinctive pose. I am thus* extending Esther Pasztory's (in press) line of

thought on the Tlaloc chacmool in suggesting that both

archaizing Tlalocs are conflations of the ancient deity with the most typical figurai forms of the cities with

which the Aztecs associated him (Alva Ixtlilxochitl

1975-1977, 1: 273). The Teotihuacanoid sculpture has a date on the

back, 11 Reed, which probably refers to the year 1503, the second year of Motecuhzoma H's reign. The Tlaloc

chacmool was certainly carved around the same time, which according to the written sources was a period of concern about water. The inauguration of the new

aqueduct in 1499 and ceremonies to stop the

subsequent flood were occasions for the making of

images of water deities. The written sources emphasize the part played by Chalchiuhtlicue, goddess of the

water of the lake. The priest who welcomed the water

to the city dressed as the goddess, and a sculpture of

Chalchiuhtlicue was later thrown into the spring where

the aqueduct started (Duran 1967, 2: 375-381). She was also depicted in the reliefs on the Cerro La

Malinche at Tula. Tlaloc was a participant, too,

although not as important in the written accounts. After

the flood, Tenochtitlan suffered a serious drought, and

normal conditions did not return until 2 Reed (1507). It

is not surprising that sculptures and structures with

aquatic imagery were created at this time.

Another sculpture of interest (fig. 31) was first

published in 1900 with an implied provenience of

Teotihuacan (Pe?afiel 1900: pis. 49-51). The upper

part of this late Aztec sculpture is covered with

Teotihuacanoid reliefs of flowers, comparable with a

flower-covered cylindrical sculpture from the site (fig. 32). The lower part has low relief carvings on both

front and back representing the face of a non

Teotihuacan deity (the same face is depicted twice). Like the archaizing Coyolxauhqui and cihuateotl, the

Figure 29. Mexica Tlaloc in form of Teotihuacan Old Fire God brazier and wearing antique jade or copy, found in area

behind Red Temple north of Templo Mayor, Phase VI (?), date 11 Reed (1503) on back, H. 67 cm. Photograph by Salvador

Guil'liem Arroyo, courtesy INAH.

Figure 30. Teotihuacan Old Fire God brazier, MNA. By permission of INAH.

90 RES 13 SPRING 87

31

Figure 31. Mexica sculpture combining Teotihuacan motifs

and shapes, said to be from Teotihuacan, H. 34 cm., MNA.

Seler 1960-1961, 5: pi. 39 after p. 585, by permission of Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.

Figure 32. Cylindrical sculpture with flowers, found on west side of the Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan. Seler 1960

1961, 5: 430, fig. 19, by permission of Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.

Figure 33. Diagram of La Ventilla Stela, made of four pieces tenoned together, found at La Ventilla, Teotihuacan, H. 2.13

m., MNA.

sculpture is in the form of a sphere on a truncated

cone, a combination of shapes also characteristic of the

La Ventilla Stela (fig. 33) (Arroyo de Anda 1963). A

cavity in the top reproduces the hole for a tenon that is

part of such multipiece Teotihuacan sculptures. Pe?afiel

apparently recognized this when he called the sculpture a column section. The Aztec piece may be imitating an

unknown Teotihuacan prototype, or it could be the

result of a conflation of Teotihuacan forms. The deity

depicted would not have been part of the original.

Finally, Nagao (1985a: 72-73) suggests that a

greenstone vessel (Mus?e du Petit Palais 1981: no. 81), which archaeologists label as Teotihuacan, is actually a Mexica translation into precious greenstone of a

Teotihuacan Thin Orange type of vessel, since no

greenstone versions are known from Teotihuacan. As

Nagao points out, this vessel was found with the stone

copy of a plumbate vessel, both being translations into stone of ancient ceramic types, along with true antiques (Olmec, Teotihuacan, and Guerrero pieces). Although

skeuomorphs (translations of forms from one medium to

another) are common in Mexica art, these two vessels are the only archaizing stone copies of ceramic forms of which I am aware.

Xochicalco71

The site of Xochicalco, south of the modern town of Cuernavaca in Morelos, had an eclectic art style. The motifs represented in its monumental reliefs point to

connections with cultures in Veracruz, Oaxaca, and the

Maya area. The most striking structure at the site, the

Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents, is covered with

reliefs of hieroglyphs, feathered serpents, and Maya

looking personages (see fig. 38).72 A passage in the Florentine Codex indicates that the

Aztecs called the site Xochicalco:

There are large vestiges of the antiquities of this people as they nowadays appear in Tula, Tollantzinco, and a

71. For Xochicalco archaeology, see Saenz 1962, 1963a, 1963b,

1964; Hirth 1984.

72. I am not describing the layout of the site because there are no

obvious correspondences to the plan of Tenochtitlan. Nor is there

archaeological evidence of Mexica activity at the site (Michael E.

Smith, personal communication). Although some of its structures

suffered purposeful destruction, it is noteworthy that the reliefs on the

Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents were left in place, in contrast to

the stripping of pyramids at both Tula and Teotihuacan. Many of the

reliefs were still visible at the time of Dupaix's visit in 1805 (1978:

127, pi. 31, fig. 33).

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 91

structure called Xochicalco, which is near Quauhnauac

[Cuernavaca].73

Sahag?n 1950-1982, introductory volume: 48

According to Jim?nez Moreno (1942: 129-136; 1959:

1072),74 Xochicalco was also in an area of quasi

mythical importance, which the Aztecs referred to as

Tamoanchan. From his study of written references to

Tamoanchan, he deduced that there were at least

two important Tamoanchans: a more distant and

ancient place, which he located on the Gulf Coast, "sublimated in myth" by Aztec times, and an

identifiable area relating to the more recent past and

located near Aztec Cuauhnahuac (Histoyre du

Mechique 1905: 27), an area which, as Jim?nez Moreno notes, is similar to the Gulf Coast in its

semitropical environment.75 In addition, the Aztec

period cities of Amaquemecan (Amecameca) and

Chalco to the southeast of Tenochtitlan were both

called Tamoanchan (Chimalpahin 1965: 34, in

introduction by S. Rend?n; Davies 1980: 250), and

there are evidences of artistic connections between

Xochicalco and this area, seeming to date from

Xochicalco times and perhaps later.76 So it appears that

Tamoanchan, like Tollan, was a concept as well as the name of several historically identifiable (perhaps related) places.

Another, often quoted passage in Sahag?n connects

the invention of the calendar that was later to be used

by the Aztecs with Tamoanchan:

But four remained [at Tamoanchan] of the old men, the

wise men: one named Oxomoco, one named Cipactonal, one named Tlaltetecui, one named Xochicauaca. And

when the wise men had gone, then these four old men

assembled. . . .

Then they devised the book of days, the book of years, the count of the years, the book of dreams. They arranged

the reckoning just as it has been kept. And thus was time

recorded during all the time the Tolteca, the Tepaneca, the

Mexica, and the Chichimeca reign endured.

Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10,19

Based on this passage and the location of Tamoanchan near Cuernavaca, Jim?nez Moreno suggested that the

site of the invention of the calendar was Xochicalco.

Indeed, according to Caso's (1967: 166-186)

analysis of the inscriptions, the calendar used at

Xochicalco was ancestral to the Aztec calendar, with

the same year bearers and many of the same day signs. In fact, this is the earliest appearance of the Rabbit

Reed-Flint-House year bearer system in Central Mexico.

Supporting the evidence that the Aztecs considered this area the locus of the invention of their calendar, and

also indicating that Xochicalco probably was the site of

that event, is a rock carving (fig. 34) discovered near

the site during the 1966-1967 archaeological season

(Saenz 1967). It depicts a 1 Rabbit date (with a loop around the cartouche, designating it as a year bearer),

Figure 34. Inscription on rock at Xochicalco, probably

representing a fire drill in a piece of wood with a numeral

one next to it and the dates 1 Rabbit and 2 Serpent below, Late Classic to Early Postclassic. After Saenz 1967: fig. 1.

73. The structure must be the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents. Another probable reference to this pyramid is found in Alva

Ixtlilxochitl's list of ruins of Toltec cities (1975-1977, 1: 272;

Michael E. Smith, personal communication): "En Cuauhnahuac, otro

palacio, con una ciudad que sol?a ser antigua, un palacio labrado

todo de piedras grandes de piedra de canter?a sin lodo, ni mezcla, ni

vigas, ni ninguna madera, sino unas piedras grandes pegadas unas a

otras. . . ."

74. The following two paragraphs paraphrase and slightly expand

Jim?nez Moreno's ideas.

75. Jim?nez Moreno also suggested that the references to a more

distant, mythical Tamoanchan indicate that the ancient inhabitants of

Xochicalco came from the Gulf Coast.

76. A Xochicalco-style relief representing a woman was found on

the island of Xico in the southeastern Aztec area (Seler 1960

1961, 2: 159-160, fig. 69). Xico had a substantial occupation

contemporary with Xochicalco. Another, very curious object is a

large relief-covered block (later made into a container), which was

given to the Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a by a Chalco family

(Seler 1960-1961, 2: 161, fig. 70). In some ways it looks midway between Xochicalco and Aztec in style. The date glyphs, however, are definitely Xochicalco forms. See also Nicholson (1971: 120).

92 RES 13 SPRING 87

a new fire symbol (drill, board, and flames), and a

circular element signifying the numeral one. All of this

Saenz interpreted as the commemoration of the first new fire in a 1 Rabbit year. There is no reason to

believe that the inscription is not contemporary with the

florescence of the site.

Mexica objects in an archaizing Xochicalco style are

few but significant. In the category of Mexica revivals is

the cartouche around the dates on three fire serpent heads found in Mexico City (fig. 35). Here the date 2

Reed in late Mexica style has a Xochicalco style frame

and Xochicalco numerals below, a bar (representing five) and three dots (compare with fig. 36). This is a

purposeful archaism that can be linked to a specific date in Mexica times, 2 Reed (1507), the year of the

last new fire and binding of years ceremonies initiating a new fifty-two-year cycle before the Conquest.

According to the Codex Telleriano-Remensis (1899: f. 42r), the Mexica formerly "bound their years" in 1

Rabbit, but in 1506 Motecuhzoma II postponed the

binding of the years until 2 Reed, the next year, because of repeated famines in 1 Rabbit years. Whether

such a reform actually occurred in 1506 and the exact

nature of the change are unknown (see Umberger, in

press a, appendix). In any case, it can be said that the

Mexica artist's use of the Xochicalco frame was meant

to evoke that site because of its association with the

calendar and the beginning of the fifty-two-year cycle, on the anniversary of that occasion. Caso (1967: 15)

interpreted the numeral eight under the 2 Reed date on

the xiuhcoatl heads as indicating the eighth new fire

since the Mexica departure from Aztlan. It is more

likely that the reference is to something that happened at Xochicalco?perhaps the first cycle beginning in the

1 Rabbit system. If there was a calendric change in

1506 making 2 Reed the more prominent year, perhaps the Mexica were creating these "antiques" to project the change into the past.

Antique jade picture-plaques

Another interesting object in the style of Xochicalco, a small jade plaque (fig. 37 and fig. 3) discovered in

front of the Templo Mayor in 1900, raises special

questions related to jade in Mesoamerica, survivals and

revivals of types, and the interrelationship of figures in

jade and in large-scale reliefs. The jade in question is a

copy of the figures on the Pyramid of the Feathered

Serpents at Xochicalco (fig. 38), which in turn look like

copies of a Maya picture-plaque jade (fig. 39). The two

Figure 35. Date 2 Reed on underside of one of three fire

serpent heads found at the corner of Palma and Cuba Streets in 1944 and made on the occasion of 1507 New Fire

Ceremony, Mexica, H. 50.8 cm., MNA. Outside the Aztec

style cartouche is a Xochicalco-style frame and numeral

consisting of a bar and three dots (eight).

Figure 36. Ten Reed date on Pyramid of the Feathered

Serpents, Xochicalco.

? ?

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 93

Figure 37. Xochicalco-type figure on Mexica jade picture-plaque discovered by Batres on Escalerillas Street in 1900, H. 10.8 cm.,

MNA. Figure 38. Mayoid figure on Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents, Xochicalco. By permission of INAH. Figure 39. Maya jade

picture-plaque, Late Classic Period, said to have been collected at Monte Alban, Oaxaca, H. 8.3 cm., Museum of the American

Indian Npw Ynrk

"classic" types of Maya plaques feature a seated figure with monster maw headdress, with the face either in

profile or frontal. The profile version seems to have

been originally derived from representations of rulers, which evolved in stone and stucco reliefs at Palenque

(Proskouriakoff 1974: 13). In her study of jades found

in the sacred well at Chichen Itza, Proskouriakoff

suggested that these types were made and buried in the

Late Classic Period, and then were excavated and

offered in the cenote in the Early Postclassic. She

considered the possibility of heirlooms less likely (for a

contrasting view, see Coggins and Shane 1984: 66-68). It seems that Classic Maya jades like these also traveled to other parts of Mesoamerica, where they were

deposited in later contexts. Maya jades of various types have been found in Oaxaca and Veracruz, near

Teotihuacan,77 in Tenochtitlan (fig. 3, no. 6), and

reportedly at Tolcayuca (Cossio 1942: fig. 16).78 Mexican versions of Maya types (fig. 40), usually with

frontal figures in preference to profile figures, have

been found at Monte Alban, Xochicalco, and Tula.

I believe the Xochicalco-style plaque discovered in

Mexico City to be a Mexica carving, although close to

the original reliefs, because of the mittenlike hands, which are characteristic of the late Aztec style and not

of the Xochicalco models. Jades found at Xochicalco

(Saenz 1963: photo 9) are of frontal figures and do not

relate in any respect to the reliefs on the pyramid, nor

in carving style to the jade in question. The Xochicalco

jades are carved with a grooving technique and the

figures fill the entire space; the Mexico City jade has a

cut-out background, like both Xochicalco and Mexica

77. Schele and Miller 1986: 122, 130, color pi. 34.

78. A Maya carved shell representing a profile seated figure like

those on jades and on the Xochicalco pyramid was found near Tula

(Pe?afiel 1900: pi. 80; Schele and Miller 1986: 78, 89, color pi. 5).

94 RES 13 SPRING 87

"S? i

<#

40

41

Figure 40. Mexican picture-plaque jade,

provenience unknown, H. 9.8 cm.

Photograph courtesy Museum f?r

V?lkerkunde, Vienna.

Figure 41. Jade picture-plaque pendant worn

by Tlaloc chacmool (fig. 15).

stone sculptures (and also the jades from Tula [Acosta 1956-1957: fig. 25]). In addition, the use of a square frame and the misunderstanding of the details of the

monster-maw headdress point to a later, probably Mexica, copy. The jade then is both a survival and a

revival; it is a conscious revival of the figures on the

Xochicalco pyramid, but at the same time a survival of

the Maya type. Another question is whether the plaque was meant to evoke an antique jade. This is difficult to

answer because it is closer to the figures on the

pyramid than to any other existing jades. But were the

Mexica aware that the figures on the pyramid were

related to jade prototypes? Evidence of the wearing of jade picture-plaques is

found on five Mexica stone sculptures (figs. 41, 42). These pendants represent a seated frontal figure,

wearing a monster maw headdress and holding his

hands at chest level. The sculptures include the three

late-style chacmools, the Tlaloc in the pose of the Old

Fire God, and a life-size seated jaguar warrior (Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a). Although prototypes for the

depicted jades could have been of Maya, Oaxacan, or Central Mexican manufacture, the original was

probably a Mexica version rather than a collected

piece, judging especially from the shape of the frame, which is not found in older types. Although no actual

Mexica jades like this have been found, I think they

probably existed, given the jade carved after the

Xochicalco model. The inclusion of picture-plaque

jades on revivals of both Toltec and Teotihuacan

sculptural types probably indicates that they were

associated in Mexica thought with the "Toltecs" in

the general sense.

Just as the figures on Maya jades were made

monumental on the Xochicalco pyramid, the figure from the jade plaques worn by Mexica sculptures was

represented in an unusual rock carving at Acacingo (fig. 43; see Barlow 1946), where the figure indicates his

relationship to jade pendants by framing with his hands

the pendant on his own chest. A hole in the rock

below the pendant and between the hands was for the

insertion of a real piece of jade. The dates 1 Rabbit and

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 95

Figure 42. Jade picture-plaque pendant worn

by Tlaloc in pose of Teotihuacan Old Fire God

(fig. 29).

Figure 43. Rock carving at Acacingo representing

figure from picture-plaque jade with dates 1

Rabbit and 2 Reed. After Palacios photograph of

September 1925; unpublished volume, INAH

139, Estado de M?xico: Varios 1, 1922-1929.

2 Reed next to the figure indicate that it was carved in

connection with the cycle change of 1506-1507. The

rock commemorates the same calendrical happening as

the dates on the fire serpent heads and is located in

the general area that Jim?nez Moreno identified as

Tamoanchan, the site of the invention of the calendar.7'

Why the figure from the jade is depicted in connection

with this event is not known.

Ensembles of antiques and archaizing monuments

Before the recent excavations, references to the past

in Mexica art seemed to be eclectic and fragmentary. However, at the Templo Mayor two structures with

ensembles from the Toltec and Teotihuacan pasts were

revealed. Under the Platform of the Eagles are the rooms with Toltec-style procession reliefs and ceramic urns. There was also an almost life-size ceramic figure

dressed in the fitted costume of an eagle warrior

(Nicholson with Keber 1983: fig. p. 84). The Aztec

warrior cult centered around several groups, the most

prominent of which were the eagle and jaguar warriors, who fought for the sake of the sun. The eagle itself

was a symbol of the sun, and the jaguar represented darkness. Eagles with hearts, jaguars, and coyotes

depicted in reliefs at the site of Tula have been

interpreted as the symbols of similar warrior groups. In

archaizing Xochicalco type frames refer primarily to calendrical

matters.

And this count of days ? so was it claimed ? was an invention of

the two called and named Oxomoco and Cipactonal. . . . They who were readers of day signs embellished their book of days with their representations.

Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 4, 4

Thus two Aztec rock carvings in the Xochicalco area (the one at

Acacingo definitely Mexica) and three fire serpent heads with

79. Jim?nez Moreno (1942: 135) suggested that another group of

Aztec-period rock carvings at Coatlan near Cuernavaca (Krickeberg 1969: 95-109, pis. 58-60) relates to the passage in Sahag?n about

the calendrical reform in Tamoanchan. Represented are two of the

characters mentioned, Cipactonal and Oxomoco, as they are depicted in the Codex Borbonicus (1974: 21). Another passage in Sahag?n

underlines their connection with the calendar:

96 RES 13 SPRING 87

addition, the central focus of the bench reliefs was the

zacatapayolli associated with bloodletting, a practice invented by Quetzalcoatl (see Klein, in press). So to

create this warrior-related ensemble in Tenochtitlan, the

Mexica looked to Tula.

Across the courtyard is the Teotihuacan-style painted

platform, behind which was found the Tlaloc in the

form of the Old Fire Cod. Both have water imagery and

perhaps were part of an ensemble.80 Other sculptures found together may have formed similar archaizing groups. The five "Toltec" warrior figures were found

with reliefs of eagles and jaguars, which unfortunately have not been published (Moedano K?er 1944: 56;

Noriega 1944; Mateos Higuera 1979: 213-214).81 The three fire serpent heads with Xochicalco-style cartouches may also have decorated a structure.

Although no building with Xochicalco imagery has

been found, Sahag?n (1950-1982: bk. 2, 2d ed.

revised, 191) mentions a Xochicalco temple in his list

of sacred structures in Tenochtitlan.

It is well known that the center of Tenochtitlan

recreated a mythic landscape, with the Templo Mayor at the center representing the hill of Coatepec where

Huitzilopochtli was born as the sun. The precinct was

the setting of ceremonial recreation of myths, for

instance, the Panquetzaliztli ceremony, which

reenacted Huitzilopochtli's defeat of his enemy brothers soon after his birth (Le?n-Portilla 1981: 82, 84). The

archaizing structures referring to the sacred cities

nearby, the sites of legendary and mythic events,

probably were meant to contribute to this setting. Whether they formed a more coherent pattern in the

plan of Tenochtitlan is not known. The layout of some

elements of the city seems to have been a combination

of several ancient cities, with its four-part plan and

west-facing pyramid, like Teotihuacan (possibly even

the double shrines), and its east-to-west alignment of

pyramid, adoratorio, skull rack, and ball court, like

Tula.82

There is a smaller ensemble on Tetzcotzingo (fig.

44), a sacred mountain with a complex of temples and

other structures in the pleasure garden of the rulers of

nearby Tetzcoco, which was created between 1454 and

1467 (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975: 52). Relevant to the

subject of this paper are three pools of water along the

walkway around the hill, which are identified as

representing different capital cities by the chronicler

Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975-1977, 2: 114-116). The pool on the south side represented Tenayuca, an older city on the north shore of Lake Tetzcoco, which was ruled

by the Chichimec ancestors of the kings of Tetzcoco.

The remains of the pool feature a stepped wall, the

hieroglyphic symbol of Tenayuca. On the west end of

the pathway a larger pool, according to the chronicler, had three frogs around it representing the Aztec Triple Alliance cities of Tetzcoco, Tenochtitlan, and Tlacopan (one frog remains). On the north side of the hill the

pool mentioned as representing Tollan must correspond to a small pool with what appears to be a temple front

behind it (the stairs and one alfarda remain), probably the emblem of the city. Here the Tetzcocans refer to

both their Chichimec and Toltec pasts in an

architectural ensemble.83

The Mexica as archaeologists and inheritors of the

Mesoamerican past

There are many types of archaisms, and motivating factors vary greatly. In her seminal article on Andean

antiquarianism, Menzel (1960) contrasts two types discernible from studies of tomb ceramics in the lea

82. I wonder if the association of the archaizing greenstone death

figure with the small platform in front of the Templo Mayor could

have been meant to recall the Mictlantecuhtli platform in front of the

pyramid at Teotihuacan, which I have hypothesized was possibly associated with the model for the Mexica sculpture (this is

speculative, as we do not know the original location of the

Teotihuacan sculpture). 83. They may be linking themselves and their allies more closely

to Tenayuca than to Tula. A canal running from east to west along the south side of the hill joins the Tenayuca and Aztec pools; the

Tula pool is not part of the system. However, this could actually be

a matter of geography; Tenayuca and the Triple Alliance cities are

around the lake, while Tula is far to the north.

80. Eduardo Matos (letter, April 22, 1986) says that the sculpture was found close to the Red Temple in fill corresponding to Phase VI;

he believes they could have been associated.

81. Some of the eagle and jaguar reliefs may be those published

by Solis (1976: 26, nos. 60-62); others may be canine reliefs at the

Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a. The idea of feline/canine reliefs

and eagle reliefs presumably for setting into a wall dates back to

Toltec times, but the Mexica versions are not close enough to the

prototypes on Mound B at Tula to be considered copies. The top of a beautifully carved "stela" (which is actually almost

in-the-round) was found at the same site. Representing a face

emerging from a monster maw feathered headdress, it may have been

a copy of a Xochicalco type of stela, as suggested by Moedano K?er

(1944: 57). The only one known represents a female figure. See

Nicholson 1961 : fig. 1, for an illustration of the Mexica sculpture; see

Seler 1960-1961, 2: 157, fig. 64, for an illustration of the Xochicalco

stela. The lack of the lower part of the sculpture makes it difficult to

decide if it is an archaizing piece, or even whether it represents a

female (as suggested by Nicholson 1961) or a male.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 97

Valley of Peru. The first type involved the collection

and imitation of certain styles of several hundred years

earlier, a form of archaizing popular during the Inca

occupation of the valley. In contrast, after the end of

Inca domination there was a wholesale revival of the

local ceramic style of sixty years earlier and rejection of

the Inca ceramic types that had replaced them. Menzel

does not discuss the problem of changes in meaning, but there is a contrast in this respect, too. The later

revival brought back elements within memory from

the lea people's own culture, and the forms and

iconography were probably for the most part understood. The earlier revivals, on the other hand,

were of forms out of memory and pertaining

archaeologically to different cultural configurations. What did these forms mean to the later people, why were they revived, and how were they understood? This

is not known in the case of the lea Valley. For the Inca

in Cuzco, however, written evidence and archaizing

objects look back to Tiahuanaco, a revered ancient

city, which played a part in myth as the place of origin of their royal line and institutions (Tom Cummins, dissertation in progress).

In Mesoamerica, the specific motivations behind

most evidences of pre-Mexica antiquarianism remain

obscure. There are a few exceptions, all jades, where

context or inscriptions give a clue to the general intention. Evidence at Teotihuacan and in the Maya

area indicate that both cultures were aware of Olmec

jades as representative of a distinct style. One jade, on

which was commemorated an early Maya king's accession, was used for dynastic validation through

continuity with the past. In Teotihuacan murals, the

jades pour from hands in streams of water, indicating the same associations as in Aztec times. The explicit

depiction of Olmec jades indicates that their antiquity also had significance. The wearing of Olmec pectorals

by the losing warriors in the Cacaxtla and Bonampak murals is interesting, especially considering the later

depiction of antique jades, derived from Maya types, on Mexica sculptures. In both cases the exact

significance is unknown.

The Mexica accumulated objects from a number of

ancient cultures, and they were aware of the cultures of

origin, even of works in styles that they did not imitate.

They probably knew the specific sources of the

Guerrero and Mixtee pieces, which most likely came as

loot, tribute, or gifts from conquered areas. In fact, the

Mexica knew more about their origins than we do (few have been found in context). In the case of Olmec and

Maya jades and greenstone objects, from cultures more

distant in time and space, the evidence so far does

not indicate their identification by the Mexica with

particular cultural configurations. Although the Maya area was outside the empire, Maya jades could be

found in Central Mexico, albeit not in great numbers.

Whether the Mexica saw any originals besides a few

like the small head illustrated (fig. 3) is unknown.

However, they were familiar with and copied Central

Mexican imitations of Maya jades, which they would

have seen in jade copies and in large stone reliefs.

They seem to have associated such jades with the

"Toltecs" in the general sense, and not a particular

style. The Olmec "heartland" likewise was outside the

Toi Ian

Triple Alliance Cities

Tenayuca

Figure 44. Plan of Tetzcotzingo. After Parsons 1971: 124, fig. 24 (modified).

98 RES 13 SPRING 87

empire, but there was a significant Olmec presence in Central Mexico and Guerrero (for instance, at

Chalcatzingo and Teopantecuanitlan [see Crossley 1986]). Olmec jades were also buried in graves in

Guerrero, the source of so many other greenstone

objects in Tenochtitlan. Thus the Mexica could have

been exposed to enough Olmec objects to recognize them as a distinctive style associated with particular sites.

The ideas behind the burial of so many ancient and

foreign objects in the Templo Mayor are still unclear.

These objects probably signify to some extent Mexica

appropriation from different parts of the empire of

sacred offerings associated with the past or ancestors ?

which in some way validated their imperial claims.

The styles of Tula, Teotihuacan, and Xochicalco

were associated with three ancient cities with particular associations. These cities had the same place in Mexica

historical thought that a single city had for the Incas.

They were considered places of dynastic, institutional,

cultural, and cosmic beginnings. Their veneration and

specific associations were pre-Mexica, and presumably the sites were not used by them exclusively in late

times. For example, although Teotihuacan was used

by the Mexica for ceremonies, it was actually in the

jurisdiction of Tetzcoco, and the 1480 relaci?n

indicates that it was used by the people of neighboring towns. The Mexica, however, were appropriating the

ancient authority of these cities for their own purposes

through their manipulation of art forms.

Late-period knowledge of all three cities was based on legends, combined with oral traditions of local

inhabitants nearby, who were familiar with the actual

remains. Unfortunately, we have "local" reports only for the Aztec-period functions of the remains at

Teotihuacan. In contrast are the vaguer descriptions and

mythological accounts of events at all three sites, which

reflect a distant view and show more concern for the

place of the city in Aztec thought than for its actual

appearance. At this point it is very difficult to evaluate

the specific naming of areas and sculptures at

Teotihuacan. How much reflects the original situation

at that city and how much was the invention of later

Toltec and Aztec people? One would suppose, as

Mill?n does, that the Teotihuacanos did claim to have

founded their city at the site of the birthplace of the

sun, and that the naming of the Pyramids of the Sun

and Moon relates to their original associations,

although their symbolic elaboration in Teotihuacan

times would have been much more complicated.

Likewise, Xochicalco was associated with the beginning of the calendar that the Mexica used and probably was

the site of that invention.

More problematical is the identification of sculptures at the sites with deity names, for instance, the lost

sculpture of Tonacatecuhtli, a god whose Mexica

appearance is not easily identified (see Nagao 1985b), not to mention his Teotihuacan appearance. Was

Tonacatecuhtli a Teotihuacan deity, and was the

sculpture a Teotihuacan ?mage, which kept its original

identity? Could a major deity image survive the

holocaust of the final destruction of Teotihuacan? It

seems unlikely. The Tlatelolcans identified a sculpture collected from Tula as the deity Tlacahuepan, who was

closely associated with both the fall of Quetzalcoatl and the birth/rise of Huitzilopochtli (see n. 29). Given

the political implications, the identification of this god with a Toltec sculpture should probably not be taken

seriously. In addition, since the Mexica usually

changed the identity of figures in their imitations of

ancient forms, the continued association of deities with

particular formal types cannot be assumed. Sometimes

they used the same form for different deities (for

instance, the archaizing Teotihuacan death goddesses and the man and serpent motif), and sometimes

different forms for the same deity (for instance, Tlaloc

in the form of a chacmool and the Teotihuacan Old

Fire God). The Mexica's earliest imitations derived from the

art of a group with which there was much cultural

continuity (if not total ethnic identity), although there

was a time gap of perhaps 150 years between the fall

of Tula and the founding of Tenochtitlan. It is thus

probable that many Toltec objects were understood.

The history of Aztec relations with Toltec art is long and complex. Mexica copies are in both early and late

styles and developed out of an earlier widespread tradition of imitation by various Central Mexican

groups. Some are derived from intermediate

productions rather than being direct copies of Toltec

objects. In fact, it is interesting that even in the late . period when the Mexica were obviously studying ancient objects at first hand (as is apparent in the case

of the orange vases, the Teotihuacanoid Tlaloc, and the

Xochicalcoid cartouche), they seemed to prefer to use

as a model their own last version of a form rather than

returning to an original. This is especially apparent in

the late chacmools. On the other hand, details may reveal new observations of antiques, for instance, in the

depiction of jade pendants. The early Aztec chacmools

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 99

were survivals of Toltec forms and were vague reflections of the originals, whereas the Mexica versions

(even the earliest) sharpen the image and make it

more specific with details of both archaizing and

contemporary significance. Imitations of Xochicalco and Teotihuacan works

appear relatively late, probably after 1480; known

examples are only in the late fifteenth- to early

sixteenth-century style and were made after a gap of

at least five hundred years for Xochicalco and seven

hundred years for Teotihuacan, with no direct cultural

continuity. It is probable that Teotihuacan- and

Xochicalco-type objects continued after the fall of those

polities, and it is possible that there were early Aztec

imitations, but no certain examples can be identified.84

All Mexica imitations seem to be direct revivals from

ancient objects, presumably studied at or collected

from those sites.

In the case of most archaisms, we have a general sense of the motivation behind the choice of style and

forms; the connections are often very straightforward, as in the rooms of Toltec-derived works used by warrior

groups. There are several examples, however, which

served a commemorative purpose and can be linked

to specific events. These were inscribed with or

associated archaeologically with hieroglyphic dates

(the orange vessels, the Malinche reliefs at Tula, the Teotihuacanoid Tlaloc, the fire serpents with

Xochicalcoid frames, and the Acacingo relief). In

such monuments a tighter fit can be made between

imagery and historical circumstances. The Malinche

reliefs at Tula, for example, were made on the

occasion of a ceremony to stop a flood, and the

connection with Tula and Toltec forms can be seen

as a circumstance of history. The flood started in a

year associated with Quetzalcoatl. In conclusion, it is obvious that the Mexica knew a

lot about the art and cities of their predecessors; that

they inherited many forms, ideas, and conceptual structures from the past; that they were sometimes

aware of the sources; and that they linked material

remains to oral traditions. However, it is equally obvious that their visual knowledge was based on

firsthand observations, and that they modified forms for

their own purposes. Even if they had some awareness

of the original context and associations of an object, what was most important for them was the purpose behind their reuse of the object or motif. In

Mesoamerica, the physical remains of an ancient

culture and oral traditions about it had separate histories. While the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon, the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents, and various

structures at Tula remained visible, many objects went

out of view (literally or figuratively) and were not the

focus of attention until late Preconquest times, when

they were again studied by Mexica "archaeologists."

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the following for their assistance in

the preparation of this article. Elizabeth Boone, Dorie Reents, Debra Nagao, Wendy Schonfeld, Michael Smith, and

Francesco Pellizzi read drafts and made helpful suggestions, which I have incorporated. I am additionally grateful to Janet Berlo and Rose Hauer for editorial comments. Robert Cobean, Fernando Robles, and Christian Feest shared their knowledge of Toltec ceramics, and Patricia Sarro, of Teotihuacan

sculptures. Eduardo Matos very kindly provided information

and photographs of objects discovered at the Templo Mayor, and Wendy Schonfeld and Debra Nagao researched other

objects in Mexico. I am especially grateful to Tom Cummins

for many stimulating discussions of the general questions involved, for editorial comments, and for suggestions that

greatly improved the introduction. Research and writing were

accomplished during a fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks,

Washington, D.C., 1985-1986. Photographsand drawings are by the author, unless otherwise noted. Quotations are

transcribed as published, without standardization of spelling or diacritical marks.

This work is dedicated to John, Peggy, Sally, and Mother.

84. See n. 76 on possible Xochicalco connections with Aztec

groups in the southeastern area.

REFERENCES

Abbreviations used: BAR = British Archaeological Reports; ICA = International Congress of Americanists; IN AH =

Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia, Mexico; MNA = Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a, Mexico; RMEA =

Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropol?gicos; UNAM =

Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico.

Acosta, Jorge R.

1940 Exploraciones en Tula, Hgo., 1940. RMEA 4(3): 172-194.

100 RES 13 SPRING 87

1941 Los ?ltimos descubrimientos arqueol?gicos en Tula, Hgo., 1941. RMEA 5(2-3): 239-248.

1942- La tercera temporada de exploraciones arqueol?gicos 1944 en Tula, Hgo., 1942. RMEA 6(3): 125-160. 1945 La cuarta y quinta temporadas de excavaciones en

Tula, Hgo. RMEA 7: 23-64. 1956 Resumen de los informes de las exploraciones

arqueol?gicas en Tula, Hgo. durante las VI, Vil y VIII temporadas, 1946-1950. Anales del INAH

8(37), 1954: 37-115. 1956- Interpretaci?n de algunos de los datos obtenidos en 1957 Tula relativos a la ?poca tolteca. RMEA 14: 75-110. 1957 Resumen de los informes de las exploraciones

arqueol?gicas en Tula, Hgo., durante las IX y X

temporadas, 1953-54. Anales del INAH 9: 119 169.

1960 Las exploraciones en Tula, Hgo., durante la XI

temporada, 1955. Anales del INAH 11: 39-72. 1961 La doceava temporada de exploraciones en Tula,

Hgo. Anales del INAH 13: 29-58. 1964 La decimotercera temporada de exploraciones en

Tula, Hgo. Anales del INAH 16: 45-76.

Ahuja O., Guillermo 1982 Excavaci?n de la c?mara II. In El Templo Mayor:

excavaciones y estudios, edited by Eduardo Matos

Moctezuma, pp. 191-220. INAH, Mexico.

Alva Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de 1975- Obras hist?ricas, 2 vols. Instituto de Investigaciones 1977 Hist?ricas, UNAM.

Alvarado Tezozomoc, Hernando

1975 Cr?nica mexicana, 2d ed. Editorial Porr?a, Mexico.

Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1973 Anales de Cuauhtitlan. In C?dice Chimalpopoca.

Anales de Cuauhtitlan y Leyenda de los Soles, translated by Primo Feliciano Vel?zquez, 2d ed., pp. 3-68. Instituto de Investigaciones Hist?ricas, UNAM.

Anawalt, Patricia

1985 The Ethnic History of the Toltecs as Reflected in Their Clothing. Indiana 10, Gedenkschrift Gerdt Kutscher, part 2: 129-145.

Arroyo de Anda, Juis Aveleyra 1963 La estela teotihuacana de La Ventilla. MNA, INAH.

Barlow, R. H.

1946 The Malinche of Acacingo, Estado de Mexico. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology 3 (65): 31-33.

Batres, Leopoldo 1902 Exploraciones arqueol?gicas en la Calle de las

Escalerillas, A?o de 1900. J. Aguilar Vera, Mexico.

Becker-Donner, Etta

1965 Die Mexikanischen Sammlungen des Museums f?r

V?lkerkunde, Wien. Museum f?r V?lkerkunde, Vienna.

Berger, Richard L.

1976 The Moche Sources of Archaism in Chimu Ceramics.

?awpa Pacha 14: 95-104.

Berlo, Janet Catherine 1983 Conceptual Categories for the Study of Texts and

Images in Mesoamerica. In Text and Image in Pre

Columbian Art. Essays on the Interrelationship of the

Verbal and Visual Arts, edited by Janet Catherine

Berlo, pp. 1-39. BAR International Series, no. 180.

Oxford,

in In Tlilli, In Tlapalli before 1000 a.D.: A Review of

press Early Writing in Central Mexico. In Cultural Relations in Mesoamerica After the Decline of

Teotihuacan, edited by Richard A. Diehl. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Bernai, Ignacio

1969 Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a: Arqueolog?a.

Aguilar, Mexico.

Beyer, Hermann

1922 Arquitectura y escultura. In La poblaci?n del Valle de Teotihuacan, Manuel Gamio, vol. 1, pp. 99

174. Secretar?a de Agricultura y Fomento, Direcci?n de Antropolog?a, Mexico.

1955 La 'procesi?n de los se?ores', decoraci?n del primer teocali i de piedra en M?xico-Tenochtitl?n. El M?xico

Antiquo 8: 1-42.

Boone, Elizabeth Hill 1985 The Color of Mesoamerican Architecture and

Sculpture. In Painted Architecture and Polychrome Monumental Sculpture in Mesoamerica, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, pp. 173-186. Dumbarton

Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Brainerd, George W.

1958 The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatan. University of California Publications, Anthropological Records, vol. 19.

Carrasco, David

1982 Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire. Myths and

Prophecies in the Aztec Tradition. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 101

Caso, Alfonso

1967 Los calendarios prehisp?nicos. Instituto de

Investigaciones Hist?ricas, UNAM.

Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, Don Francisco de San Ant?n Mu??n

1965 Relaciones originales de Chalco Amaquemecan, paleography and translation by S. Rend?n. Fondo de Cultural Econ?mica, Mexico.

Cobean, Robert

1974 The Ceramics of Tula. In Studies of Ancient Tollan: A Report of the University of Missouri Tula

Archaeological Project, edited by Richard A. Diehl.

University of Missouri Monographs in Anthropology, no. 1, pp. 32-41. Department of Anthropology,

University of Missouri, Columbia. 1978 The Pre-Aztec Ceramics of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico.

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.

Codex Borbonicus 1974 Codex Borbonicus, commentary by Karl Anton

Nowotny. Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt,

Graz.

Codex Telleriano-Remensis 1899 Codex Telleriano-Remensis, introduction by

E.-T. Hamy. Paris.

Coe, Michael D. 1966 An Early Stone Pectoral From Southeastern Mexico.

Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no. 1. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

1981 San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1,

Archaeology, edited by Victoria Reif 1er Bricker,

Jeremy A. Sabloff, and Patricia A. Andrews, pp. 117-146. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl 1980 In the Land of the Olmec. The Archaeology o? San

Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, 2 vols. University of Texas

Press, Austin.

Coggins, Clemency C, and Orrin C. Shane III (editors) 1984 Cenote of Sacrifice. Maya Treasures from the Sacred

Well at Chich?n Itza. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Coss?o, Jos? L. 1942 Ruinas arqueol?gicas de Tolcayuca, Hidalgo.

Sociedad Mexicana de Geograf?a y Estad?stica, Bolet?n 56(2): 17-34.

Crossley, Mimi 1986 Ancient Olmec Site Unearthed in Mexico. The

Washington Post, April 26, A1 and A14.

Davies, Nigel 1977 The Toltecs, Until the Fall of Tula. University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman.

1980 The Toltec Heritage, From the Fall of Tula to the Rise of Tenochtitlan. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

1984 The Aztec Concept of History: Teotihuacan and Tula. In The Native Sources and the History of the

Valley of Mexico, edited by Jacqueline de Durand

Forest, pp. 207-214. BAR International Series, no.

204. Oxford.

Diehl, Richard A.

1981 Tula. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1, Archaeology, edited by Victoria Reifler Bricker, Jeremy A. Sabloff, and Patricia A. Andrews, pp. 277-295. University of

Texas Press, Austin.

1983 Tula, The Toltec Capital of Ancient Mexico. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Drucker, Philip 1955 The Cerro de las Mesas Offering of ?ade and

Other Materials. Bureau of American Ethnology, Anthropological Papers, no. 44, Bulletin 157, pp. 25-68. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Dupaix, Guillermo 1978 Atlas de fas Antiqu?dades Mexicanas . . . San Angel

Ediciones, Mexico.

Duran, Fray Diego 1964 The Aztecs. The History of the Indies of New Spain,

translated by Doris Heyden and Fernando Horcasitas. Orion Press, New York.

1967 Historia de las indias de Nueva Espa?a e islas de la

Tierra Firme, edited by Angel Mar?a Garibay K., 2 vols. Editorial Porr?a, Mexico.

Easby, Elizabeth Kennedy, and John F. Scott 1970 Before Cortes. Sculpture of Middle America.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Greenhalgh, Michael 1978 The Classical Tradition in Art. Harper and Row, New

York.

Grove, David C.

1984 Chalcatzingo. Excavations on the Olmec Frontier. Thames and Hudson, London.

102 RES 13 SPRING 87

Gussinyer, Jordi 1970a Un adoratorio dedicado a Tlaloc. Bolet?n del INAH

39: 7-12.

1970b Un adoratorio azteca decorado con pinturas. Bolet?n del INAH 40: 30-35.

Hern?ndez Pons, Elsa C.

1982 Sobre un conjunto de esculturas asociadas a las

escalinatas del Templo Mayor. In El Templo Mayor: excavaciones y estudios, edited by Eduardo Matos

Moctezuma, pp. 221-232. INAH, Mexico.

Heyden, Doris

1975 An Interpretation of the Cave Underneath the

Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity 40(2): 131-147.

1983 Reeds and Rushes: From Survival to Sovereigns. In

Flora and Fauna Imagery in Precolumbian Cultures.

Iconography and Function, edited by Jeanette F.

Peterson, pp. 93-112. BAR International Series, No.

171, Oxford.

Hirth, Kenneth 1984 Xochicalco: Urban Growth and State Formation in

Central Mexico. Science 225 (4662): 579-586.

Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas 1973 Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas. In

Teogonia e historia de los mexicanos: Tres op?sculos

del siglo XVI, edited by Angel Mar?a Garibay K., pp. 23-66. Editorial Porr?a, Mexico.

Histoyre du Mechique 1905 Histoyre du Mechique. Manuscrit fran?ais in?dit du

XVIe si?cle, published by M. Edouard de Jonghe. Journal de ?a Soci?t? des Americanistes de Paris n.s.

2(1): 1-41.

Hodge, Mary G.

1984 Aztec City-States. Memoirs of the Museum of

Anthropology, no. 18, vol. 3. University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Jim?nez Moreno, Wigberto 1941 El problema de Tula. I Mesa Redonda, Bolet?n No.

1: 2-8.

1942 El enigma de los olmecas. Cuadernos Americanos 5: 113-145.

1959 Xochicalco y las influencias mayenses. Tamoanchan

y los "Tlamatinime." In El Esplendor del M?xico

Antiquo, edited by Carmen C. de Leonard, vol. 2,

pp. 1072-1073. Centro de Investigaciones Antropol?gicas de M?xico, Mexico.

Klein, Cecelia F. in Autosacrifice at the Templo Mayor. In The Aztec

press Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Krickeberg, Walter 1969 Felsbilder Mexicos als Historische, Religi?se und

Kunstdenkm?ler. Verlag von Dietrich Reimer in Berlin.

Kubler, George 1967 The Iconography of the Art of Teotihuacan. Studies

in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no. 4.

Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

1973 Science and Humanism among Americanists. In The

Iconography of Middle American Sculpture, pp.

163-167. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

1977 Renascence and Disjunction in the Art of Mesoamerican Antiquity. In Ornament, Via III:

Journal of the Graduate School of Fine Arts,

University of Pennsylvania, edited by Stephen Kieran, pp. 31-41.

1982 The Mazap?n Maps of Teotihuacan in 1560. Indiana 7, Gedenkschrift Walter Lehmann, part 2:

43-55.

Le?n-Portilla, Miguel 1981 Los testimonios de la historia. In El Templo Mayor,

by Jos? L?pez Portillo, Miguel Le?n-Portilla, and

Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, pp. 34-101. Beatrice

Trueblood, Mexico.

L?pez Austin, Alfredo in The Masked God of Fire. In The Aztec Templo

press Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone. Dumbarton

Oaks, Washington, D.C.

L?pez Portillo, Jos?; Miguel Le?n-Portilla; and Eduardo Matos 1981 El Templo Mayor. Beatrice Trueblood, Mexico.

Lyon, Patricia J.

1966 Innovation Through Archaism; the Origins of the lea

Pottery Style. Nawpa Pacha 4: 31-61.

Martinez Vargas, Enrique, and Ana Mar?a Jarqu?n Pacheco 1982 Arquitectura y sistemas constructivos de la fachada

posterior de la Ciudadela. An?lisis preliminar. In Teotihuacan 80-82. Primeros resultados, edited by

Rub?n Cabrera Castro, Ignacio Rodr?guez Garc?a,

and Noel Morelos Garc?a, pp. 41-47. INAH,

Mexico.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 103

Mateos Higuera, Salvador

1979 Herencia arqueolog?a de M?xico-Tenochtitl?n. In

Trabajos Arqueol?gicos en el centro de la Ciudad de

M?xico (Antolog?a), edited by Eduardo Matos

Moctezuma, pp. 205-273. INAH, Mexico.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo

1964 El adoratorio decorado de las Calles de Argentina. Anales del INAH 17: 127-138.

1978 El Proyecto Templo Mayor. Antropolog?a e Historia 24 (Bolet?n del INAH, ?p. (3): 3-17.

1979 Una m?scara olmeca en el Templo Mayor de

Tenochtitlan. Anales de Antropolog?a 16:11-19.

1981a Una Visita al Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan. INAH, Mexico.

1981b Los hallazgos de la arqueolog?a. In El Templo Mayor, by Jos? Lopez Portillo, Miguel Le?n-Portilla, and Eduardo Matos, pp. 106-181. Beatrice

Trueblood, Mexico.

1984a Gu?a oficial, Templo Mayor. INAH-SALVAT, Mexico.

1984b Los edificios aleda?os al Templo Mayor. In Estudios

de Cultura N?huatl 17: 15-21.

Mayer, Branz

1844 Mexico As It Was and As It Is. New World Press, New York.

Melgarejo Vivanco, Jos? Luis 1970 Los lienzos de Tuxpan. Editorial La Estampa

Mexicana, Mexico.

Menzel, Dorothy 1960 Archaism and Revival on the South Coast of Peru. In

Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,

Philadelphia, September 1-9, 1956, edited by

Anthony F. C. Wallace, pp. 596-600. University of

Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Miller, Arthur G. 1973 The Mural Painting of Teotihuacan. Dumbarton

Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Miller, Mary Ellen 1985 A Re-examination of the Mesoamerican Chacmool.

Art Bulletin 67(1): 7-17.

1986 The Murals of Bonampak. Princeton University Press.

Mill?n, Ren? 1973 Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Vol. 1, The

Teotihuacan Map, part 1, text. University of Texas

Press, Austin.

1976 Social Relations in Ancient Teotihuacan. In The

Valley of Mexico. Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology and Society, edited by Eric R. Wolf, pp. 205-248.

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In

Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American

Indians, vol. 1, Archaeology, edited by Victoria

Reifler Bricker, Jeremy A. Sabloff, and Patricia A.

Andrews, pp. 193-243. University of Texas Press,

Austin,

in The Last Years of Teotihuacan. In The Collapse of

press Ancient Civilizations, edited by George Cowgill and Norman Yoffee. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.

Moedano K?er, Hugo 1944 ?La cultura azteca es realmente azteca? Significaci?n

de los ?ltimos hallazgos arqueol?gicos en la ciudad de M?xico. Hoy, November 4: 54-57.

1947 El friso de los caciques. Anales del ?NAH 2, 1941

46: 113-136.

Motolinia, or Fray Toribio de Benevente 1971 Memoriales, o libro de las cosas de la Nueva Espa?a

y de ?os naturales de e?a, edited by Edmundo O'Gorman. UNAM, Mexico.

Murck, Christian F. (editor) 1976 Uses of the Past in Chinese Culture. Artists and

Traditions. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Mus?e du Petit Palais 1981 Mexique d'Hier et dAujourd'hui. Minist?re de

Relations Ext?rieures, Paris.

Nagao, Debra

1985a Mexica Buried Offerings. A Historical and Contextual

Analysis. BAR, International Series, no. 235. Oxford.

1985b The Planting of Sustenance: Symbolism of the Two

Horned God in Offerings from the Templo Mayor. Res 10: 5-27.

Nercessian, Nora

1983 Renaissance, Residues, and Other Remains: Some

Comments on the Arts in the Twelfth Century. Res 5:

23-39.

Nicholson, H. B.

1956 The Temalacatl of Tehuac?n. E? M?xico Antiguo 8: 95-134.

1961 An Outstanding Aztec Sculpture of the Water

Goddess. The Masterkey 35(2): 44-55.

1971 Major Sculpture in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In

Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10,

104 RES 13 SPRING 87

Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, part 1,

edited by Robert Wauchope, Gordon F. Ekholm, and

Ignacio Bernai, pp. 92-134. University of Texas

Press, Austin.

1976 Preclassic Mesoamerican Iconography from the

Perspective of the Postclassic: Problems in

Interpretational Analysis. In Origins of Religious Art and ?conography in Prec lassie Mesoamerica, edited

by H. B. Nicholson, pp. 159-175. UCLA Latin American Center Publications, Ethnic Arts Council of Los Angeles,

in Symposium on the Aztec Templo Mayor: Discussion.

press In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Nicholson, H. B., and Rainer Berger

1968 Two Aztec Wood Idols: Iconographie and

Chronologic Analysis. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art

and Archaeology, no. 5. Dumbarton Oaks,

Washington, D.C.

Nicholson, H. B., with Eloise Qui?ones Keber 1983 Art of Aztec Mexico, Treasures of Tenochtitlan.

National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

Noriega, Ra?l 1944 El nexo cultural entre los aztecas y toltecas. El

Nacional, November 4: 2.

Nowotny, Karl A.

1959 Americana. Archiv f?r V?lkerkunde 14: 132-137.

Padden, R. C.

1970 The Hummingbird and the Hawk. Harper and Row, New York.

Parsons, Jeffrey R.

1971 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Texcoco

Region, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of

Anthropology, no. 3. University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor.

Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del

1905- Papeles de Nueva Espa?a, Segunda Serie, Geograf?a 1906 y Estad?stica, 6 vols. (vols. 1 and 3-7). Tipogr?fico

Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, Madrid.

1905- Fray Bernardino de Sahag?n: Historia de las cosas de 1907 Nueva Espa?a, 4 vols. (vols. 5-8). Hauser y Menet,

Madrid.

Pasztory, Esther

in The Aztec Tlaloc: God of Antiquity. In publication press dedicated to Thelma Sullivan, edited by Kathryn

Josserand and others. BAR International Series.

Oxford.

Pe?afiel, Antonio 1900 Teotihuacan. Estudio hist?rico y arqueol?gico.

Oficina Tipogr?fica de la Secretar?a de Fomento, Mexico.

Peterson, Jeanette Favrot

1983 Sacrificial Earth: The Iconography and Function of Malinalli Grass in Aztec Culture. In Flora and Fauna

Imagery in Precolumbian Cultures. Iconography and

Function, edited by Jeanette F. Peterson, pp. 113 148. BAR International Series, no. 171. Oxford.

Pierce, Donna L.

1981 Identification of the Warriors in the Frescoes of

Ixmiquilpan. Research Center for the Arts Review

4(4): 1-8.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana

1968 Olmec and Maya Art: Problems of their Stylistic Relation. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the

Olmec, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 119

134. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

1974 lades from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 10, no. 1. Harvard

University, Cambridge.

Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum

1986 Glanz und Untergang des Alten Mexiko, 2 vols.

Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.

Romero R., Erica Ma. Eugenia

1982 Evidencias post-teotihuacanas en el lado este de

la Ciudadela. In Teotihuacan 80-82. Primeros

Resultados, edited by Rub?n Cabrera Castro, Ignacio

Rodr?guez Garc?a, and Noel Morelos Garc?a, pp.

149-154. INAH, Mexico.

Rowe, John H.

1971 The Influence of Chav?n Art on Later Styles. In

Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chavin, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 101-124. Dumbarton

Oaks, Washington, D.C.

S?enz, C?sar A.

1962 Xochicalco. Temporada 1960. INAH. 1963a Nuevos descubrimientos en Xochicalco, Morelos.

Bolet?n del ?NAH 11: 3-7. 1963b Exploraciones en la pir?mide de las serpientes

emplumadas, Xochicalco. RMEA 19: 7-25.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 105

1964 Ultimos descubrimientos en Xochicalco. INAH. 1967 El fuego nuevo. INAH, Mexico.

Sahag?n, Fray Bernardino de 1950- Florentine Codex. General History of the Things of 1982 New Spain, translated and edited by Arthur J. O.

Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, 12 bks. in 13 vols.

Monographs of the School of American Research, no. 40. The School of American Research and the

University of Utah Press, Santa Fe.

Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings. Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art.

Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth.

S?journ?, Laurette 1959 Un palacio en la ciudad de ios dioses, [Teotihuacan].

INAH. 1970 Arqueolog?a del Valle de M?xico, I. Culhuacan.

INAH.

Seier, Eduard 1960- Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen 1961 Sprach- und Alterthumskunde. 5 vols. Akademische

Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz (reprint of 1902-23

edition, A. Asher und Co. and Behrend und Co.,

Berlin).

Solis O., Felipe R. 1976 La escultura mexica del Museo de Santa Cecilia

Acatitl?n, Estado de M?xico. INAH, Mexico.

Thouvenet, Marc

1982 Chalchihuitl. Le ?ade chez ?es Azt?ques. Mus?e de

l'Homme, Paris.

Townsend, Richard Fraser

1979 State and Cosmos in the Art of Tenochtitlan. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no. 20.

Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Umberger, Emily 1981 Aztec Sculptures, Hieroglyphs, and History. Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Art History and

Archaeology, Columbia University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1984 El trono de Moctezuma. Estudios de Cultura N?huatl 17: 63-87.

in Events Commemorated by Date Plaques at the

press Templo Mayor: A Reconsideration of the Solar a Metaphor. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by

Elizabeth Hill Boone. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

in A Reconsideration of Some Hieroglyphs on the Aztec

press Calendar Stone. Book dedicated to Thelma Sullivan, b edited by Kathryn Josserand and others, BAR

International Series. Oxford.

Von Staden, Heinrich 1976 Nietzsche and Marx on Greek Art and Literature:

Case Studies in Reception. Daedalus 105(1): 79-96.

Von Winning, Hasso

1960 A Chac Mool Sculpture from Tlascala, Mexico. The

Masterkey 34 (2): 50-55. n.d. El simbolismo del arte funerario en Teotihuacan.

Unpublished paper presented at the Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte, Mexico, D.F.,

1980.

Willey, Gordon R. 1973 Mesoamerican Art and Iconography and the Integrity

of the Mesoamerican Ideological System. In The

Iconography of Middle American Sculpture, pp. 153-162. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Winter, Irene J.

1977 Perspective on the "Local Style" of Hasanlu IVB: A

Study in Receptivity. In Mountains and Lowlands:

Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia,

edited by Louis D. Levine and T. Cuyler Young, Jr., pp. 371-386. Undena Publications, Malibu.

Wray, Donald E.

1945 The Historical Significance of the Murals in the

Temple of the Warriors, Chichen Itza. American

Antiquity 11: 25-27.